question: compact and standard frames.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by senzed
What exactly is the difference. What advantages/disadvantages does a compact frame have over a standard one. I'm askign because there are several bikes within the same price range that I'm considering, but some are standard (trek 2200, lemond buenos aires) and some are compact (specialized allez comp and klein race), and it's really killing me because I have no idea what each type of frame has to offer.
help.

thanks

They have a sloping TT. You willl hear all kinds of hooey about lighter,stiffer,easier to fit. Don't buy into marketing hype and generalizations.Buy the one that fits you best.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by senzed
What exactly is the difference. What advantages/disadvantages does a compact frame have over a standard one.

Compact frames only come in several sizes XS, S, M, L, XL. Would some of the criticism of them be negated if they were made in cm sizing increments?

I was looking at getting one but felt that my ideal size would be somewhere in between the S and M.

I think they look good and may have other advantages (stiffness, weight, etc) if you are lucky enough to be the correct shape to fit one of the sizes offered.

so if there's 2 bikes, 1 standard and one compact, and they both fit me fine, they will also ride equally well?
I'm asking because I'm trying to decide between a trek 2200 and a klein Q-carbon race (I think). their group and wheelsets are also the same and they cost the same. Their frames are made of the same stuff, and both have the carbon seatstays, but the klein has a compact frame. So I'm kinda confused about which one to get since I don't know how a compact frame's good/not good.

so if there's 2 bikes, 1 standard and one compact, and they both fit me fine, they will also ride equally well?
I'm asking because I'm trying to decide between a trek 2200 and a klein Q-carbon race (I think). their group and wheelsets are also the same and they cost the same. Their frames are made of the same stuff, and both have the carbon seatstays, but the klein has a compact frame. So I'm kinda confused about which one to get since I don't know how a compact frame's good/not good.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by boudreaux
They have a sloping TT. You willl hear all kinds of hooey about lighter,stiffer,easier to fit. Don't buy into marketing hype and generalizations.Buy the one that fits you best.

some companies actually do break the compact sizes down even further, including a small/medium and a medium/large.from everything i've read, there seems to be a bit more maneuvering room,sizing wise,with the compacts than with the traditional geometry frames, which apparantly needs to be more exact.i'm also flipping coins right now over a trad. vs. compact,and i was hoping for a little more info here as well. i guess it's simply personal preference,which doesn't help very much at all,since my personal preference would be to have them both !! i'm really curious if they're the wave of the future,as i once read. anyway,for what it's worth,i think you should go with the compact klein. you won't see them nearly as often as you'll see the trek.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by senzed
so if there's 2 bikes, 1 standard and one compact, and they both fit me fine, they will also ride equally well?
I'm asking because I'm trying to decide between a trek 2200 and a klein Q-carbon race (I think). their group and wheelsets are also the same and they cost the same. Their frames are made of the same stuff, and both have the carbon seatstays, but the klein has a compact frame. So I'm kinda confused about which one to get since I don't know how a compact frame's good/not good.

I think you will have to test ride them both and make up your own mind. I know this is easier said than done, because you really need to ride them alternately for a couple of weeks to really know. Perhaps keep going to the bike shop everyday and test riding them (take your normal riding gear and make sure they adjust them up for you). It may annoy the bike shop people but that's their business. if they are going to get a sale one way in the end they probably won't care. This also helps you extend the pleasure of your purchase - a bit like foreplay.

if it's true that the traditional frame doesn't have any advantages over the compact, then I'll probably go for the specialized since it's got full ultegra and a carbon steatpost.

There is a difference in feel between compact and standard geometry. I ride both. The difference is what you feel under you when sprinting (or standing on the pedals out of a corner) or climbing out of the saddle. It feels more 'nimble'. It is a very subjective feeling though, and ideally, the perfect fitting frame should kind of disappear from under you and then you just forget about it. Also, other factors in geometry like headtube angle and rake, or bottom bracket stiffness, could grab more of your attention.
Maybe I am priviliged because I ride custom built sloping frames.

