# Why are most modern bikes ugly?



## SkipdiverJohn (22 Jan 2018)

Having become more interested in bikes again after years away from cycling, one of the things I noticed was how radically different the majority of new bikes look compared to what everybody was riding back in the 1980's and even 1990's. Even a relatively cheap bike from the 80's will at least have a presentable looking lugged frame with pleasingly slim tube dimensions, and simple geometric shapes. The intricate high quality stuff from respected makers was almost a work of art in its own right.
Fast forward to the present day and what we get now is oversized tubes squashed at each end so they spread out and very un-pretty welds. On a small-sized triangle frame there can be more frame than daylight between the tubes these days - they look really crudely built.
Then if you start talking about CF bikes, the frame ugliness is taken a stage further, with things like rear wheel clearance cut out of the thickness of the seat tube, weird looking seat posts, straight forks that look like a couple of kitchen table legs, and having them sticking out from the bottom of the headset at a funny angle like the bike has been involved in an accident and the forks have been damaged!
The vast majority of what is on sale now, regardless of price level, I would not have in the house on the grounds they are mingingly ugly. Am I just a dinosaur with my dislike for current bike design or are there others who also much prefer the clean lines and slim tubing dimensions of old steel machines?. And before anyone blames the MTB craze for this, remember most MTB's from the 80's and early 90's had frames very similar in terms of appearance and geometry to old-school 3-speeds!


----------



## woodbutcher (22 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Having become more interested in bikes again after years away from cycling, one of the things I noticed was how radically different the majority of new bikes look compared to what everybody was riding back in the 1980's and even 1990's. Even a relatively cheap bike from the 80's will at least have a presentable looking lugged frame with pleasingly slim tube dimensions, and simple geometric shapes. The intricate high quality stuff from respected makers was almost a work of art in its own right.
> Fast forward to the present day and what we get now is oversized tubes squashed at each end so they spread out and very un-pretty welds. On a small-sized triangle frame there can be more frame than daylight between the tubes these days - they look really crudely built.
> Then if you start talking about CF bikes, the frame ugliness is taken a stage further, with things like rear wheel clearance cut out of the thickness of the seat tube, weird looking seat posts, straight forks that look like a couple of kitchen table legs, and having them sticking out from the bottom of the headset at a funny angle like the bike has been involved in an accident and the forks have been damaged!
> The vast majority of what is on sale now, regardless of price level, I would not have in the house on the grounds they are mingingly ugly. Am I just a dinosaur with my dislike for current bike design or are there others who also much prefer the clean lines and slim tubing dimensions of old steel machines?. And before anyone blames the MTB craze for this, remember most MTB's from the 80's and early 90's had frames very similar in terms of appearance and geometry to old-school 3-speeds!


Are you kidding you are treading the hallowed ground of the curmudgeonly fanatics who's one aim in life is to be surrounded by elegant not to say beautiful steel and leather in the shape of a bicycle.


----------



## screenman (22 Jan 2018)

Give me carbon and aero over the old stuff.


----------



## Drago (22 Jan 2018)

I think there are examples of pretty and ugly bikes that are old and new. Beauty of form often follows efficiency of function, and that's where real elegance comes from.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Having become more interested in bikes again after years away from cycling, one of the things I noticed was how radically different the majority of new bikes look compared to what everybody was riding back in the 1980's and even 1990's. Even a relatively cheap bike from the 80's will at least have a presentable looking lugged frame with pleasingly slim tube dimensions, and simple geometric shapes. The intricate high quality stuff from respected makers was almost a work of art in its own right.
> Fast forward to the present day and what we get now is oversized tubes squashed at each end so they spread out and very un-pretty welds. On a small-sized triangle frame there can be more frame than daylight between the tubes these days - they look really crudely built.
> Then if you start talking about CF bikes, the frame ugliness is taken a stage further, with things like rear wheel clearance cut out of the thickness of the seat tube, weird looking seat posts, straight forks that look like a couple of kitchen table legs, and having them sticking out from the bottom of the headset at a funny angle like the bike has been involved in an accident and the forks have been damaged!
> The vast majority of what is on sale now, regardless of price level, I would not have in the house on the grounds they are mingingly ugly. Am I just a dinosaur with my dislike for current bike design or are there others who also much prefer the clean lines and slim tubing dimensions of old steel machines?. And before anyone blames the MTB craze for this, remember most MTB's from the 80's and early 90's had frames very similar in terms of appearance and geometry to old-school 3-speeds!


With regards to lugged frames, i suppose it's down to weight... get rid of the lugs and save a fair bit of metal. I agree lugged frames are lovely looking things, but in a market where weight trumps aesthetics, the lugs have slowly disappeared.


----------



## screenman (22 Jan 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> With regards to lugged frames, i suppose it's down to weight... get rid of the lugs and save a fair bit of metal. I agree lugged frames are lovely looking things, but in a market where weight trumps aesthetics, the lugs have slowly disappeared.



Lightest bike I ever owned had lugs, maybe fewer bikes are handmade which suits lugs more.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 Jan 2018)

To look at - A classic racing bike from the seventies or eighties.

To actually ride - A lightweight carbon fibre frame with all the latest tech.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (22 Jan 2018)

Most modern steel frames are machine welded, regardless of how cheap or expensive the finished bike is. Just think that as recently as 20-ish years ago, many British built bikes, even modestly priced ones, had a hand-made frame!. My Raleigh Pioneer, which I believe dates from 1995, has a lugged & brazed R501 frame, the last year they were hand built like that. It's nothing fancy but it's nice looking nonetheless and it says "quality" when you see a traditionally built bike.


----------



## Ajay (22 Jan 2018)

Because product development/marketing/competition dictate that the bike must be charged slightly every year whether it needs it or not. Form follows function.


----------



## screenman (22 Jan 2018)

Ajay said:


> Because product development/marketing/competition dictate that the bike must be charged slightly every year whether it needs it or not. Form follows function.



I thought it was about us having more choice, something I like.


----------



## Maenchi (22 Jan 2018)

I'd agree that some are ugly now and years ago ,and for sure there are some beauties around now, I bought my Scale in 2014 for several reasons, one of them being that the aluminium it was made from had much smoother welds than they were in the 1990s, and I liked the fatness of the down tube and cross bar, all in the eye of the beholder hmmm


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (22 Jan 2018)

Ajay said:


> Because product development/marketing/competition dictate that the bike must be charged slightly every year whether it needs it or not. Form follows function.



