Frame Sizing and Aesthetics.

'Ello, I've been thinking again. I Know: I'll stop later, but meanwhile...
Bearing in mind how different a lot of bikes look in their small sizes as opposed to the large ones, are we naturally attracted to the bikes that are the right size for us? In other words if you are a mutant seven footer do you only like the looks of the five bar gate jobs? If you are like me and aspire to average heighthood do you like a steeply sloping top tube and short head tube?
What got me thinking was reading another thread about 80s bikes, and one poster said that he liked a bunch of bikes' lines because they were the right size for him. And normally that's how I roll ( man) but I am currently hoping like mad no one bids on a largeish Spesh ( rideable by me, but too big for "proper" mtbing) because it's the one I had BITD when discovering mountain bikes, and having seen one in the right size, it didn't look right. ( not that I can find one in that size anyway )
So does size matter as far as looks goes, and if so, how and why?

Re:

I don't know if you can be objective about aesthetics or if it's simply cultural norms.

To me the large frames always looked a bit awkward with 26 wheels and, more recently, the small framed 29ers look hopelessly compromised. I suspect most designers - even outside of the field of cycles - would probably feel the same. There is something about certain proportions which just feels right.

But cycling is a very broad church with plenty of exceptions to the normal double triangle frame design - and they all have their fans.

Re:

At a guess, there could be a lot of folk on here riding undersized frames... just look at the height of some seat post :shock: :shock:

Re:

I saw on a tv news-magazine show once, that there used to be a nightclub in LA, which club only allowed women who were over 300 lbs to attend ... as it catered to men who loved (were sexually attracted to) heavy (obese) women.

Apparently they were doing a booming business (interestingly - from what they showed on their footage, most of the male patrons were fairly fit/atheltic types), which only goes to show ... that beauty really is in the 'eyes of the beholder' !

Re: Re:

enc":2x3t1gav said:

At a guess, there could be a lot of folk on here riding undersized frames... just look at the height of some seat post :shock: :shock:

Click to expand...

on the flip side to that, it's very fashionable to ride with the saddle far too high.

I'd reckon that ~30% of riders I see out and about have the saddle between slightly too high and uncomfortably too high. i.e. from rocking hips all the way through to sliding around on the saddle to reach the pedals.......

Sorry but this looks plain ridiculous.....



to me, if you need the seatpost that high your riding the wrong size frame

I'm only 5'9" (almost 5'9 &1/2" ) and medium frames 17-18" are about perfect for me and I think look great, better than much taller frames with long (tall) head tubes and large spaces between the top and down tubes.

Case in point, my latest acquisition and retro build project I'm undertaking is a 17.5" Alpinestars frame that I fell in love with as a 13 year old but my parents' only stipulation to spending (in their eyes!) a ridiculous amount of money on a bike for me at Christmas that year was that it'd need "growing room"! Alas, they got me the 19-incher which I not only never "grew into" but never loved the look of as much as the 17,5 that I originally saw (and to make worse, a friend had)! Similarly, I prefer that model in the 16" frame with a very small rear 'triangle' but that'd be too small for me.

I think arguments can be made for any proportions as to what looks best aesthetically- horses for courses, and all that - but maybe it's the common phenomenon of what we see more we become accustomed to i.e. the adverts for most bikes would probably be a medium size since that's the most common, therefore we get used to them or perceive them as being what a bike 'should' look like. Same as clothes or shoes adverts for that matter.

Interesting topic! And to the OP (doctorstewie): don't stop sharing your thoughts!

Re:

Back in the 80s and early 90s, just like cutting down the bars and fitting long stems, the concensus was to ride the smallest frame you could get away with. That's why 425mm Syncros posts were so popular. Mind you we were riding mostly cross country and downhills at a gentler pace. Always felt the 17-20in frames look the best aesthetically, with some sloping TT. Now I'm older I find a larger frame more comfy.

Re:

Very interesting topic
I find myself drawn towards smaller framed mtb's, as coming from a road background I tend to ride with a relatively flat back.
It doesn't always work out for me, had to sell a Bontrager frameset once as it was just too low. Generally though, I tend to get away with it, despite the obvious technically more demanding riding off-road and steep technical descents.
I do sometimes fit coloured tyres to give the appearance of a smaller bike too. A bonus that, as they happen to be my favorite tyre , Panaracer Fire XC's.

Mike

Riding 20" Konas i have wandered in the past what the 20" would have looked/ridden like if they had kept the seatube, top tube and height from the ground of the top of the headtube.

Obviously this isnt possible due to forks.

left to right.. steel 20" (15cm tube), alu 19" (13cm tube), alu 20" (15cm tube).. 16" steel on the end.




I find the fat tubes on the aluminum help soffen the visual blow comapred to the skinny steel. Its the headtube that makes the bikes look like gates for me. Visually, ignoring the saddle, I find that 18" few posts above much better.