Difference between straight & sloping frame
- Thread starter Scott'sTrek1000
- Start date
Sloping (compact) frames are often said to be comfier, lighter and stiffer than their traditional counterparts. They are supposedly comfier because there is a greater length of seatpost sticking out, which has more "give"; lighter because it takes less metal (or carbon or whatever) to make them, size for size; and stiffer because everything is closer together (yes, yes, this is appallingly vague but you get the idea, hopefully).
Whether these factors are at all noticeable depends on a ton of stuff, e.g. what the seatpost is made from - you're unlikely to feel the benefit of a longer seatpost if you like using heavy steel seatposts
And whether the stiffness/weight factors are noticeable will depend on exact frame design, material, build technique etc.
It has also been said that compact designs make fitting the bike to the rider easier, but I'm not sure if I believe that. At the end of the day the pedals, bars and saddle are where you touch the bike, and you have to get them in the right places relative to each other. I don't see how a sloping top tube makes this any easier.
I suspect the biggest difference for most people is one of aesthetics. Personally I think compacts look better.
Whether these factors are at all noticeable depends on a ton of stuff, e.g. what the seatpost is made from - you're unlikely to feel the benefit of a longer seatpost if you like using heavy steel seatposts
And whether the stiffness/weight factors are noticeable will depend on exact frame design, material, build technique etc.It has also been said that compact designs make fitting the bike to the rider easier, but I'm not sure if I believe that. At the end of the day the pedals, bars and saddle are where you touch the bike, and you have to get them in the right places relative to each other. I don't see how a sloping top tube makes this any easier.
I suspect the biggest difference for most people is one of aesthetics. Personally I think compacts look better.
Heavy steel seatpost..WTF??mjw_byrne said:Sloping (compact) frames are often said to be comfier, lighter and stiffer than their traditional counterparts. They are supposedly comfier because there is a greater length of seatpost sticking out, which has more "give"; lighter because it takes less metal (or carbon or whatever) to make them, size for size; and stiffer because everything is closer together (yes, yes, this is appallingly vague but you get the idea, hopefully).
Whether these factors are at all noticeable depends on a ton of stuff, e.g. what the seatpost is made from - you're unlikely to feel the benefit of a longer seatpost if you like using heavy steel seatposts
It has also been said that compact designs make fitting the bike to the rider easier, but I'm not sure if I believe that. At the end of the day the pedals, bars and saddle are where you touch the bike, and you have to get them in the right places relative to each other. I don't see how a sloping top tube makes this any easier.
I suspect the biggest difference for most people is one of aesthetics. Personally I think compacts look better.
Why didn't you just go with the last sentence and flush the other BS? And yes, some people with short legs may fit compacts better.
Thanks for the post. Is it just me, or is boudreaux always ANGRY in his posts? Seriously, I thought it was just me, but, go back and ready various comments by this guy. 90% of them are "what kinda stupid question, are you an idiot" or "wtf this and that." Calm down, man. Not everybody is as informed as you. Give the rest of us a break and just give some helpful advice if that's what you're here for.
in his posts? Seriously, I thought it was just me, but, go back and ready various comments by this guy. 90% of them are "what kinda stupid question, are you an idiot" or "wtf this and that." Calm down, man. Not everybody is as informed as you. Give the rest of us a break and just give some helpful advice if that's what you're here for.
Ok, I've gotta chime in......
I'm a bit on an 80s man, and someone gave me an old (~1998) Giant TCR Team alu a while ago, and this was my first compact frame. I was expecting something BIG to happen, and I barely noticed anything. I was expecting this, "out of the saddle magical acceleration" that many people talk about, but it just felt like another stiff alu frame to me -- not that all alu frames are super stiff. The Giant compact is stiff, but it's no stiffer tthan my Dedacciai 7003 "traditional" frame.
I really think it's 90% hype and fashion, especially things like this:
http://www.trialtir-usa.com/2005-colnago/mix/mix-pr10.html
No one's gunna convince me that a slope like that is actually gunna do anything. PARLEEEEEEEZ!!! By the way, I can't believe Colnago have caved and put out a "sloper".
In my opinion, wheels can make ten times the difference in performance that
a couple, or a few, cm top-tube slope could ever make.
It's all about the wheels, I tell's ya .....and tires.
Any way, what was the question? .,,,, oh yeah......
If you're looking to buy a compact or sloping frame, it's mostly looks
that you're getting....I reckon.
I kinda hope they evetnually disappear so I can laugh at the remaining compacts in a few years time, just like I laugh at the "soft ride" hunks of junk that I still see.
I'm a bit on an 80s man, and someone gave me an old (~1998) Giant TCR Team alu a while ago, and this was my first compact frame. I was expecting something BIG to happen, and I barely noticed anything. I was expecting this, "out of the saddle magical acceleration" that many people talk about, but it just felt like another stiff alu frame to me -- not that all alu frames are super stiff. The Giant compact is stiff, but it's no stiffer tthan my Dedacciai 7003 "traditional" frame.
I really think it's 90% hype and fashion, especially things like this:
http://www.trialtir-usa.com/2005-colnago/mix/mix-pr10.html
No one's gunna convince me that a slope like that is actually gunna do anything. PARLEEEEEEEZ!!! By the way, I can't believe Colnago have caved and put out a "sloper".
In my opinion, wheels can make ten times the difference in performance that
a couple, or a few, cm top-tube slope could ever make.
It's all about the wheels, I tell's ya
.....and tires.Any way, what was the question? .,,,, oh yeah......
If you're looking to buy a compact or sloping frame, it's mostly looks
that you're getting....I reckon.
I kinda hope they evetnually disappear so I can laugh at the remaining compacts in a few years time, just like I laugh at the "soft ride" hunks of junk that I still see.
Fat Hack said:Ok, I've gotta chime in......
I'm a bit on an 80s man, and someone gave me an old (~1998) Giant TCR Team alu a while ago, and this was my first compact frame. I was expecting something BIG to happen, and I barely noticed anything. I was expecting this, "out of the saddle magical acceleration" that many people talk about, but it just felt like another stiff alu frame to me -- not that all alu frames are super stiff. The Giant compact is stiff, but it's no stiffer tthan my Dedacciai 7003 "traditional" frame.
I really think it's 90% hype and fashion, especially things like this:
http://www.trialtir-usa.com/2005-colnago/mix/mix-pr10.html
No one's gunna convince me that a slope like that is actually gunna do anything. PARLEEEEEEEZ!!! By the way, I can't believe Colnago have caved and put out a "sloper".
In my opinion, wheels can make ten times the difference in performance that
a couple, or a few, cm top-tube slope could ever make.
It's all about the wheels, I tell's ya
Any way, what was the question? .,,,, oh yeah......
If you're looking to buy a compact or sloping frame, it's mostly looks
that you're getting....I reckon.
I am also an 80's man (87 bianchi strada lx). Don't sloped frames have a shorter wheel base thus making the cornering of the bike more hairy. Also what is the short wheel base good for? I am 6 foot 3-4 inches (194 cm) would I not be more squashed on the bike?
Pete
big Pete said:
Actually, the Giant I have is an "L" size, which has only a 160mm head-tube, and an equivalent of about a 59cm top tube!! I feel very stretched out on it because my other bikes are 56s, 57s, and 58s.
The wheelbase is a pretty "normal" 101cm, and the chain-stays are also a fairly standard (these days, at least) 405mm. So, no, I'd have to say the wheelbase is normal. Longer chainstays are meant to increase comfort, but most new bikes seem to have about a 400mm "stay".
I shouldn't get into a whole thing about this, coz I'm no frame builder, but it's my opnion that steering and front-end handling is more about head-tube angle than anything else.
I understand the theory to be that the smaller rear and main triangles are supposed to make a compact frame stiffer laterally.
I disagree. What makes the most difference in performance is not the wheels (they're 2nd) but the frame/fork. But not whether it is standard or compact (though that does count) but rather how it is made and what material is used.
Compact frames are not necessarily on a shorter wheelbase. You need to check the manufacturer's geometry specifications. E.g., compare a Merlin Extralight to a Merlin Magia.
Compact frames do not mean the bike is necessarily lighter. You need a longer seatpost. Depending on your frame material, you may not want a light carbon post.
Compact frames are easier to stand over. Hence, if you have short legs or are just shorter (like me), it is easier to stradle the bike.
My old bike: Medici Pro Strada (steel) traditional, Easton EC70 fork
New bike: Litespeed Ghisallo (6/4 Ti) compact, Easton EC90 fork
There is no comparison between the ride of the two, but that has to do with Steel vs Ti and not standard versus compact. The Ghisallo is much easier to stand over. However, I would never stick a carbon post in that frame. Because it is 6/4 Ti (very stiff), I use a Ti seatpost (would never use Al).
