# traditional geometry vs. compact geometry



## mikey_mike (Feb 13, 2006)

Could somebody site out the advantages of each and to what type of ride do they excel? Thanks for the help I'm relatively new to road biking coming from an avid mtn. biker I'm clueless when it comes to this aspect..


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

mikey_mike said:


> Could somebody site out the advantages of each and to what type of ride do they excel? Thanks for the help I'm relatively new to road biking coming from an avid mtn. biker I'm clueless when it comes to this aspect..



one has more seat tube and less seat post and the
other has the inverse. it was borne out of giant bicycle's
early 90s desire to have fewer inventory sku's; "a 3-4 sizes
fits all" approach to dealer inventory and distribution. there
were less sizes, seat tube-wise, yet more selection in the
stem/seatpost assembly department. through all the ups/downs,
UCI machinations, and copycat-ers, "compact" won over a
generation. imo, it's mostly an aesthetic, yet so many assign
engineering attributes to it that i simply don't get. the weight
issue is one of them. recently, i took the offcuts of seat tubes,
seat stays, and seat posts that were the dregs of morphing
a trad frame into a compact design, and the net result was
that using less "tube" and more "post" was actually a weight
penalty rather than an asset. for the tech-minded, the test bed
was the thin end of a deda zero pipe as well as the tops of
corresponding seat stays, along with a campagnolo cf post.
*e-RICHIE©™®*


----------



## David Kirk (Mar 6, 2005)

e-RICHIE said:


> one has more seat tube and less seat post and the
> other has the inverse. it was borne out of giant bicycle's
> early 90s desire to have fewer inventory sku's; "a 3-4 sizes
> fits all" approach to dealer inventory and distribution. there
> ...


What he said.

Dave


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*do a search...*

This topic has been discussed to death. As already noted, it's more aesthetic than anything, but there are cases where long torsoed/short legged riders have managed to get a better fit on a stock frame, taking advantage of the longer TT on a frame size that would normally have little standover clearance.

Other than that, it's pretty hard to prove any real advantage or disadvantage, since few frames are available that are made exactly the same except for the sloping TT. You just can't legitimately compare a compact frame to a sloping when the tubes are also quite different.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

mikey_mike said:


> Could somebody site out the advantages of each and to what type of ride do they excel? Thanks for the help I'm relatively new to road biking coming from an avid mtn. biker I'm clueless when it comes to this aspect..


Depending on what size bike you need, and how high your saddle ends up, you have a better shot at clamping your seat tube in your bike stand if you have a sloping TT. Of course, all the suns and moons need to line up for this (they do in my case) and if they do, and if you like leaving your seat clamp alone, then yes, there is one real-live advantage to a sloping TT.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Just one minor addition: Compact frames on the market today typically have 4-6cm of slope, which means you need about 4-6cm additional seatpost showing. Most people I know have roughly 11-13cm of seatpost exposed on their non-compact frames. That would require the seatposts to have 15-19cm of post exposed when they "go compact". Most seatposts on the market today are 25-27cm in length with around 7cm of minimum insertion, that gives you 18-20cm of post that can be shown. For a large number of riders, it means not having to switch the seatpost at all, hence no weight penalty at all. 

With frames having drastic slopes and people with lots of seatpost showing, this does not apply. 

I had an Easton EC90 which was 30cm at 160 grams, which is pretty much long enough for any compact frame and gives you no weight penalty whatsoever, unless your frame is way too small to begin with.


----------



## BarryG (Jul 5, 2004)

If you're looking for a minimal seat-to-bar drop with a threadless fork setup, a sloping toptube and longer headtube are just about the only option (other than a horiz tt and long fugly headtube extension). The "comfort" geom. bikes offered by all the major mfr's use a sloping toptube. 

Many purists still go with a horiz tt, threaded fork and longnecked quilled stem, and this is the classic comfort option.


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

elviento said:


> Just one minor addition: Compact frames on the market today typically have 4-6cm of slope, which means you need about 4-6cm additional seatpost showing. Most people I know have roughly 11-13cm of seatpost exposed on their non-compact frames. That would require the seatposts to have 15-19cm of post exposed when they "go compact". Most seatposts on the market today are 25-27cm in length with around 7cm of minimum insertion, that gives you 18-20cm of post that can be shown. For a large number of riders, it means not having to switch the seatpost at all, hence no weight penalty at all.<cut>


i may have missed a point here, but my point (above) included
the gem that the additional post needed for a trad to compact
design change always weigh more than the 3-6cm of thin walled
seat tube that is not present owing to the switch.
*e-RICHIE©™®*


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

C-40 said:


> This topic has been discussed to death. As already noted, it's more aesthetic than anything, but there are cases where long torsoed/short legged riders have managed to get a better fit on a stock frame, taking advantage of the longer TT on a frame size that would normally have little standover clearance.
> 
> Other than that, it's pretty hard to prove any real advantage or disadvantage, since few frames are available that are made exactly the same except for the sloping TT. You just can't legitimately compare a compact frame to a sloping when the tubes are also quite different.


