What constitutes a beautiful bike?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
TYKE
Posts: 21
Joined: 28 Dec 2016, 11:19am
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby TYKE » 29 Dec 2016, 2:14pm

I think my bike is a thing of beauty / work of art etc

But wife will not let me bring it in the house to hang on the wall over winter

She does not seem to appreciate art :D

Threevok
Posts: 195
Joined: 30 Sep 2016, 3:11pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Threevok » 29 Dec 2016, 2:20pm

reohn2 wrote:You mix up form with function.
Life is a compromise otherwise everything would be just so,mudguards keep me dry,warm and clean


No doubt, I just don't fancy the mud clearance on those to be very good - from what I can see in the photo anyway. I suppose it's down the local conditions where and when you ride, but this time of year where I am, they wouldn't last too long.

reohn2 wrote:the suspost saves my old body from being beat up too much.


Indeed, but it's still distracting from the otherwise clean lines of the bike. I'd prefer a more subtle looking sus-post myself.

reohn2 wrote:Now what of the norm of full suspension MTB bikes?


Only liking hard-tails, I have no interest in FS bikes - sorry. Had them in the past, but wasted on me for what I do.

reohn2 wrote:BTW I've even had someone on here complain of that bike having "clown" tyres fitted :?


It's not a 29er is it ? :shock: :twisted:

tinyworld
Posts: 29
Joined: 1 Sep 2008, 9:06pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby tinyworld » 29 Dec 2016, 3:36pm

[quote][quote="PH" I’d need convincing that it did what was intended

I wanted to sit very upright on the bike; the back was quite bad at the time. So, on that count it worked well. The down side to being bolt upright is the wind. Talk about complete opposites, bolt upright on the Longstaff, laying back on the recumbent. As you can guess windy days were the recumbent days. As for it with panniers, it was solid, No movement from side to side, as on the Bob Jackson. And that is not a criticism of the Jackson. The dismounting, yes that worked well. I used to ride with the Rough Stuff Fellowship, so getting off was essential, slippery ground and Marathon tyres was not always a good combination. One downside for some, would be the short wheelbase; it would be a bit twitchy for some. It never bothered me, again riding recumbents you get used to it. But all in all it did what I had set out to achieve.

User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 8862
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Cully
Contact:

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby al_yrpal » 29 Dec 2016, 5:58pm

Back in the 50's 60's and 70's they made some beautiful elegant steel bikes. Slim tubes, swept forks, decorated complex profiled lugs. No ugly welds, no aggressive appearance, no chavy looking decals. Just simple straightforward elegance. My old Mercian has it in spades...

Imagethe Mercian by A_Cockney, on Flickr

A lot of today's cars, particularly SUVs are made to look 'get outta my way' aggressive, some like the little Fiats are made to look cute for the ladies who love em. Its all in the hands of the designers. Those old bikes, the Raleighs, Claud Butlers. Mercians etc were just beauties.

Al
Touring on a bicycle is a great way to explore and appreciate the countryside and towns you pass through. Make a difference...

Geoff.D
Posts: 1959
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 9:20pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Geoff.D » 29 Dec 2016, 6:06pm

tinyworld wrote:As I said, my pictured Longstaff is not a conventional bike, that was one of the questions that I was trying to get to though, does it have to be conventional to be beautiful? I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All the ugly comments that I have got have been on the Longstaff, the Moulton or the Recumbent. The Bob Jackson tourer, black with double box lining, and the Planet X, both get the comments beautiful.


A lot of the posts have addressed the question of which accessories (and combinations thereof) create beauty. A lot have addressed the form versus function debate. It's also been pointed out that one's sense of beauty is attached to the type of bike one likes anyway. And it seems to be accepted that beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. But the nub of tinyworld's question is "does it have to be conventional to be beautiful"

Sadly, I fear that the answer is "yes" for the majority of people. I say "sadly" because this happens a lot outside in the real world (beyond cycling). Convention is powerful. It's restrictive. You don't have to look much further than the images in the magazines to understand their relationship to low self esteem in young men and women. Also think of how much marketing (and sales) depend on the "conventional" aspirations that are created for us as consumers.

