|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On 04/27/2012 03:17 PM, SMS wrote:
On 4/27/2012 12:04 PM, Duane wrote: On 04/27/2012 01:08 PM, SMS wrote: On 4/27/2012 9:48 AM, Arthur Shapiro wrote: In , wrote: I told him to go with a Habanero titanium with Shimano 105. Habanero is the obvious choice, and one can still purchase them without the arguably-silly threadless headsets. That's true, but since the threaded forks and headsets have become almost a boutique item, it now costs more for threaded. A threaded headset and fork are preferable of course, but I don't think he'd pay two hundred dollars more for it. You can correct the biggest problem with threadless headsets with some after-market devices, i.e. see http://www.octagoncycles.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQYbZeQW0M. For his riding, the Surly Pacer would be ideal, and still about $600 less than the Habanero even once he had the crankset changed to a triple. I believe that the Bianchi CRO-Moly bikes are still non-compact frames. http://www.bianchiusa.com/bikes/road/ They've wrecked those too. Not quite compact, but "modified." Even the steel ones toward the bottom? Looking at the Volpe, the frame looks very similar to my Volpe from 1994. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On 4/27/2012 11:39 AM, SMS wrote:
[...] I told him to go with a Habanero titanium with Shimano 105. They sell complete bicycles as well as just frames. Maybe he'll do it, since it's much better than what he can get at bikesdirect, and he's pretty much resigned to the fact that he can't buy what he wants at an LBS anymore anyway, so whatever he gets it will have to be ordered from somewhere. [...] Do not Habanero bicycles pull strongly to the right? (Old-timers on RBT will understand.) -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On Apr 27, 10:31*am, SMS wrote:
Does any major manufacturer still makes non-compact frame road bikes for sale in the U.S.? Friend is looking for a new road bike and is about to give up on shops and go to bikesdirect.com. He's willing to spend about $2K, which rules out all the custom frames which are still normal size. He needs a 56cm frame. There are still a couple of touring bikes made in non-compact frame designs, but he wants something lighter (the touring bikes are all steel frames and the wheels are heavier as well). Has he looked at Bob Jackson Cycles? He'd have to build it up himself, but the frame prices are very reasonable. I bought their World Tour frame about 8 months ago and built up my commuter bike and have been very happy with it. They also make lighter frames. See he http://www.bobjacksoncycles.co.uk/de...afkc6meo 1gh3 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On Apr 27, 1:08*pm, SMS wrote:
On 4/27/2012 9:48 AM, Arthur Shapiro wrote: In , *wrote: I told him to go with a Habanero titanium with Shimano 105. Habanero is the obvious choice, and one can still purchase them without the arguably-silly threadless headsets. That's true, but since the threaded forks and headsets have become almost a boutique item, it now costs more for threaded. A threaded headset and fork are preferable of course, but I don't think he'd pay two hundred dollars more for it. You can correct the biggest problem with threadless headsets with some after-market devices, i.e. see http://www.octagoncycles.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQYbZeQW0M. For his riding, the Surly Pacer would be ideal, and still about $600 less than the Habanero even once he had the crankset changed to a triple. I wonder if any of those stems will break where the holes are? This is also not a good place to have any problems with a quick release coming loose. I hope they used a close cam quick release. Cheers |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On 4/27/2012 1:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Apr 27, 1:08 pm, wrote: On 4/27/2012 9:48 AM, Arthur Shapiro wrote: In , wrote: I told him to go with a Habanero titanium with Shimano 105. Habanero is the obvious choice, and one can still purchase them without the arguably-silly threadless headsets. That's true, but since the threaded forks and headsets have become almost a boutique item, it now costs more for threaded. A threaded headset and fork are preferable of course, but I don't think he'd pay two hundred dollars more for it. You can correct the biggest problem with threadless headsets with some after-market devices, i.e. see http://www.octagoncycles.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQYbZeQW0M. For his riding, the Surly Pacer would be ideal, and still about $600 less than the Habanero even once he had the crankset changed to a triple. I wonder if any of those stems will break where the holes are? This is also not a good place to have any problems with a quick release coming loose. I hope they used a close cam quick release. Various versions of those have been around for many probably ten years and I've never heard of any problems with them. Of course there probably were not millions sold. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001V5GLHY http://www.speedlifter.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
Op 27-4-2012 21:57, Duane schreef:
On 04/27/2012 03:17 PM, SMS wrote: On 4/27/2012 12:04 PM, Duane wrote: On 04/27/2012 01:08 PM, SMS wrote: On 4/27/2012 9:48 AM, Arthur Shapiro wrote: In , wrote: I told him to go with a Habanero titanium with Shimano 105. Habanero is the obvious choice, and one can still purchase them without the arguably-silly threadless headsets. That's true, but since the threaded forks and headsets have become almost a boutique item, it now costs more for threaded. A threaded headset and fork are preferable of course, but I don't think he'd pay two hundred dollars more for it. You can correct the biggest problem with threadless headsets with some after-market devices, i.e. see http://www.octagoncycles.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oQYbZeQW0M. For his riding, the Surly Pacer would be ideal, and still about $600 less than the Habanero even once he had the crankset changed to a triple. I believe that the Bianchi CRO-Moly bikes are still non-compact frames. http://www.bianchiusa.com/bikes/road/ They've wrecked those too. Not quite compact, but "modified." Even the steel ones toward the bottom? Looking at the Volpe, the frame looks very similar to my Volpe from 1994. The toptube is also slightly sloped. Some people qualify that as 'wrecked' and limiting their choice enormously. Lou |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
Op 27-4-2012 18:39, SMS schreef:
The negatives of the compact frame geometry are too great for him personally, but lets not turn this thread into a debate over the relative merits of each geometry. Sure, but I'm really curious what those negatives are that he is willing to limit his choice enormously. I'm not talking about the extreme sloping geometry like what GIANT was offering years ago but slightly sloping toptubes. Lou |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On 4/28/2012 2:03 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
The toptube is also slightly sloped. Some people qualify that as 'wrecked' and limiting their choice enormously. Lou I'm sure that you are aware that the slope of the top tube is immaterial, it's the geometry and dimensions. You can look at what Bianchi has done by looking at how the frame has shrunk over time. Cannondale summarized it well: "there's a disturbing trend among some bike companies to re-tool their road frames by shortening the seat tube and slanting the top tube down from the head tube. This new design "breakthrough," they argue, saves frame weight. And if you take their claim literally, they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a bare frame a little lighter. What they don't tell you is that their complete bicycle actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional geometry. Why? You have to use longer (and therefore heavier) seatposts and stems on smaller frames to fit the rider properly, and their added weight more than off-sets the few grams saved by their sloping top tube frames." The manufacturer saves money of course. Not only does the cost of materials go down slightly, but most manufacturers reduces the number of size SKUs and use longer seat posts and different stems and fork lengths. Instead of 8-10 frame sizes you can now make 5-6. Unless the rider is very short, a the geometry of the the compact frame does not place the rider in the optimum position for handling and comfort. Throw in some clever marketing catch phrases about how a compact frame is lighter and stiffer, to justify the change, and once there are few alternatives you leave the bike shops no choice other than to parrot the manufacturer's marketing. Sadly, most customers do little research and don't understand why their new bicycle is more uncomfortable, and rides poorer than their old one. It's especially instructive and amusing to see how the after-market parts and accessory industry responded to compact frames. Look at something as mundane as bottle cages. On some smaller size frames, the manufacturer dropped one set of braze-ons because there simply was no longer room for a second bottle. But some left the second set of braze-ons even though there really wasn't room for the second bottle. Cage manufacturers responded with products like http://www.mellowveloblog.com/?p=535 " it’s perfect for those of us who find that the small frames we ride are not well suited for carrying two bottles. The bottoms bump into each other and the low or sloping top bar leaves little room to remove and replace the bottles." Seatposts are another issue. Since the seatposts are longer a lot of riders found that with a lighter carbon seatpost there was far too much flex so they switched to a heavier aluminum seat post. You used to almost never hear of a broken seat post because a properly sized standard frame has a pretty short seat post. Now you often see broken seat posts, and there have been a slew of recalls, and not just on carbon seat posts. There are major disadvantages to the rider of the smaller frame, but major advantages to the manufacturer. Sheldon Brown stated it succinctly: "Manufacturers like compact frames because they are more versatile in terms of fit. Usually 3 or 4 sizes are enough to fit 98% of customers. This saves a lot of money for a manufacturer who doesn't need to deal with so many different sizes." |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
On 4/28/2012 2:18 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 27-4-2012 18:39, SMS schreef: The negatives of the compact frame geometry are too great for him personally, but lets not turn this thread into a debate over the relative merits of each geometry. Sure, but I'm really curious what those negatives are that he is willing to limit his choice enormously. I'm not talking about the extreme sloping geometry like what GIANT was offering years ago but slightly sloping toptubes. The problem here appears to be that you're focusing on the slope of the top tube. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Who still makes non-compact frame road bikes?