you don't need standover clearance on a road bike. what "better fit" you are talking about? looks? no one should feel depressed or hang up cause his bike shows less seatpost.. it doesn't mean anything when you are riding on the road.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*cost cutting move by industry*

turns into design fad with all kinds of 'science' to support it. my fave is 'it makes a stiffer frame' by having a tighter triangle. Well maybe so for those moments when you are standing (climbing, sprinting) but the other 85% of the time when you are seated you are now placing all that body mass on top of a single unsupported pipe held in by a clamp. With a traditional frame you have the seat tube supported by the TT and Seatstays and a far more minimal exposed seat mast (post) which will make the area stiffer. It really kills me when I see larger riders on this type of frame. a big long seat post and a whole lot of weight just floating on top of it. it gets both fore aft wag and side to side


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

e-RICHIE said:


> i may have missed a point here, but my point (above) included
> the gem that the additional post needed for a trad to compact
> design change always weigh more than the 3-6cm of thin walled
> seat tube that is not present owing to the switch.
> *e-RICHIE©™®*


compact geometry and the new headset designs, incl. the venerable ahead, screwed up the very rational, traditional way of sizing a road bike: by the size of the headtube. if you could live w/ a lot of drop, meaning you were highly flexible, you rode smaller frames. if you felt like a shallower seattube and less drop, you moved bigger. 
compact may look cool, aheadsets mean lighter bikes but i see a LOT of people complaining about bad fit nowadays.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

terry b said:


> Depending on what size bike you need, and how high your saddle ends up, you have a better shot at clamping your seat tube in your bike stand if you have a sloping TT. Of course, all the suns and moons need to line up for this (they do in my case) and if they do, and if you like leaving your seat clamp alone, then yes, there is one real-live advantage to a sloping TT.


My bike is not compact geometry. It just has longer headtube so that I use fewer spacers to get the correct stem height and look ;-).


----------



## wzq622 (Aug 3, 2004)

I have a compact frame and have long arms. The frame seems to fit me fine as I have also tried a standard frame but found the top tube to be a bit shorter than my compact. 

Whereas in a compact I ride ~a 58cm, I would have to ride a 62cm standard frame with a gigantic headtube


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*whatever makes you happy...*



colker1 said:


> you don't need standover clearance on a road bike. what "better fit" you are talking about? looks? no one should feel depressed or hang up cause his bike shows less seatpost.. it doesn't mean anything when you are riding on the road.


Personally, I don't want my balls resting on the TT when I stop at a light. The long torsoed/short legged guys can gain some TT length for a better fit, without suffering from this problem, with a sloped TT. I'm just repeating thIs "advantage" noted by some riders who found even a 130mm stem too short on a frame fit fine vertically.

I don't have this problem. Even my horizontal TT frame provides 6cm of standover clearance.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

e-RICHIE said:


> i may have missed a point here, but my point (above) included
> the gem that the additional post needed for a trad to compact
> design change always weigh more than the 3-6cm of thin walled
> seat tube that is not present owing to the switch.
> *e-RICHIE©™®*


I wonder if that's still the case when you use a 350mm 134g seat post?


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

divve said:


> I wonder if that's still the case when you use a 350mm 134g seat post?



you may as well use a drinking straw!
grin -


----------



## jordan (Feb 2, 2002)

I had to switch to a stiffer seatpost on my Schwinn Fastback compact because of noticeable lateral sway.The inexpensive Kalloy alu seatpost was replaced with a Easton alu MTB post with good results.I am 6' 2" 200 lbs. with normal proportions.If you are a heavy rider you should beware of lightweight carbon or flexy alu posts on a compact.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*or if you qare 6'2" tall and 200*

you should buy traditional geometry. 6'4" 225ish in love with my regular bike frames.
another great turn a lemon into lemonade marketing piece of genius
"Compact Alu frames are more comfortable as the longer seatpost creates shock abosrbtion"
(Read as Flex)


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

divve said:


> I wonder if that's still the case when you use a 350mm 134g seat post?


For my custom carbon frame all the calculations showed it would be a little lighter with an ultralight post and a compact frame for otherwise identical geometry. Of course you have to be under the weight limit for the post too and be willing to cough up the $$$$.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

I think this is probably right. 

A compact frame also saves on the weight of the toptube and seatstays because they are also shorter. So for a 6cm slope, for example, you could end up saving 10cm worth of tubing on the frame. That could be more weight savings compared to the added length of the seatpost. In addition, as mentioned in my earlier post, if you could manage to go compact without getting a different seatpost, all the weight savings is net.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> For my custom carbon frame all the calculations showed it would be a little lighter with an ultralight post and a compact frame for otherwise identical geometry. Of course you have to be under the weight limit for the post too and be willing to cough up the $$$$.


how much lighter? i want to know the cost of beauty cause i find traditional diamond frames beautifull and slopping ugly.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and you have to add in*

extra steerer tube,extra fork steerer which is always longer on a compact. plus using a ultra lightweight post on a compact frame may not be recommended for most riders,you need longer post insertion, plus power lost due to rider flex. plus ultra lightweight post on compact is more prone to failure.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> extra steerer tube,extra fork steerer which is always longer on a compact. plus using a ultra lightweight post on a compact frame may not be recommended for most riders,you need longer post insertion, plus power lost due to rider flex. plus ultra lightweight post on compact is more prone to failure.



