superslomo

Wrong. Or, if you want to be old school...

incorrect.

To get the same seat height, you need more seatpost length from the seatpost collar to the saddle, i.e. you need more seatpost to maintain the minimum safe amount in the seat tube (hence, it is by definition "longer" than it would be on an equivalent traditional frame). Hope that clears up that misconception.

CdCf

Fit is one thing - standover height is another. Short legs = compact may be better.

DocRay

I have no experience with wood frames or steel rims either.

There may be good reason why you only see sloping geometry, the same reason you don't see downtube shifters any more.

You should make a kit that adds 3" to the top tube height and 3lbs to the frame, for that steel/standard experience. get rich.

DocRay

So even if you need 2cm more seatpost, you save on the top tube, the seat tube, and both dropouts.
Smaller triangles are stronger.

ridethecliche

+1.

Why do you think there are so many triangles (truss's) on bridges?

dcvelo

Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the seatposts available on the Competitive Cyclist site. Most offer a range of sizes. In terms of diameter, that is. We're no where near having a standard internal diameter for seattubes.

On the other hand, few offer different lengths. So I'm curious where everyone who's saving weight by having a shorter seatpost on their traditional frame is finding those shorter seatposts...?

As stated earlier in this thread I'm fairly agnostic as far as frame geometry goes. I have one of each and do well with both. I'm just having a hard time believing that many people have gone out of their way to find a shorter seatpost for their trad frame or a longer one for their compact.

mandovoodoo

Shorter seatposts are easy to get. Hacksaw.

I'm a staunch traditionalist. Used to make frames. Level skinny tubes on top etc. Good steel, nothing like it. Wanted a new frame. Looking at steel of course. All this nonsense about compacts etc, carbon. I decided I'd just go with it. I've got a mega small, compact frame with a 400 mm long, 31.8 mm wide carbon post sticking way up, big carbon tubes, fancy graphics. Simply lovely to ride and I never hit my nuts on the dang top tube. It's really cute. But I saw this Colnago tecno the other day . . . .

BillyD

I can't wait til they pass on away.

bac

Why do you want more standover height? I can understand somewhat with a mtb, but not with a road machine.

... Brad

musician

oh good, we were getting off topic. now it's back to homophobic sanctimonious gay senators in denial.

M_S

In cross I could see them being really popular. Not only for the mounts/dismounts, but because the back end of the bike is heavier, and with a compact you shoulder "farther down," which may help balance the load. Maybe.


When I start shopping for a new bike again, I'll probably try out some compacts for the heck of it.

alanbikehouston

There are three "fit" issues that a cyclist has. If a compact frame enables you to get a good fit for all three factors using a standard stem, then get a compact frame. Those three fit factors are your correct saddle height, your correct "cockpit" (the distance from the rear of the saddle to the front of the stem) and your correct "drop" (the difference in the height of the saddle versus the height of the bars).

In my case, I use a saddle height of 29 3/4 inches, a "cockpit" of 31 1/2 inches, and a "drop" of zero to one inch. It would be a rare "compact" frame that would allow me to get all three of these factors "spot on" using a stem of normal height and standard length.

The 2008 Trek on-line catalog introduces the concepts of "stack" and "reach" to make it easier to compare the fit of two different frames. Using the Trek fit chart, I can see that the "stack" on the size 56 Madone in "Pro" fit is too low to enable me to have a one inch drop. And, the chart indicates that the size 58 Madone in "Performance" fit has a much higher stack height, due to both a taller frame and a longer head tube. So, although the Madone has a compact frame, that frame would provide me the same fit that is so perfect on my 1987 Trek in a traditional size 60.

classic1

Go and weigh 3-4 inches of frame tubing. The differences in weight between a compact and traditional frame are negligible, as are any supposed 'stiffness' benefits, especially nowadays when tubing is all oversized.

When Giant introduced compact frames they had three sizes only. Giant claimed they could fit nearly everyone on those three sizes. The real reason they introduced three compact sizes was to cut manufatuering costs. Any other supposed benefits of compact were dreamed up by their marketing department.

myclem

I remember reading a review somewhere that stated that the only difference in ride feel was when you were out of the saddle climbing or sprinting. Because of the lower center of gravity, the compact frame feels slightly lighter during the left/right swaying motion. I could see this argument having some weight.

At any rate, I ride traditional geometry steel and have short legs + long torso. On my roadbike, standover is less important than horizontal reach. I still get my saddle to bar drop by losing a couple of spacers and flipping the stem.

BHBiker

I have got a semi compact frame,...works well for me. As long as your personally fitted and you test ride what you will buy, it shouldn't matter if compact semi-compact or trad. your personal preference will dictate what suits you!

CdCf

What?

I just meant that someone could be short-legged enough to require a sloping top tube to even be able to straddle the bike. I've had a few customers like that. A smaller frame shortens the effective top tube length, so that's not a good option.

samsation7

I ride a compact. short torso, long legs.

My compact frame is a little small for me though. Would be great one size up.

Kuma

This is what Tom Kellogg at Spectrum Cycles says. A compact frame is slightly easier to maneuver when riding out of the saddle b/c of the lower center of gravity. He emphasized to me, however, that the difference is not a big difference.

Campag4life

Choice maybe matter for those with a short inseam for standover. I simply prefer the aesthetic of a horizontal top tube. Alternatively, a couple of degree sloping top tube as with Bianchi looks fine.
Good to have choices.

ridethecliche

This is what I'm thinking. I have a similar build to this and I figured it would help, but I like cannondale and I might try the synapses.

michaelmc

No. The distance from your saddle to the center of the bottom bracket is determined by your leg length and seat tube angle, nothing else. Compact geometry only changes the top tube angle and its point of intersection with the seat tube. Thus, to fit the same person, a compact geometry bike will ride more seatpost than a standard geometry bike.

Also, your saddle fore-aft position should be determined by the same factors: leg length (and relative proportions of upper and lower leg) and seat tube angle. Therefore, no matter what the angle of the seat tube is and how long the seat tube is, the horizontal and vertical distances from the bottom bracket center and your saddle shouldn't vary at all.

Scooper

Richard Sachs on compact geometry.

cs1

That's pretty much what I said earlier. Younger riders have virtually no experience on a standar geometry bike. It looks strange to them.

Tim

cs1

No one mentioned wood frames except you. Sounds like a lame attempt at humor.

What would the reason be that you only see sloping top tube bikes?

I'd rather just buy the bike the way I like it.

Tim

bac

Good point!

... Brad