Who has switched from a traditional frame to a compact design and how do you like the change? What do you like better? What don't they like? Do you think this is the next generation of road bikes?

Interesting that Slipstream "requested" Felt's compact frames for Tour of California. The pros are slowly coming around. What do you think?

My newest bike (TCR Advanced Team) is a compact, the rest are traditional frames. My new bike is lighter and stiffer, and the handling is crisper than the bike it replaced (Merlin Extralight). However, I'm not sure any of this (except for part of the weight savings) is attributable to the fact it's a compact.

Biggest advantage of compact frames appear to be the ability to fit a wider range of people with fewer sizes.

I had one of each. Never noticed any major difference in handling but I just don't like the look of compacts so the compact frame has now gone and has been replaced with another traditional one. Purely for aesthetic reasons for me I'm afraid.

The pros are slowly coming around? most of the field is on compacts.

They are stiffer and lighter. fit is identical to traditional.

Even Trek is prototyping a compact with Disco this summer.

I have one of each. Both work pretty well for me...the compact handles a little more sharply (or is more twitchy, depending on your point of view). The trad is the better ride overall but at over twice the price it had better be ....I ride both, still, and while they are different I enjoy them both.

Instead of starting a new thread I thought I would dig this one up.

I just went from a compact frame (BD Dawes Bike) to a traditional frame (Kestrel rt700 bought from BD). I don't have a lot of experience with different frames and the traditional frame kind of threw me off. When I was zooming down hills it seems that my center of gravity is higher and I am a little more nervous of going fast. The New rt700 does want to go fast but I seem to be tapping my brakes a lot because I am just not comfortable with the speeds that I was fine with on my Cheap Dawes bike.

I looked over at wiki about bike frames at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_frame

It states "Compact geometry road frames have a lower center of gravity". I am guessing that my center of gravity is higher and that I just have to get use to it.

What kind of frame do you prefer and why? Compact of Traditional?

Pros and Cons of each?

Am I confused or is this thread, like, from '02?

I would have thought that since 90% of the total weight is the rider, if your seat height is the same then the center of gravity is hardly going to change.

I moved from traditional to compact and now own both. There are too many variables between my bicycles to make claims for the geometry.

+1 on the rider being the main source of weight (not to state the obvious but I outweigh my bike by a factor of 10+).

What would affect center of gravity is how my weight is distributed. Since BB height, bar height, and seat height are virtually identical, my center of gravity is virtually identical.

If I took a picture of me on a bike (from the side) and erased all the frame/stem/post bits, I could redraw the frame which ever way I want using the same head tube angle, rake, and bar/seat/crank position. As long as the bike is about the same weight/stiffness, I still have some range of motion, the bike would essentially handle the same. I could be on a frame that resembles a BMX frame (which I think would be ideal for me due to tiny main frame and long front end which matches my gorilla like limb proportions) or one that was standard.

Compact sizing allows a wider range of leg lengths to fit on a given (lengthwise) length frame. In other words, if I wanted to ride a 55.5 cm top tube, I'd have to buy a pretty tall frame (54-55 cm). I have short legs and ride a 52. Therefore I could not fit a "standard" frame with a 55.5 cm tt. But, with compact, I could buy a (for example) size M Giant. It has an approx 50 cm seat tube and I can both stand over it as well as have the seat at the right height. No way I could do this on a standard frame.

Having said that, I first went to a size S Giant (53.5 tt) and then recently I moved to a 52 cm standard (53.5 tt also, but 1 cm shorter head tube).

If I were a team director with a lot of different riders (Slipstream), I'd want spares that fit as many riders as possible using the fewest bikes. A compact frame would allow me to fit more riders onto a frame without compromising their fit too much. For example, if my team had all Cannondales, I'd have to carry around frames like 52, 54, 56, 58, 60 to fit most riders. If my team had all Giants, I could get by with just M and L, maybe XL too. Even if a rider really mangled his primary bike, a mechanic could do a stem swap to adjust the spare bike's fit more precisely (or use an adjustable stem).