Yeah, that big ol' seatpost is a giant power dump, ain't it? 

....what....it's not? Oh. See, I was all about to buy into the tried and true BBS and internet crackpot science and wives' tales.

I wonder if the people who loved wagon wheels are still whining and blubbering about how wagon wheels are less than fashionable.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Steerer same length on compact frame*



atpjunkie said:


> extra steerer tube,extra fork steerer which is always longer on a compact.


Why is the steerer tube always longer on a compact? If the compact frame is fit to the rider the same as a traditional frame, the handlebars will be in the same place, the stem will be in the same place, and the steerer will the be same length.

A "compact" frame just means that top tube is sloping and the seat tube is shorter, there doesn't need to be a change in length of the head tube. Even if the head tube is shorter, the steerer will be same length, the extra space will just be taken up by spacers.


----------



## ChuckUni (Jan 2, 2003)

elviento said:


> I think this is probably right.
> 
> A compact frame also saves on the weight of the toptube and seatstays because they are also shorter. So for a 6cm slope, for example, you could end up saving 10cm worth of tubing on the frame. That could be more weight savings compared to the added length of the seatpost. In addition, as mentioned in my earlier post, if you could manage to go compact without getting a different seatpost, all the weight savings is net.


But if you are this worried about weight why wouldn't you cut the seatpost or buy a correct length one for your traditional frame. If the post is long enough to swap to the compact frame it's too long for the traditonal.

Either way for me...A racing road bike can look nice either way, I like sloped mtn bikes, and most anything else I prefer traditional.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*for larger riders like myself*



alienator said:


> Yeah, that big ol' seatpost is a giant power dump, ain't it?
> 
> it is. I'm no 130 lber I can feel the 'wag' on a long seatpost. I don't know why Compacts have longer steer tubes, they do. look at larger size Giants and the Specialized Roubaix and tellme those steer tubes ain't longer.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

ChuckUni said:


> But if you are this worried about weight why wouldn't you cut the seatpost or buy a correct length one for your traditional frame. If the post is long enough to swap to the compact frame it's too long for the traditonal.
> 
> Either way for me...A racing road bike can look nice either way, I like sloped mtn bikes, and most anything else I prefer traditional.


i even like the ritchey P series mtn bikes. the standard diamond frame is so elegant. 
isn't it easier to dial comfort in longer seatstays? longer tubes will disperse shock better than short ones. carbon can do it anyways but w/ alum. and steel, the longer seatstays make sense to me.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> it is. I'm no 130 lber I can feel the 'wag' on a long seatpost. I don't know why Compacts have longer steer tubes, they do. look at larger size Giants and the Specialized Roubaix and tellme those steer tubes ain't longer.


The post I was talking about is an AX-Lightness Daedalus. It can be made to measure and tailored to your specific weight. If you weight more than naturally the post will be heavier as well. One of the "tricks" it features to save weigh is a limited clamping zone. You specify where it's going to be clamped and outside of that zone less reinforcement and wall thickness can be used...will cost you about $450 bucks though


----------



## ChuckUni (Jan 2, 2003)

colker1 said:


> i even like the ritchey P series mtn bikes. the standard diamond frame is so elegant.
> isn't it easier to dial comfort in longer seatstays? longer tubes will disperse shock better than short ones. carbon can do it anyways but w/ alum. and steel, the longer seatstays make sense to me.


For the MTN bike the slope makes a bit more sense to me because it makes for a bit more standover clearance. Nice for when you get into trouble off road and have to put a foot down in less than idea situations. Plus with 29ers they almost have to have a sloping TT. Standover would be too much for most people...especially with front suspension. My preivous mtn bike was traditional....and I prefer the compact over it for this reason.

On the road...not so much of an issue.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

Fashion, fashion, fashion. That's all it's about. And the Ailenator is right. That long seatpost is going to cut 5-6 mph off your current times.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> alienator said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that big ol' seatpost is a giant power dump, ain't it?
> ...


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Seat stay flex vs. seat post flex*



colker1 said:


> isn't it easier to dial comfort in longer seatstays? longer tubes will disperse shock better than short ones. carbon can do it anyways but w/ alum. and steel, the longer seatstays make sense to me.


