Compact Frames...

What are some advantages or disadvantages of a compact frame?

__________________
Oops...I did it again.

It's all in here: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/050...50.000.000.asp

__________________
Cheers,
George.

Thanks for the link...

However,
the way it was written almost make it sound as though
"standard" horizontal frames are obsolete......

How does one take sizing into consideration?
For example,
If I was to normally be fit for a 580mm frame.
Would a 520mm C/F be suffice?

__________________
Oops...I did it again.

Use the table half way down this page: http://www.giant-bicycles.com/au/050...50.750.100.asp

580mm top tube = Large.

__________________
Cheers,
George.

Many builders want to convince us that 'standard' geometries are obsolete, because with compact frames they can usually get away with three standard sizes (S, M, L) and you then have to fit the dang thing to your measurements with seatposts and stems. It is a great deal for them.

The idea is that you get a more rigid frame (although you have to counterbalance this with the fact that you lose rigidity with the longish seat posts that a lot of people are then forced to ride).
Go with what you like and what fits you better. But absolutely do not believe the hype that compact frames are the only way to go. That is... somewhat untrue!

__________________
De Rosa Planet
Campagnolo Per Sempre!
PAOLO BETTINI CAMPIONE DEL MONDO x 2!

Pete is right, the frames are usually stiffer. Except Giants alu TCRs are extremely flexy due to the weight, which is miniscule.

They are usually lighter too

The long seatposts generally counter alot of the frame weight loss, the flex makes it more inefficient, and no matter what, the fit will never be as perfect as what it could be with a traditional frame which has the geometry you want. Compact frames are like diets, they make you lighter, but they are hard to live with and never as fun as not being on one. A well fitted bike (which is very hard to achieve in a compact frame) is like being bestowed with the gifts of a cycler. You can do everything with much less trepidation.

Sorry for my terrible analogies

__________________
BMC SL01
SRAM Force


thank you crank n' cycles...If you are ever in SW WA, take a trip to Crank N' Cycles.

Thanks for the replies all...

You're helping make it come together...

__________________
Oops...I did it again.

Compact frames seem to climb better

Just built up a CADD8 and while billed as traditional geometry frame it actually does have a slight rearward drop to the top tube. Freakin' stiff!

Why? What a load of bull****.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

Never seen a frame climb by itself. It's always about the engine!!!!

Compact frames exist to save the manufacturer and the bike shop money at the expense of giving the customer a sub-optimal fit. The reasons given to justify them are marketing bull**** that was devised after the business decided they could help their bottom line by screwing the customer.

Until you get into high end frames, where compact geometry is more for fashion and compact frames are made in the same size increments as traditional geometry frames, you only have a few choices in frame sizes. It can be as little as three sizes. Sometimes it is five, but that usually breaks down to three sizes for most people plus a huge size for very tall people and a tiny size for very small people; so the end result is you still only have three sizes if you fall into the more normal range of height.

A few lucky people will fit one of the available sizes perfectly. Everyone else will fall in between sizes and is expected to compensate by making changes to the stem and seat post. Most people end up with a frame that does not fit.

The stiffness issue is bogus. Back in the 70s and 80s frame stiffness was an issue because most frames were made with thin tubing made of steel or made with the same dimensions as steel tubes. Nowdays pretty much all frames use oversized tubes and if a frame has some flex it is because the designer wanted it that way. For a cyclist of typical weight worrying about losses due to frame flex is like worrying about losses due to drive train friction. If you can flex a frame enough to cause derailleur rub or auto shifting then you are either very heavy or the frame is crap. If you are very heavy the answer is not the minor extra stiffness that can be gained by dropping the seat cluster a few inches; it is buying a stiff frame made with large diameter tubes like a Cannondale.

Also compact frames are fugly.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates

I rode a cannondale '92 r800 for years up and down the steepies of Southeastern Pennsylvania. I picked up a Litespeed Sienna in the early summer (compact geometry) and from my persepective (even though the weight of the bike is comprable), the Litespeed climbs better than the old Dale. My buddy has a Tuscany (traditional geometry) of the same size and recent vintage so we switched back and forth during a hill circuit (and the comparision was even closer) the compact geometry felt better. On very steep hills 8degrees or more, and when you started standing, the compact geometry made you feel like you were directly over the rear wheel, and it was easier to climb in that position.

Yeah, all this is subjective and it probably is BS but both me and my buddy, who have both been riding traditional road bikes for almost 20 years, the Sienna is a better climber. (And my buddy with the Tuscany was just as skeptical initially). My geuss, again subjective, is that the longer wheelbase and traditional geometry of the Tuscany would be better on a century, but the Sienna just feels faster and more responsive on a climb.

Don't be a hater. call your LBS and ask to test ride two comparable bikes, one with traditional geometry and one with compact and take them out on a similar route. If you have a buddy of similar size, switch off and on for a closer comparision. See what you think. I can only speak for the Litespeed models.

At the end of the day, 99% of all this is subjective and has to do with what you like riding. If you are in SE PA ever, I'll hook up and race you up some hills and we will switch off. From my perspective, the compact is a better climber. I have no stake in it the outcome.

True, but gearing and geometry can help.

The problem with that guess is that the Tuscany has a _shorter_ wheelbase than the Sienna. It comes from a front center that is roughly half a centimeter longer in Litespeed's compact geometry. The seat tube angles and chain stay lengths are equivalent for similar sizes of trad and compact Litespeed frames. The Tuscany and Sienna may feel different when climbing, but that has exactly zip to do with whether or not they are compact. Litespeed could have built the Tuscany with the same geometry as the Sienna.

__________________
"You are like the wind and I like the lion. You form the tempest. The sand stings my eyes and the ground is parched. I roar in defiance but you do not hear. But between us there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you like the wind will never know yours." -- Mulay Hamid El Raisuli, Lord of the Riff, Sultan to the Berbers, Last of the Barbary Pirates