Modern bicycles...

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby reohn2 » 23 Aug 2019, 9:59am

A bit of lunacy of following fashion, the racing norm is to have the saddle anywhere between 10 to 15cm higher that the dropbar tops.
It then follows that I witness daily people following this fashion and I see many a pop bellied wannabe who is just about able to reach the hoods,with no chance of the drops.Viewed from behind some of these poor fashionista's knees are forced a kimbo due to this design/fashion flaw
As if that's not bad enough the design material(carbon or alu steerer) dictates that only a very minimal number of spacers are allowed under the stem,usually 3cm's worth and along with a short head tube these poor souls are completely goosed!
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

mattheus
Posts: 837
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby mattheus » 23 Aug 2019, 10:25am

reohn2 wrote:Here's an argument (cat,pigeon,amongst) an accepted and heralded by many,design(flaw IMO)are horizontal toptubes.
To me it's not only aesthetically unpleasant,it's also functionally inept especially when riding tricky terrain due to it's high SO,it also limits frame fit.

Well that's easy to address:
- frame fit? Just get the right size made for you
- SO? (step-over I presume) - learn to swing your leg round the back!

<n.b. some tongue in cheek here ... >


I do genuinely believe horizontal looks best.

reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby reohn2 » 23 Aug 2019, 12:49pm

mattheus wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Here's an argument (cat,pigeon,amongst) an accepted and heralded by many,design(flaw IMO)are horizontal toptubes.
To me it's not only aesthetically unpleasant,it's also functionally inept especially when riding tricky terrain due to it's high SO,it also limits frame fit.

Well that's easy to address:
- frame fit? Just get the right size made for you
- SO? (step-over I presume) - learn to swing your leg round the back!

<n.b. some tongue in cheek here ... >


I do genuinely believe horizontal looks best.

You and many more prefer the looks of horizontal TT's,but the better function is a sloping or compact frame design. :wink:
Last edited by reohn2 on 23 Aug 2019, 3:37pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5777
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby Sweep » 23 Aug 2019, 2:18pm

reohn2 wrote:[
You and many more as well, prefer the looks of horizontal TT but the better function is a sloping or compact frame design. :wink:


Agree with this - I actually prefer the horizontal aesthetically but wouldn't buy one, especially as a tourer.

I find sloping far more practical for several reasons.

I don't much like lots of modern bike designs though - a fair few strike me as gimmicky, different for the hell of it, and remind me of the sort of mad design you got in old Hot Wheels models from my distant childhood. Look good on a plastic track but you'd look like a right nit driving one down the road.
Sweep

User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2358
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby hondated » 23 Aug 2019, 2:25pm

Freddie wrote:Are they ugly? I suppose if you like Bladerunner esque, futuristic carbon fibre, all is well with you, but does anyone get the Campagnolo catalogue to gawk at the beautiful parts any more?

One can argue that aesthetics makes no difference to the riding, but one has to get off the bike and look at the thing at some point...

What was your favourite period for cycling aesthetics or favourite beautiful components, bonus points if they functioned well (at least compared to other equipment of the period).

Not sure whether they were 90s or later but the Colnago ranch of bikes which had multi coloured paint jobs. Still got the brochure a dealer gave me at a triathlon show.

reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby reohn2 » 23 Aug 2019, 3:42pm

hondated wrote:
Freddie wrote:Are they ugly? I suppose if you like Bladerunner esque, futuristic carbon fibre, all is well with you, but does anyone get the Campagnolo catalogue to gawk at the beautiful parts any more?

One can argue that aesthetics makes no difference to the riding, but one has to get off the bike and look at the thing at some point...

What was your favourite period for cycling aesthetics or favourite beautiful components, bonus points if they functioned well (at least compared to other equipment of the period).

Not sure whether they were 90s or later but the Colnago ranch of bikes which had multi coloured paint jobs. Still got the brochure a dealer gave me at a triathlon show.


Would they still have had you slavering over them were they painted in a more,shall we say conservative(note the small 'c' :wink: ),colour scheme?
Last edited by reohn2 on 23 Aug 2019, 3:54pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 2687
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby Cugel » 23 Aug 2019, 3:44pm

Sweep wrote:
reohn2 wrote:[
You and many more as well, prefer the looks of horizontal TT but the better function is a sloping or compact frame design. :wink:


Agree with this - I actually prefer the horizontal aesthetically but wouldn't buy one, especially as a tourer.

I find sloping far more practical for several reasons.

I don't much like lots of modern bike designs though - a fair few strike me as gimmicky, different for the hell of it, and remind me of the sort of mad design you got in old Hot Wheels models from my distant childhood. Look good on a plastic track but you'd look like a right nit driving one down the road.


