|Compact vs. Normal Geometry||GreyHound|
Oct 26, 2001 12:40 PM
|Ok, it seems that almost everybody is jumping on the compact geometry band wagon, so I wanted to get a discusion going on this. What situations is compact good and bad? From material to material (Ti, carbon, aluminum etc.). Sprinter, climber, comfort, aero, etc. All the pros and cons. Out with it.|
|Much ado about nothing||JohnG|
Oct 26, 2001 1:28 PM
|IMHO, compact geometry frames have virtually NO intrinsic impact on ride "quality", overal weight, handling, etc. OK, they are a tiny bit lighter and stiffer .... big deal!
Your genetics, training program, and competative desire will have a FAR-FAR bigger impact than any tiny difference a STT bike might bring to the equation.
Just so you know.... my main ride right now is a custom TCR and YES I do think it 'rocks' but I'm still the engine that makes it go. I'm just as slow on it as I am on my LOOK or my ex Colnago. ;o)
|re: Compact vs. Normal Geometry||tr|
Oct 26, 2001 3:44 PM
|The only thing i don't like about them is having to possibly have a longer seat post and the three or four sizes fits all philosophy. I am sure they are nice bikes and ride well, but i just don't understand the advantage of cantilevering the rider further away from the top of the seat tube with a road bike (vs mtb). With this arrangement i would be able to get a better fit (short legs and long torso), but i don't think the consumer should only have 3 or 4 sizes to pick from.|
|Pros and cons||Kerry Irons|
Oct 26, 2001 5:29 PM
|Pros: very slightly lighter and very slightly stiffer
Cons: heavier seat post and flexier seat post
Net advantage: none