Why now though? If I look at a bike made in the 1960's and compare it to one from the 1980s, they will not be that much different. Different paint and slightly different components maybe, but the overall appearance of the frame, wheels, bars, saddle etc will be very, very similar even 20 years apart. They didn't radically change physical designs year to year back then, but they still competed for business.


----------



## screenman (22 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Why now though? If I look at a bike made in the 1960's and compare it to one from the 1980s, they will not be that much different. Different paint and slightly different components maybe, but the overall appearance of the frame, wheels, bars, saddle etc will be very, very similar even 20 years apart. They didn't radically change physical designs year to year back then, but they still competed for business.



Do you not think things have moved on very quickly since the invention of the thing you are using right now.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (22 Jan 2018)

Computers are not a modern development, they have been around for well over half a century. Without doubt the blame for a lot of unattractive modern design can be laid at the door of CAD, if that's what you're getting at. Like cars that all look much the same apart from the badges.


----------



## ozboz (22 Jan 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> To look at - A classic racing bike from the seventies or eighties.
> 
> To actually ride - A lightweight carbon fibre frame with all the latest tech.



Two pics I took just before Xmas in Sigma Hampton Wick , two brand new bikes , same manufacturer , as you can see , one high tech modern , one classic , both beauties ,
no doubt which th OP would walk out with !









As materials develop, so along with it innovative design will naturally follow , I am all for it ,


----------



## Tin Pot (22 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Am I just a dinosaur or...



Well, yes, obviously but more importantly....Cinelli:


----------



## MikeG (22 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> ......The vast majority of what is on sale now, regardless of price level, I would not have in the house on the grounds they are mingingly ugly. .....


In exactly the same way as the last decent music was produced in about 1984.....



> Am I just a dinosaur......


Yes.

And so will the next generation be when they get to your age. They'll think that stuff from their youth was the best ever. 'twas ever thus.


----------



## biggs682 (22 Jan 2018)

A hand made frame be it from the 50's or 2018 is always going to be built and made with some feeling and love where as a frame produced by a machine is never going to be built with any feeling or pride .

What gets added or bolted to the frame can also make a big difference

And as for getting a good looking member of the opposite sex to sit on a bike does not make it look any more appealing


----------



## MikeG (22 Jan 2018)

biggs682 said:


> A hand made frame be it from the 50's or 2018 is always going to be built and made with some feeling and love where as a frame produced by a machine is never going to be built with any feeling or pride .......



I doubt that you'd be able to tell the emotion of the factory worker who stood on a production line working on frames from the look of a frame. Even hand-built frames from the 50s looked the way they look because someone designed them to look like that.......in exactly the same way as carbon fibre frames these days don't look like they do because of someone's mood, but because someone designed them to look that way. Assigning nostalgic thoughts to the factory hands who put identical frames together day after day is an illogical red-herring. Blame (or laud) the designers, not those who build the designs.


----------



## biggs682 (22 Jan 2018)

MikeG said:


> I doubt that you'd be able to tell the emotion of the factory worker who stood on a production line working on frames from the look of a frame. Even hand-built frames from the 50s looked the way they look because someone designed them to look like that.......in exactly the same way as carbon fibre frames these days don't look like they do because of someone's mood, but because someone designed them to look that way. Assigning nostalgic thoughts to the factory hands who put identical frames together day after day is an illogical red-herring. Blame (or laud) the designers, not those who build the designs.



The ones i am thinking about are more likely built by a skilled frame builder who works behind the shop or in his own premises and takes pride in his work , where as something going down a production line is handled by a team of different people and it only needs one bad egg to ruin a batch .

Look at the quality of frames produced by the likes of Dawes and Carlton in the early 70's one could be nicely presented whilst the next one down the line would look awful


----------



## MikeG (22 Jan 2018)

biggs682 said:


> The ones i am thinking about are more likely built by a skilled frame builder who works behind the shop or in his own premises and takes pride in his work , where as something going down a production line is handled by a team of different people and it only needs one bad egg to ruin a batch .



Well, you may be comparing apples with pears. A bit like comparing individually handcrafted high-end joinery with something from Ikea (or Oak Furnitureland).


----------



## the snail (22 Jan 2018)

The Colnago Master is a thing of beauty for sure, but in reality the majority of traditional lugged frame bikes bore little resemblance to it. They were rather agricultural heavy things, pretty uninspiring to look at or ride, and often not that well made. Anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so if you don't like modern bikes then there must be something wrong with your eyes. Perhaps you don't read enough cycling magazines or something.


----------



## Ian H (22 Jan 2018)

ozboz said:


> Two pics I took just before Xmas in Sigma Hampton Wick , two brand new bikes , same manufacturer , as you can see , one high tech modern , one classic , both beauties ,
> no doubt which th OP would walk out with !
> 
> View attachment 392685
> ...



Yebbut: those are two bikes for two different purposes.


----------



## biggs682 (23 Jan 2018)

I had the pleasure of meeting Lee Cooper a few years ago and to see a man making frames in his converted garage by hand is one of the things that made me realise how much care and attention a craftsman puts into his work and that is the difference between a man made product and a machine made one


----------



## ozboz (23 Jan 2018)

Ian H said:


> Yebbut: those are two bikes for two different purposes.



Both those bikes were in the road bike display of the shop , so to me they are road bikes , one following the classic look and lines , and a stunner , the other as near as state of the art in design and material , also , to me a stunner, neither are ugly to me ,


----------



## MikeG (23 Jan 2018)

biggs682 said:


> I had the pleasure of meeting Lee Cooper a few years ago and to see a man making frames in his converted garage by hand is one of the things that made me realise how much care and attention a craftsman puts into his work and that is the difference between a man made product and a machine made one



I'm a craftsman. I hand-make furniture, and have done it professionally in the past. So I am a big believer in hand-crafted products.....but I don't accept your premise that the hand-made bike is better looking than a production model. It would be perfectly possible to set up a production line of machinery to mass produce any and every frame ever made by an artisan, and the finished product would be indistinguishable from the hand-made version.

I say again, it isn't the hand-made nature of those old frames that made them attractive........it is the design. Someone decided what they were going to look like, and whether the final product was machine made or hand-made was and is irrelevant to the aesthetics.


