Most Aesthetically Pleasing Frame Size??

[RoosterCogset]

5-1/2 Hands

[Louis]

Personally, I think anything less than a 58 is starting to look pretty small, especially when the head tube has to be so short that the TT and DT are almost right next to each other. That's fine if you're a tiny 105 lb climber on the pro tour, but other than that, they just don't look right to me.

[mmendoza87]

I love the proportions on 56cm frames. Just enough of a HT gap between the TT/DT. Big enough negative space in the main triangle. Sloping TT/horizontal TT doesn't matter to me. As long as it doesn't look too small/too big. For photos, it should be photographed with a 50mm (or equivalent) lens or longer to get rid of the spherical warping caused by a wider lens.

[Hilltopperny]

54-55cm frames to my eye are the most aesthetically pleasing. They are also what I ride most of the time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[9tubes]

Originally Posted by mcfarton

The amount of spacers on the steer really changes how a bike looks. To me a stack of spacers makes any bike look worse.

Agreed. The most attractive bikes are the ones that fit. Lots of headset spacers is the definition of a frame that doesn't fit. Also, having a humungous amount of seatpost showing is similar.

I don't know which is more cringe-worthy, the newbie with 4cm of spacers under the stem or the 6'2" pro with 16cm of drop to the bars on a 54cm frame.

[BobbyJones]

Originally Posted by mcfarton

The amount of spacers on the steer really changes how a bike looks. To me a stack of spacers makes any bike look worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm. The opposite here. Well, kinda. Don't think most bikes look good with slammed stems / no spacers.

I did grow up in the quill era, so I'm guessing that may have something to do with it.

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Agreed. The most attractive bikes are the ones that fit. Lots of headset spacers is the definition of a frame that doesn't fit. Also, having a humungous amount of seatpost showing is similar.

not so sure about your "fit" assesment. Search "sloping top tube"

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Agreed. The most attractive bikes are the ones that fit. Lots of headset spacers is the definition of a frame that doesn't fit. Also, having a humungous amount of seatpost showing is similar.

I don't know which is more cringe-worthy, the newbie with 4cm of spacers under the stem or the 6'2" pro with 16cm of drop to the bars on a 54cm frame.

Hmm. Builder, Rider, Palmarés....



TO me that is far from aesthetic perfection, but I struggle to believe that someone can claim that bike didn't fit the man because of "spacers" or "seatpost".

[ERK55]

If the bike above was threadless there would be plenty of spacers.

[rain dogs]

Originally Posted by ERK55

If the bike above was threadless there would be plenty of spacers.

That was why I posted it.

[witcombusa]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Hmm. Builder, Rider, Palmarés....



TO me that is far from aesthetic perfection, but I struggle to believe that someone can claim that bike didn't fit the man because of "spacers" or "seatpost".

Racing is such a small portion of the cycling world that 'racer' fit is well outside the norm. Their needs are way different that most folks that ride. Thus their bikes sizing is hardly a good guideline.

[cnighbor1]

Head Tube length is the key to a great looking frame
when one sees a small frame with a very headtube length or a frame with a long headtube length both appear out of portion to say a 58cm frame
So frame say 54cm to 59cm look correct
The Architect's opinion

[9tubes]

Originally Posted by rain dogs

Hmm. Builder, Rider, Palmarés....



TO me that is far from aesthetic perfection, but I struggle to believe that someone can claim that bike didn't fit the man because of "spacers" or "seatpost".

The picture of Miguel Indurain's bike is interesting to add to this discussion.

Certainly that bike fit Indurain, but we're discussing aesthetics. I think a good reference point would be custom bikes. They don't have a stack of headset spacers because the head tube is sized for that particular rider. A stack of spacers looks odd to many of us because the frame doesn't fit the rider, but has been made to work using a stack of spacers. A proper frame would have a longer head tube to match the preference of the rider.

The old bikes had a quill stem that went up, then forward and down. Builders realized that this took extra metal which added weight and made the assembly more flexible. If we compared Indurain's bike to a modern custom bike, the hoods are in the same place relative to the top tube/head tube juncture. Modern stems and bars simply create a near-straight line between the fork steerer and the brake hoods.

Indurain is 6'2" and rode a 59cm top tube. Too many riders today have this concept (I don't know where they got it) that an itty-bitty bike is better, so we see guys who are 6'2" riding 54cm top tubes. Since they're not riding custom bikes, this makes for crazy-long seatposts. It just looks wonky to me (and I'll venture it looks wonky to 99% of custom framebuilders).

Hey, whatever people want to ride is fine with me. Mullets were once popular too.

[rnhood]

56 and 58. Even 60 looks Ok.