Ugly modern bikes

[ibbz]

legrandefromage.

Nicely put.

Regarding modern bikes, I have seen a handful of nice modern bikes, here's one which instantly caught my eye, I guess it's the pseudo retro shape perhaps with the typical of modern upsurge of the downtube as it meets the headtube.

Play with the rims, rim graphic and graphics from the forks (ie. rid them) and it's quite elegant.

 

[al-onestare]

Apart from the obvious (wacky hyrdro-forming, drab colour schemes and horrible graphics), saddles that look like razors and tiny, short stems are the two things I hate on modern bikes. All together you have a bike that looks like a motorbike...without a motor...but the same weight... :facepalm:

 

[kingoffootball]

Time and time again 20+ RB riders go out and theres barely a mechanical. Yet the we get guys roaring past on something new only for us to pass them 20 minutes later with them and their mates crowding around trying to fix something. We also get the riders that are just agog at what we're riding - some just find it hard to believe that a person will ride the same trails as them on something more than 5 years old.

One of the reasons for this may well be that in general people who buy a bike brand new are less likely to have a good idea how to keep their bike well maintained than someone who has built their bike up from just a frame, which is often the case on here.

I still agree with your point about more durable components though.

[edit] I realise this is still off the original question of aesthetics, but I'm sure I posted my views on that earlier in the thread.

 

[WD Pro]

I actualy think that litespeed above looks, erm, a bit shite ... (Sorry if anyone's got one, I would like one to, but for the purpose of this thread we are discussing looks).

It's just looks like a retro bike, but one that's had an argument with a bus.

I would rather it be one way or the other i.e. either A) full retro style or B) fully modern.

I think that looks decidedly wimpy for a 'modern' :-(

WD

 

[MikeD]

I like the look of these -- no nonsense, straight lines:

 

[ibbz]

I actualy think that litespeed above looks, erm, a bit shite ... (Sorry if anyone's got one, I would like one to, but for the purpose of this thread we are discussing looks).

It's just looks like a retro bike, but one that's had an argument with a bus.

I would rather it be one way or the other i.e. either A) full retro style or B) fully modern.

I think that looks decidedly wimpy for a 'modern' :-(

WD

Quite right, the Downtube needs to be straight rather than stylised - which makes it look shite.
But the retro, classic style still looks the best.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

I turned 50 last year and although I rattled my way down lots of steep trails in the Peak on a hardtail, I eventually got fed up with pains in my wrists and back, and chipped teeth, decided mountain biking should not be about suffering, and bought a Norco off ebay with 6" of suspension front and back. I can now go down the likes of 'The Beast' (Hope Cross) and actually have fun, rather than timidly lowering my way down it on a rattling hardtail and arriving home feeling I'd been kicked by a horse.
Being somewhat strapped for cash means the Norco is used as a do it all bike, and its suspension is overkill for a lot of trails, but it's all about fun, and I get plenty of that when I ride it.
I have two early 90s steel-framed, fully rigid bikes. I love them both, but one is a commuter pure and simple, and the other is for pootling round on nice days. I wouldn't dream of taking it on a hardcore rocky descent.
To me, suspension on bikes is similar to the introduction of chalk and then sticky rubber in climbing; yes, it makes it 'easier' but it also makes it more fun by eliminating the problems that led to its introduction in the first place. I remember the negative reaction to chalk (John Allen free climbs Great Wall...but uses chalk!), but everyone uses it now, and as one who climbed before chalk, and before harnesses, in fact, I can see the benefits. Same with suspension on bikes.
Oh, and I love my Norco's looks, giant golden tractor thaough it may be to some.

 

[marge602]

I agree that modern mtb's are ugly. The curved tubes and hydroformed shapes are interesting from an engineering viewpoint, but aesthetically most of them are quite horrid. I remember back in the late 90's when curved seat/chain stays first began to appear, and wondered why. I figured straight and tapered stays must be more direct and rigid, and why would any manufacturer feel the need to move away from them, whereas the new fangled curves must surely flex about all over the place. Aesthetically, maybe this is where the rot set in.

As has been mentioned before, i also intensely dislike the tall front end/short stem of most modern bikes. On occasion i might spot a hardtail race mtb in a shop, which will have a long and low ride position(like they always have had), but most of the low to mid-range stuff seems to be set up to be short and upright.

Added to which, is the fact that plenty of these bikes are far too heavy, as the market seems to have decided that every mtb must have sus forks and disc brakes, which means heavier wheels, heavier brakes, and 5lb forks that might have a rudimentary lockout if you're lucky.


And don't get me started on 29ers. Apparently they're really good to ride, but are just the most awkward, ungainly looking bikes i've ever seen. Wheels are too big, frame's too small, head tube's way too short. To me a 29er is a classic case of not looking at the mantelpiece when stoking the fire.

Regards

Marge

 

[WD Pro]

I had always refered to it a poking the fire ;-)

WD

 

[ibbz]

I turned 50 last year and although I rattled my way down lots of steep trails in the Peak on a hardtail, I eventually got fed up with pains in my wrists and back, and chipped teeth, decided mountain biking should not be about suffering, and bought a Norco off ebay with 6" of suspension front and back. I can now go down the likes of 'The Beast' (Hope Cross) and actually have fun, rather than timidly lowering my way down it on a rattling hardtail and arriving home feeling I'd been kicked by a horse.
Being somewhat strapped for cash means the Norco is used as a do it all bike, and its suspension is overkill for a lot of trails, but it's all about fun, and I get plenty of that when I ride it.
I have two early 90s steel-framed, fully rigid bikes. I love them both, but one is a commuter pure and simple, and the other is for pootling round on nice days. I wouldn't dream of taking it on a hardcore rocky descent.
To me, suspension on bikes is similar to the introduction of chalk and then sticky rubber in climbing; yes, it makes it 'easier' but it also makes it more fun by eliminating the problems that led to its introduction in the first place. I remember the negative reaction to chalk (John Allen free climbs Great Wall...but uses chalk!), but everyone uses it now, and as one who climbed before chalk, and before harnesses, in fact, I can see the benefits. Same with suspension on bikes.
Oh, and I love my Norco's looks, giant golden tractor thaough it may be to some.

This isn't about function though, nor innovations, and each bike is suited to its purpose.
It's about aesthetics.
Modern mountaineering boots look crap, brightly coloured plastic horrid stuff, huge graphics and frankly Nasssssty - sure they keep your feet warm and dry, but compare to an old skool leather Norwegian welted felt lined Mountaineering boot such as worn by The Great Hermann Buhl when he solo'd Nanga Parbat...
Modern boots don't have to look horrible, advanced, yes, but why horrid??
Modern climbing rubbers are needlessly gaudy and horrid in colour too, and this has naught to do with the sticky rubber.

Modern bikes are needlessly designed to look crap. And they don't have to!