# classic vs compact geometry frames



## saccycling (Sep 30, 2004)

whats a better frame, classic or compact ?


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

saccycling said:


> whats a better frame, classic or compact ?


Depends on who you ask. Some people say that compact frame is nothing but bike companies trying to cut corners, by going to a design that allows them offer a smaller number of frame sizes. While others will argue that due it's smaller rear triangle, the compact frame lighter and stiffer (for better improved acceleration and more solid cornering).

The one thing I know is true about a compact frame is that provides more stand over clearance (because of its sloped top tube), which is a god send for someone like me who has short legs and a long torso.


----------



## Spirito (Nov 26, 2001)

*Better ????*

One looks cool and the other (compact) is for girls.

ciao


----------



## Macho Man Savage (Oct 24, 2002)

I can't stand the way compact frames look. They look like mountain bikes. But look shouldn't really matter of course. I love classic geometry.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

.
which is a god send for someone like me who has short legs and a long torso.[/QUOTE]

why do you need standover clearance on a road bike? it's a mountain bike necessity. or at least an urban assault machine feature. a speedy road bike? i don't get it...


----------



## ckilner (Oct 4, 2004)

Niether one is "better" - the best frames are the ones that fit you, suit your riding style, and are well executed. 

Compact frames can allow for lighter weight and better standover, but can also have problems with fit (often, fewer sizes are offered), comfort, and other issues, like holding larger water bottles. Long seatposts of unusual diameters can also limit upgrades. 

Classic geometry uses more tubing (which typically adds weight) and can look "retro" in a present-day paceline, but the additional tubing can also be fine-tuned more easily than compact frames (more tubing to tune allows more tuning), but just because it allows more tuning doesn't mean that classic frames ARE tuned - it all depends on the execution by the builder.

Each camp has its followers. I prefer classic lines and steel (and tubulars, too), but also wouldn't mind owning a Specialized Roubaix Pro.

Many production frames are a combination - many "classic" frames use an identical, compact rear triangle across all sizes, while some "compact" frames have only a mildly sloping top tube (with very little weight savings).

One way to look at compact frames is to say that builders are cutting corners and offering fewer sizes...another way to look at it is to say builders are cutting out unneeded tubing...and a third way to look at it is to say that builders are extending the '80's racing notion of "riding the smallest frame that fits you" for stiffness and weight but solving the head-tube height issue caused by threadless stems by raising the head-tube with a sloping top-tube. (I ride a 56cm bike, but have my wife's old 48cm touring bike with a 130mm quill stem on the windtrainer - and it matches my road position perfectly)


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

saccycling said:


> whats a better frame, classic or compact ?


I have a couple of each and they're both better.


----------



## Flyingsquid (Feb 15, 2004)

*Ouch....*

Can't we call it "Traditional" geometry? Classic makes it sound so old-school & antiquated....

Traditional all the way. I just have never been able to get my head around how the compact frames look. Being a taller (6'3") rider with long legs, I have no size issues that would make a compact more practical either.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

*Compact Me*

I got into road biking from mountain biking, so I figured I'd get a bike that looked at MTB'ish as possible. Aluminum, compact frame & triple crank. Its amazing many roadies it offends. I've ridden mountain bikes for 15 years, going from full rigid steel bikes with friction shifting and horizontal top tubes, to my present bike with 4" of full suspension and disc brakes. I find mountain bikers are much more open to new technologies that make bikes go faster, further, or more fun. Roadies are usually the only ones concerned that something "looks funny."


----------



## 2Fast2Furryious (Jun 11, 2004)

*cause...*



Sablotny said:


> I got into road biking from mountain biking, so I figured I'd get a bike that looked at MTB'ish as possible. Aluminum, compact frame & triple crank. Its amazing many roadies it offends. I've ridden mountain bikes for 15 years, going from full rigid steel bikes with friction shifting and horizontal top tubes, to my present bike with 4" of full suspension and disc brakes. I find mountain bikers are much more open to new technologies that make bikes go faster, further, or more fun. Roadies are usually the only ones concerned that something "looks funny."


