Why are most modern bikes ugly?

Discussion in 'Vintage and Classic Bikes' started by SkipdiverJohn, 22 Jan 2018.

  1. raleighnut

    raleighnut Guru

    On 3 Wheels
    But how many songs from 60 years ago are still fondly remembered (and listened to) today

    View: https://youtu.be/ty31QY5ZGHo

    20yrs ago still seems too modern.
    dave r and biggs682 like this.
  2. MikeG

    MikeG Guru

    You're asking someone in the wrong age range. Ask a 25 year old.

    My parents were still humming tunes from Oklahoma into their 60s. The Beatles were just some long haired louts to them. They wouldn't have got 5 minutes into anything by Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Elton John, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Rolling Stones, ABBA and so on...... "Pah.....rubbish. That stuff won't be remembered like Perry Como, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby......."

    As I said, 'twas ever thus.
    dave r and Dogtrousers like this.
  3. Dirk

    Dirk If 6 Was 9

    Devon's Gold Coast
    If it had been designed correctly, a gusset would not have been needed.
  4. Tin Pot

    Tin Pot Guru

  5. OP

    SkipdiverJohn Über Member

    I don't read bike magazines - I just wince when I see them out on the street! You're right about the garish outsize frame decals, and why the hell would anyone want a bloody great logo on their wheel rims that must be visible from outer space? Those deep section CF rims are about as subtle as a Baboon's backside as it is, without drawing attention to them even more.
  6. Elybazza61

    Elybazza61 Veteran

    But those deep section rims (and aero frames) serve a purpose to help retain speed;if your're not riding at least over 20mph you don't need them.

    And if you don't like gaudy graphics most carbon rims come with a dark graphic option.

    Oh and I am biased but I think this 2013 'plastic' frame based 7kg build looks awesome:whistle:


    As does this steel bike;


    And I relly want this( ti Kinesis Tripster ATR (with lots of Hope plus the Lauf forks,Sram 1x11 and Halo Vapours form my XLS);

  7. GuyBoden

    GuyBoden Fat, old bloke, on an old bike, pedalling slowly.

    Elybazza61 and dave r like this.
  8. woodenspoons

    woodenspoons Über Member

    North Yorkshire
    I would suggest ugliness often comes from mass production requirements: the maker has to drive down price, material quantity and quality, and meet the tastes of a mass market. The object becomes a design of lowest common denominators.
    There are some exceptionally beautiful objects mass made, and a few ordinary bikes are quite handsome.
    But, for real beauty you have to buy time and materials, and skill. Great objects are made to fit the function, but form has to be perfection. You’re not just getting the object, you’re getting all the years of effort, mistakes and reworking the designer / craftsman / musician etc has invested before the thing / sound / book / unicycle
    raleighnut likes this.
  9. YukonBoy

    YukonBoy Extra solar

    Ultima Thule

    Not a bad looking beast and only 8kg, which is pretty good for a recumbent.
    Smokin Joe and cyberknight like this.
  10. dave r

    dave r Pedalling Pensioner

    Holbrooks Coventry
    Superb track.
    raleighnut likes this.
  11. dave r

    dave r Pedalling Pensioner

    Holbrooks Coventry
    GuyBoden likes this.
  12. mikeymustard

    mikeymustard Veteran

    I happened upon a blog the other day which detailed the writer's best-looking bikes from last year. They were all carbon and aero so not only ugly but also pretty much identical other than the colour schemes.
    It's probably a symptom of my age - and I'm not completely stuck in the past because i like the modern technology of newer bikes, but the frames just don't float my boat: in my mind, bikes looked better back in the day. Luckily the thriving market for hand-built and retro steel bikes is a reaction to lots of middle-aged people feeling the same.
    dave r, Salar and raleighnut like this.
  13. OP

    SkipdiverJohn Über Member

    I don't think it's an age thing really, more a question that neither of us like ugly design. If a designer uses CAD, and the design criteria is obsessive aero not pleasing aesthetics, then the computer is going to churn out loads of near-identical results that look more like a piece of weird modern art than anything resembling a proper-looking bike.
    The ironic thing is that aerodynamics of a bike frame don't matter a toss for the speeds at which most bikes are ridden for most of the time. It's even more bizarre when you think about how many cyclists rave about some expensive CF framed aero road bike or other - and then promptly go and bolt that bike to their turbo trainer where both the aerodynamics and the light weight of the bike are completely irrelevant. They could have just bolted on the cheapest, heaviest, steel bike they could find instead and it would make no difference!
  14. Smokin Joe

    Smokin Joe Legendary Member

    Let's face it, all frames are identical other than the colour schemes. In fact there is more variety of design in carbon frames with different tube profiles that there were in steel, monstrosities like the Flying Gate excepted.
  15. davidphilips

    davidphilips Über Member

    Maybe they look the same to you Joe but i could tell a nice bates from a good distance away, same with a hobbs (got to agree with you on the Hobbs as its just different from a distance away by the paint) and a conago with chrome lugs some thing to hope for at christmas.
    All a mater of personal preference but to me a steel bike frame with chrome or polished alloy forks just looks great, LOL, just a pity a few bike owners with some very nice old bikes would not change there minds and let there old bikes go my way.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice