Originally Posted by
John E
As a highly biased retrosnob, I say the former looks correct/proper/good/etc.
The latter reduces manufacturing and retailing costs by allowing a given size to accommodate a wider range of sizes of riders.
Ride something that fits you comfortably and which serves your needs and desires.
Said some one would say this.
All a frame is- is something to hang the rest of the bits on. If it was critical on dimensions-materials- sizing- then there would only be one frame size and all the same critical angles. Bikes differ and so do the people that ride them. One of the reasons I ride compact is that I started on Mountain bikes and Distance between the crotch and the top tube is Critical. The further the two can be apart- the better. But a Compact frame also gives a different ride. The bike is stiffer- the rear triangle is smaller and stiffer and this does give an advantage when pedalling power is changed to forward movement. Stiffer frame = less flexing = less power loss from pedalling effort. Then there is the "Chuckability" of a small frame on technical parts of a ride. That small frame- even though it may weigh more (Which mine don't)-is easier to manoeuvre.
When I transferred over to road bikes- I went with the compact frames as this is what I know. I am used to the frames and although I don't often have to Bunny hop logs or Swerve round many trees on the road- I do feel that I can do it if necessary.
So get out and ride a few compacts and a few normal frames and see what you like.
Attachment is of the 3rd type of frame- Sloping Tube