compact geometry hell

(Brian S) said:

Compact frames perform better than standard frames when my
extended carbon seat post eliminates more road buzz simply
because the distance from seat tube to saddle is longer.

I'd ask you to come up with some sort of logical explanation
for this. Namely:

1) how a thick-walled carbon fiber tube has enough
compliance to
2) be detected when filtered by a saddle.

Clearly there's no doubt that 1 is true - but only to a
vanishingly small degree. The magnitude of #1 will be
utterly buried by the compliance of #2.

Quoted message said:

I also appreciate the additional stand-over height.
Because form follows function, these are more important
to me than buying a classic frame with a horizontal TT.
BTW, since the bike industry is in trouble, isn't it a
good thing to reduce costs and boost margins? In a
competitive industry, you can bet that these costs ARE
being passed through (if not in price reductions then in
a slowing of the pace at which retail prices keep
rising). Aren't these three good reasons for a newbie (or
a veteran)to get interested in biking, select a compact
frame, and keep interested in it?

No one has argued that there's anything inherently evil
about a compact frame (lots of my customs are "compact"
BTW). Some take exception to the aesthetics, but beauty IS
in the eye of the bikeholder. The issue that those posting
"against" compacts have is that there are those who ascribe
unsubstantiated magical qualities to them - faster,
smoother, lighter, etc. It just ain't true.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame

Robert Brown said:

... Maybe someone can help me understand one of the
rumoured advantages with compact geometry frames - that
they allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame
sizes, thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in
stock, etc.

This I do not understand.

If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact
frame, preserving seat height, handlebar height, seat post
angle, and top tube length, then assuming that same safety
and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar
stem from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical
difference for the compact frame case is that a longer
seat post is used.

If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this
same bike, then this frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we
can move the seat post down but we still need to move the
handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.

So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a
smaller frame for our rider.

This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as
many frames as before, right?

What gives?

The comfort of the rider when the inferior LBS sells him or
her a bike with an incorrect distance between the saddle and
handlebars?

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Though the Pinarello does have a bell.

Which I used in last weekend's race,

ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well
received?

In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we
were overtaking a pair of dropped B-group riders (so
everyone else is yelling "riders up!" as we pass, and I
ring my bell. Everyone laughs).

The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were
out watching me race.

I'll try to come out and cheer you on too, if you put that
kick-stand back on.

--
Benjamin Lewis

On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't
right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

The framesets we sell are not 'square'..many have steep
seattubes and longish top tubes. many framesets, like
Lemond do too. Compact may solve the fit issue for you but
many 'standard' framesets do too. To paint compact as some
sort of cycling phenomenum is not true.

jesse<< I can go buy an affordable, off the shelf, compact
frame that will fit both me and the average guy. Without
compact, I would have to go custom, and that's silly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

If the manufacturers would make more sizes, you could do
the same. You just would have to find a manufacturer that
did that, with frameset dimensions that fit you. NOTHING
about sizing is standard. To imply that frame makers ALL
follow some sort of guidelines or standardss as to
frameset dimansions is folly.

DeRosa/Merckx and Colnago are at opposite ends of the
dimension spectrum, for say a '56cm', both say their
dimensions are proper.

But this is what I don't get. If these two brands are the
opposite of the spectrum, why are the differences so tiny?
.5 deg in seat tube angle, a cm or two in TT length, all
with ST lengths within a cm of TT length.

A 60cm ST DeRosa has a 73 deg ST/58.5 TT. A 60cm Colnago
(57cm c-c) has a 73deg/57.7 TT. This is only a difference of
.7cm, which is tiny.

Quoted message said:

<jesse< This is a dodge. Giant got all the attention for
their compact road frame in only 4 sizes, but we all know
that was stupid, and plenty of manufacturers make compact
frames in 2cm increments. Specialized, Cervelo, and many
others. >><BR><BR>

If lots of sizes, then why compact? They are not
steep/long, in their dimensions. They are just a standard
frameset, with the top tube dropped, the stays shorter.
'Stiffer, faster, more comfy'???

