Bike products with good graphic design?

[colker]

Originally Posted by e-RICHIE

I think some of you are (mistakenly) conflating industrial design with graphic design.

ps

arrange disorder

Both go by different rules, routes towards different places. Otoh the word design implies rationality.
Industrial design is form following funtion. It makes the engineering of objects an inspiration for their looks. Lugs and tig welding could be described as both engineering and design.
Graphic design otoh plays 100% w/cultural identity and suggestion. Big streamlined logos suggest performance identifying the user w/ contemporary racing. Some brands otoh chose to identify their graphics w/ the past of racing like Rapha does: they bring in old racing designs and filter through new tech and contemporary needs. There is rationality and logic behind what you believe is taste. Taste is irrational, almost purely physical: i like the taste of this food and don´t like the taste of the other one. Unless you are following a logic of some sorts and educate of your taste.. i will eat this because it makes me stronger therefore it tastes good.

[bicycletricycle]

They are similar fields in that they both have no objective way to measure the quality of their results.

Originally Posted by e-RICHIE

I think some of you are (mistakenly) conflating industrial design with graphic design.

ps

arrange disorder

[jonbek]

This could have been a rad thread to share and promote the brands, large or small, that we find aesthetic joy in--regardless of why or how--and maybe expand our horizons, but instead it's just an argument about who is more right.

And so goes the internet.

[XXtwindad]

Agreed. A very aesthetically appealing crankset (the most aesthetically appealing IMO) with strong, understated graphics that compliment the functionality.

[harzkristall]

Originally Posted by e-RICHIE

I think some of you are (mistakenly) conflating industrial design with graphic design.

ps

arrange disorder

You are of course right, Mr Sachs. My bad. I was still processing this thread when I replied... Thinking about your creations I think the ’less and more’ credo could fit quite well. I love lugs being painted in a different colour from the rest. Having the lug borders/edges painted in an additional tone is something I really like.
Then you really took it to the next level when house industries created your graphic identity. Hats down! I love it. Works really well on the team bikes. It’s so good it’s almost too much.
Now to the ’less is more’ part. I am all for minimalism if applicable but its all about context. The laser etched bronze decals on the raw titanium on my Potts is
understatement at its best. Gotta look twice to discover.
But I couldn’t say what style I prefer. Painting steel is a smart thing to do and when doing so, Joe Bell can probably do it rightest. Painting titanium is ok but a bit pointless. Hope that made at least some sense. Just trying to put what I wrote earlier in bike context...

[jpw]

To my eyes and sensibilities Sram has been the great offender of recent times. Horrific crank graphics. Beyond tasteless.

[colker]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Agreed. A very aesthetically appealing crankset (the most aesthetically appealing IMO) with strong, understated graphics that compliment the functionality.

I believe in no graphics on a crankset or wheels or anything moving fast in circles.
Most beautifull group ever is campagnolo C record imo. Shapes were so right they restrained from writting their name. Instead the small shield; even on the rear derrailleur. There is reasoning behind my taste for this particular groupset: industrial design and restraint on the graphic design w/ no words and just a few of their graphic icon.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by jpw

To my eyes and sensibilities Sram has been the great offender of recent times. Horrific crank graphics. Beyond tasteless.

I can understand some earlier iterations, their most recent red etap and axs cranks are way more subdued than other offerings, sometimes even eliciting calls for flashier aesthetics considering the price.

Newest Campy and Shimano certainly have their detractors. But Rotor has been the greatest offender IMO with regards to gaudy crank graohics:

[thirdgenbird]

I think the new Campagnolo 12 graphics are great. Clean, simple, and not distracting from the overall bike.

Dura-ace graphic design has been on-point for decades. Some of the parts have been quite ugly (see 7900) but the graphics, size and placement on the components were great.

[72gmc]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

They are similar fields in that they both have no objective way to measure the quality of their results.

This reads as though you're limiting your definition to transactional results. There are plenty of ways, quantitative and qualitative, to measure how design affects results, and whether results are objectively better because of the contributions of design. Do more transactions occur because the design raises the perceived or demonstrable quality in a way people can recognize? Basic function is table stakes--so, do people advocate for a purchase because its design works better than competitors and makes them feel good? Are people more inclined to become repeat customers because the design appeals to them in a way that causes them to see a brand as "their" brand?

I own several House Ind. items because I rate them as high quality according to my use, and their design means I have fun unboxing and using them (nice package design). Ditto Sim-Works. I choose clothing for function more than fashion but I appreciate the aesthetics of Ornot and PedalEd.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by jonbek

This could have been a rad thread to share and promote the brands, large or small, that we find aesthetic joy in--regardless of why or how--and maybe expand our horizons, but instead it's just an argument about who is more right.

And so goes the internet.