----------



## biggs682 (23 Jan 2018)

MikeG said:


> I say again, it isn't the hand-made nature of those old frames that made them attractive........it is the design. Someone decided what they were going to look like, and whether the final product was machine made or hand-made was and is irrelevant to the aesthetics.



i agree that they were designed to look a certain way , but a true craftsman will go around and finish the item they are making by hand where as a machine made item would more than likely just a final inspection


----------



## MikeG (23 Jan 2018)

But that has no bearing on the aesthetics, which is what this thread is about. From across the street you aren't going to be seeing any difference, and even if you could (you can't) it still wouldn't make one bike "mingingly ugly" (the claim in the OP) and another one beautiful.


----------



## Ian H (23 Jan 2018)

ozboz said:


> Both those bikes were in the road bike display of the shop , so to me they are road bikes , one following the classic look and lines , and a stunner , the other anear as state of the art in design and material , also , to me a stunner, neither are ugly to me ,



One is a time-trial frame, the other is a classic road-race bike.


----------



## ozboz (23 Jan 2018)

Ian H said:


> One is a time-trial frame, the other is a classic road-race bike.


One is as agreed a classic , the other is a Colnago Concept , 
Road bike , follow the link , 

https://www.sigmasports.com/item/Colnago/Concept-Art-Dcor-Road-Frameset/EUKO


----------



## Soltydog (23 Jan 2018)

I can appreciate the beauty in old & new bikes. I love the look of the old curly Hetchins bikes, I also think that some of the modern carbon bikes are equally stunning. But if you are wanting modern ugly, then I reckon this will take some beating


----------



## Crackle (23 Jan 2018)

It looks like you've ridden over a couple of squid who've wrapped themselves around the bike.


----------



## Soltydog (23 Jan 2018)

User3094 said:


> If all that white plastic was black and removable it looks like the perfect winter bike.


I'm not sure it is though  If you 'need' carbon for a winter bike I think Trek have the right answer with their hidden eyelet mounts, not sure if anyone else has a similar system, but IMO it's more pleasing on the eye


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Jan 2018)

Soltydog said:


> I can appreciate the beauty in old & new bikes. I love the look of the old curly Hetchins bikes, I also think that some of the modern carbon bikes are equally stunning. But if you are wanting modern ugly, then I reckon this will take some beating
> View attachment 392749


I was going to make the point that when you're riding a bike you're not looking at it. Then you had to post that!


----------



## Dan B (23 Jan 2018)

Soltydog said:


> I can appreciate the beauty in old & new bikes. I love the look of the old curly Hetchins bikes, I also think that some of the modern carbon bikes are equally stunning. But if you are wanting modern ugly, then I reckon this will take some beating
> View attachment 392749


Someone's nicked your basket, mate


----------



## ozboz (23 Jan 2018)

Soltydog said:


> I can appreciate the beauty in old & new bikes. I love the look of the old curly Hetchins bikes, I also think that some of the modern carbon bikes are equally stunning. But if you are wanting modern ugly, then I reckon this will take some beating
> View attachment 392749



A bit Batman and Robin !


----------



## Soltydog (23 Jan 2018)

ozboz said:


> A bit Batman and *Robin* !



You've looked at the price then


----------



## Bonefish Blues (23 Jan 2018)

Dan B said:


> Someone's nicked your basket, mate
> View attachment 392755


That I like


----------



## AndyRM (23 Jan 2018)

User3094 said:


> If all that white plastic was black and removable it looks like the perfect winter bike.



Yep, much less jarring.






Seems to have not made much progress... https://www.gofundme.com/steblesbikes


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Jan 2018)

Every now and again somebody (Mike Burrows in this case) comes up with a radical new design concept that not only out performs existing designs but looks rather tasty into the bargain.....






....and the UCI promptly ban it, bless their little 19th century hearts.


----------



## GuyBoden (23 Jan 2018)

Vintage Carbon fibre 1987. (With lugs)


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Jan 2018)

GuyBoden said:


> Vintage Carbon fibre 1987. (With lugs)
> 
> View attachment 392806


Beautiful looking frame, but carbon tubes bonded into aluminium lugs are a potential weak point.


----------



## Amanda P (23 Jan 2018)

I find myself sometimes wincing when I turn a page in a bike magazine to be confronted with a photo of something with hardly any spokes and a thick plastic - sorry, _carbon_ frame. I think it's partly because the fat tubes and deep rims mean that the garish decals can be larger and more garish, so naturally they usually are.

In the days of lugged steel frames, the thinner tubes and flat profile rims necessarily had smaller, subtler decorations.

(Owner of a Spa Tour, which while modern(ish) is steel, is black with tiny gold logos. While it's welded together, it does have a gusset which you could pretend was a lug at the head-to-down tube joint).


----------



## Bonefish Blues (23 Jan 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> Beautiful looking frame, but carbon tubes bonded into aluminium lugs are a potential weak point.


Doubtless the weakness might show up over its _next_ 30 years!


----------



## wonderdog (24 Jan 2018)

MikeG said:


> In exactly the same way as the last decent music was produced in about 1984.....
> 
> 
> Yes.
> ...


How much music from the past 20 years or so survives to the extent that people still say, "Sheeesh that was a marvellous song." Or in the antipodean argot, "Ripper tune Boris."


----------



## raleighnut (24 Jan 2018)

wonderdog said:


> How much music from the past 20 years or so survives to the extent that people still say, "Sheeesh that was a marvellous song." Or in the antipodean argot, "Ripper tune Boris."


But how many songs from 60 years ago are still fondly remembered (and listened to) today

View: https://youtu.be/ty31QY5ZGHo


20yrs ago still seems too modern.


----------



## MikeG (24 Jan 2018)

wonderdog said:


> How much music from the past 20 years or so survives to the extent that people still say, "Sheeesh that was a marvellous song." Or in the antipodean argot, "Ripper tune Boris."



You're asking someone in the wrong age range. Ask a 25 year old. 

My parents were still humming tunes from Oklahoma into their 60s. The Beatles were just some long haired louts to them. They wouldn't have got 5 minutes into anything by Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Elton John, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Rolling Stones, ABBA and so on...... "Pah.....rubbish. That stuff won't be remembered like Perry Como, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby......." 

As I said, 'twas ever thus.


----------



## Dirk (24 Jan 2018)

Amanda P said:


> While it's welded together, it does have a gusset which you could pretend was a lug at the head-to-down tube joint.


If it had been designed correctly, a gusset would not have been needed.


