compact geometry hell

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Callistus Valer, Feb 29, 2004.

  1. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    dbsams1@hotmail.com (Brian S) wrote:

    >Compact frames perform better than standard frames when my
    >extended carbon seat post eliminates more road buzz simply
    >because the distance from seat tube to saddle is longer.

    I'd ask you to come up with some sort of logical explanation
    for this. Namely:

    1) how a thick-walled carbon fiber tube has enough
    compliance to
    2) be detected when filtered by a saddle.

    Clearly there's no doubt that 1 is true - but only to a
    vanishingly small degree. The magnitude of #1 will be
    utterly buried by the compliance of #2.

    > I also appreciate the additional stand-over height.
    > Because form follows function, these are more important
    > to me than buying a classic frame with a horizontal TT.
    > BTW, since the bike industry is in trouble, isn't it a
    > good thing to reduce costs and boost margins? In a
    > competitive industry, you can bet that these costs ARE
    > being passed through (if not in price reductions then in
    > a slowing of the pace at which retail prices keep
    > rising). Aren't these three good reasons for a newbie (or
    > a veteran)to get interested in biking, select a compact
    > frame, and keep interested in it?

    No one has argued that there's anything inherently evil
    about a compact frame (lots of my customs are "compact"
    BTW). Some take exception to the aesthetics, but beauty IS
    in the eye of the bikeholder. The issue that those posting
    "against" compacts have is that there are those who ascribe
    unsubstantiated magical qualities to them - faster,
    smoother, lighter, etc. It just ain't true.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of
    the $695 ti frame
     


  2. Tom Sherman

    Tom Sherman Guest

    Robert Brown wrote:

    > ... Maybe someone can help me understand one of the
    > rumoured advantages with compact geometry frames - that
    > they allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame
    > sizes, thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in
    > stock, etc.
    >
    > This I do not understand.
    >
    > If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact
    > frame, preserving seat height, handlebar height, seat post
    > angle, and top tube length, then assuming that same safety
    > and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar
    > stem from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical
    > difference for the compact frame case is that a longer
    > seat post is used.
    >
    > If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this
    > same bike, then this frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we
    > can move the seat post down but we still need to move the
    > handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
    > possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.
    >
    > So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a
    > smaller frame for our rider.
    >
    > This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as
    > many frames as before, right?
    >
    > What gives?

    The comfort of the rider when the inferior LBS sells him or
    her a bike with an incorrect distance between the saddle and
    handlebars?

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
     
  3. BaCardi

    BaCardi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?
     
  4. Ryan Cousineau wrote:

    >>> Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
    >>>
    >>> Which I used in last weekend's race,
    >>
    >> ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well
    >> received?
    >
    > In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we
    > were overtaking a pair of dropped B-group riders (so
    > everyone else is yelling "riders up!" as we pass, and I
    > ring my bell. Everyone laughs).
    >
    > The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were
    > out watching me race.

    I'll try to come out and cheer you on too, if you put that
    kick-stand back on.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't
    right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
     
  5. Qui si parla Campagnolo <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote:

    >
    > The framesets we sell are not 'square'..many have steep
    > seattubes and longish top tubes. many framesets, like
    > Lemond do too. Compact may solve the fit issue for you but
    > many 'standard' framesets do too. To paint compact as some
    > sort of cycling phenomenum is not true.
    >
    > jesse<< I can go buy an affordable, off the shelf, compact
    > frame that will fit both me and the average guy. Without
    > compact, I would have to go custom, and that's silly.
    > >><BR><BR>
    >
    > If the manufacturers would make more sizes, you could do
    > the same. You just would have to find a manufacturer that
    > did that, with frameset dimensions that fit you. NOTHING
    > about sizing is standard. To imply that frame makers ALL
    > follow some sort of guidelines or standardss as to
    > frameset dimansions is folly.
    >
    > DeRosa/Merckx and Colnago are at opposite ends of the
    > dimension spectrum, for say a '56cm', both say their
    > dimensions are proper.

    But this is what I don't get. If these two brands are the
    opposite of the spectrum, why are the differences so tiny?
    .5 deg in seat tube angle, a cm or two in TT length, all
    with ST lengths within a cm of TT length.

