Appearances (sorry)

[wheezy]

Sorry to be so superficial, but what's the general feeling about how these Ravens actually look?

Maybe it's my age, but I find the 700c wheel size more aesthetically pleasing than the 26ins. Mountain bikes seem to get away with it because of the huge tyre sizes, and the fact they're fashion items anyway, but more conventionally shaped bikes like the Ravens can look a bit awkward.

The smaller the frame, of course, the better they look, but I was just wondering; when catching sight of myself reflected in a shop window "Will my bum look big on this?"

Any Trinny or Susannas out there care to reassure me?

[ians]

if you're worried about what the fashion police think, then don't get one.  Lots of people on the C+ forum appear not to like the look of them.  Although C+ magazine have nothing but praise for them.  Cycling has always had an element of bling about it.  It's just got worse as people have more disposable income.

If you're an independent minded individual, a free spirit, who knows a bargain when he sees one - then  buy one.  Only you know just how big your bum really is.

ians

about to be a proud owner of an RST (large size with 26" wheels)

[wheezy]

Quite right, if you don't like it don't buy it.

I was just hoping to find out what people liked about the bike's appearance. I'm sure nobody's buying them without finding them attractive?

[ians]

I find them neither attractive nor unattractive.  What the RST looked like was not really a consideration for me.  They are practical, fit for purpose and extremely good value for money.  Maybe in time I'll warm to their aesthetics.  In the meantime I can drool over road bikes with the best of them and my road bike is very very pretty.  But I can't go shopping/touring on it.

A lot of people comment on the stack height (which I can understand to some extent).  But if you look on some touring bike websites from the USA you'll see bikes with quill stems protruding miles into the air which looks less pleasing to my eye.  But the Yanks don't seem to worry some much about what bikes look like - comfort seems to come first.  Which, if you think about it, is the way it should be.  Unless you have £000s to spend on a custom made frame and then you can probably have both looks and comfort.  

Go on - get one.  You know you want to.
ians

[The Raucous AUK]

quote:Originally posted by ians

A lot of people comment on the stack height (which I can understand to some extent).  

I can't comment specifically on the Raven but Thorns do seem to have short head tubes. For instance, my 545M Cyclosportif (that, according to Thorn, is equivalent to 545mm c-c on the seat tube) has a 12cm head tube but the head tube on my custom frames are 14cm, despite being 535mm c-c! The resultant additional 2cm of spacers really do spoil the looks of an otherwise excellent frameset.

[geocycle]

An interesting comment.   We are drawn toward long slender lines and there are certainly some beautiful machines out there, including some of the van nicholas titanium or colnago racing frames and at the other end of the scale I love the lines of the classic Pashleys.  Most other bikes are actually rather gawky and the headset stack on my raven tour is certainly a bit jarring to the eye, but I really don't mind. I personally value functionality over looks when it comes to bikes. A fully laden tourer or expedition-rigged landrover can be as beautifully engineered and as elegantly fit for purpose as a racing cycle or a sports car but neither would win prize for out-right aesthetics.

[wheezy]

Can't the steerer tube be cut down once you've decided on the right height, in order to reduce the number of spacers?

[geocycle]

Yes you are correct wheezy.  The spacers allow you to accurately adjust the height.  I asked for mine to be set at the same height as the saddle with a view to lowering it, but it's so comfortable I've not bothered so far.  I could also flip the stem as it currently points slightly down which would reduce about 1cm of spacers.

[stutho]

Hi Wheezy,
Welcome to the forum

I own a Raven Sport Tour.  It has a LOT of spacers (85mm) and I use an inverted stem!  The bike is NOT classically beautiful, however in the 18 months that I have owned the bike the 'look' has grown on me.  These days when I see bikes with an extra long head tube (and a short steerer) it now looks wrong!

One thing worth noting is that if you choose a black handlebar, stem and spacers then the eye won’t be drawn to them.  Get a seat post to match.

(NB I am 6'1" and using drops, both of which add to the stack height)

[The Raucous AUK]

quote:Originally posted by wheezy

Can't the steerer tube be cut down once you've decided on the right height, in order to reduce the number of spacers?

Mine is.

I have no spacers above the stem but too many under the stem! The head tubes really are too short.

Perhaps the new Audax 853 will address this problem?

[wheezy]

quote: Go on - get one.  You know you want to.
ians

Well I do, but I also want loads of other bikes. Trouble is, I can only have one, and it's got to be able to do everything well, including looking right (to me).

I've been looking at cyclocross bikes, as they seem to be a decent compromise, albeit a bit racey, but Thorn don't go there, and I'm not completely convinced by any that I've seen.

So the Audax 853 is up for replacement is it? That's interesting.

[freddered]

Form follows function.

I think the Land Rover analogy sums it up.

My 531, 700c tourer is like a Jaguar Estate, pretty quick, handles well, can carry a fair bit of stuff but isn't a Ferrari.

My Raven Tour is more of a Land Rover Discovery, it can do all the above but can carry a bit more and has some ability on rough tracks. It can be equipped with more serious off-road tyres if required.

The Land Rover Defender is more akin to my MTB.

Long Steerer tubes, IN MY OPINION, are incredibly useful on a touring bike.  See the many "Where can I put my computer" discussions on forums.  Long Steerers allow the addition of accessory bars.

Also. it's not a level playing field, I see many Quill stems raised to their maximum setting, nobody seems to say anything about them.

If you look at some of the Reviews on the Thorn website, you will see many photos of people riding 26" bikes of several types.  I think they look rugged, purposeful and not odd.

Riding my 1.5" tyres over rough roads convinces me more that..."I don't care what it looks like, it feels like a magic carpet".

On top of that you can send it back after 3 months if you decide your bum looks big in it.

[PH]

It's all opinion, so here's mine
26" wheeled, compact frame bikes are ugly. I've never seen an exception, Orbit, Roberts, Dawes, Yates, Cannondale, Mather, Mercian...I’ve seen what I consider to be ugly 26” whelers from all of them.  Discussing spacers etc is just arguing about the degrees of ugliness.   The bigger they are, the uglier they are.  The only possible exception is MTBs seen in the right environment.  The further away from that they get the worse they look, so a chunky tourer looks slightly better than a skinny road bike.
The only consolation is that when you're riding it you're not the one looking at it and the looks make bugger all difference to the ride.
 

[wheezy]

Yikes!

[neil_p]

Personally I don't think the aesthetics of my Rohloff EXP match those of a skinny road bikes, or trick mountain bikes.  However I think my EXP's sexiness lies in what I know it can do (carry huge weight over long distances with minimal maintenance).

I think it's great that everyone likes different things. Nobody's opinion is wrong, even if we don't agree with everyone else.  We have a shared interest in bikes and cycling, even if we do it in varied ways and on varied equipment.

Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder (apologies for the cliche).