I think you'll find just the opposite to be the case. Seat stays are loaded axially in compression, which is the stiffest flex mode of a tube. There is no meaningful flex in any solid seatstay. On the other hand, if the seat cluster (joint between the stays, seat tube and top tube) is lower, then the seat post is longer. The seat post is a cantilever arm, and can flex in bending (far more the than the seat stays can flex in compression). A compact frame is likely to have more flex at the saddle than a traditional, simply because the seat post can flex more.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I have a slight sloped cx frame*

and at my size (225 lbs) in the last 2 seasons (running a Thompson post) I think I have very slightly ovalized the seattube as it is getting harder and harder to get the binder tight enough to stop it from creaking. I demo'd an XL giant (which is about as extreme a compact as road frames get) and I had damn near a foot and a half of post exposed and I literally could feel sway on pedal strokes. How much power does it rob me of?I don't know, but it sure doesn't 'feel' right feeling unsupported like that. as for my power,just check the RbR San Diego Ride reports, they speak clearly for my riding.

So why would I shop for other seatposts when I could just buy a bike that works?
Your logic is from what I posted: design flaw=weakness
tou say: Buy a stiffer post (which negates weight savings of other posters)
which means accept the flaw and do a workaround. that isn't good thinking.
why not shop for a bike without the flaw and use whatever post you want?

look all the hype a wives tales are on the industry side. They want to make less sizes so they go compact. Then they have to create reasons why it is better.

look at CF frames. Now trek who has years of experience and is already set up with molds for doing multiple sizes monocoque uses standard geometry and has a load of frame sizes.
Companies newer to the CF market either
a) use an Asian CF factory (something like 90% of CF bikes are built in the same 4 factories) so to keep costs down use a small number of monocoque molds (compact)
b) go to CF lugged construction as using lugs allows them to have more sizes

now it's funny because the industry once said lugs were a dead technology,that there were better ways to build frames. remember that one? when in reality lugs (at the steel level) were killed off because it takes a skilled brazer to do the work. TIG welding can be done by machine and thus cheaper with higher output and less cost to 'skilled framebuilders)
Now all of a sudden lugs make a comeback,but for the opposite reason (Cheaper) CF Lugs give's the MFR the ability to offer more sizes to the consumer, they are glued together (which doesn't take the skill of brazing) and you don't need all those costly monocoque molds. So how do they sell this style of CF over the Monos? Lugged CF produces a less 'wooden' ride than Mono, Lugged CF has a more 'steel feel'. Mono MFRs sell theirs as unified construction kills vibration better, is lighter and supposedly stiffer.
So again,what you have is Mfrs doing cost analysis in the production and then creating the reasoning via their marketing depts to sell the ideas they chose.
It becomes fashion and then consumers end up buying whatever is the new hype regardless of whether it is actually better. The #'s of tech breakthroughs that have found their way to the garbage heap over time is amazing. 
So I won't waste my time looking for a seatpost that at mass extension (when I don't need standover) is stiffer to compensate for bad engineering. I'll buy a frame that is better suited for me. I think compact frames are fine for smaller riders and I think slight slopes work further up the size scale, but no one can mechanically argue that placing 200 lbs further from a structural junction on a cantilver is gonna be stiifer than placing it closer.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*oh and though I do own*

a lugged steel frame (my 84 Merckx Corsa Sunday Retro rider) I also own an Alu road Bike, an Alu Cross Bike, a Scandium Cross Bike, a TIG welded steel track bike, a Tig Welded Steel Road Bike, and an ALU MTB so you can call me the lugged steel retrogrouch wiseman and I'll just refer to you as the industry hype spouting wisea$$.

again your logic is equivalent to Ford Motor Company who had SUV's with rollover issues saying. Well just buy a roll cage.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> and at my size (225 lbs) in the last 2 seasons (running a Thompson post) I think I have very slightly ovalized the seattube as it is getting harder and harder to get the binder tight enough to stop it from creaking. I demo'd an XL giant (which is about as extreme a compact as road frames get) and I had damn near a foot and a half of post exposed and I literally could feel sway on pedal strokes. How much power does it rob me of?I don't know, but it sure doesn't 'feel' right feeling unsupported like that. as for my power,just check the RbR San Diego Ride reports, they speak clearly for my riding.
> 
> So why would I shop for other seatposts when I could just buy a bike that works?
> Your logic is from what I posted: design flaw=weakness
> ...


Who are you talking to? If you used the "quote" reply button, then people'd know who you were ranting at.

Short of that, it just looks like you're pointlessly babbling.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*please refute said babbling rather than dismiss it*

I'm waiting to be enlightened by all the 'science' and engineering of compaction.
I hate long posts by quoting neddlessly. I prefer simple and effective .Yes I was speaking to you. and it would be "To whom are you speaking?"

what is pointless about it?Just explanantions of many tech advances that are not. Just cost cutting labeled as tech advancements.

so I await your engineering expertise to support your point. as all you seem cabalble would be unsupported dismissals and semi clever ad homs. (those would qualify as pointless)


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> look at CF frames. Now trek who has years of experience and is already set up with molds for doing multiple sizes monocoque uses standard geometry and has a load of frame sizes.
> Companies newer to the CF market either
> a) use an Asian CF factory (something like 90% of CF bikes are built in the same 4 factories) so to keep costs down use a small number of monocoque molds (compact)
> b) go to CF lugged construction as using lugs allows them to have more sizes
> ...


This is quite funny, Trek builds lugged CF frames that look like monos, not for the choice of sizes but cost of production. If you look at the manufacturers of CF frames that for marketing reasons have stickers on their frames saying ""Handbuilt in The West". They all do lugs because the cost of labor is high and glueing a frame together is cheaper than building a mono. When you look at the east the cost of labor is low so they can build monos, and in as many sizes as they want. The cost that they can cut down on is the cost of logistics and they choose to build fewer sizes to streamline. How a frame is built is determined by cost and how to cut down on, all the rest is marketing. Marketing includes all the bla bla bla about ride quality of material X versus build manner Y versus rim depth Z.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*well that would be news to me*

but you are correct and the bladder molded lugs (which is why I thought they were mono'd, I knew they were using bladder molds so I assumed they were doing mono)thanks for the update,but lugging again as I stated is a cost saving method to provide the widest array of frame sizes (and possibly custom).this is why many of the mfrs have chosen this route. here's an interesting run down

http://www.calfeedesign.com/whitepaper9.htm

mono construction gets pricey when you have a multitude of sizes,hence a multitude of bladder molds. it also creates issues at the retail level (stock on hand).east does have cheaper labor costs, but going with 4 sizes means 4 bladder molds and 4 SKUs at the retail level which saves serious coin as well.

but we agree, most is just marketing hype to create the image that their method is the best.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> and at my size (225 lbs) in the last 2 seasons (running a Thompson post) I think I have very slightly ovalized the seattube as it is getting harder and harder to get the binder tight enough to stop it from creaking. I demo'd an XL giant (which is about as extreme a compact as road frames get) and I had damn near a foot and a half of post exposed and I literally could feel sway on pedal strokes. How much power does it rob me of?I don't know, but it sure doesn't 'feel' right feeling unsupported like that. as for my power,just check the RbR San Diego Ride reports, they speak clearly for my riding.


Well, ya first gotta wonder why, if a person is having issues or don't like the feeling of the bike, they'd be so dense as to keep riding it. Why not get rid of it and find something that works better for said person?

Ride reports? Wow! So...........did anyone say anything about your riding? Or your power? Do the ride reports include graphs, plots, and charts of your power output? Is there some empirical study of your power output? 

So why would a person buy such a frame? Did said person buy into the marketing speak?



atpjunkie said:


> So why would I shop for other seatposts when I could just buy a bike that works?
> Your logic is from what I posted: design flaw=weakness
> tou say: Buy a stiffer post (which negates weight savings of other posters)
> which means accept the flaw and do a workaround. that isn't good thinking.
> why not shop for a bike without the flaw and use whatever post you want?


So why don't you just buy a bike that works for you and stop kvetching about the problematic ride? Why have you continued to ride it if it doesn't work for you? Ya gotta wonder about that....



atpjunkie said:


> look all the hype a wives tales are on the industry side. They want to make less sizes so they go compact. Then they have to create reasons why it is better.


Well, since you get all hot and bothered making grammatical corrections, I guess it should be pointed out that you should have typed "Look at all....." Big 'L', 'at',...the rest of the sentence doesn't make much sense either, Teacher.

As for the wives tales, there are plenty on all sides. I'm not defending any wives tale, but I am suggesting that people ignore the alleged benefits to a "compact" or "trad" and instead get what works and feels best for them. I am suggesting that it's a matter of design, construction, fit, proper use of materials, and etc. that determines function, and it's not the difference between a traditional frame and a compact frame.

look at CF frames. Now trek who has years of experience and is already set up with molds for doing multiple sizes monocoque uses standard geometry and has a load of frame sizes.
Companies newer to the CF market either
a) use an Asian CF factory (something like 90% of CF bikes are built in the same 4 factories) so to keep costs down use a small number of monocoque molds (compact)
b) go to CF lugged construction as using lugs allows them to have more sizes



atpjunkie said:


> now it's funny because the industry once said lugs were a dead technology,that there were better ways to build frames. remember that one? when in reality lugs (at the steel level) were killed off because it takes a skilled brazer to do the work. TIG welding can be done by machine and thus cheaper with higher output and less cost to 'skilled framebuilders)
> Now all of a sudden lugs make a comeback,but for the opposite reason (Cheaper) CF Lugs give's the MFR the ability to offer more sizes to the consumer, they are glued together (which doesn't take the skill of brazing) and you don't need all those costly monocoque molds. So how do they sell this style of CF over the Monos? Lugged CF produces a less 'wooden' ride than Mono, Lugged CF has a more 'steel feel'. Mono MFRs sell theirs as unified construction kills vibration better, is lighter and supposedly stiffer.
> So again,what you have is Mfrs doing cost analysis in the production and then creating the reasoning via their marketing depts to sell the ideas they chose.
> It becomes fashion and then consumers end up buying whatever is the new hype regardless of whether it is actually better. The #'s of tech breakthroughs that have found their way to the garbage heap over time is amazing.


