|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of compact geometry frames vs "classic" geometry???
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? BRBR 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
handlebar height | n crowley | General | 35 | April 19th 04 07:12 PM |
Trek 5900 vs Giant TCR Compoiste Compact Carbon frames | Robet | Racing | 51 | December 26th 03 08:33 AM |
NE1 heard of these "Velorazzo" frames? | U-Bob | Mountain Biking | 15 | September 29th 03 06:09 PM |