I'll resoundly disagree. If well designed, I find nothing wrong with a compact frame. (Witness the Sam Hillborne). But like Eric D. said, it depends on your frame of reference. While I started cycling in the late 1970's, my favorite bikes were the early compact frame mountain bikes that folks like Charlie Cunningham were designing. And yes, I did ride a mountain bike as my main bike during the 1980's and into the '90s.
Then again, a number of my bikes have "compact" frames. The most extreme of which is the Brompton<grin>. Eric Platt St. Paul, MN (who also has a black bike, with black fenders and a black Brooks). On Mar 27, 9:04 am, MichaelH <mhech...@gmail.com> wrote: > Patrick makes an interesting point. > > "Compact" frames are ugly, and if all they come in is a flat black > they are very ugly. One can argue that beauty is in the eye of the > beholder, but there are some very ancient and true rules of > proportion, which can be described mathimatically. A "classic" frame > design in a 52-62 range is very close to that. For those of us who > are visually oriented people that's important. > Years ago I made my living as a custom cabinet and furniture maker. I > always designed furniture around classical proportions known as the > "golden cube" and found that always produced an esthetically pleasing > product. > > Michael > Westford, Vt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