The "Aesthetics" thing is the truly subjective portion. I like 'em both. Whether a frame is standard or compact is not as important as whether it rides the way you want it to ride.
Best.
Compact frames are not necessarily on a shorter wheelbase. You need to check the manufacturer's geometry specifications. E.g., compare a Merlin Extralight to a Merlin Magia.
Compact frames do not mean the bike is necessarily lighter. You need a longer seatpost. Depending on your frame material, you may not want a light carbon post.
Compact frames are easier to stand over. Hence, if you have short legs or are just shorter (like me), it is easier to stradle the bike.
My old bike: Medici Pro Strada (steel) traditional, Easton EC70 fork
New bike: Litespeed Ghisallo (6/4 Ti) compact, Easton EC90 fork
There is no comparison between the ride of the two, but that has to do with Steel vs Ti and not standard versus compact. The Ghisallo is much easier to stand over. However, I would never stick a carbon post in that frame. Because it is 6/4 Ti (very stiff), I use a Ti seatpost (would never use Al).
The "Aesthetics" thing is the truly subjective portion. I like 'em both. Whether a frame is standard or compact is not as important as whether it rides the way you want it to ride.
Best.
I personally don't have a clue! Not in the slightest bit qualified to give an informed opinion - wonder just how many others out there also fall into this category? Wonder further how many of these then just regurgitate what they've read on a corporate website without understanding the underlying fundamentals and without possessing a decent knowledge of the opposing viewpoint?
If anyone really and truly does know, would be refreshing to hear from them!
p.s. prefer the looks of my compact frame than that of my old traditionally-styled roadbike, but does it ride any better on the basis of the frame alone? not enough so as I've noticed, but then what does that prove?
If anyone really and truly does know, would be refreshing to hear from them!
p.s. prefer the looks of my compact frame than that of my old traditionally-styled roadbike, but does it ride any better on the basis of the frame alone? not enough so as I've noticed, but then what does that prove?
Gilders said:I personally don't have a clue! Not in the slightest bit qualified to give an informed opinion - wonder just how many others out there also fall into this category? Wonder further how many of these then just regurgitate what they've read on a corporate website without understanding the underlying fundamentals and without possessing a decent knowledge of the opposing viewpoint?
If anyone really and truly does know, would be refreshing to hear from them!
p.s. prefer the looks of my compact frame than that of my old traditionally-styled roadbike, but does it ride any better on the basis of the frame alone? not enough so as I've noticed, but then what does that prove?
You having a go, GUV??
I'd say, having read a gazillion posts on all these forums, that there's plenty of people like me that are just spewing out their annecdotal evidence.
I'm sure there's also plenty of people, who, having spent half a million on some compact bike, are just gunna spew out the manufacturer's spiel.
I'm one of those bike nuts in his thirties who has 11 frames (!!), 5 of which are built up at any one time, and my limtied experience with the compact Giant has told me that it's not discernably stiffer than my other alu frames.
Maybe if I had another brand compact...I dunno.
This is probably over simplified, but traditional geometry hasn't stopped Armstrong winning his Tours, nor does it stop Petacchi sprinting to just about any stage win that he wants.
I can go past the simple arguments: if it were really a huge perfomance advantage, I suspect many more pro teams would supply their riders with compact bikes -- they ain't silly
I agree that it pretty much comes down to look and feel. I prefer a traditional frame mostly because it's easier to carry up and down stairs on my shoulder. Compact frames are lighter, but because seat post tubing is heavier than frame tubing, you get the weight back when you build up the bike. Some manufacturers (Cannondale for example) take this a little far and claim that a compact frame builds up heavier, but since a compact frame can use thinner walled tubes, they come out about equal. Stiffness has more to do with the shapes of the tubes and the material than the overall frame shape. Litespeed uses a combination of a compact shape and curved seat stays which give the rear triangle a much higher ratio of vertical to lateral compliance than a frame that's just short. And that's something you can really only get away with using ti. The only reason some manufacturers use compact geometry is because the molds for carbon frames are expensive, and with a compact shape they can get away with offering fewer sizes.
Yes, that guy seem to have personal problems with everybody comments.Scott'sTrek1000 said:Thanks for the post. Is it just me, or is boudreaux always ANGRY
Similar threads
