Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

21 - 40 of 56 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
It's interesting that just the opposite discussion is going on in the Traditional vs Compact thread going on right now. Where someone is espousing the virtues and asthetics of the compact frame design over the more traditional frame design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
Here is what I am learning so far, the KUOTA KSANO, the SCATTANTE CFR and the EXO 303 seem to be the same frame made by Martec. I have no problem with that. LOOK frames are more than I wanted to spend, but do have the requisite styling. All of IBIS' designs in carbon feature a sloping top tube. I am going to research Guru, Felt and Orbea, but from past looking at Orbea I don't remember seeing a frame without a sloping top tube.
I have written in a similar forum (traditional vs. compact) that the two biggest factors for compact are, one the extended seat post provides additional flex (in the post only) and therefore provides a little more comfort. And, two the asthetics -- I personally find the compact much more pleasing to the eye.

As for the Kuota, Scattante and EXO 303 being the same -- nonsense. They may be made in the same factory, along with the Orbea, Scott, Storck and others, but that is where the similarities end. Carbon construction is about lay-up and grades of material used in the lay-up, there is no similarity between a Scattante and a real high-end carbon frame. Do not be fooled - there are more differences between carbon frames made in the same factory then Columbus tubes welded by Earnesto and the kid down the street. Those tubes are the same for both, the only difference is who does the welding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
It's interesting that just the opposite discussion is going on in the Traditional vs Compact thread going on right now. Where someone is espousing the virtues and asthetics of the compact frame design over the more traditional frame design.
Hi Waldo,

It is I who is talking about (espousing may be too strong) compacts. This is a little of what I said:

Things like setback, standover, head tube length, etc. are factors in all fit situations, not just with compact. There are five items that may/may not make compact better.

increased standover for short-legged riders
increased frame stiffness
lighter weight
increased comfort - that all important seat post flex
increased power transfer

Some or all of these could be at play with compact frames. I personally find the increased seat post extension the most important aspect -- this definitely increases comfort, especially when using a carbon seat post.

Lastly, we can not forget asthetics -- I personally prefer the look of compact frames.


As you can see, there are really two important factors for me. One real world important, the other just personal preference. My taste is just different then yours -- I find the sloping frame much more pleasing than horizontal frames. By going compact you also greatly increase your choice of frames, and, IMHO, are able to get a better frame. My apologies to Look, Colnago, Trek etc lovers out there -- it is just my opinion.

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
critchie said:
Hi Waldo,
It is I who is talking about (espousing may be too strong) compacts. This is a little of what I said:
I meant espouse, verb, as in choose and follow; as of theories, ideas, policies, strategies or plans


Things like setback, standover, head tube length, etc. are factors in all fit situations, not just with compact. There are five items that may/may not make compact better.

increased standover for short-legged riders
increased frame stiffness
lighter weight
increased comfort - that all important seat post flex
increased power transfer

Some or all of these could be at play with compact frames. I personally find the increased seat post extension the most important aspect -- this definitely increases comfort, especially when using a carbon seat post.
I like the way this is worded, so as not to sound absolute. I agree with the first two ideas 100%, not as sure about the third but won't dispute it. I do not ride in the style that allows for the fourth, I simply do not want my arse moving around when I am riding. Which is one reason I never went to a suspension mountain bike (I still have my Diamond Back hardtail from the early 90's.) the last is generally a result of the second reason and not an inherent feature of a compact frame, as tubing dimensions, geometry and the like affect reason two and subsequently reason five.

I believe that comfort should not be left to one component such as a seat post, but is a factor in the frame materials/construction/geometry etc. So in this aspect we disagree.


Lastly, we can not forget asthetics -- I personally prefer the look of compact frames.

As you can see, there are really two important factors for me. One real world important, the other just personal preference. My taste is just different then yours -- I find the sloping frame much more pleasing than horizontal frames. By going compact you also greatly increase your choice of frames, and, IMHO, are able to get a better frame. My apologies to Look, Colnago, Trek etc lovers out there -- it is just my opinion.

Cheers
So we can then agree to disagree. Personally I do not like sloping top tubes. I do not believe that the stated advantages are real world for me. and I like traditional lines of the horizontal top tube. But I do agree that the choices are limited when you look for carbon and traditional at the same time.
 

·
You're Not the Boss of Me
Joined
·
7,746 Posts
critchie said:
Hi Waldo,

There are five items that may/may not make compact better.

increased standover for short-legged riders
increased frame stiffness
lighter weight
increased comfort - that all important seat post flex
increased power transfer

Fine if you like the aesthetics better, but selling this hooey don't fly for me. I know you qualified it with may/may not but you clearly seem to be claiming that a compact frame offers all the things put in bold.

Increased frame stiffness over what? Different angles, different materials, and most importantly, different tube sizes all influence frame stiffness. Also, stiff where? Vertically? Laterally? In the bottom bracket?

Lighter weight. Also depends on tube set, and the weight differential for a fully built bike would be imperceptible, even to the Princess and the Pea.

Seat post flex? Not if you are riding a carbon post, and probably not if you are riding a high end aluminum post. You want added comfort? Get wider or better tires. Maybe a saddle with ti rails. But don't buy a compact because you think you'll get seat post "cush." That's just silly.

