-
• #64527
-
• #64528
OMG YES! that rig is serious!
-
• #64529
OMG YES! that rig is serious!
Repost though. But a good one :)
-
• #64530
epic bike... (but I do think it would look better a few sizes up)..
-
• #64531
So awesome. It's nice to see smaller bikes that look nice.
I ride a 53 and they all look melty as fuck :(
-
• #64532
Am I missing something? It's a fucking disaster according to my eyes.
But I think 53-54 is the ideal size for round steel tubed bikes - spindly head tubes aren't my thing. Aero tubed stuff needs a bit more breathing room, you don't want the bottom of the top tube meeting the top of the down tube before the head tube.
like this - notporndisclaimer:
ugh that's melty
spot on, and that's about a 53-4Not quite sure wtf I'm talking about.
oh well. -
• #64533
I think around 56 is probably the right size for porn.
-
• #64534
I think 58 ctc square is the perfect size for a skinny steel bike....
-
• #64535
I think 58 ctc square is the perfect size for a skinny steel bike....
BBB Thread >>>>>>>>>>>
-
• #64536
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
62cm+ goes to BBB
-
• #64537
58 don't cut it in there....
-
• #64538
Is there a midget bike thread?
-
• #64539
Probably not, because they're mostly gross.
-
• #64540
I didn't say midget porn, you sick man.
-
• #64541
-
• #64542
no the other version
-
• #64543
there's a home for that as well....
-
• #64544
you don't want the bottom of the top tube meeting the top of the down tube before the head tube.
Bollocks, in both senses of the term.
-
• #64545
Cheers TM!!
-
• #64546
Bollocks, in both senses of the term.
Well, it makes sense structurally and aerodynamically but that's not important is it? pft.
-
• #64547
Not quite sure wtf I'm talking about.
.
-
• #64548
-
• #64549
should be all sram
-
• #64550
I see where you get your name ;)
ace paintjob there