    A 60cm ST DeRosa has a 73 deg ST/58.5 TT. A 60cm Colnago
    (57cm c-c) has a 73deg/57.7 TT. This is only a difference of
    .7cm, which is tiny.

    > <jesse< This is a dodge. Giant got all the attention for
    > their compact road frame in only 4 sizes, but we all know
    > that was stupid, and plenty of manufacturers make compact
    > frames in 2cm increments. Specialized, Cervelo, and many
    > others. >><BR><BR>
    >
    > If lots of sizes, then why compact? They are not
    > steep/long, in their dimensions. They are just a standard
    > frameset, with the top tube dropped, the stays shorter.
    > 'Stiffer, faster, more comfy'???

    Well, we all know the shorter stays thing doesn't add up to
    anything. And comfort is in the mind of the beholder (carbon
    stays, etc.).

    > jesse<< These frames fit MORE of the population than a
    > standard square frame. >><BR><BR>
    >
    > See above. The sizing isn't revolutionary. Look at the
    > 'effective' top tube length and seat tube angle and you
    > will see they are the same as a standard frameset.

    Of course. Except they have more standover clearance. I am
    currently riding an Independent Fab, which I bought used
    because they are talked about for having long (LeMond-ish)
    geometry. So I'm riding a 57 c-c seat tube, and 58 top tube,
    72.5deg seat angle, and a 140mm stem.

    If I want to ride a 120mm stem like the rest of the world, I
    would need a 60 TT @72.5 deg. What 60cm toptube frame could
    I possibly find with enough standover clearance that is not
    a compact frame or a custom?

    A Colnago with a 59.2 TT @ 73deg has a 60cm ST c-c! A
    DeRosa with a 59cm TT @ 73 deg has a 61 ST! What is someone
    like me (only 5'11") supposed to do? I can't be the only
    one out there with a body like mine, in fact, I bet there
    are a lot of people like me scrunched up on a 56 or 57TT
    classic frame. I know I was for 4 years when I first
    started riding...

    So that's what I am saying. Sloping top tubes let a certain
    TT length fit MORE of the population. Everything else bike
    makers are using to sell sloping is baloney (weight,
    comfort, "responsiveness", etc). But fit flexability is not.
    It's simple geometry.

    An ugly is another issue.
     
  6. usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com wrote:

    > Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes?

    I imagine because most people want to have the saddle very
    low when mountain biking.

    > Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?

    Mountain bikes are already non-traditional.

    --
    Benjamin Lewis

    On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't
    right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli
     
  7. Jeff Starr

    Jeff Starr Guest

    Robert Brown <robert.brown@tripnet.se> wrote in message news:<404BA7B2.199CFA6D@txripnet.se>...

    > (David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a bit ...)
    >
    > Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured
    > advantages with compact geometry frames - that they allow
    > retailers to stock a lesser number of frame sizes, thus
    > reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.
    >
    > This I do not understand.
    >
    > If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact
    > frame, preserving seat height, handlebar height, seat post
    > angle, and top tube length, then assuming that same safety
    > and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of handlebar
    > stem from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only practical
    > difference for the compact frame case is that a longer
    > seat post is used.
    >
    > If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on this
    > same bike, then this frame will not fit him/her. Sure, we
    > can move the seat post down but we still need to move the
    > handlebars down correspondingly, and this is not any more
    > possible on a compact frame compared with a regular frame.
    >
    > So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a
    > smaller frame for our rider.
    >
    > This would mean that retailers still have to stock just as
    > many frames as before, right?
    >
    > What gives?
    >
    > /Robert

    Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give
    you a technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is
    just common sense. If a manufacturer offers a particular
    model in four sizes [S,M,L,XL], then no matter what your
    body size, one of those four sizes has to be made to fit
    you. They do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights,
    and angles. Along with seat posts of different setback, or
    even forward angle. If they only make four sizes, no matter
    what, the dealer can only stock four sizes. If the rider is
    too small for the smallest size frame, he is out of luck. In
    that case, he has to buy a different model and/or brand. You
    can't stock something that doesn't exist, right? right! As
    far as I can tell, nothing gives.

    Life is Good! Jeff
     
  8. somebody-<< Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why
    don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?
    >><BR><BR>

    Coming unglued on a MTB while in the dirt is common and ya
    want to hit the ground with your feet before you hit the top
    tube...pretty simple.

    Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
    Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali
    costruite eccezionalmente bene"
     
  9. Smmb

    Smmb Guest

    "Qui si parla Campagnolo " <vecchio51@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de :
    news:20040308085302.20278.00001075@mb-m27.aol.com...
    > David-<< manufacturers can't force choices down your
    > throat. >><BR><BR>
    >
    > Nope but they can 'stretch' the truth, make promises it
    > can't keep...->marketing is what it's called.
    >
    > Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
    > Boulder, CO, 80302
    > (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali
    > costruite eccezionalmente bene"

    Pete -

    A real question - since the "ideal" position for a rider's
    setup is something hanging in the air (three points of
    contact, completely interdependent, yet independent of any
    frame), why the problem with compacts ?

    It seems to me that with proper seatpost extension, saddle
    set-back, and stem length and height properly fit out, there
    are lots of frames which will satisfy, including compacts.

    If the esthetics of compact (spacer stacking, sloping top
    tube, compressed rear triangle) are at issue, OK. But it
    seems to me much more important that the rider is also
    properly situated over the bottom bracket, has good weight
    distribution front to rear, and is neither overextended nor
    squeezed into place. The feel of a custom bike can be ruined
    by the three areas of adjustment I mention, too.

    My new LOOK 461 is "semi-sloping", and I can't identify any
    particular new sensation from its predecessor Kestrel. In
    fact, I am happier with it (could be the new bike syndrome).

    Am I missing something in your commentary ? Besides the
    limited size choices or the marketing newspeak.
    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy Paris FR
     
  10. Ajames54

    Ajames54 Guest

    vecchio51@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<20040308085949.20278.00001077@mb-m27.aol.com>...
    > somebody-<< Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes?
    > Why don't the traditionalists make a big deal about that?
    > >><BR><BR>
    >
    > Coming unglued on a MTB while in the dirt is common and ya
    > want to hit the ground with your feet before you hit the
    > top tube...pretty simple.

    Even so when mountain bikes first went to a slopeing top
    tube design they were still measured in the standard way...
    only to the effective top tube rather than the actual.

    In recent years they have become S M L XL there are a number
    of reasons, but one of the reasons was that the customer who
    fit one 18" frame did not necessarily fit another, the other
    dimensions varied so much.

    To make it easier on the shops the manufacturors swapped to
    the Letter sizes. It does not really affect the knowledgable
    customer or the good shops .. but there are a lot of both
    customers and shops that are not these things...

    The "you fit what we have in stock" attitude is very common.
     
  11. Ted Bennett

    Ted Bennett Guest

    BaCardi <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:

    > Why aren't there non-compact mountain bikes? Why don't the
    traditionalists
    > make a big deal about that?

    There are non-compact mountain bikes. I have one, made by
    Fat Chance, with a horizontal top tube. I haven't seen a
    mountain bike like it in some time. It's about 15 years old.

    --
    Ted Bennett Portland OR
     
  12. Robert Brown

    Robert Brown Guest

    Jeff Starr wrote:

    > Robert Brown <robert.brown@tripnet.se> wrote in message
    > news:<404BA7B2.199CFA6D@txripnet.se>...
    >
    > > (David, pls excuse me for diverting your thread a
    > > bit ...)
    > >
    > > Maybe someone can help me understand one of the rumoured
    > > advantages with compact geometry frames - that they
    > > allow retailers to stock a lesser number of frame sizes,
    > > thus reducing inventory, capital bound up in stock, etc.
    > >
    > > This I do not understand.
    > >
    > > If we move a rider from a "regular" frame to a compact
    > > frame, preserving seat height, handlebar height, seat
    > > post angle, and top tube length, then assuming that same
    > > safety and aesthetic constraints apply re distance of
    > > handlebar stem from headset (1 - 3cm), then the only
    > > practical difference for the compact frame case is that
    > > a longer seat post is used.
    > >
    > > If we now put, say, a significantly shorter rider on
    > > this same bike, then this frame will not fit him/her.
    > > Sure, we can move the seat post down but we still need
    > > to move the handlebars down correspondingly, and this is
    > > not any more possible on a compact frame compared with a
    > > regular frame.
    > >
    > > So, even in the compact frame case, we have to find a
    > > smaller frame for our rider.
    > >
    > > This would mean that retailers still have to stock just
    > > as many frames as before, right?
    > >
    > > What gives?
    > >
    > > /Robert
    >
    > Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will give
    > you a technical explanation. But, that said, the rest is
    > just common sense.

