SMS said:Steve Gravrock said:On 2007-06-06, Johnny Sunset <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:"Compact geometry" offends the eye.
Quoted message said:Agreed, but it also can mean the difference between a bike that's
comfortable and one that hurts to ride, especially for shorter people.
It's true, the compact frames are good for shorter people.
Compact frames (frames with a sloping top tube) were introduced by
manufacturers seeking to reduce the number of different size frames that
they had to manufacture. With three or four sizes of compact frames, the
manufacturer can tailor the bicycle to fit most customers.
There may be some benefit to the manufacturer for sure, but both
Bianchi and Fuji offer *6* sizes, not three or four. You're spouting
tired old r.b.t rhetoric.
Quoted message said:They simply
use a longer seat post to fit taller riders. They can also use a longer
steerer tube and use spacers between the headset and the stem. The false
rationalizations for compact frames are that the smaller frame is
lighter, and "livelier." Of course the longer seat post negates the
benefit of the lower weight of the compact frame.
There was a very good article about compact geometry frames on the
Cannondale web site (now removed): "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.
Bunk. If you ride the proper sized compact frame, you don't need a
super long post. I even sawed one of mine off partially, after noting
the minimum insertion mark and making a new such mark with a file. Two
ounces gone, and nobody has to know. /snort
Quoted message said:
For non-short people, a compact frame is very undesirable.
Bunk. A sloping top tube frame is fine. Indeed, it helps to get
handlebar height dialed in right. As long as you get the correct size.
People these days seem to ride a size compact/sloping frame smaller
than would be optimal. Long seatposts have become fashionable, no
doubt due to mtb styling being seen as the norm.
"Very undesirable?" Totally without merit.
Quoted message said:Whatever you
do, avoid compact frames on road bikes.
Why? You haven't given a good reason yet.
Quoted message said:Get a properly sized,
"traditional" geometry frame.
No reason to, unless you like the aesthetics. I've taken to sloping
frames. On my fixed gear, which has 130mm of post showing, it moves
the head tube up 7-8cm from where it would otherwise be. Excellent!
People have been hookwinked for years into adopting race style setups
with excruciatingly low bars when they didn't need them--because it
was a royal PITA to get them up. Yeah, you've got the Nitto tall
stems, but few shops around here carry them, just the short quills and
few of those these days. With the compact frame you've already got a
head start. I don't care if they also benefit manufacturers--I like
them, and they make sense.
It's sort of like moaning about threadless setups. Yeah, they save
manufacturers some dough, and certainly aren't as pretty as quills,
but being able to adjust your headset with a multi-tool is pretty
cool. Now if we could just stop them from cutting those dang steerers
too short.
Like a flat top tube? Ride one by all means, just don't start using
the same 'tude as those dirty recumbentists.
