Post images of ugly **only quote images if absolutely necessary**

The tax man

Full suspension road bike.

ROK ON

I am amazed by that Colnago.
I mean it's more ugly than anything else - I suppose if Ernesto is going to do an ugly bike it will be the best ugly bike in the world.
The colour stinks, the stem - ugly, the crankset - man that's fugly, the cabling is shocking as is the read brake setup. The saddle - that's ugly too.
As for the wheels - I detest deep section wheels.
Keep up the good work.

Mr. Grieves

Navy and red skinsuit (elbow-length sleeves are a bit wrong imo), white bike, black socks, gold helmet and shoes, tats - is it just me that finds the overall effect aesthetically offensive?

Raam

ROK ON wrote: »

I am amazed by that Colnago.
I mean it's more ugly than anything else - I suppose if Ernesto is going to do an ugly bike it will be the best ugly bike in the world.
The colour stinks, the stem - ugly, the crankset - man that's fugly, the cabling is shocking as is the read brake setup. The saddle - that's ugly too.
As for the wheels - I detest deep section wheels.
Keep up the good work.

The hatred is strong in you.

Raam

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

Navy and red skinsuit (elbow-length sleeves are a bit wrong imo), white bike, black socks, gold helmet and shoes, tats - is it just me that finds the overall effect aesthetically offensive?

I thought he looked awesome.

Mr. Grieves

I've only seen still images, I didn't watch it. I'm sure his style and position on the bike was as good as ever. It's the colours which offend me.

magicbastarder

ROK ON wrote: »

I detest deep section wheels.

as i've mentioned before, the greatest sin with deep section wheels is usually the cutting edge 1980s typography usually used on them.

ROK ON

magicbastarder wrote: »

as i've mentioned before, the greatest sin with deep section wheels is usually the cutting edge 1980s typography usually used on them.

No that's not it. It's the hideous deep section usually in some type of plastic that offends most. The writing on them is the least worst thing about them. They are vile. They make a good bike look bad. At least in a bad bike they don't offend so much.

Brian?

ROK ON wrote: »

No that's not it. It's the hideous deep section usually in some type of plastic that offends most. The writing on them is the least worst thing about them. They are vile. They make a good bike look bad. At least in a bad bike they don't offend so much.

You're a lost cause. Deep section wheels make every modern carbon bike look better. A set of Lightweight wheels like that would look phenomenal on any modern carbon bike, or any bike really. But that may be because I know how much they cost.

OleRodrigo

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

I've only seen still images, I didn't watch it. I'm sure his style and position on the bike was as good as ever. It's the colours which offend me.

If his sock length was correct it would have been less offensive.

iwillhtfu

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

Navy and red skinsuit (elbow-length sleeves are a bit wrong imo), white bike, black socks, gold helmet and shoes, tats - is it just me that finds the overall effect aesthetically offensive?

I'm just glad he a had a shave.

Savage effort though to be fair.

mossym

Brian? wrote: »

You're a lost cause. Deep section wheels make every modern carbon bike look better. A set of Lightweight wheels like that would look phenomenal on any modern carbon bike, or any bike really. But that may be because I know how much they cost.

while i agree with your point on deep wheels, your last line would suggest that even the ugliest bikes in here can be made beautiful by charging enough for them.

something being expensive doesn't make it beautiful. lightweight wheels do cost a pretty penny. doesn't mean they look good on anything, and doesn;t mean everything they make is beautiful by default

Alek

The Lightweight logotype could only look worse if done with Comic Sans. Absolutely awful.

[go on, beat me]

:pac:

petethedrummer

It's pretty easy to design a non-ugly bike.

Tubes: Round and straight.
Top tube: horizontal or as close to horizontal as possible.
Seat stays and top tube: join at the same point on the seat tube.
Brakes: located on the rim and to the front of the front fork.

Follow these rules and your bike will never look daft or dated.

Brian?

petethedrummer wrote: »

It's pretty easy to design a non-ugly bike.