    ?

    >
    > If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four sizes
    > [S,M,L,XL], then no matter what your body size, one of
    > those four sizes has to be made to fit you. They do this,
    > with a variety of stem sizes, heights, and angles.

    Stem heights? On an a-head? Hello . . .

    > Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
    > forward angle.

    Kind of pointless. If you think that the best compensation
    for an incorrect top tube height is to move the seat back or
    forward, then you haven't ever experimented to see what
    effect this has on pedalling.

    >
    > If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer
    > can only stock four sizes.

    Well then, problem solved.

    > If the rider is too small for the smallest size frame, he
    > is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a different
    > model and/or brand. You can't stock something that doesn't
    > exist, right? right!

    . . . thus absolving dealer of all blame, even if he/she
    sells an ill-fitting frame?

    >
    > As far as I can tell, nothing gives.

    Do you ever _ride_ bicycles or do you just watch?

    According to your reasoning, frame manufacturers could have
    given us four sizes, even back when conventional geometry
    was "in". Why not 48, 52, 56, and 60 cm?

    I could have understood your line of reasoning if it had
    been applied to std geometry and the old quill stem
    technology. With quill stems, it was possible, up to a
    point, to compensate for a too-small frame by using a taller
    quill stem with greater extension forward, and moving the
    seat back to decrease the effective seat tube angle. But
    these kinds of actions were regarded as making the most of a
    bad situation [badly-fitting frame] at best.

    Nowadays, the a-head stems restrict somewhat the amount of
    up-down adjustment for handlebars. This makes it all the
    more critical that the right frame size is chosen, so that
    the handlebars are the right height, in relation to the seat
    height. This is true regardless of whether top tube is
    horizontal (traditional) or sloping (compact).

    As I said in my previous post, the only practical difference
    that the compact geometry gives is a longer seat post (plus
    greater straddle-over and _possibly_ increased rigidity).
    But the same frame fitting issues still apply just the same.

    /Robert
     
  13. Chalo

    Chalo Guest

    "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Do people really like these ugly compact geometry bikes?
    > When you stop at the stoplight, how do you rest your leg
    > on the top bar? We have some really long red lights around
    > here. It's too bad, now I wouldn't even consider buying a
    > LeMond bike.

    I bought my first steeply sloped top tube bike in the spring
    of '88. It was a lavender Cannondale MTB, and it was the
    coolest bike I had ever seen (I think it still is). I put
    approximately 35,000 road miles on it before it went into
    retirement. During that time it served as my car, my bike,
    and my shoes. It almost always wore slicks and 53/12 high
    gearing, and I chuckled to myself as I breezed by poseur
    roadies wheezing over 18mm tires and aero bars.

    I'd be willing to bet that you never rode as *rad* a bike as
    that in your life, and in those days I bet I'd have left you
    sucking wind if you tried to draft me.

    As far as resting your leg on the top tube, uhh... what the
    heck are you talking about?

    And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of
    the bike to ride under an obstruction barely higher than
    your saddle, like I used to on my sloping frame? That's a
    useful trick my level-top-tube bikes won't do.

    Anyway, many new road bikes look cheesy and declassé because
    they _are_ cheesy and declassé, not because of the angles of
    their top tubes.

    Yum: http://www.wundel.com/frankys.pic/frankys.jpg/manitou1-
    _grossbild.jpg

    Yuck: http://www.cyclesdeoro.com/images/Interbike%20Shows/I-
    nterBike00/Colnag5L.gif

    Chalo Colina
     
  14. Jeff Starr

    Jeff Starr Guest

    Robert Brown <rxobert.bxrown@txripnet.se> wrote in message news:<404D0315.19FC9125@txripnet.se>...

