What constitutes a beautiful bike?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Dave W » 30 Dec 2016, 8:48pm

reohn2 wrote:
barrym wrote:I know, I'm only

I know I just stirring it in the opposite direction :mrgreen:
but I still think bicycles look better with lugs.

Yuk! :wink:
However, to get some of the other, possibly, desirable features such as wide tyres, disks, you have to go with modern frames.

Now yer talking :D
Actually there are any number of sloping TT bikes, especially Genesis, that have appeal. If your pic is the bike I'm thinking of, that's one!

Image
Beautiful! :D
And with a nice unicrown fork too! :mrgreen:


Thought it looked familiar!

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby reohn2 » 30 Dec 2016, 10:25pm

Dave W wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
barrym wrote:I know, I'm only

I know I just stirring it in the opposite direction :mrgreen:
but I still think bicycles look better with lugs.

Yuk! :wink:
However, to get some of the other, possibly, desirable features such as wide tyres, disks, you have to go with modern frames.

Now yer talking :D
Actually there are any number of sloping TT bikes, especially Genesis, that have appeal. If your pic is the bike I'm thinking of, that's one!

Image
Beautiful! :D
And with a nice unicrown fork too! :mrgreen:


Thought it looked familiar!

Bad pennies turn up more regular than you think :wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4957
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Audax67 » 31 Dec 2016, 8:41am

PhilWhitehurst wrote:
Audax67 wrote:In direct response to the original question: me, on it, and finishing PBP 2019.


Wow 2019, where does the flux capacitor fit?


The capacity would be mine but I can do without the flux, ta very much. That's what clobbered me in 2011.
Have we got time for another cuppa?

neilob
Posts: 693
Joined: 31 Jan 2008, 3:58pm
Location: Notts/Lincs borders

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby neilob » 31 Dec 2016, 10:02am

Just about anything made by Colnago with their famous art decor paint finish.....although I suspect few would agree.
Using a car to take an adult on a three mile journey is the same as using an atomic bomb to kill a canary.

pete75
Posts: 13696
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby pete75 » 31 Dec 2016, 10:39am

barrym wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
barrym wrote:
Dunno, never seen one

Look closer :) :-
Image

I know, I'm only stirring! Those are tidy, certainly, but I still think bicycles look better with lugs. However, to get some of the other, possibly, desirable features such as wide tyres, disks, you have to go with modern frames.

Actually there are any number of sloping TT bikes, especially Genesis, that have appeal. If your pic is the bike I'm thinking of, that's one!


Yes but you can get exactly the same frame designs without ugly looking tig welds. For example compare the tube joints on this lugless frame with the one illustrated above. The Hobbs frame would doubtless build up into a beautiful bike. Peugeot used smooth finished lugless joins on their frames for years so it's obviously suitable for mass production.

Image

User avatar
freiston
Posts: 810
Joined: 6 Oct 2013, 10:20am
Location: Coventry

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby freiston » 31 Dec 2016, 10:53am

1942alexander wrote:
tinyworld wrote:So Conclusions are, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it must be conventional. And with that I’m going to stay beautifully unconventional :wink:


It's not only in the eye of the beholder, it's in the heart and mind as well. When I see the modern, carbon stuff, I don't see the elegance and quality of the vintage bike. It may be there but my conditioning, due to my age, is favouring the 1950s/1960s era. Nostalgia and experiences of the time are also important factors to consider. I was a road only, racing cyclist. I did a little touring but only with a saddle bag on my racing bike. I have absolutely no knowledge of off road riding and when I see a mountain bike type I see a huge heavy lump, which of course, not all of them are. From an engineering background, I appreciate good functional design with good aesthetic appeal, the aero seat post, centre pull brakes and the ornate lugs on steel frames are good examples. Now that I'm building and refurbishing bikes from scratch, I put all my background into my builds. As I progress with the refurbs, even the last attempt has an influence on the current one. The beauty I try to achieve in each build is not quite up to the level I am trying for in my next build, and so it goes on... To me beauty is very transient. If you get something that is almost beautiful, but is looked on by later generations as still beautiful, then you really have got a gem.
Cheers... Alex
Image