It comes down to: whatever fits you best. And what is pleasing to your eyes of course!

most of the stuff that is written about compact versus std. is marketing but there is one advantage that no one has mentioned. Compact frames from good companies come in 2 cm differences, if you are thinking of needing a 54cm frame you would be able to buy a52cm, 54cm or a 56 compact. the 3 of them should use the same center to center measurement on the seat tube. this allows a person that has short legs and a long torso to ride a bike that has a longer top tube but still has a low standover height. The other good thing is that you are buying a frame that you need a longer seatpost for. If you get a titanium post you will get a smoother ride because the ti post absorbs road shock better that most posts and since it is out of the frame farther it does it even better. This can help a person not have to buy a frame that is custom.

I'm with Mikeo, you really need to ride them both to see how you like them both.

I have one each - a traditional and a compact geometry bike - and they feel and behave differently. the compact has a shorter wheelbase, has quicker steering, accelerates faster, and feels stiffer. the traditional bike is smoother, takes bumps better, and feels more like a limousine than a sports car.. I've raced both bikes and prefer to race the compact, but much prefer the traditional to the compact on 5 - 6 hour rides.

Sure, those who ride a compact and a traditional frame will notice differences, but then again, they'd notice differences between a Giant TCR and a Airborne Torch (both compact) as well. And between a Klein Q-Pro and a Felt F15 (both traditional).

From what I've read, there's very little real data that illustrates real differences in ride quality between two otherwise equal bikes with compact and traditional geometry. Geometry matters, but in the end, compact frames offer head tube angles in the same range as non-compact frames; same for seat tubes, bottom bracket position, and wheelbase. Those characteristics, along with tube material, construction and assembly make a more significant universal difference.

The bottom line? There are great bikes made in both compact and standard styles. There are racy, twitchy non-compact frames; there are easy-riding and mellow compact frames. There are elite pro teams on both styles. In other words, don't worry about standard vs. compact -- concern yourself with the usual issues: fit, price, component selection, style, durability, and so on.

Good luck!

lokstah makes a very good point. most folks comparing compact to standard are looking at models with some geometry differences.

the compact frame, imo, makes fit and sizing easier because stand-over height is mostly removed from the equation and one can concentrate on the top-tube/stem length needed for a proper fit.

the stiffness and weight savings factor of the smaller compact is also diminished somewhat by the longer (and flexier) seatpost (which can, as someone pointed out, add to the comfort). out of saddle, the compact should definitely be stiffer than a standard built with the same tubing, but seated the difference will not be as much.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by drewski

the compact frame, imo, makes fit and sizing easier because stand-over height is mostly removed from the equation and one can concentrate on the top-tube/stem length needed for a proper fit.

Only if there are enough sizes to get close.Too long or short stems don't cut it.

If you look at Dean Bikes or Serrota Bikes they both make frames in standard and compact and each frame size is spec with the same top tube length (eff. for compact). The only differences are the standover height. The ride when you compare the 2 is almost identical. The compact may be a little stiffer when standing but that is it.

The greatest benefits for me of compact geometry frame (Giant in particular) :
1] Standover height, I can put both feet flat on the ground and I do not have any pressure on my soft bits, this makes cycling in areas with many traffic lights a pleasure, if I have to stop I do not have to lean, I can stand up straight.

2] The frame is very responsive, but also well mannered and the medium size fits me like a glove (173cm tall, 77Kg) and is an absolute pleasure to ride - the bike really vanishes under me and feels like an extension of my body (or is it that my body feels like an extension of the bike - never quite sure)

The lowered standover height can definitely be a plus with compact frames; it sort of changes the rules of proper fit in a way that may serve some riders for the better.

Beyond that, I still think the debate is completely up in the air. There are plenty of snappy, stiff and responsive compact frames out there -- and little or no evidence to show that they're snappy, stiff and responsive precisely because they've got sloping top tubes.

Not that I don't like the Giant I'm on now. I'm just not convinced I'd like it less if it were a traditional looking bike.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Julian Radowsky
The greatest benefits for me of compact geometry frame (Giant in particular) :
1] Standover height, I can put both feet flat on the ground and I do not have any pressure on my soft bits, this makes cycling in areas with many traffic lights a pleasure, if I have to stop I do not have to lean, I can stand up straight.

If you cannot put uour feet flat on the ground with a traditional frame is simply does not fit. The only place the short standover business works is is you are short leggecd and have a long torso.

but why are so many road bikes at 'em big competitions traditional ones if compact frames are better.