Re: Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???

[ari]

Compact can be a little lighter (at the expense of increased seatpost
length) and allows more standover height. That about sums it up.

For a custom frame I would choose the degree of sloping top tube that would
allow me to have a reasonable seatpost length. I think frames with a lot of
standover are easier to mount. I have a cyclocross bike with a nice tall top
tube (so that it can be easily shouldered) but I almost pull a muscle trying
to get on and off it,



"Cary Paugh" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone point me to a discussion on the pluses and minuses of these
> two desgns and why someone would chose one over the other?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Cary

[KBH]

do a Google groups (groups.google.com) search and you'll find some massive
discussions.

to boil it down..

benefits manufacturers...can fit more people to less sizes

can benefit consumers...can get the bars higher while still maintaining
standover

handling, performance, weight?....who cares...


"ari" > wrote in message
...
> Compact can be a little lighter (at the expense of increased seatpost
> length) and allows more standover height. That about sums it up.
>
> For a custom frame I would choose the degree of sloping top tube that
would
> allow me to have a reasonable seatpost length. I think frames with a lot
of
> standover are easier to mount. I have a cyclocross bike with a nice tall
top
> tube (so that it can be easily shouldered) but I almost pull a muscle
trying
> to get on and off it,
>
>
>
> "Cary Paugh" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Can anyone point me to a discussion on the pluses and minuses of these
> > two desgns and why someone would chose one over the other?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Cary
>
>

[AndresMuro]

I agree with Tim, that the difference is mostly aethetic. I do ride a classic
bike but I happen to like the looks of a compact frame much better. The reason
is that I like to have some seatpost showing, but I like to have the stem high,
close to the saddle. With this combination and a classic bike, you need a lot
of spacers or a tall stem and I don't like either. I also think that a slopping
frame matches a slopping stem better. All this is aethetic preference which is
the exact opposite of a rivendell lover.

From an utilitarian perspective, there is almost no difference, provided that
the bike fits you. Classic proponents will try to convince you that the seat
post on a compact is more flexible and possibly fragile. Compact proponents
will tell you that the compact frame is lighter. All this is all BS. The only
difference is that if the compact frame is too short, you may not be able to
put a water bottle under the seat tube. If the water bottle fits, there are
cages so that you can take the water bottle out from the side, rather than from
the top.

Here is an argument for a classic. Lance rides a classic and joseba used to
ride a compact. Lance won, hence it must have been the classic frame. I don't
think that Lance would agree with this logic though.

Andres

[Bruce Gilbert]

I am soon to be importing a line of compact frame titanium bikes. There is
one strong advantage to the design. The dealers have to stock a reduced
range of frame sizes in order to carry the line. There is no performance,
weight, strength, or price advantage. The real advantage is that we can fit
more folks onto a given frame size.

My suggestion is to buy the bike based upon what looks really good to you.
Get fitted properly, then select the frame that those numbers dictate. The
best bike in the world (for you) is a combination of the correct geometry,
proper fit, the right components, the right paint job (and graphics) and the
right deal. Have I missed anything?


Andres made a comment about the waterbottle cage placement. He is very
correct. One potential fix is using a Velocity bottle cage. They have a sort
of adjustable placement for the brackets. The cage can be slid up or down a
bit. It may work...

Bruce


"AndresMuro" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with Tim, that the difference is mostly aethetic. I do ride a
classic
> bike but I happen to like the looks of a compact frame much better. The
reason
> is that I like to have some seatpost showing, but I like to have the stem
high,
> close to the saddle. With this combination and a classic bike, you need a
lot
> of spacers or a tall stem and I don't like either. I also think that a
slopping
> frame matches a slopping stem better. All this is aethetic preference
which is
> the exact opposite of a rivendell lover.
>
> From an utilitarian perspective, there is almost no difference, provided
that
> the bike fits you. Classic proponents will try to convince you that the
seat
> post on a compact is more flexible and possibly fragile. Compact
proponents
> will tell you that the compact frame is lighter. All this is all BS. The
only
> difference is that if the compact frame is too short, you may not be able
to
> put a water bottle under the seat tube. If the water bottle fits, there
are
> cages so that you can take the water bottle out from the side, rather than
from
> the top.
>
> Here is an argument for a classic. Lance rides a classic and joseba used
to
> ride a compact. Lance won, hence it must have been the classic frame. I
don't
> think that Lance would agree with this logic though.
>
> Andres