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Jan 2018)

2014


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (24 Jan 2018)

Amanda P said:


> I find myself sometimes wincing when I turn a page in a bike magazine to be confronted with a photo of something with hardly any spokes and a thick plastic - sorry, _carbon_ frame. I think it's partly because the fat tubes and deep rims mean that the garish decals can be larger and more garish, so naturally they usually are.
> 
> In the days of lugged steel frames, the thinner tubes and flat profile rims necessarily had smaller, subtler decorations.



I don't read bike magazines - I just wince when I see them out on the street! You're right about the garish outsize frame decals, and why the hell would anyone want a bloody great logo on their_ wheel rims_ that must be visible from outer space? Those deep section CF rims are about as subtle as a Baboon's backside as it is, without drawing attention to them even more.


----------



## Elybazza61 (25 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I don't read bike magazines - I just wince when I see them out on the street! You're right about the garish outsize frame decals, and why the hell would anyone want a bloody great logo on their_ wheel rims_ that must be visible from outer space? Those deep section CF rims are about as subtle as a Baboon's backside as it is, without drawing attention to them even more.



But those deep section rims (and aero frames) serve a purpose to help retain speed;if your're not riding at least over 20mph you don't need them.

And if you don't like gaudy graphics most carbon rims come with a dark graphic option.

Oh and I am biased but I think this 2013 'plastic' frame based 7kg build looks awesome






As does this steel bike;






And I relly want this( ti Kinesis Tripster ATR (with lots of Hope plus the Lauf forks,Sram 1x11 and Halo Vapours form my XLS);


----------



## GuyBoden (27 Jan 2018)

https://www.shandcycles.com/bikes/skinnymalinky/
https://www.shandcycles.com/bikes/skinnymalinky/
A nice looking modern bike, a SkinnyMalinky from Shand cycles.


----------



## Randomnerd (27 Jan 2018)

I would suggest ugliness often comes from mass production requirements: the maker has to drive down price, material quantity and quality, and meet the tastes of a mass market. The object becomes a design of lowest common denominators. 
There are some exceptionally beautiful objects mass made, and a few ordinary bikes are quite handsome.
But, for real beauty you have to buy time and materials, and skill. Great objects are made to fit the function, but form has to be perfection. You’re not just getting the object, you’re getting all the years of effort, mistakes and reworking the designer / craftsman / musician etc has invested before the thing / sound / book / unicycle


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2018)

Not a bad looking beast and only 8kg, which is pretty good for a recumbent.


----------



## dave r (27 Jan 2018)

raleighnut said:


> But how many songs from 60 years ago are still fondly remembered (and listened to) today
> 
> View: https://youtu.be/ty31QY5ZGHo
> 
> ...




Superb track.


----------



## dave r (27 Jan 2018)

GuyBoden said:


> https://www.shandcycles.com/bikes/skinnymalinky/
> A nice looking modern bike, a SkinnyMalinky from Shand cycles.
> View attachment 393491



If my number's ever come up!


----------



## mikeymustard (30 Jan 2018)

I happened upon a blog the other day which detailed the writer's best-looking bikes from last year. They were all carbon and aero so not only ugly but also pretty much identical other than the colour schemes.
It's probably a symptom of my age - and I'm not completely stuck in the past because i like the modern technology of newer bikes, but the frames just don't float my boat: in my mind, bikes looked better back in the day. Luckily the thriving market for hand-built and retro steel bikes is a reaction to lots of middle-aged people feeling the same.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jan 2018)

mikeymustard said:


> It's probably a symptom of my age - and I'm not completely stuck in the past because i like the modern technology of newer bikes, but the frames just don't float my boat: in my mind, bikes looked better back in the day. Luckily the thriving market for hand-built and retro steel bikes is a reaction to lots of middle-aged people feeling the same.


I don't think it's an age thing really, more a question that neither of us like ugly design. If a designer uses CAD, and the design criteria is obsessive aero not pleasing aesthetics, then the computer is going to churn out loads of near-identical results that look more like a piece of weird modern art than anything resembling a proper-looking bike.
The ironic thing is that aerodynamics of a bike frame don't matter a toss for the speeds at which most bikes are ridden for most of the time. It's even more bizarre when you think about how many cyclists rave about some expensive CF framed aero road bike or other - and then promptly go and bolt that bike to their turbo trainer where both the aerodynamics and the light weight of the bike are completely irrelevant. They could have just bolted on the cheapest, heaviest, steel bike they could find instead and it would make no difference!


----------



## Smokin Joe (31 Jan 2018)

mikeymustard said:


> They were all carbon and aero so not only ugly but also pretty much identical other than the colour schemes.


Let's face it, all frames are identical other than the colour schemes. In fact there is more variety of design in carbon frames with different tube profiles that there were in steel, monstrosities like the Flying Gate excepted.


----------



## davidphilips (31 Jan 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> Let's face it, all frames are identical other than the colour schemes. In fact there is more variety of design in carbon frames with different tube profiles that there were in steel, monstrosities like the Flying Gate excepted.



Maybe they look the same to you Joe but i could tell a nice bates from a good distance away, same with a hobbs (got to agree with you on the Hobbs as its just different from a distance away by the paint) and a conago with chrome lugs some thing to hope for at christmas.
All a mater of personal preference but to me a steel bike frame with chrome or polished alloy forks just looks great, LOL, just a pity a few bike owners with some very nice old bikes would not change there minds and let there old bikes go my way.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jan 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> Let's face it, all frames are identical other than the colour schemes. In fact there is more variety of design in carbon frames with different tube profiles that there were in steel, monstrosities like the Flying Gate excepted.



I agree with the bit about CF frames having more variation than steel, but I don't think all conventional triangulated steel frames look the same at all. I own several steel bikes, none of which you could remotely call exotic, but nonetheless there are noticeable visible differences between them in terms of frame geometry and construction. One of my MTB's in particular, clearly has some old-school heavy roadster DNA in it's head and seat tube angles; it looks massively different to a steel racing bike from the same era with steep frame angles and a short wheelbase. If all my bikes had their decals removed and were all painted in an identical colour, I would still be able to immediately recognise which one was which just from looking at the frame silhouettes.


----------



## Drago (31 Jan 2018)

The sad thing is that by and large it isn't technology moving forward. Most of the changes are driven by marketing and the need to keep selling 'new' models.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jan 2018)

Drago said:


> The sad thing is that by and large it isn't technology moving forward. Most of the changes are driven by marketing and the need to keep selling 'new' models.



Rampant Consumerism. The same reason most car manufacturers endlessly make totally pointless changes to things like the light clusters and front grille, so your brand new car looks visibly "old" a year after you bought it.