Well, we all know the shorter stays thing doesn't add up to
anything. And comfort is in the mind of the beholder (carbon
stays, etc.).

Quoted message said:

jesse<< These frames fit MORE of the population than a
standard square frame. >><BR><BR>

See above. The sizing isn't revolutionary. Look at the
'effective' top tube length and seat tube angle and you
will see they are the same as a standard frameset.

Of course. Except they have more standover clearance. I am
currently riding an Independent Fab, which I bought used
because they are talked about for having long (LeMond-ish)
geometry. So I'm riding a 57 c-c seat tube, and 58 top tube,
72.5deg seat angle, and a 140mm stem.

If I want to ride a 120mm stem like the rest of the world, I
would need a 60 TT @72.5 deg. What 60cm toptube frame could
I possibly find with enough standover clearance that is not
a compact frame or a custom?

A Colnago with a 59.2 TT @ 73deg has a 60cm ST c-c! A
DeRosa with a 59cm TT @ 73 deg has a 61 ST! What is someone
like me (only 5'11"😉 supposed to do? I can't be the only
one out there with a body like mine, in fact, I bet there
are a lot of people like me scrunched up on a 56 or 57TT
classic frame. I know I was for 4 years when I first
started riding...

So that's what I am saying. Sloping top tubes let a certain
TT length fit MORE of the population. Everything else bike
makers are using to sell sloping is baloney (weight,
comfort, "responsiveness", etc). But fit flexability is not.
It's simple geometry.

An ugly is another issue.

Quoted message said:

Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes?

I imagine because most people want to have the saddle very
low when mountain biking.

Quoted message said:

Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?

Mountain bikes are already non-traditional.

--
Benjamin Lewis

On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't
right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli

Robert Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a bit ...)

Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured
advantages with compact geometry frames - that they allow
retailers to stock a lesser number of frame sizes, thus
reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.

This I do not understand.

If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact
frame, preserving seat height, handlebar height, seat post
angle, and top tube length, then assuming that same safety
and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar
stem from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical
difference for the compact frame case is that a longer
seat post is used.

If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this
same bike, then this frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we
can move the seat post down but we still need to move the
handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.

So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a
smaller frame for our rider.

This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as
many frames as before, right?

What gives?

/Robert

Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give
you a technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is
just common sense. If a manufacturer offers a particular
model in four sizes [S,M,L,XL], then no matter what your
body size, one of those four sizes has to be made to fit
you. They do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights,
and angles. Along with seat posts of different setback, or
even forward angle. If they only make four sizes, no matter
what, the dealer can only stock four sizes. If the rider is
too small for the smallest size frame, he is out of luck. In
that case, he has to buy a different model and/or brand. You
can't stock something that doesn't exist, right? right! As
far as I can tell, nothing gives.

Life is Good! Jeff

somebody-<< Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why
don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Coming unglued on a MTB while in the dirt is common and ya
want to hit the ground with your feet before you hit the top
tube...pretty simple.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David-<< manufacturers can't force choices down your
throat. >><BR><BR>

Nope but they can 'stretch' the truth, make promises it
can't keep...->marketing is what it's called.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Pete -

A real question - since the "ideal" position for a rider's
setup is something hanging in the air (three points of
contact, completely interdependent, yet independent of any
frame), why the problem with compacts ?

It seems to me that with proper seatpost extension, saddle
set-back, and stem length and height properly fit out, there
are lots of frames which will satisfy, including compacts.

If the esthetics of compact (spacer stacking, sloping top
tube, compressed rear triangle) are at issue, OK. But it
seems to me much more important that the rider is also
properly situated over the bottom bracket, has good weight
distribution front to rear, and is neither overextended nor
squeezed into place. The feel of a custom bike can be ruined
by the three areas of adjustment I mention, too.

My new LOOK 461 is "semi-sloping", and I can't identify any
particular new sensation from its predecessor Kestrel. In
fact, I am happier with it (could be the new bike syndrome).