Well, we're the people who stare at someone ass and bike for hours on end. In MTB World, you have scenery to look at and trees to avoid.


----------



## orennoah (Jun 9, 2004)

*Bravo!*



2Fast2Furryious said:


> Well, we're the people who stare at someone ass and bike for hours on end. In MTB World, you have scenery to look at and trees to avoid.


VERY well put!


----------



## The Don (Feb 6, 2004)

*Hilarious!*

If you ain't the lead dog, the view never changes! 

I'm not into compact geometry, but it does seem like:
Road = tradition. I've got a lugged steel frame/steel fork, traditional geometry, double chainrings with no carbon bits and lots of silver alloy. (22lbs.)
MTB = innovation. 4" front/rear, triple rings, carbon bars, all black, etc. (27lbs.)

Whatever. Ride, laugh, and live. It's so much better than sitting in front of the tube, or going to the gym and seeing overweight people get their 1x/month 15 minute stint on the elliptical.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

saccycling said:


> whats a better frame, classic or compact ?


The one that fits you best and you feel most comfortable on. Same answer to the "what's the best bike for me" question.

Russ


----------



## YogaLife (Aug 23, 2004)

Sablotny said:


> I got into road biking from mountain biking, so I figured I'd get a bike that looked at MTB'ish as possible. Aluminum, compact frame & triple crank. Its amazing many roadies it offends. I've ridden mountain bikes for 15 years, going from full rigid steel bikes with friction shifting and horizontal top tubes, to my present bike with 4" of full suspension and disc brakes. I find mountain bikers are much more open to new technologies that make bikes go faster, further, or more fun. Roadies are usually the only ones concerned that something "looks funny."


After an incredible year of riding my Specialized Allez Sport, I'm sold on compact frames. Best decision I ever made and I won't be going back to the dinosaur _classic frames_ anytime soon


----------



## sorebut (Nov 21, 2001)

In practice there is no difference between a traditional and compact geometry. the most important factor in a bike is the quality of the frame (strength, ride, etc.), best fit, and the weight. Good bikes come in both geometries. I personally prefer steel lugged bikes and those bikes look much better in a traditional geometry.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

*or girly men. nm*

nm nm nm



Spirito said:


> One looks cool and the other (compact) is for girls.
> 
> ciao


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

*That settles it...*

If Elviento says "nm" to compact frames, I'm going back to horizontal top tubers. Where's that Felt I just missed on Ebay??


----------



## RiDE (May 28, 2004)

I ride compact frames just to spite the elitists.


----------



## Jett (Mar 21, 2004)

colker1 said:


> why do you need standover clearance on a road bike? it's a mountain bike necessity. or at least an urban assault machine feature. a speedy road bike? i don't get it...


I'm not talking about the 3 or 4 inches clearance like you need a mtn bike might needs. On a classic frame, I get maybe 1/4 inch of clearance. The boys are riding on the top tube, which kind of makes me nervous.


----------



## shokhead1 (Jan 21, 2003)

Which is better,boxers or superman underware? Which ever fits and feels best.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

I had a compact cyclocross frame and it was a very decent bike for me. It handled better off-road than any of the other more traditional-type CX frames I tried. But that was to be expected.

Eventually though, since I can only afford to have one bike right now, I didn't feel "right" until I had a traditional-geom frame. Except for the non-round tube shapes, this is about as "traditional" a geometry as you're going to get:


----------



## Jacksonmw (Sep 23, 2004)

*Not a good look for the tall*



Flyingsquid said:


> Can't we call it "Traditional" geometry? Classic makes it sound so old-school & antiquated....
> 
> Traditional all the way. I just have never been able to get my head around how the compact frames look. Being a taller (6'3") rider with long legs, I have no size issues that would make a compact more practical either.



6'4'' here with legs longer than torso, and I tried a few compacts before settling on 'traditional' (I prefer to call them straights). On the compact frames I looked like I was on a kids bike with the seat post yanked out as far as it would go.


----------



## margoC (Jan 22, 2004)

AJS said:


> I had a compact cyclocross frame and it was a very decent bike for me. It handled better off-road than any of the other more traditional-type CX frames I tried. But that was to be expected.
> 
> Eventually though, since I can only afford to have one bike right now, I didn't feel "right" until I had a traditional-geom frame. Except for the non-round tube shapes, this is about as "traditional" a geometry as you're going to get:



OOOOoooo Nice bike! I have the red white and blue one. Once I got rid of the handlebars that came on it it felt very comfortable. I also have a brooks saddle.


----------



## AJS (Aug 7, 2003)

margoC said:


> OOOOoooo Nice bike! I have the red white and blue one. Once I got rid of the handlebars that came on it it felt very comfortable. I also have a brooks saddle.


Thanks margo!  You mean this one? The International. Same Zona steel frame as my Professional, just a different paint scheme and came stock with Centaur instead of Chorus on the Pro. But I didn't buy it OEM, I bought the frame/fork and specced the parts myself. 

I think both models came with ITM bars. I found a good fit in the Easton EA70 42cm so I stuck that on. Saddle is a standard (non-Team) Brooks Pro.


----------



## hummina shadeeba (Oct 15, 2009)

*compact all the way*

they look a bit weird but when I'm sprinting or climbing out of the saddle the top tube is lower and out of the way of my knees! I can lean the bike over more and get more leverage. This is a fit issue and more important then the stupid brand name, weight, or color.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Revival*



hummina shadeeba said:


> they look a bit weird but when I'm sprinting or climbing out of the saddle the top tube is lower and out of the way of my knees! I can lean the bike over more and get more leverage. This is a fit issue and more important then the stupid brand name, weight, or color.


Congratulations! It's almost 7 years to the day since the last post in this thread. You deserve recognition for bringing life to the dead.


----------



## davelikestoplay (May 27, 2010)

I wanna get some superman underwear.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

i wonder when he'll go back and re-discover the first compact crank thread...


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2011)

Disclaimer: yes I'm aware this thread has been "resurrected the the dead". I won't be quoting any posts from 2004 expecting a reply...



hummina shadeeba said:


> they look a bit weird but when I'm sprinting or climbing out of the saddle the top tube is lower and out of the way of my knees! I can lean the bike over more and get more leverage. This is a fit issue and more important then the stupid brand name, weight, or color.


A fit issue is actually what led to me choosing "traditional" frame over the compact frames. I have a very short torso and long legs for my height. traditional frame bikes that have short enough top tube length for me have well over 2" of standover clearance for me so that's not an issue at all-- nor is the tube high enough to get in the way when i'm standing and pedaling. 

I went for a traditional frame bike because when descending fast in a tucked position, or cornering hard, I like to be able to squeeze one or both knees against the top tube (when cornering, usually the knee on the inside of the turn). Doing this this helps w/ stability while descending in crosswinds for example, and gives me better road-feel/feedback and better leverage to lift the bike back up if I start to slide out on an aggressive turn. With most compact frames, the top tube is too low for me to be able to touch it with my knees.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

sorebut said:


> In practice there is no difference between a traditional and compact geometry. the most important factor in a bike is the quality of the frame (strength, ride, etc.), best fit, and the weight. Good bikes come in both geometries....



This. 

I have owned both. Although I definitely prefer the look of a horizontal/classic top tube bike, my current Felt Z frame is compact and is the most comfortable frame I've owned, my favorite of all the bikes I've owned since 1973. I didn't buy it because of the compact frame, I actually bought it in spite of my strong bias against the look of compact frames.

But the comfort is not because it's got a slanted top tube, it's because the geometry and the fit parts I have homed in on make it fit very well. I have no doubt I could get as much comfort out of a traditional framed bike. 

