Both the bikes in the attached photo are 58s. While I do think there are aesthetic absolutes, I believe that one's idea of proper proportions between bike wheels and frames is largely a matter of familiarity and that there is a great deal of leeway before things become objectively awkward. To my eyes, neither bike below looks awkward.
I have to add though that my beau ideal of cycling aesthetics is the classic, steel track bike, with non-anatomic bar: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rranYD_rpp0/Ucfta_NnpNI/AAAAAAAAB_A/dtYlXYQAIbk/s1600/ADRIANCF003176+(1600x1284).jpg On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Thomas B <[email protected]>wrote: > Here is are some pictures of a well-proportioned (to me) 60cm 650b Pelican: > > http://www.boyzonthehoods.com/new-randonneuse-day/ > > The other bikes mentioned in this thread also look good in my opinion. > However, I think there is a size (~62-63cm) when the head tube starts > looking too long. It's not an exact point because I think the position of > bend of the fork influences things. For instance a recent 65cm 650b rando > bike on MAP cycles flkr looks good. > > I guess a long head tube also brings excessive frame-flex into > consideration - something Grant might address with a DTT. > > -- Burque (NM) Resumes that get interviews: http://www.resumespecialties.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
<<attachment: RAM AND CURT 112013.jpg>>