Please remind me what those forks are :)
Disclaimer: Treat what I say with caution and if possible, wait for someone with more knowledge and experience to contribute. ;)

pete75
Posts: 13696
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby pete75 » 31 Dec 2016, 10:59am

freiston wrote:
1942alexander wrote:
tinyworld wrote:So Conclusions are, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it must be conventional. And with that I’m going to stay beautifully unconventional :wink:


It's not only in the eye of the beholder, it's in the heart and mind as well. When I see the modern, carbon stuff, I don't see the elegance and quality of the vintage bike. It may be there but my conditioning, due to my age, is favouring the 1950s/1960s era. Nostalgia and experiences of the time are also important factors to consider. I was a road only, racing cyclist. I did a little touring but only with a saddle bag on my racing bike. I have absolutely no knowledge of off road riding and when I see a mountain bike type I see a huge heavy lump, which of course, not all of them are. From an engineering background, I appreciate good functional design with good aesthetic appeal, the aero seat post, centre pull brakes and the ornate lugs on steel frames are good examples. Now that I'm building and refurbishing bikes from scratch, I put all my background into my builds. As I progress with the refurbs, even the last attempt has an influence on the current one. The beauty I try to achieve in each build is not quite up to the level I am trying for in my next build, and so it goes on... To me beauty is very transient. If you get something that is almost beautiful, but is looked on by later generations as still beautiful, then you really have got a gem.
Cheers... Alex
Image


Please remind me what those forks are :)

At a guess they're Bates Cantiflex.

User avatar
freiston
Posts: 810
Joined: 6 Oct 2013, 10:20am
Location: Coventry

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby freiston » 31 Dec 2016, 11:05am

Cheers :)
Disclaimer: Treat what I say with caution and if possible, wait for someone with more knowledge and experience to contribute. ;)

User avatar
barrym
Posts: 633
Joined: 22 Jun 2012, 10:05am
Location: Corsham - North Wilts

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby barrym » 31 Dec 2016, 11:11am

pete75 wrote:
Yes but you can get exactly the same frame designs without ugly looking tig welds. For example compare the tube joints on this lugless frame with the one illustrated above. The Hobbs frame would doubtless build up into a beautiful bike. Peugeot used smooth finished lugless joins on their frames for years so it's obviously suitable for mass production.

Image


I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I can't help thinking that welding, even TIG, is exposing the metal to too much heat which will alter its carefully designed properties to function as intended. Clearly it can't be too bad as we don't see bent/collapsed frames everywhere. Only time will tell if they last as long as the lugged ones we see still functioning well.

Am I over thinking this?

Anyway, whilst I do like the look of lugs, I think it unlikely I'd find a frame that would meet my other criteria than has them.
--
Cheers
Barry

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

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Geoff.D » 31 Dec 2016, 11:19am

1942alexander wrote:It's not only in the eye of the beholder, it's in the heart and mind as well.............
The beauty I try to achieve in each build is not quite up to the level I am trying for in my next build, and so it goes on... To me beauty is very transient. If you get something that is almost beautiful, but is looked on by later generations as still beautiful, then you really have got a gem.
Cheers... Alex
HBsmallfile.jpg


:D :D
I couldn't agree more.
Monet painted the lilies in his pond dozens of times, over many years, each time trying to achieve what was in his heart as "perfection". Each time the light and shade were transient. He had to keep coming back to it to try again.

Thank goodness life's like this, else we would all be in agreement as to what actually is a beautiful bike and there would be only one model in stock!! And there'd be no arguments here and on the club runs!! And....worst of all....there'd be no desire for innovation and progress. No one to step beyond convention (such as Mike Burrows)

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby reohn2 » 31 Dec 2016, 11:24am

pete75 wrote:
Yes but you can get exactly the same frame designs without ugly looking tig welds. For example compare the tube joints on this lugless frame with the one illustrated above. The Hobbs frame would doubtless build up into a beautiful bike. Peugeot used smooth finished lugless joins on their frames for years so it's obviously suitable for mass production.


