Ugly modern bikes

[gdb2b]

A couple of questions for the respondents thus far to this post and its subsequent thread content.

Do you regularly test ride some or many of each year's new bikes? To be sure there is a great deal of the newest/latest buzz and branding(microfiber carbon layup, the newest/strongest/lightest Alux alloy etc.) and that crap can be hard to stomach. But, apart from how the stuff looks (admittedly mostly rather garish), that feeling in the hands/wrists, keister, and feet is telling. You don't know when you see it, you KNOW it when you first feel it. After that, at least for me, looks become secondary, and sometimes irrelevant. For me, looks, lines, and style have seldom been a reliable indicator of how it rides. How about you?

How much, if at all, is the technical complexity in the new bikes a factor in your considerations? Over the years I've come to notice a farly high correlation between technical complexity and higher maintenance and more downtime. I buy bikes to ride 'em, typically 2,500 miles or so a year. The more time spent maintaining a bike, the less I like it. Eventually they get culled.

Lastly, ofttimes it seems that less is more. Our bikes and our kits are rolling billboards for these companies. Visually, the branding and logos are hard on the eyes/unappealing, bordering on garish and vulgar. The less this crap assults the eyes, the more it tends to catch/interest mine.
What is your take?

 

[MikeD]

The ugliest bike was this huge fat cannon dale with a sort of mono fork, was it trying to mimic a motorbike?

Have you seriously not encountered a Lefty before? They've been around for about 14 years. And Cannondales have been huge and fat for ever

 

[hirameuser]

Trouble is you only remember the good stuff that mostly survives, the other stuff gets binned, much like music Bowie Who etc aways get played on certain stations and we(I) think they are still good songs. Then some old codger my age requests a song and you think hell did we actualy listen to that C--P!

I like my old bikes and I like my new bikes. It still supprises me what I can get an old 18 speed ridgid townsend trail 531 over with using 55 year old knees, then I look at some of the new stuff and think I'd love that but then I would have to go on a maintainence course, update my tool kit and change chains and cogs every few months, if my experience of 9-10x2-3 speed road bikes is anything to go by, they need more looking after than 6-7x2-3 gear setups.

We will have to wait whats being swooned over in 10 years or so to see who's right.

And yes I know a lot of you will think I'm a bit sad to mention that I ride a townsend trail 531 when theres all this loverly stuff talked about and photographed on this site but it's still going after 24 years.

Phil

 

[kingoffootball]

I like your Townsends Phil, you should put up some more pictures!

I'd rather have one of them than a modern bike.

What condition is the paintwork on them? It's hard to see from the picture you put up of them, but I like the paint scheme on the orangey-pink one.

 

[CTK]

Too many stickers/graphics and bling on today's bikes. They're way too busy-looking. I like to see naked metal, the craftsmanship is what counts. I like to see welds, and mechanisms and such.

For the most part, i'm function over form.

Yep I agree a lot of what I see as ugly on modern bikes is graphics/ colourschemes. Also the feeling that not every swoop curve of carbon/alloy is necessary.

 

[oldave]

I would no more contend that all modern bikes are ugly than I would that all "older" bikes are beautiful! While function can be to an extent judged objectively, form is almost entirely subjective (I for example cannot abide e-stays and find the liking for them on here verging on the inexplicable!).

IF I rode any distance and/or proper off-road stuff anymore (time/opportunity and health/strength don't permit) then - money no object - I'd have the lightest full bouncer that I could find. And that would be modern. And carbon. And the same would hold good for a race-road bike.

This is not to say that I don't think some retro bikes are both lovely objects AND superbly functional - especially in terms of reliabilty and maintenance. At present these last two are my main criteria - so, suitably modernised, >20 y.o. "ATBs" are all I ride!

I'm too old for nostalgia.

 

[Tom79]

If we all liked the same thing life would be boring. I love retro bikes, absolutely love them. It evokes an emotion in me and that nostalgic feeling.

I mean my Nan likes Vera Lynn, I like The Prodigy....all a matter of taste.

This is my modern bike and frankly I personally think it's stunning. Others think it is a monstrosity! I love it just as much as my retro bike, but they are totally different animals used for completely different purposes and I don't think modern bikes can be judged the same way.

 

[hirameuser]

The townsends are both out in France at present in the Limousin area near lac du vassivie a great area for road and off road biking. They are used as hack bikes when were out there, but I keep looking at them with an eye to doing them up. The paint work is in a poor state on both but they are fairly original Exage trail 300 seems to last in this case. Both have had new BB, grip shifters for the rear cogs and some steel bits change for alloy.
If I can find can find a couple of cheep bikes to replace them for a while I will bring them back and do them up ( I need a new project now the hirame and pub bike updates are coming to an end).

Cheers

Phil

 

[ibbz]

29'ers aren't oil paintings by any account

Something wrong about the way these look, like a clown with boots several sizes too big!

This particular one is an £8k eye sore

And another;

Wow, looks as if it's being goosed! a £3k eye sore!

Do people actually buy these?

 

[ibbz]

Re:

A couple of questions for the respondents thus far to this post and its subsequent thread content.

Do you regularly test ride some or many of each year's new bikes? To be sure there is a great deal of the newest/latest buzz and branding(microfiber carbon layup, the newest/strongest/lightest Alux alloy etc.) and that crap can be hard to stomach. But, apart from how the stuff looks (admittedly mostly rather garish), that feeling in the hands/wrists, keister, and feet is telling. You don't know when you see it, you KNOW it when you first feel it. After that, at least for me, looks become secondary, and sometimes irrelevant. For me, looks, lines, and style have seldom been a reliable indicator of how it rides. How about you?

How much, if at all, is the technical complexity in the new bikes a factor in your considerations? Over the years I've come to notice a farly high correlation between technical complexity and higher maintenance and more downtime. I buy bikes to ride 'em, typically 2,500 miles or so a year. The more time spent maintaining a bike, the less I like it. Eventually they get culled.

Lastly, ofttimes it seems that less is more. Our bikes and our kits are rolling billboards for these companies. Visually, the branding and logos are hard on the eyes/unappealing, bordering on garish and vulgar. The less this crap assults the eyes, the more it tends to catch/interest mine.
What is your take?

Sorry for the belated response.
Mmmmm....

food for thought