LBS, you should be ashamed.

Here's the best info I've run across on the subject.

cervelo.comQ A159.htmlOpen ↗

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now

according

Quoted message said:

to the salespeople, compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it
stiffer, etc. Last year they usually told me

the

Quoted message said:

standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now according to the salespeople,
compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it stiffer, etc.
Last year they usually told me the standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

There's really no difference. The effective geometry is usually the same, you're just trading a few
inches of frame tube for a few more inches of seatpost. A compact frame might be a little stiffer,
especially in the larger sizes, but probably only in an academic sense. A compact frame gives you
better standover clearance. That's about it. Mountain bikes went "compact" back in the early 90s,
mostly for the clearance issue. But clearance usually isn't a problem with road bikes, except in the
smallest sizes -- which are have been compact for awhile now.

One thing that *is* happening with the move to compact frames is that manufacturers are trying to
get away with fewer frame sizes. So some people may be stuck with a less than perfect fit. This is
unrelated to being traditional
vs. compact, although they may try to tell you otherwise.

Matt O.

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now

according

Quoted message said:

to the salespeople, compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it
stiffer, etc. Last year they usually told me

the

Quoted message said:

standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

They're right, both times! Given that it's all about style points, if they think standard frames
were cooler last year, then they were better. If times have changed so that compact geometry is in
vogue, then this year compact is obviously better. It's a win-win situation! The only thing that
loses out is the truth (that it really doesn't matter, as long as you end up in the right place, and
they don't use compact sizing to reduce the number of size options available).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now

according

Quoted message said:

to the salespeople, compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it
stiffer, etc. Last year they usually told me

the

Quoted message said:

standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

jazzy-<< Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now according to the
salespeople, compact is vastly superior to standard geometry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

And bike shop industry guys wonder why the bike market is shrinking. Look closely and you will see
the sales knucleheads little forked tongues.

jazzy<< Does anyone know the truth?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

The 'truth' is out there but it isn't in compact..Too bad they won't tell ya why compact..rhymes
with 'paving'...money that is.

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

"Callistus Valerius" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now

according

Quoted message said:

to the salespeople, compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it
stiffer, etc. Last year they usually told me

the

Quoted message said:

standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

The only reasons I can see to build a bike with compact geometry are to save money on shipping costs
(from factory to wholesaler to dealer), and cut down on the number of frame sizes a bike maker has
to build and a dealer has to stock.
--
mark

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now according to the salespeople,
compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it stiffer, etc. Last
year they usually told me the standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

Yes it is stiffer, but did it need to be stiffer than it was before? Probably not. Also what is
their excuse for less sizes?
-------------
Alex

Callistus Valerius said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now according to the salespeople,
compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it stiffer, etc. Last
year they usually told me the standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

They CAN be an advantage if you have relatively short legs and a long torso (though don't assume
that a particular compact frame will necessarily help with this - check that the head tube length,
effective "cockpit length" and then the standover height is all correct).

Other than that, it's pretty much a wash. Save a few grams in frame material, lose it back to the
longer seat post.

And of course, we all know that a top tube aligned in the wind is going to be MUCH faster than one
canted down, as evidenced by the fact that road bikes are so much faster on the road than MTBs).
;-) <---note

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

<< Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now according to the salespeople,
compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. >>

Compact geometry is an attempt by bike companies to reinvent the wheel, as it were, since the basic
diamond frame design has not changed much in a century. How else to attract new customers in a flat
market? Appeal to the younger crowd who grew up on BMX and mountain bikes with a familiar look but
for the road, and grown-up riders with something new and different. New designs imply progress, so
they must be better, right? There's always someone who will buy the latest and most expensive
gadget, just because they can-I know several of them. For me, compact frames lose points in the
aethetics department, although a lot of that went out the window anyway with the advent of
TIG-welded, oversize beer-can bikes. I don't care who it is, an adult on a compact frame looks
silly-like a kid on steroids riding an overgrown BMX bike. Just my 2¢.

Is it winter already?

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now

according

Quoted message said:

to the salespeople, compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it
stiffer, etc. Last year they usually told me

the

Quoted message said:

standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

Fama volat.' - Vergil On Wed said:

Quoted message said:

Now when I walk into a LBS, all I see is compact geometry. Now according to the salespeople,
compact is vastly superior to standard geometry. The smaller triangle makes it stiffer, etc.
Last year they usually told me the standard was better. Does anyone know the truth?

Yes it is stiffer, but did it need to be stiffer than it was before? Probably not.

It is not clear to me that the compact frame will necessarily be stiffer. With a compact style, only
the seatmast and seatstays are shorter, and their contribution to frame stiffness is generally
regarded as verging on negligibility. From where does the extra stiffness you claim come?
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalog of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

(Qui si parla Campagnolo) said:

The 'truth' is out there but it isn't in compact..Too bad they won't tell ya why compact..rhymes
with 'paving'...money that is.