It's funny how a pleasurable ride breaks down aesthetic barriers and biases - and may even create new aesthetic biases!

If/when I look for a new frame, I'll probably still be biased in favor of a traditional frame, but will buy whatever frame I can find in the material I want, with the dimensions/geometry I want, at the price point I want. If all of this is equal, I'd go with the traditional horizontal top tube, but it's strictly a secondary consideration nowadays.


----------



## 8toes (Feb 28, 2010)

I really have no preference. I own a traditinal geo bike (Cannondale Synapse) and have never owned a compact framed roadie. That does not say that I do not like the looks of some of them.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

8toes, you do realize that the synapse is slightly sloping therefore it is an in betweener...lol


----------



## dmong2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Depends on your seat post. Longer seat post needed on compact, that can effect the weight, seated stiffness and comfort. I'd rather that was built into the frame.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

stiffness
I find that funny in armchair engineering terms
A) where's the majority of the weight? (rider)
B) would moving the support structure away from majority of the weight be a strengthening or weakening move?

it's a simple fulcrum fer chrissakes and you've lengthened the arm


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

atpjunkie said:


> it's a simple fulcrum fer chrissakes and you've lengthened the arm


Neither flexes significantly enough that it makes a difference though. 

The force on a bicycle isnt a straight down resultant force on a single member though. The weight and forces are pretty much all over the place. Bars twisting, pedaling motion, body rocking, road bumps and holes. A compact frame could easily be more rigid on one axis, and more flexible on another. 

As a heavier (195lbs) rider on a compact frame with a mile of post showing, Ive never had any sort of flex issues.


----------



## Dereck (Jan 31, 2005)

When I got my Bob Jackson built in 2006, I finally got the top tube length I wanted.

Also, admitting to that I can't manage having the bars down where I did when I rode my other BJ, in somewhat more serious fashion albeit a fair while back  I figured out how to get the bars a little higher without lots of spacers under the stem.

Got BJ to first start with a 54 x 54(cm) frame, then to rotate the top tube by lifting the front end 1cm and dropping the back end 1cm. Yes, Carruthers, it can be done easily with lugs - as long as you're dealing with a top end custom builder.

That and a half-inch head tube extension = no spacers and no sticky-up in the air stem. Okay - not as per the photo, for sure. Also avoids the look of minimalist seat-tube I loathed when I did this bike racing stuff way back...

Is it a traditionalist compact? Or a compact-ish classic? Whatever, it's a one off, rides great - isn't that the aim?

Regards

Dereck


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

do you mean dropping the bb height at the same time as increasing the head tube length?


----------



## scirocco (Dec 7, 2010)

It's mainly about manufacturers being able to fit everyone with fewer frame sizes.

Personally I think that compact geometry in road bikes with steep top tube slopes look ridiculous. But 2 or 3 degrees slope can actually look quite good. The curvy slopes that start off horizontal and curve down a bit are not bad either.

If you look at the BMC range for example the serious bikes start out with almost horizontal top tubes and as you go down in the range the slope increases. So there's at least one manufacturer sending out a strong signal about what they think of compact geometry.


----------



## frailer5 (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm 63, ride a 90s Giant Perigée, and am unlikely to bother with a non-classic/newer geometry, or non-steel based, for that matter. FWIW.
But then, I'm old. ((-:


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

frailer5 said:


> I'm 63, ride a 90s Giant Perigée, and am unlikely to bother with a non-classic/newer geometry, or non-steel based, for that matter. FWIW.
> But then, I'm old. ((-:


All the more reason to try something new and different - if not now, when? I'm only being half tongue in cheek. I'm in my late 50s and bought a CF Felt Z frame and built it up with high end Sram components this year. Why? I was curious about the CF frame and about Sram components. I was having no significant problems with my old bike, but just figured, why shouldn't I try something different? 

Turned out well for me because I like both frame and components better than what I had. Is it "enough" better to justify the expense? Who knows, probably not, but that's not the point.


