Good looking full suss bikes?

Is that to show how far away the other end of the spectrum is? ^^

that orange looks like homer simpson designed it

No-one, I think – apart from me, earlier in the thread – has talked about frame size and how it impacts on aesthetics. Mostly, I’d say, the larger the frame size, the more horrendous it tends to look as the visual ratio between the wheels and the frame shifts and frame tends to look more and more ungainly.

This is bad news for tall people and, in particular, my mate who owns an XXL (or something) Geometron, which is possibly the ugliest bike ever made and a triumph of function over fashion, or at least visual acceptability. I’ve lost count of the number of bikes posted on this forum where an ostensibly attractive build is rendered hideous because the owner is unfortunate enough to be six foot something.

You can see it sometimes on brand websites where the same bike looks okay/ugly/surprisingly attractive depending on which size frame the pack shot it using. Conversely really small frame can also look oddly cramped and compressed, particularly when you have 29″ wheels. 

I don’t know what size frame designers work on for prototyping and how they take into account scaling up or down – ideally I guess you’d change the wheels in proportion to the frame, but I can’t see that one happening just yet.

Anyway, this, I quite like because I probably shouldn’t./..

At the risk of sounding a bit naff, I do think it’s healthy that opinions vary so widely on what makes an attractive frame.

The sport would be a lot more dull if every bike really did look like a Session.

The only thing we all seem to agree on is Transitions looks good (though I also wouldn’t get one because of the pricing and the questionable QC).

(though I also wouldn’t get one because of the pricing and the questionable QC)

Oooh, à l’orange? Pray tell.

Is that to show how far away the other end of the spectrum is? ^^

Nah, it’s just Sharkattack trolling another thread for some reason?

No-one, I think – apart from me, earlier in the thread – has talked about frame size and how it impacts on aesthetics.

It always has. I’m a retro biker but my collection is almost unrideable as I buy 17-19″ bikes that are too small for me. XL/21″ frames with 26″ wheels always look terrible!

29″ wheels and LLS geometry have improved things but designers still seem to use medium/large as their template, which obviously makes sense.

At the risk of sounding a bit naff, I do think it’s healthy that opinions vary so widely on what makes an attractive frame.

Well ultimately it’s a purely subjective judgement, there is no objective measure of what makes a frame or bike visually attractive. What’s mildly amusing is watching people trying to create rules about chain-stays and top-tubes and ratios between, oh I dunno, head-tube length and seat-stay diameter to try and impose some sort of faux order on the whole thing.

You have to think there’s an element of cultural familiarity/acceptability here – remember when 29ers were derided as ‘wagon wheels’, whereas now any bike above XS size with 26″ wheels looks faintly odd and even 650b seems slightly wrong. What’s changed? Hint: it’s not the bike.
I get that it’s a bit of a human trait to try to explain the inexplicable – hello religion, hello conspiracy theories – but ultimately we can simply say, there is no hard and fast rule, different people find different things, proportions, shapes, sizes attractive for different reasons. Beyond that you can go down rabbit holes, but actually just accepting that is fine and reasonable.

I mean dear god, I used to ride a Maverick Ml7, widely derided as hideous, and quite liked it, even with the DUC32 fork.
But basically, it’s arguably not just ‘healthy’, it’s inevitable, though I guess, in its way, that is healthy, if only because people are prepared to stick their heads above the parapet and declare an undying love for Orange styling 🙂

I loved the look of the Ibis Mojo enough to drop for a HD4 a few years ago, but couldn’t afford to buy full price new so wasn’t able to get pick a colour and had to settle for an ex-demo in black. Still a beautiful machine though. I’ve put Ibis decals on the wheels now, in orange to match the Fox forks and matching grips, which has lifted it a bit from nearly full stealth black as it was originally. It’s astonishingly capable and I completely love it. I also always loved Orange bikes, from the Clockworks I lusted over as a teen to the full sussers. My highest mileage bike is my daily commuter, the Orange RX9 gravel bike. 🍊❤️

I loved the look of the Ibis Mojo enough to drop for a HD4 a few years ago

See, at the time, I thought these looked ace. Now, not a fan at all

I have an HD3, visually very similar. The bike is faultless, it does everything I ask of it.

But it doesn’t speak to me in the same way a pretty bike would.

Not everyone can have great taste 😂

All “modern geometry” mountain bikes look terrible, imo.

Swarf Contour and Transition Spur for me. Basically any full sus, that on first glance, looks like a HT. If it looks like a steel HT it gets bonus points.

Oddly I’m also a fan of the other end of the spectrum. Bikes that look like agricultural equipment, so Orange and Curtis.

I love the look of the Spesh Enduro and the Kenevo SL. To me they just look right.

The Transition does look good though.

^^^no

^^no

^no

Nice gnomes 😎👍

No e-bikes are pretty either, sorry. Massive tube to house the battery/motor just makes the proportions look all wrong.

Yep, no e-bike has been anything better than average.

My ebike has no aspirations to look pretty. None whatsoever. It just looks like the absolute tank that it is 😂

(It’s still better looking than that bloody Orange 🙄 though that hasn’t got a battery as an excuse 😉)

The Spur was my choice.

That Spur’s not a total disaster, but it’s hardly good looking either. The top tube/seat stay arrangement is pleasing, but what’s up with that headtube? Coupled with the really long top tube, it looks like someone’s started with a big blob of material and just kept pulling tubes out of it.

(It’s still better looking than that bloody Orange 🙄 though that hasn’t got a battery as an excuse 😉)

Not sure about that tbf.😬

As for the Transition, the head tube is a bit bulbous. Maybe looks worse due to spacers and xc forks? Still much prettier than most though.

^^The gnomes are better looking than that melting bike 🤮🤣

@Daffy … Spur looks great.

But you lose points for playing it against that monstrous concrete wall.

Well I think this Gammux looks amazing, but is it actually handsome?

What about a Liteville 301, always liked the look of these.

What about a Liteville 301, always liked the look of these.

that particular angle of that shot, kinda looks like an AI attempt at a bike. I understand how the lightville suspension works, but I couldnt figure it out from that view, it looks like its missing some bits

From 2010 I owned, rode and raced this beauty for a few years. I still haven’t seen a better looking DH bike. 

Current enduro rig. It still makes me swoon.

@stingmered lovely bike, I’ve been keeping my out on the 2nd hand market for ages for one to come up in size XL, been plenty of size L sadly. Might have to start looking further afield, beauty of a design.

Very nice. All Propain’s FS bikes look great IMO

I don’t think the Heckler sl looks much different from a lot of Carbon bikes assisted or otherwise

Looks no worse than most current Santa Cruz. Not sure that’s a good thing though?

Propain shows that carbon bikes with that silhouette don’t have to be minging.

It doesn’t when you are dead side on. Anywhere else you see the mega wide downtube.

My ebike has no aspirations to look pretty. None whatsoever. It just looks like the absolute tank that it is

I have the normally aspirated version of that bike – even down to the colour, and even then it’s a tough ask to call it anything other than “robust”