Op 28-4-2012 11:54, SMS schreef:
On 4/28/2012 2:03 AM, Lou Holtman wrote: The toptube is also slightly sloped. Some people qualify that as 'wrecked' and limiting their choice enormously. Lou I'm sure that you are aware that the slope of the top tube is immaterial, it's the geometry and dimensions. You can look at what Bianchi has done by looking at how the frame has shrunk over time. Cannondale summarized it well: "there's a disturbing trend among some bike companies to re-tool their road frames by shortening the seat tube and slanting the top tube down from the head tube. This new design "breakthrough," they argue, saves frame weight. And if you take their claim literally, they're right - a shorter seat tube does make a bare frame a little lighter. What they don't tell you is that their complete bicycle actually weighs more than a bike with a conventional geometry. Why? You have to use longer (and therefore heavier) seatposts and stems on smaller frames to fit the rider properly, and their added weight more than off-sets the few grams saved by their sloping top tube frames." The manufacturer saves money of course. Not only does the cost of materials go down slightly, but most manufacturers reduces the number of size SKUs and use longer seat posts and different stems and fork lengths. Instead of 8-10 frame sizes you can now make 5-6. Unless the rider is very short, a the geometry of the the compact frame does not place the rider in the optimum position for handling and comfort. Throw in some clever marketing catch phrases about how a compact frame is lighter and stiffer, to justify the change, and once there are few alternatives you leave the bike shops no choice other than to parrot the manufacturer's marketing. Sadly, most customers do little research and don't understand why their new bicycle is more uncomfortable, and rides poorer than their old one. It's especially instructive and amusing to see how the after-market parts and accessory industry responded to compact frames. Look at something as mundane as bottle cages. On some smaller size frames, the manufacturer dropped one set of braze-ons because there simply was no longer room for a second bottle. But some left the second set of braze-ons even though there really wasn't room for the second bottle. Cage manufacturers responded with products like http://www.mellowveloblog.com/?p=535 " it’s perfect for those of us who find that the small frames we ride are not well suited for carrying two bottles. The bottoms bump into each other and the low or sloping top bar leaves little room to remove and replace the bottles." Seatposts are another issue. Since the seatposts are longer a lot of riders found that with a lighter carbon seatpost there was far too much flex so they switched to a heavier aluminum seat post. You used to almost never hear of a broken seat post because a properly sized standard frame has a pretty short seat post. Now you often see broken seat posts, and there have been a slew of recalls, and not just on carbon seat posts. There are major disadvantages to the rider of the smaller frame, but major advantages to the manufacturer. Sheldon Brown stated it succinctly: "Manufacturers like compact frames because they are more versatile in terms of fit. Usually 3 or 4 sizes are enough to fit 98% of customers. This saves a lot of money for a manufacturer who doesn't need to deal with so many different sizes." As you said the slope of the TT is immaterial so IMO there is no (fit) reasons to exclude these frames in your friends choice. The extreme compact geometry is from the past for roadframes. 90% have slightly sloped toptubes even Cannondale so what are they talking about: http://www.cannondale.com/nld/2012/b...ite-road/caad8 Headtube angle 73 degree-sh, seattube angle 73 degree-ish, wheeldistance 1000 mm-ish, so it comes down to (effective) toptube length; that's it. I have a roadbike with a horizontal TT and a roadbike with a sloping toptube. There is no difference whatsoever between those frames fit wise. The frame with the sloping TT comes in 7 sizes and it was easy to find one that fits me. The only difference is headtube length. The frame with the horizontal TT needs a more upright stem and/or more spacers. Personally I don't really like the look of it, but it doesn't bother me either. https://picasaweb.google.com/101076538433373858645/SlopingVersusHorizontalTT?authkey=Gv1sRgCI2Qr-ChrNW4xwE# Lou |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Opinions on two different makes of bikes | [email protected] | General | 28 | September 25th 07 03:10 AM |
Compact road crankset on a MTB frame...Bonus external bearing content | Barnard Frederick | Techniques | 8 | May 20th 06 01:28 PM |
FA: Giant TCR Compact Road frame | Wade Summers | Marketplace | 0 | February 18th 05 09:04 PM |
Compact Chainsets & Road Bikes | [Not Responding] | UK | 23 | December 17th 04 10:41 AM |
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry | Dennis Vaughn | Techniques | 39 | September 4th 03 02:10 AM |