----------



## frailer5 (Oct 21, 2011)

Ya well, $$s an issue, but all I know is how much more pleasurable/easy a ride it is after the TREK 6000 MTB 

2 posts away from posting a pic.


----------



## Kai Winters (Aug 23, 2009)

For me, my next frame will be compact/sloping top tube. I'm 5'5" with a 27 1/2" inseam. Trying to get a good fit on a standard road frame is not easy and there are always compromises I'm sometimes not very happy making.
My 48cm top of the top tube Merlin Ti fits me quite nicely for my legs but trying to get low on the drops has always been a problem and there is very little stand over height.

I have a new Redline CX compact frame, bought this spring, and I can get low in the drops easier and more comfortably.

I doubt I'll be replacing the Merlin any time soon though as I love the bike and the ride.


----------



## david58 (Oct 16, 2011)

The issue I have with a compact frame is my wife's new bike is now too small to fit our rack on the car. So the good deal on the bike is likely several hundred dollars less good...

Win some and lose some.....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*has anyone ever ridden behind you and taped it*



TomH said:


> Neither flexes significantly enough that it makes a difference though.
> 
> The force on a bicycle isnt a straight down resultant force on a single member though. The weight and forces are pretty much all over the place. Bars twisting, pedaling motion, body rocking, road bumps and holes. A compact frame could easily be more rigid on one axis, and more flexible on another.
> 
> As a heavier (195lbs) rider on a compact frame with a mile of post showing, Ive never had any sort of flex issues.


agreed the forces aren't straight down the force is left right /fore and aft. All these forces are generated by you and me. With a compact you have taken these forces and extended the lever, in basic, rudimentary engineering sense it is nonsensical. Out of the saddle I'm sure a compact is stiffer, seated no way in hell. 

Just like wider bars and bigger riders (they go together) put more torque on the HT


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

I don't really see the "compact" in compact frames. If they fit, then they will be no more or less compact that the traditional frame, give or take a few millimeters of tube. Besides with a non-sloping TT the seat tube is longer, but the seat post can arguably be shorter.


----------



## cyclefreaker (Oct 31, 2011)

the compact is for girls?? and it has nothing to do with cutting corners. compact geometry has to do with stiffness and flexibility. the seatpost rigidity is what it affects most. i would say that the compact geometry is the "new Standard"...just ask most builders out there


----------



## SlowMover (Jun 6, 2010)

On my Merlin Agilis I barely had ~ 1cm of safety left on my max extend line with a Thomson 410mm! Plus the head tube was so tall I had to run a Bontrager -25 degree. That was my one and done with compact as Cannondale just seems to fit me like a glove in any of their race frames. No spacers and perfect access too all bar positions. Hard to mess with good for me any more. Yay CDale.


----------



## Stealthammer (May 16, 2009)

Flyingsquid said:


> *Can't we call it "Traditional" geometry? Classic makes it sound so old-school & antiquated....*.......


Because they are "old-school & antiquated", but ride what you want. Some people would rather drive a 1965 Mustang than a 2010 Honda Civic. The Civic will out corner the Mustang all day long, but the Mustang driver might just want to cruise.....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*that bike*



Dereck said:


> When I got my Bob Jackson built in 2006, I finally got the top tube length I wanted.
> 
> Also, admitting to that I can't manage having the bars down where I did when I rode my other BJ, in somewhat more serious fashion albeit a fair while back  I figured out how to get the bars a little higher without lots of spacers under the stem.
> 
> ...


is a winner whatever it is


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

2Fast2Furryious said:


> Well, we're the people who stare at someone ass and bike for hours on end. In MTB World, you have scenery to look at and trees to avoid.


Best argument for riding solo I've ever seen.


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

What? You don't like crackvista?

Bianchi always measured center to top. Nowadays they measure center to virtual top. Actual top is (for most sizes) 4 cm below virtual top. Confused?

My mountain bike has a non-sloping top tube...


----------

