Standard or Compact frame?

When I first saw a Compact frame, I thought "what's with the cruiser style? Where do they keep the Road Bikes?" I still can't stand the look of them.

Any thoughts about one or the other. I see Tomosso and Specialized have gon pretty much exclusively to Compact frame geometry.

 

Whatever spins your beanie.

 

I didn't like the looks of them at first either, but the frame I wanted was built that way, so that's what I got. Can't tell any difference when riding it.

Besides, after watching the entire Giro and TdF this year on OLN, the sloping top tube looks normal to me now....horizontal tubes are starting to look a bit retro.

 

Bike is a bike, neither is particularly "better" than the other....
If you think sloping looks cool, buy one.
If you like a standard frame, buy one.

 

There is much debate on the benefits of standard vs. compact frames. Sloping top tubes on compact frames allow the manufacturers to produce a stiff frame with less material, thus lighter weight.

I've ridden both standard and compact frames and I hardly notice any difference. As long as the bike is fit for you, go out and ride!

Cheers!

e_guevara

 

Bull....just marketing hooey.

 

Unfortunately you then have an extra long seatpost which negates that benefit.

If I were being cynical then I'd suggest that a compact design allows manufacturers to build bikes in just 4 sizes rather than 1cm increments, hence being much cheaper for them to produce. But I'm not, so I won't.

Personally, I started on a compact because a) it fitted well b) I liked the look c) I was more familliar with MTBs are liked the additional standover height.

I've now switched to a tradition top tube. As long as the bike fits, then go with whatever you fancy, but I would put too much stock in the 'benefits' of a compact frame.

 

Okay, I'll be cynical for you then (I can be good at that).

I think that that probably is in fact one of the reasons that a lot manufacturers are going with compact geometry. I'm not saying it's bad, I don't know. But the tooling costs would be way less for manufacturing four frame sizes vs. eight sizes (or however many they choose make for standard geometry). Especially, in the case of the molded carbon fiber frames (like Giant & Specialized) where molds would have to be engineered and fabricated for each frame size. Trek does make their OCLV frames in a bunch of standard geometry frame sizes but then I would guess that there's no shortage of funds at Trek. I have to beleive that decreased production cost is at least one of the drving forces behind the compact geometry trend.

 

Hey I have been looking for some info on Tommaso bikes, do you know anything about them!?

 

I think that major manufactures have given compact frames a bad name because they come in few sizes. Good reputable companies build as many sizes of compact frames as they do standard frames. The big advantage of a compact frame is if you are built with a long torso and shot legs. I can go to a larger frame size in a compact to get longer a top tube and still have good stradle clearance.

 

i think the standard look/fit is what i prefer. compact just doesn't make it look like a serious road bike. if i were shopping i probably wouldn't care though, besides the minor aesthetic argument.

 

Fit shouldn't be a deciding issue, since as Pudster said the good compact frames still come in 2 cm increments.

Aesthetics are of course a matter of opinion. Compact frames look like race bikes, since that's what the pro peloton is riding now. To me, they go well with a CF rear end. If I was getting a mellow steel-framed long distance bike, I'd pick the classic geometry.