    > > >
    > > > This would mean that retailers still have to stock
    > > > just as many frames as before, right?
    > > >
    > > > What gives?
    > > >
    > > > /Robert
    > >
    > > Hi, my guess is that someone with more expertise will
    > > give you a technical explanation. But, that said, the
    > > rest is just common sense.
    >
    > ?
    >
    > >
    > > If a manufacturer offers a particular model in four
    > > sizes [S,M,L,XL], then no matter what your body size,
    > > one of those four sizes has to be made to fit you. They
    > > do this, with a variety of stem sizes, heights, and
    > > angles.
    >
    > Stem heights? On an a-head? Hello . . .

    Hello to you, pardon me, I meant rise. More rise will give
    you more height.
    >
    > > Along with seat posts of different setback, or even
    > > forward angle.
    >
    > Kind of pointless. If you think that the best compensation
    > for an incorrect top tube height is to move the seat back
    > or forward, then you haven't ever experimented to see what
    > effect this has on pedalling.

    I don't think that.
    >
    > >
    > > If they only make four sizes, no matter what, the dealer
    > > can only stock four sizes.
    >
    > Well then, problem solved.

    Yup, there you have it;-)
    >
    > > If the rider is too small for the smallest size frame,
    > > he is out of luck. In that case, he has to buy a
    > > different model and/or brand. You can't stock something
    > > that doesn't exist, right? right!
    >
    > . . . thus absolving dealer of all blame, even if he/she
    > sells an ill-fitting frame?

    Not in my opinion.

    The main gist of your first post, seemed to be that you
    didn't understand that they can only stock the number of
    sizes made of that model. With compact it is often limited.
    From all the technical points you have made in your second
    post, I'm kind of surprised you didn't understand that
    inventory is limited to available sizes. Whether they fit or
    not. I'm certainly not defending the compact frame and the
    above is just the way it is. They obviously have their
    limitations.
    >
    > >
    > > As far as I can tell, nothing gives.
    >
    > Do you ever _ride_ bicycles or do you just watch?

    Watch what? If I didn't ride, it would still have nothing to
    do with the limitations of compact frames. Believe me, it is
    not my idea that the dealer should be forced to use extreme
    measures to somewhat fit a bike.
    >
    > According to your reasoning, frame manufacturers could
    > have given us four sizes, even back when conventional
    > geometry was "in". Why not 48, 52, 56, and 60 cm?

    Once again, it is not my reasoning.
    >
    > I could have understood your line of reasoning if it had
    > been applied to std geometry and the old quill stem
    > technology. With quill stems, it was possible, up to a
    > point, to compensate for a too-small frame by using a
    > taller quill stem with greater extension forward, and
    > moving the seat back to decrease the effective seat tube
    > angle. But these kinds of actions were regarded as making
    > the most of a bad situation [badly-fitting frame] at best.

    It is not my reasoning, and I certainly don't disagee with
    you.
    >
    > Nowadays, the a-head stems restrict somewhat the amount of
    > up-down adjustment for handlebars. This makes it all the
    > more critical that the right frame size is chosen, so that
    > the handlebars are the right height, in relation to the
    > seat height. This is true regardless of whether top tube
    > is horizontal (traditional) or sloping (compact).
    >
    > As I said in my previous post, the only practical
    > difference that the compact geometry gives is a longer
    > seat post (plus greater straddle-over and _possibly_
    > increased rigidity). But the same frame fitting issues
    > still apply just the same.
    >

    The supposed benefits of compact frames have been mentioned
    throughout this thread. The main one seeming to be lower
    standover height. I prefer a traditional frame with all the
    size options they usually offer. When you asked: "This would
    mean that retailers still have to stock just as many frames
    as before, right?" I got the impression that you didn't know
    or understand that often the manufacturer only offered four
    or five sizes and that was the limiting factor. It seems to
    me, that you know quite a bit about frame geometry and
    proper fit. For me personally, there is no benefit to
    buying/riding a compact frame.

    Life is Good! Jeff
     
  15. In article <yy7obrn8gf1h.fsf@css.css.sfu.ca>,
    Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:

    > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
    >
    > >>> Though the Pinarello does have a bell.
    > >>>
    > >>> Which I used in last weekend's race,
    > >>
    > >> ok, that's funny. i can guess the context. was it well
    > >> received?
    > >
    > > In that particular race, I used it twice: once when we
    > > were overtaking a pair of dropped B-group riders (so
    > > everyone else is yelling "riders up!" as we pass, and I
    > > ring my bell. Everyone laughs).
    > >
    > > The other time was when I passed by my parents, who were
    > > out watching me race.
    >
    > I'll try to come out and cheer you on too, if you put that
    > kick-stand back on.

