CardiacKid

Thanks. If i ditch my tube socks and get some real cycling socks, I think I can save that ounce.

e-RICHIE

i feel ya'

Lamplight

I simply can't stand the way compact frames look. That's my reason. I always have to remind myself I'm not looking at a mountain bike frame with road bike components. In the same way, I know most newer mountain bikes are probably great for their intended purposes, but the drastically sloping top tube makes them look like kids' bikes to me. As far as looks go, I prefer a road bike with a horizontal top tube and a mountain bike with a slight slope.

Bing

OK, fair enough. But is there really that much of a difference between the two bikes represented by the BikeCAD output attached here?

Everything is exactly the same; front center, BB drop, seatpost setback, fork rake, stay length. Everything except for the reverse sloping TT.

And a question for you e-R. Dazza wrote that he saw a niche for smaller riders that might like a compact frame and set about designing the TinySlant6 lugset because KP's original was better suited for bigger heavier riders that like the stiffness a double-oversize tubeset provides. Given that it would allow you to do your thing the way you do, lugged, can you see instances in your current build queue that you might consider using Dazza's lugs when they hit the market?

Lamplight

There is quite a difference in appearance to me. The one with the sloping top tube looks like a mtb frame with short chainstays and drops bars. lol But to each their own.

bellweatherman

I really don't see why the fashion police give a rat's azz one way or another. If the tradtional frame looks good, then ride it. If the compact frame looks good, ride that one. Quit crapping on the compact frame.

Lamplight

I was simply responding to the drawing and explaining why they look different to me and why I like the appearance of one over the other. What's the big deal?

Thylacine

You know, I really hate the term 'compact'. You know why? Because the only thing compact about it is the amount of space a geometry chart with only 5 sizes on it takes.

It's all a construct by Giant. They wanted to get into the road market so they threw megabucks at sponsoring big teams and somehow managed to sell to the public and their dealers that 4 sizes (now 5) were better than 10. "Compact' is a miracle of marketing, nothing else.

Now, if we're talking 'road bikes with sloping top tubes', then that's different. It's mostly an aesthetic judgement. The reason I like it is because I come from a mountain bike background and I ride a 62cm frame. Have you seen what a 62+cm frame looks like with a horizontal top tube? It looks like an adult attempting to ride a BMX.

That's my main reason. Sloping the top tube might loose you 30-50g off the frame, but you make that up with the extra length of the seatpost, so that's a moot point. A smaller rear triangle is MORE vertically compliant, so it theoretically should soften the ride a little. Whoever convinced everyone that a more obtuse triangle is stiffer than one that's less obtuse is a genius and is probably the same person that convinced everyone that Australia is 'downunder'.

I suspect he's a Giant sales rep working in the US somewhere.

bellweatherman

Good point, but compact production frames are, in fact, available in more than 4 sizes depending on which manufacturer you're talking about. In this instance, the topic of discussion is about custom compact frames, which are available in an infinite number of sizes.

2nd thing is that seatpost manufacturers are making their standard posts longer than before, so no. You get a compact frame and chances are, you WILL NOT have to use a longer mtn bike type seatpost. Unless, of course, you go f'ing overboard and get a custom frame with a huge slope to the top tube.

CardiacKid

You have this incredibly annoying way of arguing without actually saying anything. Except your continued statement that seatposts on conventional frames are the same length as compact frames, which is patently untrue, unless the person has bought a bike that is too small to begin with. I am not a weight weenie by any stretch, but if I had an extra 100mm of seatpost sitting in the seattube, I would get out the trusty Dremel tool and fix that problem.

bellweatherman

Man, I'm sorry that you got all annoyed. All I'm saying is that standard road seatposts of today are longer than those of the 80s and even 90s. So, even in the event that you get a compact production frame, it is highly unlikely that you are going to have to buy an extra long mtn bike seatpost. Capiche? That is, unless you get some wacked out custom frame and purposely want to use a mtn bike seatpost. That's it. If you're so biased against the compact frame, just do your own thing with the traditional, insignificantly heavier and flexier frame. No biggie.

e-RICHIE

how can you say it's heavier and/or flexier without
knowing the design and material in question?

CardiacKid

What I'm telling you is that I wasn't biased until I started reading your "answers" to my question. I was asking a question. The fact that some manufacturers have decided that instead of making longer posts for compacts and shorter ones for conventional, they will just make longer posts for everyone, whether they need them or not, is not an argument for why compacts are better.
You started out just rephrasing the question. You then said that they were lighter and stronger. It was finally conceded that there might be a 30 gram weight advantage. When someone challenged your assertion that they were stiffer you changed the subject. You have convinced me.

bellweatherman

OK, I see what you are saying. I'm talking purely from a same set of materials standpoint. Given that the same set of tube material and tube diameters, etc...
A traditional frame is heavier than a compact frame. The difference is a small portion of seat tube. And, totally it is pretty insignificant. The traditional frame is flexier than the compact frame in that the compact frame's smaller triangle is stiffer. At least, in theory that is the idea. However, I admit even with the stiffness it is debatable and if there is any stiffness gained or lost, that it is pretty much insignificant as well. So, in sum, the traditional frame is insignificantly heavier and flexier than the compact.

bellweatherman

Dude. Relax. I'm sorry things turned out the way it did. I had no intentions at all at upsetting you. I was only saying that for argument's sake the standard post of today is going to fit the majority of production compact frames out there. Since, the topic was about custom compact frames, you can be sure to design it the way you and your framebuilder agrees to. So, rock on with a compact frame + standard post!

