Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry

What is the main difference between the two bike geometries? I realize that
there is a shorter top tube, but other than that, what is the difference or
reason behind it? Also why are there so few steel (old school technology
here) in the compact geometry.
Dennis

"Dennis Vaughn" wrote in message
...
What is the main difference between the two bike geometries? I realize
that
there is a shorter top tube, but other than that, what is the difference
or
reason behind it? Also why are there so few steel (old school technology
here) in the compact geometry.
Dennis


There really isn't a difference in geometry (angles, etc.) but there is a
difference in appearance. The "effective tt length" is going to be the same
regardless of compact or traditional.

I ride a steel Bontrager Road Lite that is way old school compact! Strong
makes compact frames in steel, as do a few others. Basically it boils down
to tradition. The guys that have been building traditional bikes tend to
stick with what they know works well.

Mike

On 29 Aug 2003 13:03:11 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Dennis Vaughn wrote:
What is the main difference between the two bike geometries? I realize that
there is a shorter top tube, but other than that, what is the difference or
reason behind it? Also why are there so few steel (old school technology
here) in the compact geometry.

Much of the attraction of compact geometry is simply that it is
fashionable. There's little point in trying to sell steel bikes to people
who want fashionable equipment.


Much of the attraction is a marketing ply that allows the
retailer to lie about fit and carry only three frame sizes rather
than five or six...

IF they fit correctly they are fine ... but be damned sure it
fits.

dennis- What is the main difference between the two bike geometries? I
realize that
there is a shorter top tube, but other than that, what is the difference or
reason behind it? BRBR

Generally it is a way for frame/bike makers to make less sizes, save money and
paint it like a performance or fit advantage, which it is neither.

For smaller riders, it is a great idea, for larger riders it answers a 'not
asked' question.

Also why are there so few steel (old school technology
here) in the compact geometry. BRBR

Because old school builders realize that it is marketing, not function that
drives this.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


Because old school builders realize that it is marketing, not
function that drives this.

On the other hand, you see a great many custom builders going to sloping top
tubes to deal with the limited height adjustability afforded by threadless
headsets and carbon steerers. Some degree of slope allows good standover
height and still gets the bars close to the level of the seat without
resorting to lots of spacers or severe stem angles. Admitedly, this is not
really "compact" design but it is often called that.

Tim McTeague

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:19:38 -0700, "Mike S."
mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet wrote:


"ajames54" wrote in message
news
On 29 Aug 2003 13:03:11 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

Dennis Vaughn wrote:
What is the main difference between the two bike geometries? I realize
that
there is a shorter top tube, but other than that, what is the difference
or
reason behind it? Also why are there so few steel (old school
technology
here) in the compact geometry.

Much of the attraction of compact geometry is simply that it is
fashionable. There's little point in trying to sell steel bikes to people
who want fashionable equipment.


Much of the attraction is a marketing ply that allows the
retailer to lie about fit and carry only three frame sizes rather
than five or six...

IF they fit correctly they are fine ... but be damned sure it
fits.

Cool thing about my particular body is that compact frames are a Godsend!
Short legs, long torso. All I gotta do is make sure that the angles and
effective TT are right, then off we go!

Mike

years ago a friend of mine (female, raced for Vanwood) had to get
a custom frame built with a weird top tube (lugged SL)... a
gentle curve from the top of the head tube dropping about three
inches before it leveled out into a normal run to the
seat-tube... she was a fantastic racer but just too small ...
nobody could really draft her.

There is nothing wrong with a slopping tube or a compact design..
but the way they are being sold and marketed ticks me off.

years ago a friend of mine (female, raced for Vanwood) had to get
a custom frame built with a weird top tube (lugged SL)... a
gentle curve from the top of the head tube dropping about three
inches before it leveled out into a normal run to the
seat-tube... she was a fantastic racer but just too small ...
nobody could really draft her.

There are a few of those female-type racers around here too. I don't know
how it happens, but I get stuck behind them a lot. Drafting them sucks!

There is nothing wrong with a slopping tube or a compact design..
but the way they are being sold and marketed ticks me off.

Yeah, well, if they didn't hype it, would anyone buy them (except for us
gorillas that is...)? Hell, they hyped SLX, TSX, and the rest too...

Mike

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:41:43 +0000, Tim McTeague wrote:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:


Because old school builders realize that it is marketing, not function
that drives this.

On the other hand, you see a great many custom builders going to sloping
top tubes to deal with the limited height adjustability afforded by
threadless headsets and carbon steerers.

One bad technology driving another.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
_`\(,_ | That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
(_)/ (_) | attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country. -- Hermann Goering

David L. Johnson wrote:


On the other hand, you see a great many custom builders going to
sloping top tubes to deal with the limited height adjustability
afforded by threadless headsets and carbon steerers.

One bad technology driving another.

I don't know why so many are still attached to old headsets. I LOVE the
threadless design. Yes, I miss the easy adjustability of quill stems but
hated all the creaks they developed. Due to sweat or whatever, I had to
pull and grease my stem a couple of times a season. And, while I did not
have to adjust it often, I hated having to use those huge wrenchs. More
than once over the years my headset became lose on a ride and I had to keep
trying to tighten it with my hands, as who carries the proper tools for
that? Threadless can be adjusted with just about any mini-tool. Alligning
the stem does not require me to "pound" the center bolt to free the wedge as
with quills. The way the stems clamp the steerer tube seems a move simple
and reliable interface than the expanding wedge design of quill stems. I
think the old system looks better but then that is what I grew up with but I
have the ability to move on.

Tim McTeague

The way the stems clamp the steerer tube seems a move simple
and reliable interface than the expanding wedge design of quill stems.

I agree. A simple, less complicated solution. In the future headtubes may be
longer, since most adjustment is raising, not lowering, the stem.
B

(remove clothes to reply)