But first I'd have to think the Tig welding look ugly,which I don't.
That's not to say the Hobbs welds don't look nice and you're right about the internal lugged Peugots.
But we're back to the beholder again,some folk think nothing looks nicer than the very ornate lugs found on some Hetchins frames,whilst I appreciate the workmanship,for me the end result is fussy and ugly.
-----------------------------------------------------------

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby reohn2 » 31 Dec 2016, 11:26am

Geoff.D wrote:
1942alexander wrote:It's not only in the eye of the beholder, it's in the heart and mind as well.............
The beauty I try to achieve in each build is not quite up to the level I am trying for in my next build, and so it goes on... To me beauty is very transient. If you get something that is almost beautiful, but is looked on by later generations as still beautiful, then you really have got a gem.
Cheers... Alex
HBsmallfile.jpg


:D :D
I couldn't agree more.
Monet painted the lilies in his pond dozens of times, over many years, each time trying to achieve what was in his heart as "perfection". Each time the light and shade were transient. He had to keep coming back to it to try again.

Thank goodness life's like this, else we would all be in agreement as to what actually is a beautiful bike and there would be only one model in stock!! And there'd be no arguments here and on the club runs!! And....worst of all....there'd be no desire for innovation and progress. No one to step beyond convention (such as Mike Burrows)

+1
-----------------------------------------------------------

Brucey
Posts: 42952
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby Brucey » 31 Dec 2016, 11:59am

pete75 wrote:
Yes but you can get exactly the same frame designs without ugly looking tig welds. For example compare the tube joints on this lugless frame with the one illustrated above. The Hobbs frame would doubtless build up into a beautiful bike. Peugeot used smooth finished lugless joins on their frames for years so it's obviously suitable for mass production.


although 'it' isn't the same thing at all; the Peugeot scheme used internal lugs and pre-placed rings of spelter. Hobbs certainly didn't do any such thing.


barrym wrote: I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I can't help thinking that welding, even TIG, is exposing the metal to too much heat which will alter its carefully designed properties to function as intended. Clearly it can't be too bad as we don't see bent/collapsed frames everywhere. Only time will tell if they last as long as the lugged ones we see still functioning well.

Am I over thinking this?


Given that some expert folk spend their lives thinking about this sort of thing and nothing else, I don't think it is possible to truly 'overthink it'.... :wink: Welding metallurgy is really complicated! But when all is said and done you have to make a choice and the choice is a lot simpler than considerations of the minutiae of steel metallurgy... The reason frames don't collapse is that the tube walls in good frames are butted so that there is adequate strength near the joints despite the vagaries of the joining process and the effect it has on the steel. Frames can still fatigue though, and most TIG welded frames will eventually break, via fatigue, with the failure starting in or near a weldment.

TIG welding wasn't used in bike frames for many years because such fatigue failures are pretty much inevitable; a 'failure of conception' if you like. However in practice, frames of all kinds are more likely to break through failures in realisation than failures in conception; in other words whether the scheme was inherently good or bad, the quality of it's implementation would be the thing that would most likely dominate the outcome.

Anyway, whilst I do like the look of lugs, I think it unlikely I'd find a frame that would meet my other criteria than has them.


I might be a question of having such a frame built for you.

Beauty is as beauty does!

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1942alexander
Posts: 272
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 8:11pm
Location: Lancashire (summer), Tenerife (winter)

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby 1942alexander » 31 Dec 2016, 12:03pm

pete75 wrote:At a guess they're Bates Cantiflex.


Yes, they are "Bates Diadrant" forks on a 1959/60 B.A.R.

DiadrantSmall.jpg


ForkSmall.jpg

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13413
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Postby 531colin » 31 Dec 2016, 12:08pm

Diadrant fork
cantiflex tubing

......it all goes to show that the phenomenon of "a solution looking for a problem to solve" is not new!

Happy new year!