Ya, you are correct, sorry for being argumentative. I just think it is important to use language correctly. My favorite brands from a graphic design standpoint (graphics on the parts not the websire etc..) are-

Nitto- Simple and minimal branding on components for the most part. Lots of embossing and engraving which I prefer both functionally and aesthetically.
Thomson- Simple no nonsense
Steibel- Nice vintage feeling graphics that pay homage to an iconic era for cycling and their brand. Nice modern colorways.
Look- For a big logo all over the bike brand I think they do it pretty well. I think a lot of their bold color blocking is fun and even though they write look on their frames a lot they are by no means the leader in that particular race to the bottom.
Specialized- Specialized seemed to be early in the game of writing their name on every tube but recently they have really dialed that back and chosen some nice colors and simple branding that really looks great, especially among the big 3.
Paul components- Machining your name into each part in nice block letters, what is not to like? I also really like the simple packaging.
All City- Simple clean logo and they always mix it up with some nice paint. fades, panels, Merckx homages, they just always have something simple and fun that can be dressed up or dressed down.
Lightweight wheels- I actually think the name of the company is goofy and their logo is a little out of place, but they have stuck with it long enough to make it endearing. Like Colnago art deco paint. I also think I like it because the script reminds me of the telefonica logo found on many great racing cars and boats.
Mosaic- A lot of trendy fades and tone on tones that look great right now and I think will continue to hold up for a long time. The Mosaic written huge under the downtube is a little strange from a legibility standpoint but I do like the way it looks.
Brooks- They mostly stick with their traditional mark on the components, perhaps a little vintage feeling but implemented minimally so that it is not too limiting for people with more modern tastes.
Search and state- I don't always want to look like a cycling commando but when I do they are my go to.
Absolute black- I think they have done a good shape embracing the random facets/8 bit video game fad. I like the extra angles and contour lines on everything look for some bikes. I am glad they don't laser etch all over everything. They have really put their graphic design into the industrial design in a way that feels interesting in some products (chainrings) but a little artificial in other ways (hubs)
Hope- I think Hope is kind of a hold out from the 2000's ano colors and laser etch on everything. I think they do it pretty well though and if you don't mind all the words on everything it looks pretty cool. Especially when you have a bike with a lot of it.
Riese and Muller- simple small logo on such huge tubes. I admire the constraint.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Ya, you are correct, sorry for being argumentative. I just think it is important to use language correctly. My favorite brands from a graphic design standpoint (graphics on the parts not the websire etc..) are-

Nitto- Simple and minimal branding on components for the most part. Lots of embossing and engraving which I prefer both functionally and aesthetically.
Thomson- Simple no nonsense
Steibel- Nice vintage feeling graphics that pay homage to an iconic era for cycling and their brand. Nice modern colorways.
Look- For a big logo all over the bike brand I think they do it pretty well. I think a lot of their bold color blocking is fun and even though they write look on their frames a lot they are by no means the leader in that particular race to the bottom.
Specialized- Specialized seemed to be early in the game of writing their name on every tube but recently they have really dialed that back and chosen some nice colors and simple branding that really looks great, especially among the big 3.
Paul components- Machining your name into each part in nice block letters, what is not to like? I also really like the simple packaging.
All City- Simple clean logo and they always mix it up with some nice paint. fades, panels, Merckx homages, they just always have something simple and fun that can be dressed up or dressed down.
Lightweight wheels- I actually think the name of the company is goofy and their logo is a little out of place, but they have stuck with it long enough to make it endearing. Like Colnago art deco paint. I also think I like it because the script reminds me of the telefonica logo found on many great racing cars and boats.
Mosaic- A lot of trendy fades and tone on tones that look great right now and I think will continue to hold up for a long time. The Mosaic written huge under the downtube is a little strange from a legibility standpoint but I do like the way it looks.
Brooks- They mostly stick with their traditional mark on the components, perhaps a little vintage feeling but implemented minimally so that it is not too limiting for people with more modern tastes.
Search and state- I don't always want to look like a cycling commando but when I do they are my go to.
Absolute black- I think they have done a good shape embracing the random facets/8 bit video game fad. I like the extra angles and contour lines on everything look for some bikes. I am glad they don't laser etch all over everything. They have really put their graphic design into the industrial design in a way that feels interesting in some products (chainrings) but a little artificial in other ways (hubs)
Hope- I think Hope is kind of a hold out from the 2000's ano colors and laser etch on everything. I think they do it pretty well though and if you don't mind all the words on everything it looks pretty cool. Especially when you have a bike with a lot of it.
Riese and Muller- simple small logo on such huge tubes. I admire the constraint.

Cool post!

[bicycletricycle]

yes, of coarse we can come up with lots of ways to compare objects, or in the case of graphic design, information. But these are subjective, saying "this is better" is really the same as saying " I like this more". Maybe more accurately, “I value the things this object symbolizes”

Originally Posted by 72gmc

This reads as though you're limiting your definition to transactional results. There are plenty of ways, quantitative and qualitative, to measure how design affects results, and whether results are objectively better because of the contributions of design. Do more transactions occur because the design raises the perceived or demonstrable quality in a way people can recognize? Basic function is table stakes--so, do people advocate for a purchase because its design works better than competitors and makes them feel good? Are people more inclined to become repeat customers because the design appeals to them in a way that causes them to see a brand as "their" brand?

I own several House Ind. items because I rate them as high quality according to my use, and their design means I have fun unboxing and using them (nice package design). Ditto Sim-Works. I choose clothing for function more than fashion but I appreciate the aesthetics of Ornot and PedalEd.

[thirdgenbird]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Cool post!

x2

I have zero background in the topic, but recently explained Thomson, steiblel, Specialized and lightweight in nearly the exact terms.

[e-RICHIE]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

They are similar fields in that they both have no objective way to measure the quality of their results.

To my mind, graphic design regards the look, the wrapper, the box. Industrial design is about what’s in the package.

I think you mean there’s no subjective, not objective, way to measure the results. Taste is personal. But we can certainly tell if a design is successful if the company that owns it is reporting good sales.

Rams (Less is better, less is more, whatever) was an industrial designer.