[Closed] Be warned - what has been seen cannot be unseen - fugly awful bike

It's not my cup of tea but I wouldn't say it's ugly

I have seen worse...

Not sure about the copper but otherwise I like it.

[img] [/img]

posted that a while ago - there was a sale of his headphones as well recently but I can't see it now - £50 instead of £150 type of sale.

and why is it ugly ?

Looks okay I suppose if you hanker for a bike from about 1992.

My biggest issue is the price 😯 No idea how they came up with that number when you could have a similar specced Ribble for half the price.

That's not ugly,it's retro.

Mehh, I quite like it, no different than any other Ti or Stainless bike, just a different bare metal finish on half the frame.

Seatpost only a mother could love though, looks like it came off a BSO and the stem is the kind of thing you'd maybe knock up whilst practicing brazing.

And £2k for a 4130 frame and Athena groupset is a lot, but it's not that far beyond some more mainstream brands.

I've got an old frame in the shed, tempted to get it stripped and drop in a bath of copper sulfate and see what happens!

It's fine..if you think that's ugly then so are most road bikes from before 1993! Sure some of the components and colours aren't great, but it's not an 'ugly-to-the-bone' bike. And yes, pretty bad value, though silver Athena is pretty nice classic groupset I reckon..

I also dislike this style of bike (70s/80s bikes look horribly spindly to me and lugs strike me as being all about form over function) but it's not ugly as such.

I've always quite fancied a copper coloured bike though.

nemesis - Member
lugs strike me as being all about form over function

they're designed for a function: rapid, easy, joining of tubes.

fillet-brazing is the pointlessly beautiful (and slow, and expensive) option.

As above, not really ugly, just stupid, because it's not actually retro at all, just designed to look a bit that way - at least put on DT shifters if you're determined to have a threaded steerer and quill stem FFS.

As for pricing, well I suppose the hipsters will pay that, which is all that matters, supply and demand and all that. Awful "value" though, given an Athena group retails for £400, so even being quite generous on all the other bits that's £1200+ for a lugged steel F+F. I reckon you're paying at least £800 if not £1000 for the copper plating.

They had a function when they started being used. There are better methods and materials now. They're clearly used for form in this instance.

From their blurb...

Like a shimmering salmon that soldiers upstream

well, quite... 😯

I wouldn't say it ugly, I just think it looks crap!

Is there anybody here who wouldn't laugh (at least behind their back) at anybody riding one?

I quite like the look of it but I wouldn't pay £2k for it.

if I was going to ride a road bike I'd go for something like that, looks well nice. I wouldn't pay £2k for it mind but if it was £500 or so I'd be all over that.

nemesis - Member
They had a function when they started being used. There are better methods and materials now.

if you wanted to build a steel frame, lugs would get you there quicker, easier, more reliably, and with less skill required (than tig welding, or fillet).

They're clearly used for form in this instance.

almost certainly. yes.

If you want something that looks like it's an old road bike, why not just buy an old road bike from eBay or Gumtree for pennies?

Not as it is 4130 cro-mo, what utter sh*t, so yes I'd laugh a lot.

Apparently it has internal cable routing, why? Not sure it does in the pic mind.

That's blooming gorgeous

Love the Copper as well

[quote=ahwiles ]if you wanted to build a steel frame, lugs would get you there quicker, easier, more reliably, and with less skill required (than tig welding, or fillet).

Don't forget <cough> cheaper. I think I might have underestimated the cost of the copper plate.

<laughs at Ro5ey>

That's not ugly,it's retro.

As pointed out, it's faux retro, and the only conceivable market for such a thing at that price is hipsters. Ironically genuine retro is a lot cheaper.

HTH

I rather like it. Reminds me of my 531c Dave Marsh with Shimano 600. Was a lovely bike. It's hugely overpriced and needs downtube shifters.

Friend of mine has one of these pinnarello!
They where limited edition "deisel only the brave" must describe the buyer

[URL= http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p524/bentiggerwyles/Mobile%20Uploads/download.jp g" target="_blank">http://i1154.photobucket.com/albums/p524/bentiggerwyles/Mobile%20Uploads/download.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

It's gorgeous. And too expensive.