Am I missing something in your commentary ? Besides the
limited size choices or the marketing newspeak.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy Paris FR

[email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

somebody-<< Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes?
Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Coming unglued on a MTB while in the dirt is common and ya
want to hit the ground with your feet before you hit the
top tube...pretty simple.

Even so when mountain bikes first went to a slopeing top
tube design they were still measured in the standard way...
only to the effective top tube rather than the actual.

In recent years they have become S M L XL there are a number
of reasons, but one of the reasons was that the customer who
fit one 18" frame did not necessarily fit another, the other
dimensions varied so much.

To make it easier on the shops the manufacturors swapped to
the Letter sizes. It does not really affect the knowledgable
customer or the good shops .. but there are a lot of both
customers and shops that are not these things...

The "you fit what we have in stock" attitude is very common.

BaCardi said:

Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why don't the

traditionalists

Quoted message said:

make a big deal about that?

There are non-compact mountain bikes. I have one, made by
Fat Chance, with a horizontal top tube. I haven't seen a
mountain bike like it in some time. It's about 15 years old.

--
Ted Bennett Portland OR

Jeff Starr said:

Robert Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a
bit ...)

Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured
advantages with compact geometry frames - that they
allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame sizes,
thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.

This I do not understand.

If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact
frame, preserving seat height, handlebar height, seat
post angle, and top tube length, then assuming that same
safety and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of
handlebar stem from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only
practical difference for the compact frame case is that
a longer seat post is used.

If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on
this same bike, then this frame will not fit him/her.
Sure, we can move the seat post down but we still need
to move the handlebars down correspondingly, and this is
not any more possible on a compact frame compared with a
regular frame.

So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a
smaller frame for our rider.

This would mean that retailers still have to stock just
as many frames as before, right?

What gives?

/Robert

Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give
you a technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is
just common sense.

?

Quoted message said:

If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four sizes
[S,M,L,XL], then no matter what your body size, one of
those four sizes has to be made to fit you. They do this,
with a variety of stem sizes, heights, and angles.

Stem heights? On an a-head? Hello . . .

Quoted message said:

Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
forward angle.

Kind of pointless. If you think that the best compensation
for an incorrect top tube height is to move the seat back or
forward, then you haven't ever experimented to see what
effect this has on pedalling.

Quoted message said:

If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer
can only stock four sizes.

Well then, problem solved.

Quoted message said:

If the rider is too small for the smallest size frame, he
is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a different
model and/or brand. You can't stock something that doesn't
exist, right? right!

. . . thus absolving dealer of all blame, even if he/she
sells an ill-fitting frame?

Quoted message said:

As far as I can tell, nothing gives.

Do you ever _ride_ bicycles or do you just watch?

According to your reasoning, frame manufacturers could have
given us four sizes, even back when conventional geometry
was "in". Why not 48, 52, 56, and 60 cm?

I could have understood your line of reasoning if it had
been applied to std geometry and the old quill stem
technology. With quill stems, it was possible, up to a
point, to compensate for a too-small frame by using a taller
quill stem with greater extension forward, and moving the
seat back to decrease the effective seat tube angle. But
these kinds of actions were regarded as making the most of a
bad situation [badly-fitting frame] at best.

Nowadays, the a-head stems restrict somewhat the amount of
up-down adjustment for handlebars. This makes it all the
more critical that the right frame size is chosen, so that
the handlebars are the right height, in relation to the seat
height. This is true regardless of whether top tube is
horizontal (traditional) or sloping (compact).

As I said in my previous post, the only practical difference
that the compact geometry gives is a longer seat post (plus
greater straddle-over and _possibly_ increased rigidity).
But the same frame fitting issues still apply just the same.

/Robert

Callistus Valerius said:

Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes?
When you stop at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg
on the top bar? We have some really long red lights around
here. It's too bad, now I wouldn't even consider buying a
LeMond bike.

