On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:19:38 -0700, "Mike S." <mikeshaw2@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>"ajames54" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news[email protected]...
>> On 29 Aug 2003 13:03:11 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Dennis Vaughn <
[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>What is the main difference between the two bike geometries? I realize
>that
>> >>there is a shorter top tube, but other than that, what is the difference
>or
>> >>reason behind it? Also why are there so few steel (old school
>technology
>> >>here) in the compact geometry.
>> >
>> >Much of the attraction of compact geometry is simply that it is fashionable. There's little
>> >point in trying to sell steel bikes to people who want fashionable equipment.
>>
>>
>> Much of the attraction is a marketing ply that allows the retailer to lie about fit and carry
>> only three frame sizes rather than five or six...
>>
>> IF they fit correctly they are fine ... but be damned sure it fits.
>
>Cool thing about my particular body is that compact frames are a Godsend! Short legs, long torso.
>All I gotta do is make sure that the angles and effective TT are right, then off we go!
>
>Mike
>
years ago a friend of mine (female, raced for Vanwood) had to get a custom frame built with a weird
top tube (lugged SL)... a gentle curve from the top of the head tube dropping about three inches
before it leveled out into a normal run to the seat-tube... she was a fantastic racer but just too
small ... nobody could really draft her.
There is nothing wrong with a slopping tube or a compact design.. but the way they are being sold
and marketed ticks me off.