And your point is what? 



atpjunkie said:


> So I won't waste my time looking for a seatpost that at mass extension (when I don't need standover) is stiffer to compensate for bad engineering. I'll buy a frame that is better suited for me. I think compact frames are fine for smaller riders and I think slight slopes work further up the size scale, but no one can mechanically argue that placing 200 lbs further from a structural junction on a cantilver is gonna be stiifer than placing it closer.


No, the problem isn't bad engineering. The problem is the uninformed or lazy customer that couldn't objectively choose a bike that best worked for them. Don't blame the manufacturer because you're continuing to ride a bike that doesn't work for you. That's your fault.

And are you now talking about stiffness (man, your spelling errors are getting worse, Grammar Professor), or are we stilll talking about the gobs of power you lose on your badly engineered ride?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*ride reports*

Were in response to your 'power robbing' quote. So yes, you referred (and continue to refer to) directly to power. But yes when I rode that Giant the sway I felt made me pedal less aggressively.
I don't ride a compact road frame so my bike isn't badly engineered for what works for me. 

As for my semi sloping, it is how the frame was built and I gave it a shot. It's design creates more standover and being a cx bike, sometimes this is important to riders. So I thought I'd try it out and see, and I got a screaming deal so it was worth the time as a science experiment at a minimum and it has provided me with an honest evaluation of the frame material (Scandium) and the geometry and whether the advantages (increased standover) is worth it. I don't think I'd buy another, not at full pop for sure. So there are design benefits to this style in CX, some (Giant) go further with the slope which seems silly as it reduces portage room. So once again I am making decisions based on Pro's vs Cons and doing my own research.


You seem to have missed my points about compact frames and rider size. I've said all along that I was referring mostly to it in larger size for larger riders. This would imply 'what is best for you' as the seatpost issue is probably a non-issue for 130 lb guys on small frames. I've contnually posted that these 'compact issues' are more apparent in bigger sizes.

My point was showing a history of cost cutting methods that were sold to the consumer as 'science'. 

this whole debate is about information. Which again you've failed to provide any supporting your rebuttal against 'compact frames are nothing more than a cost saving method for the industry and that everything else is marketing hype' POV. So I thank you for correcting my spelling which is more my poor typing skills. This seems like all you are capable of doing and again fail to provide any data supporting the superiority of said design. Again you fail to address the very simple engiuneering questions I ask so I'll just have to file you under fluff, no substance.

But yes, people ride what works for you.If you have stubby legs and a long torso and can't afford a custom build get a compact. If you spend the majority of your riding time standing, get one as well.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> Were in response to your 'power robbing' quote. So yes, you referred (and continue to refer to) directly to power. But yes when I rode that Giant the sway I felt made me pedal less aggressively.
> I don't ride a compact road frame so my bike isn't badly engineered for what works for me.


You are the one who said the flexipost was hurting your power output. If you only meant that's what it felt like, that's fine. Just don't claim that there was a substantive loss of power without backing up your claim. The onus isn't on me to prove there wasn't: it's on you since you're the one making the claim. And, no, ride reports by others and the awed expressions on the faces of others as they witnessed your power stoked pedaling prowess don't count as proof.



atpjunkie said:


> My point was showing a history of cost cutting methods that were sold to the consumer as 'science'.


I challenge you to find anywhere where I've said anything different.



atpjunkie said:


> this whole debate is about information. Which again you've failed to provide any supporting your rebuttal against 'compact frames are nothing more than a cost saving method for the industry and that everything else is marketing hype' POV. So I thank you for correcting my spelling which is more my poor typing skills. This seems like all you are capable of doing and again fail to provide any data supporting the superiority of said design. Again you fail to address the very simple engiuneering questions I ask so I'll just have to file you under fluff, no substance.


Sorry, but I don't have to refute anything, because I've never said that compact frames were, originally, anything other than a money saving move on the part of manufacturers. That is a fact. And, for the record, I've never claimed or said that either traditional or compact is better. I'm not selling anything, but I am, and always have on this point, saying that no blanket statements can be made re: either frame type. The performance of a frame, again as said many times before, is a function of the specific design, construction, use of material, rider fit, intended use vs. actual use, and etc.

Again, since I'm not the one making wild claims about my power being drained because of a long seatpost, I don't have to prove anything. There is nothing that can be proven empirically in this debate. You have to look at a specific frame or specific frames. That simple. If you had a technical background, you would understand that. All you've done is make inaccurate claims about things that I haven't said.