----------



## screenman (31 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Rampant Consumerism. The same reason most car manufacturers endlessly make totally pointless changes to things like the light clusters and front grille, so your brand new car looks visibly "old" a year after you bought it.



Without which there would be far fewer jobs in the world. I like choices.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (31 Jan 2018)

screenman said:


> . I like choices.



Do you enjoy being ripped off though? Selling someone a product one minute then cosmetically changing it frequently for no other reason than to make your recent purchase look old hat amounts to a deliberate destruction of the residual value of the thing you bought. It's a very questionable practice., and the "choice" is made for you by the manufacturer not wanting you to get years of service out of your new item.


----------



## screenman (31 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Do you enjoy being ripped off though? Selling someone a product one minute then cosmetically changing it frequently for no other reason than to make your recent purchase look old hat amounts to a deliberate destruction of the residual value of the thing you bought. It's a very questionable practice., and the "choice" is made for you by the manufacturer not wanting you to get years of service out of your new item.



I said I like choice, does not mean I follow fashions. If you all only bought what we needed to live and not what we wanted would you have a job, I doubt many would. Designers and sales people create jobs.


----------



## Smokin Joe (31 Jan 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Do you enjoy being ripped off though? Selling someone a product one minute then cosmetically changing it frequently for no other reason than to make your recent purchase look old hat amounts to a deliberate destruction of the residual value of the thing you bought. It's a very questionable practice., and the "choice" is made for you by the manufacturer not wanting you to get years of service out of your new item.


I've had new cars in the past when my job (ADI) required it. My practice now is to buy at under a grand and run them till they'll run no more. Even with an annual mileage of around 20k that practice has stood me in good stead for the last fourteen years (With the exception of a Rover 200 I paid £350 for, another £70 to replace the windscreen and owned for a whole week before the fecking head gasket blew).


----------



## screenman (31 Jan 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> I've had new cars in the past when my job (ADI) required it. My practice now is to buy at under a grand and run them till they'll run no more. Even with an annual mileage of around 20k that practice has stood me in good stead for the last fourteen years (With the exception of a Rover 200 I paid £350 for, another £70 to replace the windscreen and owned for a whole week before the fecking head gasket blew).



If other people did not buy where would yours come from.


----------



## Smokin Joe (31 Jan 2018)

screenman said:


> If other people did not buy where would yours come from.


It needs people to buy second hand in order to make new car buying attractive. You wouldn't pay north of 10k for a car that was worthless when you wanted to change it.

The market needs all types of player to work.


----------



## Ciar (1 Feb 2018)

Give me a modern MTB over an old one any day of the week, so much nicer to ride compared to the old and i just prefer the look of them.

whereas i would happily take an old style BMX just the one below over any of the new ones 

as for Road bikes pass, not my bag apart from the one i thrash to and from work.


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'd argue with that. A lot of recent changes in bike construction are driven by the fact that they provide a more efficient manufacturing process. Bills of materials are reduced, labour is reduced, assembly from a smaller number of stock components. That's just from a manufacturing point of view. On top of that, from an engineering point of view ther are arguments to be had as to whether modern BBs, headsets, freehubs, dual pivot brakes, disc brakes, lights, gearing systems etc are engineering improvements on what came before.
> 
> Before you get too rose tinted, I have two words for you: Sachs Huret. Every single bike in the 70s had exactly the blimmin same clunky SH derailleur (below the fancy price bracket where you might have Suntour or Shimano, or the really posh Campag) and the same godawful saddle clamp.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like old bikes. I've never ridden a bike that's not made of steel in my life. I have an 80s vintage Dawes. I like downtube shifters. I think quill stems can be things of beauty. But to say that modern bikes are purely built on fashion or cosmetic changes isn't really true.


Good post. 

And I'll see your Sachs Huret and raise you Benelux


----------



## raleighnut (1 Feb 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> Good post.
> 
> And I'll see your Sachs Huret and raise you Benelux


Or Simplex.


----------



## raleighnut (1 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> Now you come to mention it they weren't all Sachs Huret. I remember Simplex derailleurs. I had one on my bike - that was a real extravagance, _I bought it from a shop _ rather than trading it with a mate.


The one I had would end up with the chain 'riding' with the sideplates on top of the next sprocket if you missed a shift, the 105 I replaced it with was 'index capable' which meant that the top jockey wheel had enough 'float' side to side to prevent this happening (even though I used friction levers)


----------



## Gravity Aided (4 Feb 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> Every now and again somebody (Mike Burrows in this case) comes up with a radical new design concept that not only out performs existing designs but looks rather tasty into the bargain.....
> 
> View attachment 392788
> 
> ...







http://www.velominati.com/2012/05/in-memoriam-the-funny-bike/


----------



## wonderdog (6 Feb 2018)

Gravity Aided said:


> View attachment 394540
> 
> http://www.velominati.com/2012/05/in-memoriam-the-funny-bike/


I had to look hard to figure out which way was up. Always was a bit slow.


----------



## Gravity Aided (6 Feb 2018)

Took me a couple of minutes, too.


----------



## Spokesmann (7 Feb 2018)

Smokin Joe said:


> Good post.
> 
> And I'll see your Sachs Huret and raise you Benelux



I still use a Cyclo Benelux from time to time...







When bikes were bikes and beefcake gearing was the norm....

Bike looks nice too.


----------



## Blue Hills (7 Feb 2018)

Spokesmann said:


> I still use a Cyclo Benelux from time to time...
> 
> View attachment 394853
> 
> ...


Not my style of riding, but more than nice, looks beautiful to me.
Weep and melt carbon?
Of course though its uber sleek lines are somewhat out of kilter with the its front and back lights. Clearly there is no god or s/he was asleep on the job - how could tubing construction and light and battery tech have been allowed to develop at such different rates?


----------



## gilespargiter (14 Feb 2018)

Well you could actually get some quite sleek looking dynamo lights at the time.

BTW I think you will find that so called "carbon" frames are in fact at least 80% plastic - so just a marketing ploy to support the oil industry. Yes you can use natural fibres with natural resins to the same effect instead.


----------



## Blue Hills (15 Feb 2018)

gilespargiter said:


> BTW I think you will find that so called "carbon" frames are in fact at least 80% plastic -.



 You spoilsport you. "Plastic" doesn't quite have the same ring to it though, does it? if any ring at all.


