Post images of beauty (quote pics sparingly) - see Mod warnings in OP

Harrybelafonte

Lusk_Doyle

RobFowl wrote: »

Then you need to find another sport

You need to get better at sex

AstraMonti

Simple and yummy.

RobFowl

AstraMonti wrote: »

Simple and yummy.

The pedals .....
WTF

AstraMonti

Yeah.. bit wtf in there. Here is one of the truffle hunters.

Brian?

Mercian Pro wrote: »

HarryB's last two photos demonstrate perfectly how bike design has moved from the beautiful to the beastly in a few short decades. The Bottecchia is an absolute classic, a high point in an aesthetic evolution that developed over thirty or more years. The Ridley on the other hand is a souped up frame on steroids with wheels that frankly look gross. Maybe in twenty years carbon bike design will reach the same heights that steel was at in the 80s. It may be lighter, it may be stiffer but it has an awful long way to go.
Just saying!

I'd be in the opposite camp. All of these 80s steel bikes do nothing for me,I suspect it's because I owned some in the 80s and have no wish to regress.

Modern carbon bikes are magnificent looking. That Ridley is particularly nice.

mossym

can we not like both? i'd have either in a heartbeat, both stunningly beautiful bikes, for very different reasons

Lusk_Doyle

mossym wrote: »

can we not like both? i'd have either in a heartbeat, both stunningly beautiful bikes, for very different reasons

No. One or the other. Choose wisely...

mossym

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

No. One or the other. Choose wisely...

all my bikes up for sale. not fit to be a cyclist, riddled by indecision

letape

mossym wrote: »

can we not like both? i'd have either in a heartbeat, both stunningly beautiful bikes, for very different reasons

Absolutely - we should have room in our hearts and garages for both!

Lumen

Brian? wrote: »

I'd be in the opposite camp. All of these 80s steel bikes do nothing for me,I suspect it's because I owned some in the 80s and have no wish to regress.

Modern carbon bikes are magnificent looking. That Ridley is particularly nice.

There's something fundamentally right about a skinny-framed bicycle. Cycling is about efficiency, using relatively tiny amounts of power able to propel us huge distances and speeds otherwise impossible without engines. A lightness of design, reflected in narrow tube diameters, reflects this.

Building a bicycle like an F1 car is not right, and that's what I see when I look at this.

The wheels are stupid, the frame is bloated. It's all too try-hard. If you had a million watts and cycled at 300kph it would make sense. Otherwise, no.

Beauty in design is not about pure aesthetics (e.g. "which colour handbag?") it's about balance, proportions and appropriateness. I know that a plastic frame allows an aero design, and that an aero design makes me 0.1% faster or whatever, but it's still not pleasing because the pleasure of cycling is not really about the extra 0.1%, except in the very narrow discipline of competitive time trialling.

Lusk_Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

There's something fundamentally right about a skinny-framed bicycle. Cycling is about efficiency, using relatively tiny amounts of power able to propel us huge distances and speeds otherwise impossible without engines. A lightness of design, reflected in narrow tube diameters, reflects this.

Building a bicycle like an F1 car is not right, and that's what I see when I look at this.

The wheels are stupid, the frame is bloated. It's all too try-hard. If you had a million watts and cycled at 300kph it would make sense. Otherwise, no.

Beauty in design is not about pure aesthetics (e.g. "which colour handbag?") it's about balance, proportions and appropriateness. I know that a plastic frame allows an aero design, and that an aero design makes me 0.1% faster or whatever, but it's still not pleasing because the pleasure of cycling is not really about the extra 0.1%, except in the very narrow discipline of competitive time trialling.

I have deduced from this that you are no good at time trials. Ergo, your dislike for aero bikes!

Harrybelafonte

Lumen wrote: »

Building a bicycle race bike like an F1 car is not right perfectly rational, and that's what I see when I look at this.

gman2k

More of that Tommasini

To me, that is why old steel machines are beautiful, they are handcrafted.
Modern carbon machines, whilst having a different aesthetic, are machine moulded.

Harrybelafonte

gman2k wrote: »

More of that Tommasini

To me, that is why old steel machines are beautiful, they are handcrafted.
Modern carbon machines, whilst having a different aesthetic, are machine moulded.

I deliberately didn't post the rest cos the bars are awful

Lusk_Doyle

gman2k wrote: »

More of that Tommasini

To me, that is why old steel machines are beautiful, they are handcrafted.
Modern carbon machines, whilst having a different aesthetic, are machine moulded.

They can still be lovingly created on the computer. Hands, imagination and effort are still involved in the process.

lennymc

Traditional steel bikes are beautiful, but, there is only so much you can do with a steel bike. For the most part, they all look the same, but with different colours and different components.

Harrybelafonte

lennymc wrote: »

Traditional steel bikes are beautiful, but, there is only so much you can do with a steel bike. For the most part, they all look the same, but with different colours and different components.

Lumen

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Building a bicycle race bike like an F1 car is perfectly rational

Perhaps that's why accountants ride Cervelo S5s with Zipps. :pac:

.ak

AstraMonti wrote: »

Yeah.. bit wtf in there. Here is one of the truffle hunters.

Niiiiiice.

letape

Lumen wrote: »

Perhaps that's why accountants ride Cervelo S5s with Zipps. :pac:

I know some that cycle steel Colnagos!

dragratchet

any baums appeared on here yet?

Ryath

Lumen wrote: »

Perhaps that's why accountants ride Cervelo S5s with Zipps. :pac:

I thought that was dentist's with bad backs and six inches of spacers under the stem?

They need all the aero advantage they can get!

07Lapierre

I like the look of these Flandria Frames...

Mercian Pro

Brian? wrote: »

I'd be in the opposite camp. All of these 80s steel bikes do nothing for me,I suspect it's because I owned some in the 80s and have no wish to regress.

Modern carbon bikes are magnificent looking. That Ridley is particularly nice.

I suppose it is possible that aesthetics are totally subjective but I can't really go with that. I do think that new materials and technologies initially result in some horrendous designs but in time, can result in objects of beauty. Whether it's because designers try to mimic a previous style or try to be too different, it's hard to know. To me carbon is still very much a work in progress and has yet to evolve into classic design. Maybe as HarryB has suggested, this evolution would speed up if people were more adventurous in their purchases. Maybe the combination of 3D printing and new(er) materials will lead to a total revolution in bike design?
The other problem I have with a lot of current designs is the billboard obsession. Trying to fit more and bigger names on frames and wheels does nothing for me. But that's another issue altogether.

Darkglasses

dragratchet wrote: »

any baums appeared on here yet?

Daaaaamn that's nice. New favourite bike. Aggressive, sporty, and a proper good looking bike.

dragratchet

Darkglasses wrote: »

Daaaaamn that's nice. New favourite bike. Aggressive, sporty, and a proper good looking bike.

yeah they look savage alright, there was one shipped to some lucky sod in ireland recently, love to see it in the flesh

letape

Darkglasses wrote: »

Daaaaamn that's nice. New favourite bike. Aggressive, sporty, and a proper good looking bike.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eFD1vy6XmEI/Twqj3RrhnPI/AAAAAAAAA8I/JWDEZ1Q7qO4/s1600/BAUM+GR+1.jpg

I like the Chris king titanium cages!

Lusk_Doyle

Oh, controversial?

Max_Charger

Wtf is with the seatpost and saddle?