While I hold no opinion on this issue, and am not interested in differing with you on it; I
can't understand your paragraph at all. Are you saying that the word "compact" rhymes with the
word "paving"?

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm

--
Rick Onanian

John Dacey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The smaller triangle makes it stiffer, etc. Last year they usually told me the standard was
better. Does anyone know the truth?

Yes it is stiffer, but did it need to be stiffer than it was before? Probably not.

It is not clear to me that the compact frame will necessarily be stiffer. With a compact
style, only the seatmast and seatstays are shorter, and their contribution to frame stiffness
is generally regarded as verging on negligibility. From where does the extra stiffness you
claim come?

It depends on how you measure it, and that shows the lie of this claim. If you measure frame
deflection on a bare frame, that might be less with a compact frame. But if you build up 2 bikes and
clamp on the seat (same seat height) and bars, the compact-frame _bike_ will flex more since the
pivots (the welds) are closer together, so there is more leverage.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. -- _`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
(_)/ (_) |

Rick Onanian <[email hidden]> wrote:
: On 03 Dec 2003 14:32:50 GMT, [email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
:>The 'truth' is out there but it isn't in compact..Too bad they won't tell ya why compact..rhymes
:>with 'paving'...money that is.

: While I hold no opinion on this issue, and am not interested in differing with you on it; I can't
: understand your paragraph at all. Are you saying that the word "compact" rhymes with the word
: "paving"?

saving rhymes with paving. sooo (paraphrased) he said:

"the 'truth' is out there but it isn't in compact geometry. too bad they won't tell ya compacts ...
are about manufacturers saving .. money ..."

i'm pretty sure. peter's way easier than g.daniels. what's your deal?
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

Genus irritabile vatum.' - Horace On Wed said:

Quoted message said:

The 'truth' is out there but it isn't in compact..Too bad they won't tell ya why compact..rhymes
with 'paving'...money that is.

While I hold no opinion on this issue, and am not interested in differing with you on it; I can't
understand your paragraph at all. Are you saying that the word "compact" rhymes with the word
"paving"?

This is a Haiku entry into Carl Fogel's weekly Poetry Slugfest, an homage to g.daniel.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalog of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

John Dacey <[email hidden]> wrote:
: This is a Haiku entry into Carl Fogel's weekly Poetry Slugfest, an homage to g.daniel.

remind me to thank carl for all his work around here.

difficile est saturam non scribere.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

David Reuteler said:

Rick Onanian <[email hidden]> wrote:
: On 03 Dec 2003 14:32:50 GMT, [email hidden] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
:>The 'truth' is out there but it isn't in compact..Too bad they won't tell ya why compact..rhymes
:>with 'paving'...money that is.

: While I hold no opinion on this issue, and am not interested in differing with you on it; I can't
: understand your paragraph at all. Are you saying that the word "compact" rhymes with the word
: "paving"?

saving rhymes with paving. sooo (paraphrased) he said:

OIC.

Quoted message said:

i'm pretty sure. peter's way easier than g.daniels. what's your deal?

I think I'm just dense. I'm definitely tired.

Hey, I wonder if the pop-culture phrase "Totally tubular!", which briefly existed in the 80s, was
related to bicycle tires at all?
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Hey, I wonder if the pop-culture phrase "Totally tubular!", which briefly existed in the 80s, was
: related to bicycle tires at all?

moon unit zappa.

history.sandiego.eduvalleygirl.htmlOpen ↗

she held up pretty well, actually. she was 14 (2 years older than me) when the song was out .. so
sadly i doubt she was running tubular tyres.
--
david reuteler [email hidden]

David Reuteler said:

Rick Onanian said:

Hey, I wonder if the pop-culture phrase "Totally tubular!", which briefly existed in the 80s, was
related to bicycle tires at all?

moon unit zappa.

But do you have any evidence that she originated this usage of the word? I find this doubtful. (And
note that the lyrics were written by Frank).

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they are held by most to be the
lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

"David Reuteler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

: Hey, I wonder if the pop-culture phrase "Totally tubular!", which briefly existed in the 80s,
: was related to bicycle tires at all?

moon unit zappa.

history.sandiego.eduvalleygirl.htmlOpen ↗

she held up pretty well, actually. she was 14 (2 years older than me) when the song was out .. so
sadly i doubt she was running tubular tyres.

It's youth/surf slang from the early 80s. Getting "tubed" while surfing is the [censored] thing
there is. So anything that's as [censored] as that is, like, totally tubular.

Back then in southern CA you were either from the beach, and cool, or from The Valley (anywhere more
than 3 miles inland) and really uncool. So valley people, in trying to be cool, affected surf slang
and lifestyle cues. Of course, they took it several steps too far, and looked and sounded ridiculous
-- which is what Moon Zappa's song makes fun of. Kind of like today's white frat boys with their
affected hip-hop stuff.

Matt O.