----------



## biggs682 (18 Feb 2018)

Not only are some modern bikes ugly and lacking in character etc etc , they also dont have the simplicity of a good old 5/6 speed racer


----------



## GuyBoden (19 Feb 2018)

New modern steel touring bike for £430 seems a bargain. Looks good to my eyes.

https://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/category/bikes/urban/product/review-adventure-flat-white-49875/


----------



## raleighnut (19 Feb 2018)

Distributed by Madison, very similar to the Ridgeback tourers too so it almost seems like they've set a spec and got someone to build it.


----------



## Dan B (19 Feb 2018)

raleighnut said:


> Distributed by Madison, very similar to the Ridgeback tourers too so it almost seems like they've set a spec and got someone to build it.


I had to look twice to check it wasn't a Genesis.

But IIRC they're owned by Madison too, so quelle surprise

(Not knocking it, I have a Croix de Fer in the same colour scheme and I like it a lot)


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (19 Feb 2018)

Nice looking bike. I like that, which is not something I say very often in relation to new machines! Lugged cro-moly frame with sensible 71/73 degree geometry, long chainstays and a long wheelbase. Should feel nice and stable and give a comfortable ride. . If I was in the market for a new drop-bar bike I'd be seriously considering one of those. Looks excellent value and definitely not one of the ugly mingers club.


----------



## wonderdog (20 Feb 2018)

biggs682 said:


> Not only are some modern bikes ugly and lacking in character etc etc , they also dont have the simplicity of a good old 5/6 speed racer


I think it's the never ending search for the latest gizmo to establish that point of difference over one's competitors. I don't know that I'll ever ride fast enuff to warrant electronic gear changes ... maybe a saddle warmer for a cold day??
Nissan ran a television commercial some years ago where a herd of young Japanese were oohing and aahing as one of the company's trendy young designers passed them by, enthusing that he had incorporated CUP HOLDERS into the cockpit design of the latest Pulsar. I've always liked the adage "less is more".


----------



## Dan B (20 Feb 2018)

Dogtrousers said:


> On top of that, from an engineering point of view ther are arguments to be had as to whether modern BBs, headsets, freehubs, dual pivot brakes, disc brakes, lights, gearing systems etc are engineering improvements on what came before.


Modern headsets creak less, modern brakes stop better, modern lights shine brighter and run longer. I make no apology for fitting any or all of those things to a retro frame. Oh, ditto alloy wheels to anything that "authentically" should have had steel rims


----------



## Tin Pot (23 Feb 2018)




----------



## booze and cake (23 Feb 2018)

If that's a case for the defence, the defence case just collapsed.

Its undoubtedly fast, but come on, the bike even has a hunchback in the 3rd pic and ironically no bells in sight. It must be some sort of plastic cover for gels by the look of it.....


----------



## Tin Pot (23 Feb 2018)

booze and cake said:


> If that's a case for the defence, the defence case just collapsed.
> 
> Its undoubtedly fast, but come on, the bike even has a hunchback in the 3rd pic and ironically no bells in sight. It must be some sort of plastic cover for gels by the look of it.....


----------



## booze and cake (23 Feb 2018)

#sickburn-ers


----------



## raleighnut (24 Feb 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> View attachment 397098
> 
> 
> View attachment 397099
> ...


----------



## raleighnut (24 Feb 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> View attachment 397112


I'd love to post the Raleigh advertisement poster I have but I'd get castigated by the 'PC' brigade,

It is a lovely steel bike though


753 and Campagnolo

EDIT BTW if this gets deleted I won't be surprised.


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Feb 2018)

booze and cake said:


> #sickburn-ers



They were fun, but clearly look like shoot.

The problem lies with the beholder. Unable to see beauty in great design or simple smooth lines, they impose a model of the past - no matter how flawed - usually from their teens or twenties, as what was right and therefore beautiful.

I think it’s sad.


----------



## Tin Pot (24 Feb 2018)

raleighnut said:


> EDIT BTW if this gets deleted I won't be surprised.



If you took away the branding, it would be beautiful.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (24 Feb 2018)

raleighnut said:


>



Agree completely. It's a hideous looking bike. In fact I'd hesitate to even call it a bike at all. Up until now I have regarded the Giant Trinity as the Holy Grail of carbon fibre ugliness, now it has some serious competition. Maybe we need a Poll to decide the winner of the Pukeworthy Cup?


----------



## mikeymustard (24 Feb 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> If you took away the branding, it would be beautiful.


if you took away the branding the poor girl would freeze to death!


----------



## Dan B (25 Feb 2018)

Tin Pot said:


> View attachment 397099


I'd be happy with one of those, except for the worry that people might mistake me for a triathlete. These days I barely get close to monathlete


----------



## mcshroom (25 Feb 2018)

There's differences but I think some new bikes look absolutely fine. I usually ride a 1986 Raleigh Criterium at this time of year: -
View attachment 397270


But I also have a Merida Scultura as a fun bike in better weather. Much stiffer when I want to put some power down but reasonably similar comfort wise. Oh, and about 3kg lighter. I think it looks pretty good myself: -
View attachment 397272


----------



## Spokesmann (25 Feb 2018)

1937 style...


----------



## gilespargiter (25 Feb 2018)

Extremely unlikely it is 3Kg's lighter mcshroom, in any case when that ugly plastic frame is twisting and writhing between your thighs on the downhill you will more than lose any marginal gains. Also "stiff" does not mean more power layed down . You get your power back in a nice gentle progressive fashion from a spring. . .


----------



## screenman (25 Feb 2018)

gilespargiter said:


> Extremely unlikely it is 3Kg's lighter mcshroom, in any case when that ugly plastic frame is twisting and writhing between your thighs on the downhill you will more than lose any marginal gains. Also "stiff" does not mean more power layed down . You get your power back in a nice gentle progressive fashion from a spring. . .



Glad you put a smilie in there I thought you were being serious.


----------



## mikeymustard (26 Feb 2018)

gilespargiter said:


> Extremely unlikely it is 3Kg's lighter mcshroom, in any case when that ugly plastic frame is twisting and writhing between your thighs on the downhill you will more than lose any marginal gains. Also "stiff" does not mean more power layed down . You get your power back in a nice gentle progressive fashion from a spring. . .


 I think it probably is a good 3kg lighter - Criterium must be 11+kilos, especially with the guards. Scultura - 8kg? 
Edit: in fact I just weighed my Pro Race [pretty much same frame as the Crit] and it's more like 12kg with its guards!





screenman said:


> Glad you put a smilie in there I thought you were being serious.


