|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Compact frame sizeing | TG | General | 10 | June 30th 04 06:45 AM |
handlebar height | n crowley | General | 35 | April 19th 04 07:12 PM |
Compact Geometry and Long Distance | Jason T | Techniques | 15 | August 7th 03 12:44 AM |
SuperGo Weyless Ultra frame recall | Slash | Mountain Biking | 2 | August 1st 03 05:16 PM |
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry??? | ari | Techniques | 8 | July 17th 03 03:40 AM |