It's not a big deal, the traditional frame weighs insignificantly more than a compact. Who cares? I don't. I ride a traditional level top tube frame. My next frame will be a custom compact frame because traditional frames don't look normal anymore. Just like I use to wear bell-bottoms and had a groovy mustache, but I got with the times. No prob though. If you want the heavier traditional frame, more power to you!

StanSeven

Whether people like sloping tubes or not, they seem to be here for awhile. Road magazine publishes an annual guide of bikes and cycling equipment. It includes an extensive list of most of the mid to high end complete bikes as well as a seperate category of just frames and more than half are built with sloping top tubes.

Add to this the feedback from custom builders that say most customers pick a sloping tube when given the preference and it seems like most new customers prefer the look.

e-RICHIE

" The difference is a small portion of seat tube. "
wrong yo.
if you lower the seat tube (which, btw, is the thinnest guage
area on any frame) by, say, 3-4 cm, the top tube's effective
cut length is lengthened to give the same reach as was on
the traditional design. so? this extra length cancels out that
extra length if you catch my drift. even still, you are talking
about a dozen or so grams at the most. are you really going
to make a point about the two designs based on this amount
of weight?
wrt the "flexier" issue - you would not have a clue which frame
you were on if you were blindfolded. that aspect of the compact/
trad debate is the industry equivilalent of a sugar pill.

e-RICHIE

same could be said for non-curved forks; colnago intro'ed them
in 91-92 as a manufacturing cost cutting method (under the guise
of - what else? - stiffness) and it became a fashion statement copied
by the minions.
i'm on the framebuilder listserve and frameforum.net and i've not
seen/read any evidence to support that customers choose "slope"
from framebuilders when offered that option.

bellweatherman

So, that's what I said. The traditional frame weighs insignificantly more. I know that by lowering the seat tube, it slightly increases the top tube. But mathematically, you are cutting more from the seat tube than you gain in top tube length. Therefore, you still have some weight savings. Albeit pretty small. Indeed, with the "flexier" issue, I believe that it's probably so insignificant as well that you aren't going to be able to tell a difference. Isn't that what I've said all along?

Where does that leave us? Traditional frames are insignificantly heavier and more flexy (debatable). They do have less standover slearance if that is an issue for some people. I'm all about compactness, even though I'm currently on a traditional level top tube. However, if people want to rock the free world and ride a traditional frame, more power to them!

e-RICHIE

agreed.
fwiw, i just weighed a 4cm section of seat tube,
a 3cm section of top tube (a guess on the length),
and a 4cm offcut of 2 seat stays (again, a guess
on the length) - and the net weight difference in
"going compact" is less than an ounce.


ps
i assume you'd get that ounce back with
the longer section of seat post needed
to span the difference.

CardiacKid

I want to make sure I understand you. Compact frames may or may not be lighter than traditional, and if they are, the difference is so miniscule it is irrelevant; they may or may not be slightly stiffer and you prefer the way traditional frames look. But I am a vain idiot if I prefer traditional. Okay, I understand now.

bellweatherman

Dude chill. It's no big deal, really. If you want to rack on with the traditional frame, more power to you. You are NOT a vain idiot for prefering traditional, but you are a stuck up, elitist, snobby dude for crapping on the compact rider's choice. Fairly evident really.

CardiacKid

Show me exactly where I did that. You think spitting out passive aggressive comments makes you somehow have the higher ground, Dude you have a problem. I have not crapped on the compact riders choice, I have crapped on your lame arguments talking out of both sides of your mouth and another orifice. I have tried to compile your arguments. I have left out any mention of stand over height because I have yet to figure out how that is really an advantage of any consequence.

In compiling these quotes, I have been trying to gleen some useful information. Sorry, couldn't do it.
"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain

bellweatherman

Man, relax! OK?! Take a walk around beautiful Town Lake Austin. I'm sorry if you were offended by my poor use of words. I take it back. You are NOT crapping on compact frames. OK? Let it go. Let's just shoot the breeze. No need to get all in a huff. It's ok, really. I've got no bad intentions to you or anybody else or even anybody that wants to ride a traditional sloping frame. It's all good. OK? Traditional frames are good.

Thylacine

"same could be said for non-curved forks; colnago intro'ed them
in 91-92 as a manufacturing cost cutting method (under the guise
of - what else? - stiffness) and it became a fashion statement copied
by the minions."

Same thing happened in the MTB scene, Richo. Then people discovered that the tubing selection made stacks more difference than the bend of the tube, then everyone shaddap about it. I like straight blade just for looks. (You can add that to my wishlist - a nice IC crown with three IC cast fork ends with three different offsets. Then I'll become a 'Steel Fork Man'.

"i'm on the framebuilder listserve and frameforum.net and i've not
seen/read any evidence to support that customers choose "slope"
from framebuilders when offered that option."

That's because I don't think you have a handle on all the non-traditional builders out there. All the TIG guys are building sloping top tubed roadies as that's what people are asking for. Also, isn't Dazza selling Slant6ers and introducing a mini slant 6 lugset? Surely that indicates there's a demand, no?

Personally, I think it's all an aesthetic judgement. Heck, I've built a couple of fixies with sloping UP top tubes, and as I mentioned, the bigger size bikes just plain look better with a sloping top tube IMHO. Makes 'em look less like a clowns bike, and believe me, I already look too much like a clown as it is