compact geometry



K

KJ

Guest
Hello,

I am considering buying a road bike, and kind of like the
"comfort"-style bikes that I could ride with a more relaxed
position. Giant has the OCR line with "compact" geometry
frames, and I suppose they are easier to ride for a new
cyclist.

I am wondering what are the advantages/disadvantages of the
"compact" frames compared with "classic" frames.

Thanks,
-KJ
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On 12 Aug 2004 16:13:00 -0700, [email protected] (KJ) wrote:
>I am wondering what are the advantages/disadvantages of the
>"compact" frames compared with "classic" frames.


Disadvantages: Purists and retrogrouches will feel smugly superior
to you. They will tell you that your bike is ugly and terrible.

Advantages: You will offend purists and retrogrouches.

Functionally, there's no difference, except maybe that the store can
keep more variety in less sizes. Also, they can fit odd-shaped
people (for example, long torso short legs). Be absolutely sure that
you fit _properly_, regardless of frame type.
--
Rick Onanian
 
M

Michael Warner

Guest
On 12 Aug 2004 16:13:00 -0700, KJ wrote:

> I am considering buying a road bike, and kind of like the
> "comfort"-style bikes that I could ride with a more relaxed
> position. Giant has the OCR line with "compact" geometry
> frames, and I suppose they are easier to ride for a new
> cyclist.


Why? Their centre of gravity may be a little lower, but the
difference probably wouldn't be noticeable to someone not
already used to road bikes.

"Easy to ride" usually means a more angled head tube, longer
wheelbase and more upright riding position, and those are
no more to be found on a compact road bike than a
non-compact one.

The only real difference is that some people still turn up their
noses at compact frames. If that bothers you, spend more to
avoid this situation :)

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo
 
P

psycholist

Guest
"KJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hello,
>
> I am considering buying a road bike, and kind of like the
> "comfort"-style bikes that I could ride with a more relaxed
> position. Giant has the OCR line with "compact" geometry
> frames, and I suppose they are easier to ride for a new
> cyclist.
>
> I am wondering what are the advantages/disadvantages of the
> "compact" frames compared with "classic" frames.
>
> Thanks,
> -KJ


Common theory is that, becuase the compact frame relies on some shorter
tubes, the frames are a bit stiffer and a bit lighter. Of course, that
really depends on lots of variables and it's the kind of thing you probably
wouldn't appreciate unless you were racing crits or something.

I have two bikes that are identical in most measures and aspects of setup.
One is compact and the other isn't. I ride a couple hundred miles a week.
I can switch back and forth between the two bikes and hardly notice any
difference at all.

As one poster noted, I decided to buy a compact because I'm long in the
torso relative to my legs. I was able to get a good fit without needing a
stem a mile long. That makes the compact handle better in certain
situations.

Bob C.
 
J

Jim Rech

Guest
>disadvantages of the "compact" frames

Less room for your seat tube water bottle?

--
Jim
"KJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
| Hello,
|
| I am considering buying a road bike, and kind of like the
| "comfort"-style bikes that I could ride with a more relaxed
| position. Giant has the OCR line with "compact" geometry
| frames, and I suppose they are easier to ride for a new
| cyclist.
|
| I am wondering what are the advantages/disadvantages of the
| "compact" frames compared with "classic" frames.
|
| Thanks,
| -KJ
 
S

Scott Goldsmith

Guest
[email protected] (KJ) wrote in message
> Hello,
>
> I am considering buying a road bike, and kind of like the
> "comfort"-style bikes that I could ride with a more relaxed
> position. Giant has the OCR line with "compact" geometry
> frames, and I suppose they are easier to ride for a new
> cyclist.
>
> I am wondering what are the advantages/disadvantages of the
> "compact" frames compared with "classic" frames.
>
> Thanks,
> -KJ


The Giants were designed by Mike Burrows to cut down on the number
of sizes for a racing team to carry. The idea was that with a bunch
of adjustable stems and seatposts a junior race team could fit the
riders with only 3 or 4 size frames. As the kids get bigger just swap
a longer stem and raise the seat, pretty neat. By having fewer bikes to buy
the team saves a lot money, this is for junior club racing were the
club provides the bikes, a common setup in Europe.

So if you are setting up a club they're a good choice.
As for ride quality, you can build a pig out any material or geometry.
Some bike companies save even more money by using the same fork on
all 4 sizes, so the small one are sluggish and the XL is twitchy.

Scott Goldsmith
 
K

KJ

Guest
Thanks foe the replies.

So basically you guys were saying the compact and traditional frames
are not much different, and that what matters is if the frame fits
the rider?

-KJ
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On 13 Aug 2004 14:33:15 -0700, [email protected] (KJ) wrote:
>So basically you guys were saying the compact and traditional frames
>are not much different, and that what matters is if the frame fits
>the rider?


That is correct.
--
Rick Onanian
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2004 14:33:15 -0700, [email protected] (KJ) wrote:
>>So basically you guys were saying the compact and traditional frames
>>are not much different, and that what matters is if the frame fits
>>the rider?

>
> That is correct.


ffs rick: wwfd. for shame.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On 13 Aug 2004 23:56:11 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]>
wrote:
>ffs rick: wwfd. for shame.


ffs -- For Fabrizio's Sake?
wwfd -- What Would Fabrizio Do?

Sorry, I meant to say:
Compact frames are terribly unstylish. I don't even look at riders
on compact frames; they might as well have a milk crate attached to
their handlebar with a basset hound in it. Elite racer types like
me...hey, wait a minute, elite racer types like me? I don't think
so: http://members.cox.net/thc69/bikes/tcr2.jpg
--
Rick Onanian
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On 13 Aug 2004 23:56:11 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]>
wrote:
>ffs rick: wwfd. for shame.


ffs -- For Fabrizio's Sake?
wwfd -- What Would Fabrizio Do?

Sorry, I meant to say:
Compact frames are terribly unstylish. I don't even look at riders
on compact frames; they might as well have a milk crate attached to
their handlebar with a basset hound in it. Elite racer types like
me...hey, wait a minute, elite racer types like me? I don't think
so: http://members.cox.net/thc69/bikes/tcr2.jpg
--
Rick Onanian
 
D

David Reuteler

Guest
Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2004 23:56:11 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>ffs rick: wwfd. for shame.

>
> ffs -- For Fabrizio's Sake?


sorta.

> wwfd -- What Would Fabrizio Do?


yea.

> Sorry, I meant to say:
> Compact frames are terribly unstylish. I don't even look at riders
> on compact frames; they might as well have a milk crate attached to
> their handlebar with a basset hound in it. Elite racer types like
> me...hey, wait a minute, elite racer types like me? I don't think
> so: http://members.cox.net/thc69/bikes/tcr2.jpg


i was objecting to the fit before style bit. anyway, rick .. there's a
rack on your bike and worse yet (shudder) wheel reflectors.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On 14 Aug 2004 15:57:19 GMT, David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>i was objecting to the fit before style bit. anyway, rick .. there's a
>rack on your bike and worse yet (shudder) wheel reflectors.


You are Fabrizzio & I claim my five pounds...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University