Those saying it's gorgeous, I get where you're coming from, I really do, I mean this is gorgeous:

[img] [/img]

But doesn't it being so fake spoil it?

Can someone explain why the copper and steel parts won't just corrode as soon as they get wet?

Like when you have aluminium seatposts in a steel frame?

(And £2k for a 4130 frame? Really?)

Meh. I quite like the look, and although I'd never spend £2k on it, it looks like a nice bike for pottering around on. I wouldn't have an [i]actually[/i] old road bike because old corroded parts are no fun to work with, and downtube shifters are rubbish.

Actually I think quill stems are rubbish so I'd prefer it without that but I realise that's all part of the aesthetic.

As pointed out, it's faux retro, and the only conceivable market for such a thing at that price is hipsters. Ironically genuine retro is a lot cheaper.

It's made to look a bit like something old. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of retro, where does the 'faux' come from?

I quite like it but why has is not got full campag; its got Diacompe brakes?

[quote=kenneththecurtain ]It's made to look a bit like something old. That's pretty much the dictionary definition of retro, where does the 'faux' come from?

To be retro you surely need to avoid such obviously non-vintage features as Ergo shifters and internal cable routing (which TBH appears to be simply another style feature for the sake of doing it - it looks like the rear brake cable goes inside the top tube, but this is neither something which would be on a genuine vintage lugged steel frame, nor is there any functional benefit).

I have to admit part of my dislike (had you got that yet?) is down to the market this is clearly aimed at with the pricing.

Looks alright to me.

I've seen uglier but i'm def over the retro thing. I would have loved it five years ago though...

it looks like the rear brake cable goes inside the top tube, but this is neither something which would be on a genuine vintage lugged steel frame, nor is there any functional benefit).

Well that's bollocks for a start, I've had old steel frames with internal routing, and 30s on google came up with a pic of one from the 80's.

[img] [/img]

I quite like it but why has is not got full campag; its got Diacompe brakes?

Ugly? No.
Hipstershit trying to cash in on the end of the hipstershit retro roadie trend? Oh yes.

If you think that's ugly, you've clearly not seen any of John Climbers abominations... 😯 😐

A clear case of "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should..."

Jeebus TINAS don't get that front brake cable wrapped round your neck!

If you think that's ugly, you've clearly not seen any of John Climbers abominations..

See also any Stoner build.

For a man of half decent education and taste, he doesn't half build some munters.

Lovely 🙂

The green and copper one is a lovely looking combination though, but spec is a dogs dinner.
Frame only i'd be interested in if it wasn't made out of scaffolding poles.[img] [/img]

It's not really designed to appeal to experienced cyclists though is it?

It's a 'lifestyle' thing, like that new Pashley tourer or pretending to dislike the Beatles.

edlong - Member
If you want something that looks like it's an old road bike, why not just buy an old road bike from eBay or Gumtree for pennies?

Not with Nervex lugs, you won't.

This is basically a 1950s-70s road sport bike. If you haven't ridden a good one of those you've missed out.

Steel may look spindly but it doesn't mean it's floppy or soggy, especially if you are talking 531c or above.

As for the look of it, I think the glaring obscenity is the crankset. Looks totally wrong. You need Drillium on a bike like that. Oh, and drop the derailleur for a S-A 3 speed. You're not going to bother the racing snakes on a modern bike, so you may as well eliminate the hassles.

Next is to size it properly so its proportions look right. That means getting a larger frame size than you're used to these days. There should only be about 4 fingers of seatpost showing and the saddle close to the level of the bartops. Then you have a bike comfortable enough for 200 mile days and it will be fast enough for 98% of us.

About the only modern steel bike I have ridden that feels comparable to a good lugged Reynolds is a Fuji Track with triple butted tubes and the 1" fork.

[quote=epicyclo ]Not with Nervex lugs, you won't.

Ah, so it's lug snobbery then. I presume you'll be telling me that you'd be able to tell the difference in ride between a frame built with those and one built with some other brand of lugs in a blind test?

