Compact frame vs Traditional Frame geometry

Funny thing is: now its Shimano that's "old fashioned" for not offering a
T-less HS.

As I understand it, Shimano is waiting for the patent to expire.

B

(remove clothes to reply)

David L. Johnson wrote:


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.

"Pound"?

When you loosen the bolt on a quill stem the wedge stays "wedged" until you
tap or pound the loosened bolt down to free the wedge. Usually I would put
a piece of wood on the bolt and whack it to do the job. It generally
required more than a tap, thus the use of verb pound. Hit, smack, whack,
strike, nail, smite, etc., etc. Take you pick. Now, with threadless, I can
be less violent in my bike adjustments.

Tim McTeague

Mike- Funny thing is: now its Shimano that's "old fashioned" for not offering
a
T-less HS. BRBR

Doesn't want to pay a licensing fee to Diacomp...Surprised that shimano doesn't
just buy them.

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

Tim- Yeah, like you carried a set on each bike ride. BRBR

Ya know, I ride threaded today as I have for about 18 years and i don't need to
adjust my headset...ever. I guess a little frame prep and proper installation
goes a long way.

Tim And, oh yes, they did hurt my daintly little hands ya Campy freak you.
What
the heck are you talking about with the "deadly" allen wrench? At least you
managed to get through a post without slamming Shimano. Must be some kind
of a record. BRBR


I like shimano HS..great design..

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

"David L. Johnson" wrote:

what makes you think that the wheelbase makes the
response quicker?

Assuming that the tyres aren't slipping, the bike moves on an arc centred
approximately at the intersection of two lines extended from the hub axles.
For a given angular displacement of the front wheel, the radius of this arc
is proportional to the wheelbase. This could reasonably be interpreted as a
measure of responsiveness.

I agree that whether or not a frame is 'compact' has no bearing on its
wheelbase.

James Thomson

"David L. Johnson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 06:29:29 +0000, Tim McTeague wrote:

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

Enough for me, there. A minor spill -- pushes your bars out of alignment,
then you have to re-adjust the headset?

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?

My headset has been quietly doing its job for two years. No adjustment.
Meanwhile, I move the bars to accomodate my aging back, no trouble, and to
re-align after falling in the rain.

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.

"Pound"?

You've never had to pound a cone-style quill stem bolt/binder system to get
the cone outa the quill?

--
Robin Hubert

"ajames54" wrote in message
news
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...

This is the crux of it. Just as the reason for threadless headsets is
for the benefit of the manufacturer and retailer, and leaves the
consumer to purchase those ridiculous looking extensions.

Many of the "advances," alumimum versus chromolly, threadless
versus threaded, compact versus traditional, are done to save
money, then reasons are invented for them to sound plausible
to people that don't know any better.

Even though you can still buy a bicycle with a chromolloy frame,
threaded headset, and normal frame geometry, the mass market
has gone to aluminum, threadless, and compact, raising prices
significantly for the enthusiasts that don't appreciate the
decontenting.

On 08/30/2003 11:19, in article
, "Chris Zacho "The
Wheelman"" wrote:


ease of adjustment is a + on the side
of threadless. The design could be improved though by designing a
separate clamp for holding the headset together, instead of relying on
the stem clamp. That would not only make bar height adjustment easier
(and more versatile), but you wouldn't have to readjust your headset
every time a spill knocks your stem out of square. It may even be
possible to use quilled stems with them, if you prefer that route.

No particular need to "design" a separate clamp. If you use cantilever
brakes, many of the cable hangers will have such a clamp, or you can always
use use a seatpost clamp of the appropriate size as long as it doesn't have
a little lip on it.

Baird

Assuming similar tubing, a compact frame is stiffer in the area where
stiffness matters - the BB. Whether this stiffness is measurable is another
story, but if you compare the traditional diamond design with that of a
typical compact with a shorter seat tube and use the same tube set, then the
smaller triangle will be stiffer and lighter.

And the longer seatpost (if it is the same material & dimenions) will have
more flex in the direction you might like - to give you a softer ride. But
you may have to have a stiffer seatpost to handle the longer extension.

Now if you don't like the appearance then that's another story. But the
shape gives a lighter and stiffer frame.

-Bruce
my road bikes: horizontal TT
my mtbikes: sloping TT

"H. Guy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

Basically, the shorter the tubes, the stiffer the frame. And lighter,
quicker response due to the shorter wheelbase.

nice theory, but when you've got a foot of unsupported seatpost hanging
out of the "size L" frame, how stiff is that going to be? and is the
wheelbase really shorter? (not being a smart aleck here...just don't
know.)

while the compact frame will probably be lighter, i'll put my money
on the traditional design for stiffness.

hg

In article . net,
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:

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...

This is the crux of it. Just as the reason for threadless headsets is
for the benefit of the manufacturer and retailer, and leaves the
consumer to purchase those ridiculous looking extensions.

well, i'm going to give the manufacturers the benefit of the doubt
here, and theorize that cheaper manufacturing leads to cheaper
prices, which puts more bikes between the legs of customers. if a
decent alu-framed bike costs you almost $2K, i'm betting you could
add another $.5K to get a nice handmade, lugged steel frame on there.
and a price increase of 25% OR MORE might tend to shrink the market
a bit.

and as far as alu not being an advance, i remember the first time
i climbed aboard a cannondale and sprinted up a hill (i'm not going
to tell you when, exactly, but let's just say that klein was still
doing its damndest to sue cannondale back into the stone age). it
was AMAZING. i LOVED it. no brake rub, no derailleur cage rub, no
mushy feeling.

of course, over the years that no flex ride got real old, and the
cannondale ended up on the junk heap and there's a nice solid piece
of japanese steel between the wheels right now. but if i were still
racing, there'd be no doubt about what i'd be on: stronger, lighter,
stiffer aluminum.