I bought my first steeply sloped top tube bike in the spring
of '88. It was a lavender Cannondale MTB, and it was the
coolest bike I had ever seen (I think it still is). I put
approximately 35,000 road miles on it before it went into
retirement. During that time it served as my car, my bike,
and my shoes. It almost always wore slicks and 53/12 high
gearing, and I chuckled to myself as I breezed by poseur
roadies wheezing over 18mm tires and aero bars.

I'd be willing to bet that you never rode as *rad* a bike as
that in your life, and in those days I bet I'd have left you
sucking wind if you tried to draft me.

As far as resting your leg on the top tube, uhh... what the
heck are you talking about?

And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of
the bike to ride under an obstruction barely higher than
your saddle, like I used to on my sloping frame? That's a
useful trick my level-top-tube bikes won't do.

Anyway, many new road bikes look cheesy and declassé because
they _are_ cheesy and declassé, not because of the angles of
their top tubes.

Yum: wundel.commanitou1Open ↗
_grossbild.jpg

Yuck: cyclesdeoro.comIOpen ↗
nterBike00/Colnag5L.gif

Chalo Colina

Robert Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This would mean that retailers still have to stock
just as many frames as before, right?

What gives?

/Robert

Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will
give you a technical explanation. But, that said, the
rest is just common sense.

?

Quoted message said:

If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four
sizes [S,M,L,XL], then no matter what your body size,
one of those four sizes has to be made to fit you. They
do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights, and
angles.

Stem heights? On an a-head? Hello . . .

Hello to you, pardon me, I meant rise. More rise will give
you more height.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
forward angle.

Kind of pointless. If you think that the best compensation
for an incorrect top tube height is to move the seat back
or forward, then you haven't ever experimented to see what
effect this has on pedalling.

I don't think that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer
can only stock four sizes.

Well then, problem solved.

Yup, there you have it;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the rider is too small for the smallest size frame,
he is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a
different model and/or brand. You can't stock something
that doesn't exist, right? right!

. . . thus absolving dealer of all blame, even if he/she
sells an ill-fitting frame?

Not in my opinion.

The main gist of your first post, seemed to be that you
didn't understand that they can only stock the number of
sizes made of that model. With compact it is often limited.
From all the technical points you have made in your second
post, I'm kind of surprised you didn't understand that
inventory is limited to available sizes. Whether they fit or
not. I'm certainly not defending the compact frame and the
above is just the way it is. They obviously have their
limitations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As far as I can tell, nothing gives.

Do you ever _ride_ bicycles or do you just watch?

Watch what? If I didn't ride, it would still have nothing to
do with the limitations of compact frames. Believe me, it is
not my idea that the dealer should be forced to use extreme
measures to somewhat fit a bike.

Quoted message said:

According to your reasoning, frame manufacturers could
have given us four sizes, even back when conventional
geometry was "in". Why not 48, 52, 56, and 60 cm?

Once again, it is not my reasoning.

Quoted message said:

I could have understood your line of reasoning if it had
been applied to std geometry and the old quill stem
technology. With quill stems, it was possible, up to a
point, to compensate for a too-small frame by using a
taller quill stem with greater extension forward, and
moving the seat back to decrease the effective seat tube
angle. But these kinds of actions were regarded as making
the most of a bad situation [badly-fitting frame] at best.

It is not my reasoning, and I certainly don't disagee with
you.

Quoted message said:

Nowadays, the a-head stems restrict somewhat the amount of
up-down adjustment for handlebars. This makes it all the
more critical that the right frame size is chosen, so that
the handlebars are the right height, in relation to the
seat height. This is true regardless of whether top tube
is horizontal (traditional) or sloping (compact).

As I said in my previous post, the only practical
difference that the compact geometry gives is a longer
seat post (plus greater straddle-over and _possibly_
increased rigidity). But the same frame fitting issues
still apply just the same.