Tubes: Round and straight.
Top tube: horizontal or as close to horizontal as possible.
Seat stays and top tube: join at the same point on the seat tube.
Brakes: located on the rim and to the front of the front fork.

Follow these rules and your bike will never look daft or dated.

Any bike built to these rules will look dated. You're basically asking for all bikes to look the same as well. It's like picking beige as your favourite colour. There are plenty of beautiful bikes that don't conform to these rules.

Brian?

mossym wrote: »

while i agree with your point on deep wheels, your last line would suggest that even the ugliest bikes in here can be made beautiful by charging enough for them.

something being expensive doesn't make it beautiful. lightweight wheels do cost a pretty penny. doesn't mean they look good on anything, and doesn;t mean everything they make is beautiful by default

Lightweight wheels are beautiful because of form and function. I never said they make everything beautiful, just that the wheels themselves look good on any bike and therefore improve the look of any bike. Some bikes are still fugly.

As for the cost, I'm bring honest when I say it may well sway my opinion. They're do expensive they're truly exotic, a step up from Zipp etc.

petethedrummer

Brian? wrote: »

Any bike built to these rules will look dated. You're basically asking for all bikes to look the same as well. It's like picking beige as your favourite colour. There are plenty of beautiful bikes that don't conform to these rules.

I'd allow for a few minor deviations but those are pretty much the standards to work off. 1 deviation, maaaayyyybe 2.

Humans perfected the design of certain items several decades ago. The tuxedo for example. Would you turn up to a black tie event in a tux with the arms sown a couple of inches lower than normal? No cos it would look daft.

Brian?

petethedrummer wrote: »

I'd allow for a few minor deviations but those are pretty much the standards to work off. 1 deviation, maaaayyyybe 2.

Humans perfected the design of certain items several decades ago. The tuxedo for example. Would you turn up to a black tie event in a tux with the arms sown a couple of inches lower than normal? No cos it would look daft.

That's a false equivalency. The primary reasons for changing the design of bikes is function not form. A tux only has one job, to look good.

The design of bikes hasn't been perfected either functionally or aesthetically unless you think a standard geometry steel bike is the "perfect".

Raam

Brian? wrote: »

The primary reasons for changing the design of bikes is function not form.

The primary reason is to sell more bikes IMO.

recedite

Apparently Wiggins decided that "blue and gold" was a good look after seeing this little fella flying around the track...

And, he has of course pioneered the use of those horrible "long black stockings" type socks for years now. But in fairness, I have secretly been grateful for this, when on a morning going out cycling I couldn't find any white socks, and so just kept wearing my smelly socks from the day before. If Wiggins can get away with it, then feckit anyone can.

The "hairy arm" tattoo, and the "mutton chop sideburns" were harder to explain away. But hey... he's a very fast cyclist, not a fashion icon.

niceonetom

RonanCFD

Oh. my. God...

magicbastarder

look at the back seat and handlebars. then just imagine where your face is going to be.

Darkglasses

What's the story with the front cranks? Is there a driveshaft or are they just turning nothing?

RonanCFD

If there is a driveshaft, its incredibly neatly done (just about the only thing that is on this monstrosity)

recedite

Internal driveshaft, internal cables, integrated computer, disc brakes. I like it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-Ly31R0AKY

But only if I can sit at the front.

tigerboon

petethedrummer wrote: »

It's pretty easy to design a non-ugly bike.

Tubes: Round and straight.
Top tube: horizontal or as close to horizontal as possible.
Seat stays and top tube: join at the same point on the seat tube.
Brakes: located on the rim and to the front of the front fork.

Follow these rules and your bike will never look daft or dated.

See OleRodrigo genesis in the nice bikes thread for proof of this

Bloggsie

niceonetom wrote: »

<snip>

oh sweet mother of god, any chance the creator was on some very strong medication when this popped into his or her head.

AstraMonti

Why?

pointer28

Was he going for the whole "so bad it's good" type thing.

He failed! It's just bad.