Cycling UK Forum

Yes, he did do flashy, in clothes too. Remember, that Mercian was from the 70's - think Mullets, flowery shirts, flares and platform heels. He got it repainted and restored free in the 90's for doing someone a favour. But, its the elegant form I like, not the paintwork. And… as for the pump its got many pumpless Mamils out of a hole on the road. Can't say I have ever seen a beautiful MTB, they are all ugly ducklings, a triumph of function over form.

Al

I must be in the minority. I quite like Reohn2's genesis. Its beautiful to me as everything is functional. In the same vein the blue longstaff tourer is beautiful as there is nothing superfluous in it.

I think some of the current carbon bikes can look beautiful, but they do need a bright paint job for it to work well.

Dave W wrote:

Heltor Chasca wrote:

700c wrote:
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, familiarimages.jpg

R2's bike:
An admirable bike obviously designed to do a particular job really well, and if it were mine I would love it. But it is too chunky to be "beautiful" because "beautiful", for me, means elegant. Totally personal, of course.

I think I'm just a bit strange. I also like people that look a bit out of the ordinary.

pwa wrote:R2's bike:
An admirable bike obviously designed to do a particular job really well, and if it were mine I would love it. But it is too chunky to be "beautiful" because "beautiful", for me, means elegant. Totally personal, of course.

But if it weren't 'chunky' it couldn't do the job it was designed for,similarly so if a race bike were 'chunky' it too couldn't do what it was designed for.
Elegance is relative.
TBH I think it is elegant in a relative way.

FWIW I wasn't sure about the matt olive green colour when I got it but there wasn't an option on colour.
The bike was bought because I recognised it's worth in the geometry,29er wheel size,tyre/mudguard capacity,and frame brazeons.
It simply ticked almost all the boxes I'd been thinking of for quite a while without the silly Surly or Salsa price tags for the same machines.
The colour came a long way down on the list but because of it's so many other redeeming features I've grown to really like it

reohn2 wrote:

pwa wrote:R2's bike:
An admirable bike obviously designed to do a particular job really well, and if it were mine I would love it. But it is too chunky to be "beautiful" because "beautiful", for me, means elegant. Totally personal, of course.

But if it weren't 'chunky' it couldn't do the job it was designed for,similarly so if a race bike were 'chunky' it too couldn't do what it was designed for.
Elegance is relative.
TBH I think it is elegant in a relative way.

FWIW I wasn't sure about the matt olive green colour when I got it but there wasn't an option on colour.
The bike was bought because I recognised it's worth in the geometry,29er wheel size,tyre/mudguard capacity,and frame brazeons.
It simply ticked almost all the boxes I'd been thinking of for quite a while without the silly Surly or Salsa price tags for the same machines.
The colour came a long way down on the list but because of it's so many other redeeming features I've grown to really like it

I like the colour. The bike is like a Landrover Defender in bike form and the colour is close to a Defender colour. Like a Defender that bike screams FUNCTION at me, and that is why I like it. The fact that I would not use the word "beautiful" about it is not a significant criticism because I use that word in a narrow sense, purely on aesthetics. For me a beautiful bike is a slender waifish thing, not necessarily all that practical. Neither of my two current bikes fits the bill, though I once had a Campag laced steel tubed road race bike that answered that description. I got rid of it because although it was lovely it was not what I needed most of the time. The gearing was too high and it could not take guards, a rack or tyres wider than 23mm. But it was beautiful to look at.

samsbike wrote:I must be in the minority. I quite like Reohn2's genesis. Its beautiful to me as everything is functional. In the same vein the blue longstaff tourer is beautiful as there is nothing superfluous in it.

I must admit I like it too.

samsbike wrote:I think some of the current carbon bikes can look beautiful, but they do need a bright paint job for it to work well.

I thought this article from Jan Heine - best known for his quite traditional leaning views - published in 2016 was quite interesting.

For bicycles, not sure how one can divorce utility/function and beauty.

Of those I've had, this was a beautiful object



And this was my most beautiful bike!

Minority view probably but i think this has a certain laid back something!!

I don't think it's appropriate to call a bicycle ugly considering how closely form follows function. An exception would be the Chopper which was pointless in my opinion, notwithstanding that a certain generation get misty eyed about them
Graham

"Pub" bikes have ugly as part of their function. It deters theft.

PDQ Mobile wrote:Minority view probably but i think this has a certain laid back something!!


image.jpg

What is that by the way - I seem to be drawn to recumbents lately.

How about these for some ugly bikes?

Dave W wrote:What is that by the way - I seem to be drawn to recumbents lately.

HP Velotechnik Streetmachine GT.
No longer made in quite this (steel) form but still similar available.
Expensive though.
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/s ... dex_e.html

Thanks, I thought it looked a bit Grasshopper.