There could be something in the spring effect though: 
View: https://youtu.be/BH_AL4rxrp8


----------



## mcshroom (5 Mar 2018)

mikeymustard said:


> I think it probably is a good 3kg lighter - Criterium must be 11+kilos, especially with the guards. Scultura - 8kg?
> Edit: in fact I just weighed my Pro Race [pretty much same frame as the Crit] and it's more like 12kg with its guards!



The Crit's a 501 so a bit heavier than a true lightweight. With guards it comes to around 12kg all in. The Scultura comes in a little under 9kg. In fact I'm currently using a dynamo light and a Carradice Bagman on the Criterium. I can probably get the bike over 13kg with that set up.


----------



## gilespargiter (7 Mar 2018)

Dully corrected their then  fair enough.


----------



## mustang1 (10 May 2021)

It's like they've taken a simple cup of coffee and americano-muchato-latte-mogrelified it. Ps: I recently learned that a normal coffee is just called a Flat White and even then it tasted weird.

And blasphemy of all blasphemices, a slanting top tube AND dropped seat stays. I thought it's finally time to get an Italian bike, at least those guys will build a pretty bike. Alas they too have weird tubes. BUt I like Bianchi Oltre though I guess that's too pricey.


----------



## goldcoastjon (10 May 2021)

I like the look, the feel, and the SOUND of classic steel. (I cannot STAND the "clunk" sounds made when shifting on a plastic frame. I could not abide riding one and hearing such un-musical sounds all day.) 

I am not now -- and never was -- competitive racer. My steel bikes do very well by me and handle as well as I need them to --up to 45 MPH on downhills, too. And they SOUND right as well as LOOK right to my eye.

Life tis too short to ride plastic... If *you* want to, fine. Just don't ride near me so I have to listen to your bikes "clunk" by instead of making proper bike music...


----------



## goldcoastjon (10 May 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Having become more interested in bikes again after years away from cycling, one of the things I noticed was how radically different the majority of new bikes look compared to what everybody was riding back in the 1980's and even 1990's. Even a relatively cheap bike from the 80's will at least have a presentable looking lugged frame with pleasingly slim tube dimensions, and simple geometric shapes. The intricate high quality stuff from respected makers was almost a work of art in its own right.
> Fast forward to the present day and what we get now is oversized tubes squashed at each end so they spread out and very un-pretty welds. On a small-sized triangle frame there can be more frame than daylight between the tubes these days - they look really crudely built.
> Then if you start talking about CF bikes, the frame ugliness is taken a stage further, with things like rear wheel clearance cut out of the thickness of the seat tube, weird looking seat posts, straight forks that look like a couple of kitchen table legs, and having them sticking out from the bottom of the headset at a funny angle like the bike has been involved in an accident and the forks have been damaged!
> The vast majority of what is on sale now, regardless of price level, I would not have in the house on the grounds they are mingingly ugly. Am I just a dinosaur with my dislike for current bike design or are there others who also much prefer the clean lines and slim tubing dimensions of old steel machines?. And before anyone blames the MTB craze for this, remember most MTB's from the 80's and early 90's had frames very similar in terms of appearance and geometry to old-school 3-speeds!



So buy a classic steel bike that *looks" and *rides* the way you want it to... Simple, easy -- and less expensive than the plastic bikes, too!


----------



## DRM (10 May 2021)

goldcoastjon said:


> So buy a classic steel bike that *looks" and *rides* the way you want it to... Simple, easy -- and less expensive than the plastic bikes, too!


I think you’ll find Skipdiver John has turned running old steel bikes into an art form


----------



## mustang1 (10 May 2021)

goldcoastjon said:


> I like the look, the feel, and the SOUND of classic steel. (I cannot STAND the "clunk" sounds made when shifting on a plastic frame. I could not abide riding one and hearing such un-musical sounds all day.)
> 
> I am not now -- and never was -- competitive racer. My steel bikes do very well by me and handle as well as I need them to --up to 45 MPH on downhills, too. And they SOUND right as well as LOOK right to my eye.
> 
> Life tis too short to ride plastic... If *you* want to, fine. Just don't ride near me so I have to listen to your bikes "clunk" by instead of making proper bike music...



What clunky sounds? It's all zeet zeet these days followed by beeps that the battery is low.

EDIT: zeet zeet sound from the Di2, e-tap, e-campagnolo etc.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (11 May 2021)

mustang1 said:


> What clunky sounds? It's all zeet zeet these days followed by beeps that the battery is low.



I don't like the rattling and booming you seem to get with plastic bikes. Not that long ago, I was stopped having a drink at the side of the road. Half a dozen roadies on carbons approached. The surface had some badly repaired roadworks trenches in it and was far from smooth. As each bike passed over the rough bit, I could clearly hear internal cables rattling against the inside of the frame tubes and the sort of acoustic boom you get if you rap the body of a guitar with something hard. Almost all the bikes made a noticeable noise as the rough surface shook them with their internal cables and big volume tubes. It would have driven me bonkers to be riding one of those and having to put up with that every time I went over a corrugated section of tarmac!


----------



## cougie uk (11 May 2021)

The ride from a carbon bike can be so much better than say a steel frame. 

I bought a CF frame and swapped over my kit from my custom 653 frame. I couldn't believe the difference it made. I could ride over grids and the cf soaked up the bumps much better than steel. 

Can't say I've noticed any extra noise from my CF bikes.


----------



## mustang1 (11 May 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> I don't like the rattling and booming you seem to get with plastic bikes. Not that long ago, I was stopped having a drink at the side of the road. Half a dozen roadies on carbons approached. The surface had some badly repaired roadworks trenches in it and was far from smooth. As each bike passed over the rough bit, I could clearly hear internal cables rattling against the inside of the frame tubes and the sort of acoustic boom you get if you rap the body of a guitar with something hard. Almost all the bikes made a noticeable noise as the rough surface shook them with their internal cables and big volume tubes. It would have driven me bonkers to be riding one of those and having to put up with that every time I went over a corrugated section of tarmac!



Yeah I know what you mean. I also have a steel bike and it feels/seems/sounds nicer to ride. But carbon bike doesn't have internal cable routing but there's definitely a different sound emanating from the frame.

I also think the paint finish on steel and Ti bikes looks nicer than carbon.