Steel may look spindly but it doesn't mean it's floppy or soggy, especially if you are talking 531c or above.

Is this because 531 and better steel is stiffer than ordinary steel? 😆

aracer - Member
Ah, so it's lug snobbery then. I presume you'll be telling me that you'd be able to tell the difference in ride between a frame built with those and one built with some other brand of lugs in a blind test?

The Nervex Pro lugs aren't any better than spearpoint lugs IMO, but no one was going to spend the money on them and then use scaffolding tube.

Is this because 531 and better steel is stiffer than ordinary steel? 🙂

Absolutely. It's why real men wear steel wool underpants. 🙂

More seriously, it's because the Reynolds product are of a reliable and given quality, and combined with good lugs, an experienced builder can cook up a decent bike. So it's a reasonable expectation that a bike with "pretty' hand finished lugs combined with Reynolds will perform as expected.

There's no outward sign with a lugless steel bike, although as I have already said something like a Fuji Track rides just as nicely. But there's a lot of scaffold pole jobs with fancy paint out there.

Looks spot on. Reynolds webpage says 531 is essentially 4130 anyway. Not that it matters anyway, its there to look nice.

[quote=epicyclo ]The Nervex Pro lugs aren't any better than spearpoint lugs IMO, but no one was going to spend the money on them and then use scaffolding tube.

Hmm, have you not checked out the bike in the original link? 😉 I'm not terribly convinced by the argument about them guaranteeing quality of the tubes when they've been so clearly used as a marketing thing for a bike which is being sold for far more than the sum of the parts.

More seriously, it's because the Reynolds product are of a reliable and given quality, and combined with good lugs, an experienced builder can cook up a decent bike.

One which is less floppy or soggy than one made of a different steel?

[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Beagy/DSCF1673.jp g" target="_blank">http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Beagy/DSCF1673.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Does this mean I'm a Hipster? I always wanted to be a 'something'.

(It's not a fixie though, it's got a 2 speed kick-back hub plus coaster brake. Do I lose points for that?)

[quote=epicyclo ]This is basically a 1950s-70s road sport bike. If you haven't ridden a good one of those you've missed out.

...actually what is the fundamental difference between one of those (and this) and my late '80s 531c Raleigh?

[quote=Beagleboy ]
Does this mean I'm a Hipster? I always wanted to be a 'something'.
(It's not a fixie though, it's got a 2 speed kick-back hub plus coaster brake. Do I lose points for that?)

We'd need to see pics of you in trousers to be sure - I suspect you might gain marks for the hub though.

aracer - Member
...actually what is the fundamental difference between one of those (and this) and my late '80s 531c Raleigh?

If it's a Raleigh, probably none. I stopped at the 70s simply because the bikes started to change in the 80s so generalising about them isn't wise.

One which is less floppy or soggy than one made of a different steel?

You're trolling now. 🙂

Sorry but that's a good looking bike

Looks like a classic 80's Road bike

As to whether it's any good is another matter

The shape is spot on though

Much better than the sloping, curved tubes on some current road bikes

The worst thing about the link is the Raphaesque inspirational description at the bottom. The bike's ok in a retro way but that description wouldn't sell many

Looks like The Daily Mash is a secret STW forumite:

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-riding-penny-farthing-is-coolest-motherfker-of-all-time-20151113103846 ]Penny Farthing[/url]

If you want something that looks like it's an old road bike, why not just buy an old road bike from eBay or Gumtree for pennies?

Or maybe get a very nice 80's road bike for around £500 rather than a crappy one for pennies.

I would rather have a very nice condition respected brand 80's road bike for £500 than a modern one for £2000

[quote=epicyclo ]You're trolling now.

Well you did line me up for it with:

[quote=epicyclo ]Steel may look spindly but it doesn't mean it's floppy or soggy, especially if you are talking 531c or above.

given that one made from scaffold pipes will be less floppy and soggy.

Took my 531c touring once - that was horrible with the back end wiggling all over the place.