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

elviento said:


> I think this is probably right.
> 
> A compact frame also saves on the weight of the toptube and seatstays because they are also shorter. So for a 6cm slope, for example, you could end up saving 10cm worth of tubing on the frame. That could be more weight savings compared to the added length of the seatpost. In addition, as mentioned in my earlier post, if you could manage to go compact without getting a different seatpost, all the weight savings is net.


what i found by weighing all the added and taken-away
parts refuted the weight savings "theory" wrt compact 
frames. i addressed it it the first reply in this thread:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=562255&postcount=2
*e-RICHIE©™®*


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*while I'll agree to this*

[/QUOTE]I'm not selling anything, but I am, and always have on this point, saying that no blanket statements can be made re: either frame type


> yes blanket statements always have some faults
> this little beauty


The performance of a frame, again as said many times before, is a function of the specific design, construction, use of material, rider fit, intended use vs. actual use, and etc.


> Is a cop out.
> You can't go into material, rider fit, design and construction. That's a load of BS. We are talking about comparing the design. You can't compare different designs using differeb\nt materials, set it up like an experiment.
> 
> 2 Bikes: Identical material, Identical contruction technique, same rider. Say 7005 Aluminum, Welded, whatever rider, now where will there be plus's and minus' that we can attribute to the design? If you had a technical background you wouldn't be trying to compare apples to oranges. Last I checked when doing design experiments the object is to eliminate asmany variables as possible. It's why you have control groups.
> ...


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> Is a cop out.
> You can't go into material, rider fit, design and construction. That's a load of BS. We are talking about comparing the design. You can't compare different designs using differeb\nt materials, set it up like an experiment.


No, it's not a cop out: it's the truth. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it isn't the truth. Geez. This is a lot like the Intelligent Design crap: people don't "like" what evolution might imply, so they cling to some wrong idea to make themselves feel better.



atpjunkie said:


> 2 Bikes: Identical material, Identical contruction technique, same rider. Say 7005 Aluminum, Welded, whatever rider, now where will there be plus's and minus' that we can attribute to the design? If you had a technical background you wouldn't be trying to compare apples to oranges. Last I checked when doing design experiments the object is to eliminate asmany variables as possible. It's why you have control groups.
> That was the onus of this discussion.
> You want to complicate a simple issue into all these other variables and embellish it with some clever ad hom. Again you fail to answer the design/engineering issues so I again will file you under away as 'artful dodger'.


Name one designer that would be so stupid as to make two frames, with a given tubeset, in exactly the same fashion, with the only difference being one is traditional and the other is compact or semi-compact. That would be the height of stupidity and bad design. And don't presume that means that one design is inherently better or worse than the other: that just means that construction technique has to follow the design criteria, objectives, and material used.

Name one manufacturer that makes frames, both compact and traditional in EXACTLY the same way. Go ahead. See, you want the comfort of being able to make some wrong blanket statement, so you contrive some "experiment" that will allegedly prove you correct. If you were in any technical field, you'd realize that your "experiment" would tell you nothing. Better tests are the sort similar to what Tour magazine does: take some frames; load them and measure frame deflections in a repeatable fashion; and then compare the results to other frames. It doesn't matter what the frame shape. All that does matter is how it behaves on the road, under the rider.

It's not a cop out if it's the truth.




atpjunkie said:


> I've posted the claims that compact mfrs use to sell their product. I've posted, as other members here, some far more knowledgable than all of us (excluding them) that most of these are hype.These aren't blanket statements as we are referring to comparing specific design elements.
> 
> Now if the poster had said " Compact CF, vs Standard Steel for 1 recreational rider vs 1 Cat 1 racer" then your idea would have some merit.


Again, I agree that too many buy into manufacturer hype. If you searched my posts, you'd see that. However, you're just marketing some other type of hype or broad generalizations that are neither true nor make any difference in the real world.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*please check the title*

'traditionalgeometry vs compact geometry' this is a design issue,not materials.

you can't toss in variables to a debate about design or gee whiz we can just say a compact frame made of Alu is stiffer than a traditional made of paper.

when making comparisons over one engineering principle over another, you need to keep all things equal,otherwise results would be tainted by other variables and tests would be useless. That is how you make comparisons.

Funny, you seem to be taking the ID attitude. Trying to fit data to support your idea, creating straw men, etc all the while avoiding rudimentary scientific principles.
It gets no simpler than a single lever which is what rider on seat post is. which exerts more force a short lever or a long one?
I know, I know "it depends on the lever material and the amount of force..."

I await your further obfuscation. actually I don't.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 2, 2003)

alienator.. 
the intrnet is amazing. isn't it? on this same thread, two of the best frame builders in the WORLD and yet you, an amateur, acting like everybody else knows zero of bicycles. drop the attitude. your theories are just theories. framebuilding is more, much more than engineering lingo and mouth full of sarcasm.
if richard sachs says a compact saves no weight over a traditional frame, he can back up what he saying.. cause he builds frames. you don't. you just buy them.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

colker1 said:


> alienator..
> the intrnet is amazing. isn't it? on this same thread, two of the best frame builders in the WORLD and yet you, an amateur, acting like everybody else knows zero of bicycles. drop the attitude. your theories are just theories. framebuilding is more, much more than engineering lingo and mouth full of sarcasm.
> if richard sachs says a compact saves no weight over a traditional frame, he can back up what he saying.. cause he builds frames. you don't. you just buy them.