    No, and I'm pretty sure I'd be DQ'd for a safety (taste)
    violation if I tried.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca
    http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
    Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  16. Chalo <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side of
    >the bike to ride under an obstruction barely higher than
    >your saddle, like I used to on my sloping frame? That's a
    >useful trick my level-top-tube bikes won't do.

    Please describe this in more detail - I cannot envisage what
    is involved. The lowest I can get is to fold my torso down
    onto the handlebars...
    --
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill
    the tomato!
     
  17. In article <4gE*2d3eq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
    David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

    > Chalo <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >And with a level top tube, how do you drop off the side
    > >of the bike to ride under an obstruction barely higher
    > >than your saddle, like I used to on my sloping frame?
    > >That's a useful trick my level-top-tube bikes won't do.
    >
    > Please describe this in more detail - I cannot envisage
    > what is involved. The lowest I can get is to fold my torso
    > down onto the handlebars...

    Imagine a typical compact bike: as you approach the
    obstacle, you slide off the seat forward and to one side of
    the bike. Crouch down low so one leg is touching the top
    tube, and drop your head so it's down around the level of
    your handlebars.

    You are now riding really low. For me, this is not an
    obstacle ride I get to do much, as I am short already. Chalo
    probably has to do this maneuver when entering some
    parkades, riding under telephone wires, etc.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca
    http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
    Mazzoleni Fan Club
     
  18. Robert Brown

    Robert Brown Guest

    Jeff Starr wrote:

    ---8<---- cutting earlier exchange

    > The supposed benefits of compact frames have been
    > mentioned throughout this thread. The main one seeming to
    > be lower standover height. I prefer a traditional frame
    > with all the size options they usually offer. When you
    > asked: "This would mean that retailers still have to
    > stock just as many frames as before, right?" I got the
    > impression that you didn't know or understand that often
    > the manufacturer only offered four or five sizes and that
    > was the limiting factor. It seems to me, that you know
    > quite a bit about frame geometry and proper fit. For me
    > personally, there is no benefit to buying/riding a
    > compact frame.

    OK - then I believe that our views converge a lot more than
    we both first might have thought. Thanks for explaining your
    view; I understand it better now and I agree with it.

    But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
    compact frames generally on offer because I too find them so
    damned ug-leee.

    /Robert
     
  19. Robert Brown

    Robert Brown Guest

    Jeff Starr wrote:

    ---8<---- cutting earlier exchange

    > The supposed benefits of compact frames have been
    > mentioned throughout this thread. The main one seeming to
    > be lower standover height. I prefer a traditional frame
    > with all the size options they usually offer. When you
    > asked: "This would mean that retailers still have to
    > stock just as many frames as before, right?" I got the
    > impression that you didn't know or understand that often
    > the manufacturer only offered four or five sizes and that
    > was the limiting factor. It seems to me, that you know
    > quite a bit about frame geometry and proper fit. For me
    > personally, there is no benefit to buying/riding a
    > compact frame.

    OK - then I believe that our views converge a lot more than
    we both first might have thought. Thanks for explaining your
    view; I understand it better now and I agree with it.

    But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
    compact frames generally on offer because I too find them so
    damned ug-leee.

    /Robert
     
  20. Derk

    Derk Guest

    Robert Brown wrote:
    > But you are right, I have _not_ looked at the sizes of
    > compact frames generally on offer because I too find them
    > so damned ug-leee.
    I agree with you that these frames are ugly. Still,I bought
    one last week. I needed a bike I can leave in France instead
    of dragging one with me every holiday. I was offered a
    compact frame for 1000 Euros in stead of the 1400 it cost
    last year, because there was a new model out. I compared,
    but was unable to find anything else in the 1000 Euros price
    range, so I bought a very lightweight compact frame that
    I'll use a few weeks a year in France.

    About sizes of normal geometry frames: LOOK for example
    offered a reasobly priced frameset only in 57 or 59 size in
    stead of the 58 I need.....

    Greets, Derk
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...