----------



## Paulus (12 May 2021)

One thing with modern CF bike design that I find unattractive is the lower seat stays
I'm sure there is a reason why they join the seat post half way down, but for me it just doesn't look right.
I'm in the steel camp for bikes, probably because of the traditional look of a horizontal crossbar.


----------



## Blue Hills (12 May 2021)

Paulus said:


> One thing with modern CF bike design that I find unattractive is the lower seat stays
> I'm sure there is a reason why they join the seat post half way down, but for me it just doesn't look right.


Can someone explain if there's a logical engineering reason for this?

Until then I will live in ignorance with the vague idea that it's just for the sake of novelty.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 May 2021)

I bought a carbon bike and it made my average speed go up 7.5mph.


----------



## T4tomo (12 May 2021)

Blue Hills said:


> Can someone explain if there's a logical engineering reason for this?
> 
> Until then I will live in ignorance with the vague idea that it's just for the sake of novelty.


allegedly, it keeps the back end stiff enough for efficient power transfer, but allows for a tad more compliance for the seat post thus giving a comfier ride. complimented by beefing up the rears stays and making the seat staying thinner an or slightly curved on some models.

That's the "official" explanation, it may be all bollox, but I guess you can do such things with CF, that you can't do with steel (* see hetching's curly frames for an exception) so because you can you do.


----------



## shep (12 May 2021)

T4tomo said:


> allegedly, it keeps the back end stiff enough for efficient power transfer, but allows for a tad more compliance for the seat post thus giving a comfier ride. complimented by beefing up the rears stays and making the seat staying thinner an or slightly curved on some models.
> 
> That's the "official" explanation, it may be all bollox, but I guess you can do such things with CF, that you can't do with steel (* see hetching's curly frames for an exception) so because you can you do.


Dropped seat stays are commonplace on Alloy framed bikes as well as Carbon, there are steel framed bikes out there with them as well.


----------



## Blue Hills (12 May 2021)

T4tomo said:


> allegedly, it keeps the back end stiff enough for efficient power transfer, but allows for a tad more compliance for the seat post thus giving a comfier ride. complimented by beefing up the rears stays and making the seat staying thinner an or slightly curved on some models.
> 
> That's the "official" explanation, it may be all bollox, but I guess you can do such things with CF, that you can't do with steel (* see hetching's curly frames for an exception) so because you can you do.


thanks for the reply.
must admit (not criticising you) that any use of the word "compliance" in connection with bikes does tend to set my bullshit alarm off.
As a non engineer, I also muse aloud:
Since your bum is sat on top of this compliance and your legs are kind of attached to your bum, won't this "compliance" reduce the stiffness/power transfer between you and the back wheel?


----------



## T4tomo (12 May 2021)

I also quite sceptical of such things, although i did, a few years back, succumb to what maybe marketing hype or proven science and buy a Bianchi equipped with "Countervail technology which dampens up to 80% of road vibration". Its apparently some sort of material intergrated/interwoven(?) into the CF. The US military have also used this technology - for ships I believe, rather than for bikes to get around naval bases....

That said the bike is very comfy and it looks beautiful.

I also have a 531 steel tourer that is very comfortable and looks beautiful


----------



## mustang1 (12 May 2021)

While these days I see the older bikes as being more beautiful to look at, when I was younger I preferred the looks of the more modern bikes with their chunkier tubes that could have more paint applied them with larger logos and graphics etc.

Nowadays I like both the older and newer style bikes. The older steel bikes almost timeless but I did not know that when I was younger. Now I'm older, I wonder if the next generation of kids will grow up thinking the bikes of today will be timeless in future. But what made the old bikes times, was it their design, was it the slim tubes, the kind of paint and colours they used? Are steel bikes of today also timeless?


----------



## raleighnut (12 May 2021)

mustang1 said:


> their chunkier tubes that could have more paint applied them with larger logos and graphics etc.


I think you've hit the nal on the head there, bike manufacturers get more space for advertising on their products, no more "oh that's a nice bike, wonder what it is" when you can splash your brand in letters 3 foot high8 on the side

* OK slight exaggeration there but you know hat I mean.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (13 May 2021)

raleighnut said:


> I think you've hit the nal on the head there, bike manufacturers get more space for advertising on their products, no more "oh that's a nice bike, wonder what it is" when you can splash your brand in letters 3 foot high8 on the side



I agree, the bigger the better as far as the marketeeers are concerned. Big logos are easier to recognise from a distance when viewing an event either live or on TV. You aren't going to get them to admit that though, they will come out with every bit of pseudo-scientific BS under the sun to try and justify why the frames look the way they do.


----------



## Blue Hills (13 May 2021)

Must admit I'd never thought of this.
If it's true, must admit I find it funny - folk paying boosted prices for the privilege of being a sandwich-board critter.


----------



## Illaveago (13 May 2021)

When I'm out on my old steel framed bikes from the 60's or 70's I sometimes get passed by riders who will be on a carbon or aluminium lightweight aerodynamic bikes dressed in lycra . Sometimes the difference in speed might not be that great as I sometimes manage to peg their rate of travel . 
I think to myself. Well! This bike is old , it's seen many years of service , the tyres are old and not razor blades. The rider is old ! He's wearing jeans and has put on a bit of weight ,yet I'm not much slower. I also wonder about how much exercise each of us is getting ? I might only do 8 to 12 miles but I don't have the weight or drag advantage that the other riders have so I may use just as much energy as those doing greater distances . Well it certainly feels like it !
I get pleasure from riding a bike with nice shiny chrome or polished ally bits, it's the way in which the blue sky and clouds are reflected in them .
A lot of the modern bikes look like they were made for teenagers and have bought a new longer stem and seat post to fit them as they've grown up .
Each to their own I suppose but I prefer the fact that most of the components of my bikes are interchangeable and easily sourced and easy to fix .


----------



## Reynard (13 May 2021)

raleighnut said:


> I think you've hit the nal on the head there, bike manufacturers get more space for advertising on their products, no more "oh that's a nice bike, wonder what it is" when you can splash your brand in letters 3 foot high8 on the side
> 
> * OK slight exaggeration there but you know hat I mean.



Funny you should say that... After I stripped all the godawful graphics off my '98 Raleigh Max (navy, orange and lime green - on a light cadmium red frame, really!) I do get exactly that reaction.  

The frame looks so much nicer for just being plain red.







P.S. I adore the blue and gold paint job on that carbon Cinelli at the beginning of the thread, but not the bike itself...


----------