Though I'm kind of 😳 by that Mash article, given I do most of my riding on a unicycle.

aracer - Member
Took my 531c touring once - that was horrible with the back end wiggling all over the place.

I can agree with that. I've made the mistake of going touring on lightweight steel bikes - well touring wasn't the mistake, taking the kitchen sink was. Whippy is the best description.

The second time was an outback tour in Oz on dirt roads on my Peugeot PX10, complete with tubs. Mistake was taking my wife because I ended up with all her gear too, and she didn't just take the kitchen sink but the vanity unit too.

I've got a Pompino in the attic in case I ever succumb to touring again. They're not whippy. 🙂

But I'd probably end up taking my Flying Scot and my credit card...

I would rather have a very nice condition respected brand 80's road bike for £500 than a modern [s]one[/s] pretender for £2000

FTFY. I've had both and I'd definitely take the modern bike, just not that one. Once you've gone black...

I like it, it would b better in all red/white, but overall a nice looking vintage style roadie.

I'll stick with this .. Full dura ace 74**

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7364/16553617705_e537316476_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7364/16553617705_e537316476_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/rdMBPP ]image[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/54931015@N07/ ]Plus one2010[/url], on Flickr

Not having downtube shifters is a fail in my book.

Funnily enough, I'm today re-hosting kit from a 2000 ally frame to a 1980s 531c Raleigh, with the exception that I'm not transferring the brifters. I've got some lovely dura-ace downtube shifters to put on.

The problem is that you're getting a bike with a quill stem mated to a 1in steerer and thin forks, antiquated brakes and heavy cheap wheels... And paying £2k for the privilege.

No thanks

Looks spot on. Reynolds webpage says 531 is essentially 4130 anyway.

Just to adress some of the more 'wrong' comments on this post.

531 is manganese molybdenum.
520 is similar to 525 and 4130 and is crome molybdenum.

The difference is you cant weld 531 so its now rare as hens teeth. Theres little between a brazed 531 and 520 frame anyway except the builder/owners vanity.

aracer - Member
Took my 531c touring once - that was horrible with the back end wiggling all over the place.

They also did 531 (the normal tubeset) and 531st (super touring) which used stiffer (thus heavier) tubes.

[quote=edhornby ]The problem is that you're getting a bike with a quill stem mated to a 1in steerer and thin forks, antiquated brakes and heavy cheap wheels... And paying £2k for the privilege.
No thanks

But, but, it looks kind of like an old bike (if you ignore all the modern bits) and old bikes are cool, so it must be worth it. Because looking cool is by far the most important thing, and unlike a proper old bike I can still change gear on this despite being incapable of taking one hand off the bars.

I've got faux-retro Cooper. It's got spindly 531 tubes attached by lugs, a quill stem and one inch steerer plus a SA 5 speed hub with a down tube shifter. It looks a bit like the bike in the o/p and I like it. I don't have a beard.

It's well proportioned and nicely finished, so definitely not ugly. However I do have an issue with the ugly styling of most modern mountain bikes, especially full suspension ones. Why the **** do they put a curve in every tube when the strongest shape would be a straight tube when under compression. Also the bland colour schemes with black components throughout leave much to be desired. All a question of taste, or lack of, I suppose.....

*rubs thighs*

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[url= http://road.cc/content/tech-news/171536-check-out-wilier-superleggera-ramato ]http://road.cc/content/tech-news/171536-check-out-wilier-superleggera-ramato[/url]

£1700 f+f but not fugly and probably worth it, in my book.

^^ Oh my...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder & in my eye I think it's quite handsome.

Not sure about the spec etc, but definitely not fugly!

I don't like scrawny tubes, and I also don't like horizontal top tubes.

molgrips - Member
I don't like scrawny tubes, and I also don't like horizontal top tubes.

Then take a trip to my home state in Australia and pick up one of these...

Llewellyn Bikes - Crescendo, XL sized lugs and tubing (price is a bit XL too 🙂 )

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Llewellyn Bikes - Crescendo

That's much nicer. However I still would not buy one 🙂

Although I might test ride one, see if it's any different to a good carbon bike.