|Can we get rid of these "compact" frames...?||Djudd|
May 14, 2002 7:15 AM
|THese things are just horrid. I know I sound like the proverbial old, complaining grouch, but that top tube ruins the lines of a bike. Compare those ugly little machines to the Bottechia beauties recently posted on the gallery. The fact that the seatpost has to stick out two feet to accomodate a decent riding position ought to say something about these frames. Hopefully, these monstrosities will go the way of Shimano's Biopace, Mavic's electronic shift and countless other failed/useless "innovations"|
|re: Can we get rid of these "compact" frames...?||Dave Hickey|
May 14, 2002 7:37 AM
|I noticed that last night watching the Giro. Towards the end there was a two man breakaway. The Lotto rider was on a compact Lightspeed and another rider was on a Colnago(C-40 or Ct-1). I'm not a big Colnago fan but I'll take one over that ugly LightSpeed.|
|What, you don't like 'em, so nobody can have one? (nm)||retro|
May 14, 2002 8:07 AM
|Compact is here to stay||Nessism|
May 14, 2002 8:37 AM
|First it was threadless stems and now it's compact frames. Get used to them. As road riding increases in popularity I suspect we'll see more crossover products from the mountain bike crowd.
From a technical standpoint, I don't really have a problem with them. They don't do that much mind you, but they don't hurt anything either. Slightly lighter (heavier seat post needed), slightly stiffer rear triangle (which we don't reall need), and significantly different looking.
I can see one advantage however, they will allow a builder to make the front end of the bike higher so less spacers will be needed on that threadless stem. Other than this, it's mostly marketing and aesthetics.
|IMHO: they hurt the view. I'm with judd: save the beauties! nm||128|
May 14, 2002 9:23 AM
|Compact is here to stay||brian|
May 16, 2002 11:54 AM
|everyone says that they are stiffer, which is true only if you ride standing all the time. At a race recently I saw someone warming up on a trainer and the seatpost was so long (and light) that it was flexing atleast 1/4 inch every pedal stroke. it was so bad i almost warned him of metal fatigue! |
|I like mine||laffeaux|
May 14, 2002 11:32 AM
|My only road bike is a '97 Bontrager Road Lite. It's a great riding steel bike that descends, climbs, and handles perfectly for me. Compared to my previous bikes (Schwinn Varsity, Scott rad bike), this bike is amazing! I don't think that the sloping top tube detracts at all. Other than other bikers telling me that the frame is too small (which it's not) based on the amount of exposed seat post, I have no complaints. |
I think my sloped top tube steel frame looks more "classic" than today's large diameter AL frames.
|I hear ya.||DMoore|
May 14, 2002 1:35 PM
|My riding lovelies include lugged beauties from Richard Sachs, Brian Baylis, Bill Holland, and (old country) Ciocc.
My previous race bike is an early Litespeed Ultimate, painted up to match my Richard Sachs. It even has "lugs" painted onto the frame, just for a laugh. I even have stationery with my name and "Retro-Grouch" printed on it. So that's where I'm coming from.
But - my current race bike is a Specialized E-5. Welded aluminum, ultralight (just over 15 lbs for a 58 cm) with a compact frame. It's NOT the bike of my dreams, and I don't envision keeping for a long time, BUT it's a damned good race bike! It's fast, handles great, climbs wonderfully (it does - just not me!).
So they may be ugly, but they're not without purpose.
|we are honored & bow to your level of "grouch"iness ;-) Nm||Spirito|
May 14, 2002 2:10 PM
|and furthermore, these "derailleur" things make no sense...NM||Djudd|
May 14, 2002 2:54 PM
|didn't eric clapton call the "disraeli geras"? Nm||Spirito|
May 14, 2002 6:25 PM
|did you see the CR forum message on "Disraeli Gears"?...||Djudd|
May 15, 2002 9:13 AM
|Apparently the Cream album got the name "Disraeli Gears" because Clapton mispronounced derailleur|
|had me in stitches...rock'n'roll cycling faux pas are cool NM||Spirito|
May 15, 2002 10:07 AM
|What about us little guys...?||CT1 Guy|
May 15, 2002 11:09 AM
|Compacts are certainly here to stay in the smaller size frames. You get far more sensible geometry below 50cm, with a reasonable length of headtube (headsets last longer) and usually less front wheel overlap. Aesthetically, my 46cm compact is far easier on the eye than my 48cm horizontal tubed frame.|
|"here to stay" - yes.."Classic" - bwahaahhhaaha||Spirito|
May 15, 2002 1:36 PM
|only suffering little guy's are welcome on this forum buddy. 75 and 76 degree seat tubes with and severe overlappin toes on the front wheel doesn't make a lot of sense but aesthetics are often unkind and generally dont take in factors other than the median of a group.
a 700c wheel is fixed and alters what can be made of given dimensions.
compacts just aint classic in their lines.
|What about us little guys...?||Sledge Foot|
May 16, 2002 10:26 PM
|All though I agree about the ugly looks of compact frames, I must defend that them as good frames for those with shorter than normal legs, like myself.
I used to ride a Schwinn Fastback Comp compact road bike and found it fit my body pretty good. Got rid of it because I didn't like the ride of alum.
I am now back on my old school looking beauty, a Breezer Venturi.