If you've had the opportunity to compare the new compact frame geometry to the more traditional geometry, what are your observations (pros/cons)?

A compact frame is better for sprinting as it has shorter chainstays. A normal sized frame is better for long distance rides such as centuries as they are more comfortable but not quite as fast in a short period of time.

It's easier to get fitted on a normal sized frame since there's more sizes. You're limited to around 4 sizes or so for compact sized frames.

The riding position is more aggressive on compacts, which may be uncomfortable for some.

Me being a good 6'5", I never would have considered a compact frame before..but.....
half a year ago, dealing with a Ti frame builder (singlespeed/mtn. bike) I had the opportunity to jump into the world of compacts, in order to make a BIG titanium frame strong but not too flexy.

I'm now absolutely sold on the concept! Bought a Giant TCR-1 last month, and I just love that frame! Stiff/light/compliant and efficient come to mind. I've owned numerous "standard/traditional" road frames in the past, and this Giant frame just blows 'em outa the water....the "large" TCR frame is 58cm C-C with a 60cm (!!!) toptube, almost too long for me!

I've done a coupla rides of ~100 miles, and the bike just feels GOOD!

Don't think I could go back to traditional geometry....maybe another nice steel frame someday...but aluminium or carpet fiber, and it's compact for me!!

Just my $.02.

Mateo

Not So...

The LeMond Tete de Course for example is available in a total of 9 different sizes. (2 of them women specific).

Compact and standard do ride differently and it is simply a matter of personal preference and fit.
For some reason, the compact just feels right to me. I like standard geo frames too but the compacts feel better for me.

It also depends on the make. I had a Specialized S-Works compact and it SUCKED. They did NOT have the front end worked out on that POS.

You just have to go with what feels right and what you like looking at.

I see compact vs traditional frames as simply another choice is sizing and style.
I don't really feel much difference in the two styles of frame that could not be better accounted for by make, geometry and material than by the slope of the top tube. I have short legs, so a compact frame actually fits me better by allowing more standover height at a given seat tube to stem measurement.
On a traditional frame the top tube length I needed always seemed to leave me no standover clearance. More average proportioned people will fit either style.

Dont care for the compact look but i would like to ride one and feel what the difference is.

Can;'t compare them because I've never ridden a compact frame. No offense to those out there that have one, but I just don't like the way it looks.

compact frames are mostly about marketing. Bike companies are trying to sell road bikes to people who are used to the sloping tubes on mountain bikes.

Very true, I did not know that.

Lots of big names have converted entirely to compacts however, and have many less sizes (probably to save on production costs). A good example is Giant, I'm under the impression that all their new road bikes are compacts.

EDIT: some of their bikes actually have 5 sizes available instead of 4.

Marketing...maybe.

I do like the concept of a smaller front triangle, tho!

I would normally ride a 63/64 cm seattube frame, yet wit Giants compact geometry, I ride a 58. Aside from appearance, there is definitely some good to be had with a stiffer/lighter front triangle on ANY bicycle!!

Other than someone not caring for the appearance, what negatives can be said concerning a tighter frame??

I'm one of those who feels like the compact geometry "just feels better". I think that what we have seen is not just a fad. It's because they're better. Have you watched the pro riders switching over in the past few years? From a few riding them to now about 2/3. They get custom built frames so are not doing it just because the sponsors give them to them. Who gives a care about what it lools like? Isn't it about function?

I care how it looks.I care how all my toys look.

once you start riding one, you'll care less about the appearance, or you'll change your mind and start to like it ;-)

There are many variables between 2 different models of bicycle besides the slope of the top tube. I don't really know if a valid comparison could be made between a compact and a standard frame unless everything else from tires to tubeset was made identical. As for the appearance of compact frames, a lot depends on the proportions. Some compacts are too compact for my taste.
My Giant OCR 1 seems about right to me as far as slope goes. (But then it would, wouldn't it?...LOL).

Compact frames:
* Short chain stays? You mean shorter seat stays
* Lighter frame if same material
* requires a longer and stiffer seatpost (my biggest concern)
* It is tougher (overall) to find a frame that is your size vs forced to adapt by changing the stem length
* tends to ride "racier" than flat tops (esp in sprints).
* Can screw up bottle and (full) frame pump placement

Flat-tops
* more room in the front triangle makes it easier to stuff bottles and things
* Tends to have softer ride due to more tube to dampen (except not much for Al bikes)
* Better for mounting racks on the rear because seat stays are better positioned for the front mount points of a rear rack.
* Seatpost not required to be extra stiff (my biggest reason for this bike).

Over all the comments about type of ride is the main reason... However the market will probably kill theflat tops because they don't want to make good Audax, century-cham-bikes or good touring frames...

Like everything else, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't particularly care for the drastically compact frames, but moderately sloping tubes may have some benefits. If you have average to long legs, I think the traditional frame is the way to go.

Cheers

Appearance counts, of course! But back to the question:

All things aren't created equal, of course, but if they were:

1. A compact frame has more rigid triangles because of smaller tubes, but has a longer seatpost and stem. Stem rigidity is OK with modern 1 1/8" stems, but seatpost rigidity is a limit. What it means is that a compact frame should be more rigid when you stand on pedals, but will be about the same when sitting. Since there are more stresses involved when standing, it's a benefit to the fast rider or the racer, but...

2. On a compact frame, the rear rack needs longer struts to link it to the seatstays. Longer struts mean less rigidity, and a longer seatpost swayed by the load means less rigidity, so a compact frame will be less rigid in touring situations, because one carries a load and one sits most or all the time.

3. Less possibilities for water bottles on a compact frame.

Regards,

Both types seem to work but at the end a compact can fit more sizes and be easier to sell on or give to a younger member of the familly .
As for theory : how many of us have the power / abillity to take a good quality frame to it´s true limits ? Chipolini has won with both , as has Jalabert , nuff said .

I have never yet found a compact frame that fit. Never.

Nice bump of an 11 year old thread. Oh well, at least you had something meaningful to contribute.