RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Sloping or not?(7 posts)

Sloping or not?philg
May 10, 2001 5:56 AM
I'm just gearing up to buy a new RR frame but I can't decide whether to go for a sloping top tube or conventional.

Anyone out there got any first hand experience of both and the pro's and con's or just a personal opinion? I'd like to hear it.
re: Sloping or not?dug
May 10, 2001 7:00 AM
what a dilema.
re: Sloping or not?xxx
May 10, 2001 8:48 AM
I agree, I wouldn't make this a dilema. Get one that fits. The sloping tt is kinda trendy, will it be around after a year? And, what's the point? Did traditional frames suddendly not fit/work? And there is a trade off. Sure, you get a *slightly* less weight frame but, you then need a slightly heavier and longer post, or suffer with a normal one that'll be more flexy. So,although I haven't tried a compact frame....I don't see any advantage. I'd, personally, stay with the tried and true.
re: Sloping or not?Dougal
May 10, 2001 9:38 AM
Will it be around in a year? The Ginat TCR / OCR frame that started this whole slopping frame ting has been around since 1997. Once have used it since 1998, and more and more companies are deciding to base their road models around them.

Not arguing whether they're better or worse, as I don't think the average rec rider could feel the difference, but they are not the passing fad that people make them out to be.
re: Sloping or not?Cliff Oates
May 10, 2001 9:57 AM
3-4 years is not exactly a long lasting trend. The primary reason I can see for sloping top tubes is to permit manufacturers to reduce the number of frame sizes they are required to provide, which doesn't do anything for me as a consumer . Cable actuated parallelagram derailleurs have been with us for 45 years or so -- that's a long lasting trend that delivers real functionality.
re: Sloping or not?MrCelloBoy
May 10, 2001 9:01 AM
Sloping top tubes definitely have a place on MTb frames and most tandems, but on a road bike, IMHO, it's not needed.
Get what fits, and what you find appealing.boy nigel
May 10, 2001 9:53 AM
I bought a new road bike a few months back. I'd been using an old steel bike. I switched to an aluminum, "compact" frame with carbon fiber seatpost and fork. WHAT a difference. Could it possibly be only the materials? Quite possibly.

I'm about 5'5", and found I could get a superior fit (and nice top-tube clearance) with a sloping top tube. Plus, I was head-over-heels NUTS about the Giant TCR2. Case solved. A no-brainer.

The benefits are:
1) a slightly lighter bike (not too much, though, but some frames--like the Giant TCR series--are tweaked and butted to lightweight perfection, making them in the 2.2-2.5-pound range)

2) Stiffer (read: more efficient) frame. One that transmits power to the pedals a bit better, due to the tighter frame geometry and beefiness of the (generally aluminum) tubes. They really shine when standing to climb or sprint.

3) Better top-tube clearance, which is nice, but not totally necessary. If you're a shorter rider, this is a very nice thing.

4) A great-looking (my opinion) bike which feels and looks fast, and is quite eye-catching. I, personally, embrace the "compact geometry," and feel it'll be around for a while. What do I know, though? I've seen that most of the big frame-makers are designing compact frames, and many more of the pro teams are riding them (Sure, they'll ride what they're paid/told to ride, but I can't see team managers offering inferior bikes to top pros. The bottom line IS winning, after all.).

If you feel a compact frame fits (and most of them fit at least as well if not better--very simple concept), and you dig the looks, then by all means buy the bike. You won't be alone....