My answer is "No", tinyworld. I'm not saying that an unconventional bike is automatically beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, for whatever reasons the beholder might have. But many (the majority?) people can't resist the pressure of the "conventional" - if it's unconventional, give it a wide berth!!

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13195
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby 531colin » 29 Dec 2016, 6:17pm

Blimey, I had "remembered" it a completely different colour.....the memory is fading faster than the eyesight!

reohn2
Posts: 40129
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby reohn2 » 29 Dec 2016, 6:24pm

Threevok wrote:
No doubt, I just don't fancy the mud clearance on those to be very good - from what I can see in the photo anyway. I suppose it's down the local conditions where and when you ride, but this time of year where I am, they wouldn't last too long.

You could be right,I've never had a problem with them :)

Indeed, but it's still distracting from the otherwise clean lines of the bike. I'd prefer a more subtle looking sus-post myself.

Compromise dear boy :wink:

Only liking hard-tails, I have no interest in FS bikes - sorry. Had them in the past, but wasted on me for what I do.

TBH I've no problem with either,they are what they are for what they do :)

It's not a 29er is it ? :shock: :twisted:

It certainly is :wink:
I love it,a sort of tractor of a bike :D
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50327
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Mick F » 29 Dec 2016, 6:54pm

Bike.jpg
Mick F. Cornwall

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18469
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Vorpal » 29 Dec 2016, 7:17pm

a beautiful ride
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

mercalia
Posts: 14456
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby mercalia » 29 Dec 2016, 7:20pm

531colin wrote:Image

You can't hide behind a respray, you know!


what an ugly bike. what was the designer thinking? was it a special purpose bike for some one?

rmurphy195
Posts: 1896
Joined: 20 May 2011, 11:23am
Location: South Birmingham

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby rmurphy195 » 29 Dec 2016, 8:09pm

barrym wrote:Horizontal top tube and lugs!


And drop bars, mudguards, rack, and leather saddle.
Brompton, Condor Heritage, creaky joints and thinning white (formerly grey) hair
""You know you're getting old when it's easier to ride a bike than to get on and off it" - quote from observant jogger !

fishfright
Posts: 181
Joined: 11 Feb 2014, 11:18am

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby fishfright » 29 Dec 2016, 8:41pm

I consider this to be the prettiest of my bike/trikes , rubbish photo notwithstanding.
George Longstaff tourer , 531, lugged etc

Image

User avatar
SimonCelsa
Posts: 756
Joined: 6 Apr 2011, 10:19pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby SimonCelsa » 29 Dec 2016, 8:54pm

Elegant & in my opinion quite beautiful. Not absolutely perfect but getting there.

Not mine by the way, photo is cropped from another forum,

bike.jpg


All the best, Simon

tinyworld
Posts: 29
Joined: 1 Sep 2008, 9:06pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby tinyworld » 29 Dec 2016, 9:00pm

Brucey wrote
apologies if this sounds pedantic, but that is not 'a diamond frame' in the usual sense; that frame design is known as a 'cross-frame' and is as old as the hills;

I seem to remember that it was a London cross frame. But my mind may be playing tricks. I can find no references to it. In my searching I notice that there is a Dutch cargo bike of this design. If you put a Moulton at the side of it, they look similar. OK a squashed version, or the Pedersen, so it’s not a unique design by any means. In fact I took my Moulton to George Longstaff when we were going through the dimensions of the Longstaff. George remarked that it looked a bit like a Moulton.
As for the stiff frame yes it is. Hence the sprung saddle

drossall
Posts: 5018
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby drossall » 29 Dec 2016, 11:29pm

al_yrpal wrote:Back in the 50's 60's and 70's they made some beautiful elegant steel bikes. Slim tubes, swept forks, decorated complex profiled lugs. No ugly welds, no aggressive appearance, no chavy looking decals. Just simple straightforward elegance. My old Mercian has it in spades...

Mercian do some amazing paint jobs, and that's one of them. Mine was so good that my Dawes is currently there, getting the same paint job but reversed (blue and red instead of red and blue).