Where did I say that a compact is lighter? Where did I say anything that ran counter to what Kirk or Sachs said? You should actually read what I wrote.

Man you need to drop your pseudo enlightened groovy state and read better.

Again, where exactly did I say that a compact is lighter? What? Nowhere? Hmmm. Imagine that.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> 'traditionalgeometry vs compact geometry' this is a design issue,not materials.
> 
> you can't toss in variables to a debate about design or gee whiz we can just say a compact frame made of Alu is stiffer than a traditional made of paper.
> 
> ...


Well, considering that no manufacturer worth his or her salt would make a traditional frame exactly like a compact, the question is pointless. And FWIW, traditional vs. compact is not an engineering principle, it's a design issue, as you mentioned. As such and as has been stated by many others in other threads and on other BBSs, the designs are different between the two frame types, and it is pointless to make some blanket statement. Sorry.

Oh, hey, thanks for the intro on holding variables constant? Wow. Who would have thought that's how things are done? Gee, maybe I should apply that to what I do in the lab.....oh, wait: I do. Thanks for the heads up, though, ATPJunkie. You're truly a savior. 

I'm fitting no data to any make believe criteria...no, that was you with your Power Singularity. Heh. Funny one that. Did you measure your output yet, or did you just judge the loss in power by the muted "wows" and "ohmygods" that people involuntarily uttered as they watched your prowess on the pedals?

You've said nothing that's contributed anything. Just because you don't like the real answer, you contest it.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Again, I do not disagree with you. I said the frame weight savings COULD be more than the seatpost penalty -- it all depends on what materials and sizes used in your comparison. For argument's sake, a 30cm EC90 seatpost shaft probably weighs 125g, which means 6cm of carbon post weight is 25g. Now you can tell me how much weight savings you can achieve by converting a traditional frame to a 6cm compact frame. Not being a bike builder, I am speculating here, but I suspect it's probably pretty close to 25g, if not more. 

Ultimately I think the difference will be fairly negligible. Personally my bike has an integrated seatpost so there is no difference either way even though it's a mild compact.


----------



## elviento (Mar 24, 2002)

Doesn't Colnago make the C50 in both traditional and compact?


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

elviento said:


> Again, I do not disagree with you. I said the frame weight savings COULD be more than the seatpost penalty -- it all depends on what materials and sizes used in your comparison. For argument's sake, a 30cm EC90 seatpost shaft probably weighs 125g, which means 6cm of carbon post weight is 25g. Now you can tell me how much weight savings you can achieve by converting a traditional frame to a 6cm compact frame. Not being a bike builder, I am speculating here, but I suspect it's probably pretty close to 25g, if not more.
> 
> Ultimately I think the difference will be fairly negligible. Personally my bike has an integrated seatpost so there is no difference either way even though it's a mild compact.




well - i used deda zero steel. the top of steel seat tubes don't
get lighter than that. but if the frame material was AL or carbon
fiber, i think the equivilant amout of off-cut would weigh even less.
wouldn't that help my point even further?


----------



## Friction_Shifter (Feb 8, 2006)

what are we talkin about ?

would like to battle tomorrow....


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

elviento said:


> Doesn't Colnago make the C50 in both traditional and compact?


I was thinking the same. From what it looks like all or most Colnago compacts have the same geometry equivalent as their traditional frames.

I believe I also read something by Kirk, he built an identical frame both in traditional and compact geometry for testing. He found that his compact frame felt quicker in side to side movement when out of the saddle. Presumably, due to the lower CG.....but if no weight was saved due to a heavier seat post it doesn't quite add up....perhaps more is going on. I'm thinking maybe things have stiffened up due to the smaller triangles and thereby adding to the quicker feeling?


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

*Original Question Is Too Vague*



atpjunkie said:


> 'traditionalgeometry vs compact geometry' this is a design issue,not materials.
> 
> you can't toss in variables to a debate about design or gee whiz we can just say a compact frame made of Alu is stiffer than a traditional made of paper.
> 
> ...




Everyone,

This is not specifically directed at ATP; this is for everyone and this seems like a good place to say it. 

The whole problem started when folks took this discussion way beyond the OP's question which was somewhat vague anyway.





> traditional geometry vs. compact geometry
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Could somebody site out the advantages of each and to what type of ride do they excel? Thanks for the help I'm relatively new to road biking coming from an avid mtn. biker I'm clueless when it comes to this aspect..


It seems that the OP is wondering what he or she should pick for their own needs and why. Perhaps it would have been best if we knew more about the OP before everyone started talking about which type of bike is better. I'm not pointing at anyone person here but it seems to me that this thread has pretty much turned into a giant technical d!ck-off that goes on and on because there's no one general, all-encompassing correct answer that fits every situation. There are too many variables. So how about we all just put the d!cks ...I mean slide rulers back into their holsters for now?


----------