The supposed benefits of compact frames have been mentioned
throughout this thread. The main one seeming to be lower
standover height. I prefer a traditional frame with all the
size options they usually offer. When you asked: "This would
mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames
as before, right?" I got the impression that you didn't know
or understand that often the manufacturer only offered four
or five sizes and that was the limiting factor. It seems to
me, that you know quite a bit about frame geometry and
proper fit. For me personally, there is no benefit to
buying/riding a compact frame.

Life is Good! Jeff

In article <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

> Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
>
> Which I used in last weekend's race,

ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well
received?

In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we
were overtaking a pair of dropped B-group riders (so
everyone else is yelling "riders up!" as we pass, and I
ring my bell. Everyone laughs).

The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were
out watching me race.

I'll try to come out and cheer you on too, if you put that
kick-stand back on.

No, and I'm pretty sure I'd be DQ'd for a safety (taste)
violation if I tried.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

Chalo said:

And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of
the bike to ride under an obstruction barely higher than
your saddle, like I used to on my sloping frame? That's a
useful trick my level-top-tube bikes won't do.

Please describe this in more detail - I cannot envisage what
is involved. The lowest I can get is to fold my torso down
onto the handlebars...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill
the tomato!

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Damerell said:

Chalo said:

And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side
of the bike to ride under an obstruction barely higher
than your saddle, like I used to on my sloping frame?
That's a useful trick my level-top-tube bikes won't do.

Please describe this in more detail - I cannot envisage
what is involved. The lowest I can get is to fold my torso
down onto the handlebars...

Imagine a typical compact bike: as you approach the
obstacle, you slide off the seat forward and to one side of
the bike. Crouch down low so one leg is touching the top
tube, and drop your head so it's down around the level of
your handlebars.

You are now riding really low. For me, this is not an
obstacle ride I get to do much, as I am short already. Chalo
probably has to do this maneuver when entering some
parkades, riding under telephone wires, etc.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

Jeff Starr wrote:

---8<---- cutting earlier exchange

Quoted message said:

The supposed benefits of compact frames have been
mentioned throughout this thread. The main one seeming to
be lower standover height. I prefer a traditional frame
with all the size options they usually offer. When you
asked: "This would mean that retailers still have to
stock just as many frames as before, right?" I got the
impression that you didn't know or understand that often
the manufacturer only offered four or five sizes and that
was the limiting factor. It seems to me, that you know
quite a bit about frame geometry and proper fit. For me
personally, there is no benefit to buying/riding a
compact frame.

OK - then I believe that our views converge a lot more than
we both first might have thought. Thanks for explaining your
view; I understand it better now and I agree with it.

But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
compact frames generally on offer because I too find them so
damned ug-leee.

/Robert

Jeff Starr wrote:

---8<---- cutting earlier exchange

Quoted message said:

The supposed benefits of compact frames have been
mentioned throughout this thread. The main one seeming to
be lower standover height. I prefer a traditional frame
with all the size options they usually offer. When you
asked: "This would mean that retailers still have to
stock just as many frames as before, right?" I got the
impression that you didn't know or understand that often
the manufacturer only offered four or five sizes and that
was the limiting factor. It seems to me, that you know
quite a bit about frame geometry and proper fit. For me
personally, there is no benefit to buying/riding a
compact frame.

OK - then I believe that our views converge a lot more than
we both first might have thought. Thanks for explaining your
view; I understand it better now and I agree with it.

But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
compact frames generally on offer because I too find them so
damned ug-leee.

/Robert

Robert Brown said:

But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
compact frames generally on offer because I too find them
so damned ug-leee.

I agree with you that these frames are ugly. Still,I bought
one last week. I needed a bike I can leave in France instead
of dragging one with me every holiday. I was offered a
compact frame for 1000 Euros in stead of the 1400 it cost
last year, because there was a new model out. I compared,
but was unable to find anything else in the 1000 Euros price
range, so I bought a very lightweight compact frame that
I'll use a few weeks a year in France.

About sizes of normal geometry frames: LOOK for example
offered a reasobly priced frameset only in 57 or 59 size in
stead of the 58 I need.....

Greets, Derk