[KBH]

> I agree with Tim, that the difference is mostly aethetic. I do ride a
classic
> bike but I happen to like the looks of a compact frame much better. The
reason
> is that I like to have some seatpost showing, but I like to have the stem
high,
> close to the saddle. With this combination and a classic bike, you need a
lot
> of spacers or a tall stem and I don't like either. I also think that a
slopping
> frame matches a slopping stem better. All this is aethetic preference
which is
> the exact opposite of a rivendell lover.

I prefer the look of a traditional frame with a 'fistful' of post
showing...but my main bike that I ride the most is compact...fits well.

http://tinyurl.com/h0a1


>
> From an utilitarian perspective, there is almost no difference, provided
that
> the bike fits you. Classic proponents will try to convince you that the
seat
> post on a compact is more flexible and possibly fragile. Compact
proponents
> will tell you that the compact frame is lighter. All this is all BS. The
only
> difference is that if the compact frame is too short, you may not be able
to
> put a water bottle under the seat tube. If the water bottle fits, there
are
> cages so that you can take the water bottle out from the side, rather than
from
> the top.
>
> Here is an argument for a classic. Lance rides a classic and joseba used
to
> ride a compact. Lance won, hence it must have been the classic frame. I
don't
> think that Lance would agree with this logic though.
>
> Andres

[B]

>I don't follow this. When I get on, the highest point I need to
>clear is the saddle, the height of the top tube makes no difference.

It only makes a difference if you have to get off of the saddle quickly. If you
have no testicles, it is not as important.
B

(remove clothes to reply)

[Tim McNamara]

In article >,
(B) wrote:

> >I don't follow this. When I get on, the highest point I need to
> >clear is the saddle, the height of the top tube makes no
> >difference.
>
> It only makes a difference if you have to get off of the saddle
> quickly. If you have no testicles, it is not as important.

This is one of those inane claims that repeatedly recirculates in
wreck.bikes and elsewhere. As long as you can clear the top tube,
you're fine- especially on a road bike.

Compact frames are about styling, marketing and hype. Some people
think they look cool, enough that they sell well. The "original"
modern compact road frame was designed by Mike Burrows for Giant with
the intent of making the bikes more adjustable for growing kids, and
to allow Giant to save money by building bikes in three sizes, making
up the difference with different sized seatposts and an adjustable
stem.

Of course, ONCE started riding them with Giant as a sponsor and since
they worked for Laurent Jalabert, the world decided it must be the
compact geometry rather than the talent of the rider.

[Mike S.]

"Cary Paugh" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone point me to a discussion on the pluses and minuses of these
> two desgns and why someone would chose one over the other?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Cary

I don't know about anyone else, but as a guy with short legs and a long
torso, compact bikes makes fitting easier for me: check the virtual TT
length, the seat angle, and away you go!

Mike

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article >, vecchio51
@aol.com says...
> Cary-<< Can anyone point me to a discussion on the pluses and minuses of these
> two desgns and why someone would chose one over the other? >><BR><BR>
>
> For smaller riders,

and for riders with unusually short legs/long torsos

> compact is a great way to have low enough top tube, high
> enough headtube and 700c wheels. For larger, it does nothing. Saves $ for
> manufacturers that have spotted a trend(less sizes for most) but does nothing
> in terms of fit(may be more diffucult) or performance.
>
It also allows slightly higher handlebars for a more upright seating
position with fewer spacers on the steer tube.

Rick