Page 7 of 9

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 12:22pm
by 1942alexander
531colin wrote: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!


It is suspected that this design was purely for the recognition of their frames, without the need for decals. However, they don't seem to have had a dentrimental effect to the ride quality as Alan Shackleton broke the 25 miles TT on one in 1959. I was the third rider in his North Lancs Road Club team.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 12:39pm
by geocycle
What makes a beautiful bike? It has to be a fusion of form and function. Some have lots of one but not the other, for example my Thorn is functionally superb but won't win many beauty contests. I'm drawn aesthetically to minimal lines, slim tubes and simple paintwork, single speeds, stainless steel but they are not always the most functional. Some of the Mercians almost get there or Bruce's offering if it were all one colour. I struggle with carbon although I'm sure it is great for some applications.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 1:13pm
by 700c
tinyworld wrote:Picture of bike in question.

exp-03.gif
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.


To my eye, that is beautiful. But I would not ride it. I'd hang it on my living room wall.

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

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 1:14pm
by 700c
reohn2 wrote:Image
Beautiful! :D
And with a nice unicrown fork too! :mrgreen:


Fugly in the extreme to my eye. Yuck.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 1:18pm
by 700c
Just gone thru the thread. Looks like I like bikes that are a bit out of the ordinary.

I get told my bike is ugly all the time. And it is incredibly ugly.
Yet it does everything I want, no problem.
To me that's beautiful.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 1:22pm
by reohn2
700c wrote:Just gone thru the thread. Looks like I like bikes that are a bit out of the ordinary.

I get told my bike is ugly all the time. And it is incredibly ugly.
Yet it does everything I want, no problem.
To me that's beautiful.


A bit like mine then :wink:

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 2:54pm
by Heltor Chasca
pedalsheep wrote:The perfect blend of looks, fit and function.

Bikes and Bluebells 044 [640x480].JPG


Yes. I like. For many reasons

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 2:58pm
by Heltor Chasca
700c wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Image
Beautiful! :D
And with a nice unicrown fork too! :mrgreen:


Fugly in the extreme to my eye. Yuck.


Nope. Utterly ruverly. There's another very similar to this that lives near Bournemouth and owned by a forumite on here. Haven't seen any posts of his for a while. They are breeding. Natural selection obviously.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 3:08pm
by Geoff.D
1942alexander wrote:
531colin wrote: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!


It is suspected that this design was purely for the recognition of their frames, without the need for decals. However, they don't seem to have had a dentrimental effect to the ride quality as Alan Shackleton broke the 25 miles TT on one in 1959. I was the third rider in his North Lancs Road Club team.


I believe this was also true of the Hetchens frame. As I understand it, it was a solution to the problem posed by the ban on manufacturers' decals on amateurs' race bikes. It didn't necessarily offer any technical/performance advance, but it did mark itself out to the naked eye - unmistakedly so. It was brand recognition.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 4:38pm
by PhilWhitehurst
Audax67 wrote:
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.


I was referring to your post that you'd finished PBP in 2019 which is still 2.5 years from now. Flux capacitor is from back to the future and used for time travel.

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 5:25pm
by Dave W
Heltor Chasca wrote:
700c wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Image
Beautiful! :D
And with a nice unicrown fork too! :mrgreen:


Fugly in the extreme to my eye. Yuck.


Nope. Utterly ruverly. There's another very similar to this that lives near Bournemouth and owned by a forumite on here. Haven't seen any posts of his for a while. They are breeding. Natural selection obviously.


Yer, familiar
images.jpg
images.jpg (10.8 KiB) Viewed 753 times

What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 31 Dec 2016, 6:59pm
by Heltor Chasca
I'll leave out my top bike, a Surly DT (Lady Eleanor Glanville) and my 'personality issues' bike, the Surly Big Dummy (Captain Beefheart) and show you my Cube Acid (Asquith Xavier) which I've just done a very cold couple of nights, off road touring in the Mendips. Well. Ice and mud touring. And freezing my barnacles off. Gone now. No more children can be accomplished. Some falsetto singing at best. Pretty or ugly?

Image

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 1 Jan 2017, 1:19am
by reohn2
Dave W wrote:..Yer, familiarimages.jpg

But I much prefer the Sunbeam S7 for looks:-
Image

Eye,beholder an' all that Jazz :wink: .....

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 1 Jan 2017, 8:14am
by PH
The two Mercians upthread show how diverse peoples tastes are and how beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder. One looks to me like a classic vehicle, sleek lines and no clutter. The other looks like a fun fair ride, not only that but the agricultural look of the bolted on pump and confused stem are a real distraction to the lines.
But what do I know, I'd prefer either to the one from world renowned designer Paul Smith
WARNING - Clicking this link with a New Years Day hangover may hurt your eyes
https://flic.kr/p/aEC9Sz (not my photo)

Re: What constitutes a beautiful bike?

Posted: 1 Jan 2017, 9:39am
by Sweep
al_yrpal wrote:This is the Mercian as received after my brother passed away. As you can see US cloth bar tape, horrid pedals and a cadence sensor which I removed. The tyres didnt match the red themed colour and were well worn so I changed them. I replaced the double clanger with a triple which I sourced on here because we have some steep hills hereabouts. Unfortunately the bike had been stored very badly during his terminal illness and there are quite a few dings and blemishes. I did look at restoration at Mercian but its pretty expensive. The bike was completely restored in the 90's, Campag upgraded, new wheels with the original hubs and the current paint job. Its a joy to ride on dry days. These pictures were taken before I was thrown off by a pothole. I ended up with rather poorer s/h brake levers and bars which detract from its appearance. Its a bit like Triggers Broom :lol:

Al

ImageThe Mercian by A_Cockney, on Flickr

Got to ask al, did your dear brother favour a flashing bow tie?
Very nice bike under all the stuff.