Any difference in handling etc has to do with things that have nothing to do with standard vs compact. It has to do with tube specs, stiffness, etc. My compact Giant TCRs are *way* more noodly than my standard Cannondale.

cdr

Center of gravity (higher or lower) is basically only affected by bottom bracket height. I have a new cross frame which is (slightly) of the compact design. Eh... It's a 'cross frame so the BB is higher and so is my center of gravity, but other than that, I have it adjusted to be very close to my traditional framed Trek. Asthetically, the level TT looks better to my eye, but functionally I think it's a wash. Any weight savings and overall frame stiffness gains are given right back by the longer seatpost. The stiffness of the BB area won't be affected much by a few cm different seat tube length and the seat stays don't change length that much, so pedaling efficiency is basically a wash.

So, basically a wash all the way around. Although I guess the compact geometry, if designed so, can allow a higher handlebar position with a smaller headset spacer stack while keeping a high standover clearance (if you are worried about that sort of thing). With mountain bikes it makes more sense because they will sometimes drop their saddle really low on descents and they can really use the higher standover clearance.

I have put about 2,000 miles on a new Giant OCR1 in the last four months, it is a definite improvement over my old Fuji. Very stable and the relative upright position is a plus for anyone who gives it a chance.

[QUOTE=DocRay;4352683]

They are stiffer and lighter.

QUOTE]

Don't we all just love the blanket statements with nothing to back it up?

OP, if your bike is feeling twitchy on hills, it's probably the fit. Check that out with someone who knows what he's doing (or call BD's customer service)....

The small amount of mass in the top tube being lower can't be the cause. I have one of each and the fit is similar and there are no major differences in handling.

I've got two traditional framed bikes, one compact with another on the way. Compact frames work a little better for me because I've got short legs compared to my torso and especially arms, so I can get into a longer top tube without getting into problems with not having enough standover height. Other differences in stiffness, handling, etc. can be more easily attributed to other factors (aluminum vs. steel frames, overall geometry, etc.).

One problem with compact frames, like ones from Giant which only come in S/M/L/XL is that if you are caught between two sizes, like me. S size is too small, M is too large measuring at the single most important point, the top tube...
That kept me away from buying a giant.

I've got an old steel Trek and a new carbon Giant OCR (compact geometry). I usually ride the Giant now, but took the Trek out Tuesday. Right now, the Trek still feels more natural, but the Giant feels like the better bike (e.g. handling, shifting, braking, absorbing shock/vibration). One thing's for sure, I don't like switching between them. I get used to one, then the other feels odd.

I have 3 traditional bikes and 1 compact and 1 slightly sloping. there are just too many variables to say one design is stiffer than another. for cross bikes, you might think compact is the way to go but a compact frame makes it more difficult to shoulder the bike. my two last bikes are made by the same builder, and they handle really well. I think if he builds a traditional frame, it would still handle well.

compacts are just so.... ugly!

A Question. What is a compact?

Obviously this isn't


and this is:


but what about this?:

[QUOTE=Point;6411247]I'd agree with the stiffer but not the lighter... well the frame set is lighter yes because the seat tube is shorter but then when you add in the extra length of the seat post that argument is moot. But having a tighter triangle does make for a stiffer frame (it seems to me?). So for sprinting out of the saddle the frame might feel stiffer but then again while seated you are on that long seat tube again so that will subtract stiffness.

The one thing I really like about my compact over the traditional is that I can put my knees right over the top tube while cornering fast. On the traditional bike I can't adjust for cornering the way I like to. OTher then that there seems to really be no difference at all.

a frameset with a sloping top tube, like your second image.

You're stretching it. It's more like '04.

He knows that... the post indicates the giant as a compact, the trek a traditional, but is questioning whether the BMC is compact or traditional (since the top tube is almost horizontal - ie: between compact and traditional... where is the line drawn????).

I believe the BMC is traditional.... but who really cares - strictly categorizing bikes in compact/traditional won't change their geometries... just go with the geometries...

BMC is 'semi-compact', 'sloping', or whatever you'd like to call it.

My steel frame which is a 98 or maybe even older (96) may be one of the earlier compacts -- but I think at that time they just called it sloping.

I had a Trek 2300 for a couple of months and I liked the sloping Kona better ride quality aside. Maybe because I was stretched out a bit more and the taller head tube.

For steel it can be twitchy with that fork. I have upgraded to a carbon but still miss that fork. I cracked the stem clamp after one hard climb and I decided to upgrade the fork as well as the headset also was giving out.

We do not have a garage door sorry!