Can you supply or reference pics of those modern bikes you consider "gimmicky, different for the hell of it"? I know some are queer-looking, with them fat or bendy "tubes" and that .... but often these are claimed to impart strength, stiffness, compliance and other functional qualities.

How do we differentiate the mere gimmicks from the functional innovations?

Cugel

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2893
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby Bmblbzzz » 23 Aug 2019, 3:50pm

Sloping top tubes were common in the Edwardian era. And backward sloping top tubes (lower at front than back) were fashionable on time trial bikes in the late 80s/early 90s.

reohn2
Posts: 36400
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby reohn2 » 23 Aug 2019, 3:55pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:Sloping top tubes were common in the Edwardian era. And backward sloping top tubes (lower at front than back) were fashionable on time trial bikes in the late 80s/early 90s.

Both having function over form.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 5777
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby Sweep » 23 Aug 2019, 5:15pm

Cugel wrote:Can you supply or reference pics of those modern bikes you consider "gimmicky, different for the hell of it"? I know some are queer-looking, with them fat or bendy "tubes" and that .... but often these are claimed to impart strength, stiffness, compliance and other functional qualities.

How do we differentiate the mere gimmicks from the functional innovations?

Cugel


I'm no engineer, maybe Brucey could comment.

I just rather doubt that all those frame innovations are functional.

What is "compliance".

I fully admit to being a traditionalist - I like the main tubes to be round and straight.

And I must admot to finding some of the riders of those things rather funny - super light bike, bloke with a paunch atop it, with a great big backpack on their back, as they wouldn't want to increase the weight of the bike by fastening anything to it.

For full on racing, anything goes of course and have no issues with that.
Sweep

jimlews
Posts: 296
Joined: 11 Jun 2015, 8:36pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby jimlews » 23 Aug 2019, 6:35pm

I like the look of sloping top tubes. My first bike, a 'Norman' had one. The front of the TT was lower than the back. I presently own a couple of cycles that have TTs that slope the other way (back lower) and some with level TTs. So I guess you could say I'm agnostic.

In as much as bicycle frames and architectural edifices are designed (when designed well) around the human body and that the 'golden mean' was also derived from human proportions; a link exists. I.E. Both are ergonomic constructs.

I don't know about fibonacci. Isn't that some kind of exponential?

User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2358
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby hondated » 23 Aug 2019, 7:08pm

Duplicate posting
Last edited by hondated on 25 Aug 2019, 12:22pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2358
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby hondated » 23 Aug 2019, 7:08pm

reohn2 wrote:
hondated wrote:
Freddie wrote:Are they ugly? I suppose if you like Bladerunner esque, futuristic carbon fibre, all is well with you, but does anyone get the Campagnolo catalogue to gawk at the beautiful parts any more?

One can argue that aesthetics makes no difference to the riding, but one has to get off the bike and look at the thing at some point...

What was your favourite period for cycling aesthetics or favourite beautiful components, bonus points if they functioned well (at least compared to other equipment of the period).

Not sure whether they were 90s or later but the Colnago ranch of bikes which had multi coloured paint jobs. Still got the brochure a dealer gave me at a triathlon show.


Would they still have had you slavering over them were they painted in a more,shall we say conservative(note the small 'c' :wink: ),colour scheme?

I think that I would John because from a young age I have always wanted one but I particularly like this period. But given I have never ridden a Colnago I might be living in a fools paradise.
My problem is I read too many gloss cycling magazines that feature expensive bikes. In fact I watched a GCN YouTube video last night which featured Tour bikes and the most expensive was £15k. Now I could never afford one myself but if bikes really are your "thing " its not an unachievable price to pay if you really want one.

robc02
Posts: 1664
Joined: 23 Apr 2009, 7:12pm
Location: Stafford

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby robc02 » 23 Aug 2019, 8:20pm

I think you can probably get used to almost anything from an aesthetic point of view. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with favouring a bike with an aesthetic you like as long as it doesn't compromise its function.

In the case of top tubes this normally means the back is low enough to give adequate standover clearance and the front high enough to allow the correct handlebar stem height without a huge pile of spacers (or exposed quill). The result of this will be affected by a number of factors including rider height, flexibility, riding style/type. In my case it makes a horizontal or slightly backwards sloping (lower at the back) top tube perfectly OK and I have examples of each. Happily, I rather like this style and prefer it to severely sloping TTs that, for me, would result in a very long seatpost. In conventional frame designs I ride a 23inch C-T with my bars about 8-9cm below the saddle which is roughly 18cm above a horizontal TT (please forgive my mixed measurement units - I am bi-lingual in this respect :wink: ).

Brucey
Posts: 35959
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Modern bicycles...

Postby Brucey » 23 Aug 2019, 8:29pm

re 'compliance'; this is a real thing for sure, despite way too much BS surrounding the subject. However looks aside, it is like many other things;

-durable
-lightweight
-cheap


choose two.

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