Increased power transfer? Again, that's a product of overall construction, crank stiffness, BB, size of downtube, and maybe even chain stay length.

The mythology that has been built up around compacts never ceases to amaze me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
I meant espouse, verb, as in choose and follow; as of theories, ideas, policies, strategies or plans


I like the way this is worded, so as not to sound absolute. I agree with the first two ideas 100%, not as sure about the third but won't dispute it. I do not ride in the style that allows for the fourth, I simply do not want my arse moving around when I am riding. Which is one reason I never went to a suspension mountain bike (I still have my Diamond Back hardtail from the early 90's.) the last is generally a result of the second reason and not an inherent feature of a compact frame, as tubing dimensions, geometry and the like affect reason two and subsequently reason five.

I believe that comfort should not be left to one component such as a seat post, but is a factor in the frame materials/construction/geometry etc. So in this aspect we disagree.


So we can then agree to disagree. Personally I do not like sloping top tubes. I do not believe that the stated advantages are real world for me. and I like traditional lines of the horizontal top tube. But I do agree that the choices are limited when you look for carbon and traditional at the same time.
I would agree that reason 5 follows reason 2, but it is not a definite.

As for the arse moving around because of reason 4 -- it does NOT move around, it just gives a little bit so as to absorb a little road shock. This will not happen at all when there is 2-3 inches of post protruding. It is still most definitely a "hardtail". Comfort is certainly not left to one component! It is a total design, as you feel it should be. I can tell you that the Roubaix is one of the most compliant bikes you can buy -- in any material. However, especially in the S-works and 2005 or earlier Pro version, it is one of the stiffest bikes both BB & torsionally available. It is compact and would not be to liking, but it is a great riding bike.

Again, asthetics are a very important factor, and they are totally personal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
jtolleson said:
Fine if you like the aesthetics better, but selling this hooey don't fly for me. I know you qualified it with may/may not but you clearly seem to be claiming that a compact frame offers all the things put in bold.

Increased frame stiffness over what? Different angles, different materials, and most importantly, different tube sizes all influence frame stiffness. Also, stiff where? Vertically? Laterally? In the bottom bracket?

Lighter weight. Also depends on tube set, and the weight differential for a fully built bike would be imperceptible, even to the Princess and the Pea.

Seat post flex? Not if you are riding a carbon post, and probably not if you are riding a high end aluminum post. You want added comfort? Get wider or better tires. Maybe a saddle with ti rails. But don't buy a compact because you think you'll get seat post "cush." That's just silly.

Increased power transfer? Again, that's a product of overall construction, crank stiffness, BB, size of downtube, and maybe even chain stay length.

The mythology that has been built up around compacts never ceases to amaze me.
I don't know why anything is in bold, I didn't do it that way. However, you have taken everything out of context.

Increase frame stiffness -- yes, if the materials in the two are both the same. You want to change everything then compare -- apples to apples, dude.

Weight - see above paragraph. Apples to apples the one with less material (shorter tubes) will be lighter. The scale will know and that is all we're talking about.

Seat post flex, not with carbon? Of course you will get more flex from carbon than aluminum. I am not saying the damn thing will bend, but it will flex.

Stiffness: again you're not making sense. If I have the same material, one piece that is two feet long and the other 1.5 feet, the one that is 2 feet will be easier to "bend" -- that is just physics. Again, I am using the same construction. Changing construction would be comparing apples to oranges again. As for crank stiffness, in measuring the stiffness (both BB and torsional) of a frame, there are no cranks on the bike. The industry has a method by which they test the bare frame. There is a difference in stiffness, especially torsionally, when using the same methods to construct the bike.

Buy what you want the industry has test data -- but that is not something many of you like to hear. Specialized came out with the Roubaix with Zertz and claimed it absorbed road vibration better -- no one believed them. So they made the bike without Zertz (all else being equal), put accelerometers (they measure vibration) on the bike and proved empirically that they do help. None of the other bike manufacturers now claim different.

Believe what you choose -- it's America.
 

·
You're Not the Boss of Me
Joined
·
7,746 Posts
I bolded the ones that were hooey, and I didn't take anything out of context... it was a cut-and-paste of your claim that those characteristics inherently existed in compact geometry. They don't. Traditional geometry can be stiff, carbon can be noodly, etc.

The marketing hype around compact geometry is just that. If you like the aesthetics, fine. I built my Seven with a sloping TT (which, BTW required not only a longer seatpost but also longer headtube to get the bars where I wanted... no weight savings on total bike build). I did it because I liked the change from my Litespeed and my Bianchi. But the claim of functional difference is just silliness, and shouldn't be repeated here.

And yes, we can all believe what we want, but when you make a statement of fact that is essentially untrue, then you are probably going to get called on it.



Oh, and for asking this "dude" to compare apples to apples, I'm not a dude. And it was you who suggested inherent stiffness, lightness, ride comfort with compact geometry qua compact geometry, and it is simply not true.

But if you want to play literalist, here's a Competitive Cyclist analysis that is truly apples-to-apples... compact Vortex v. standard Vortex

Why choose the Vortex Compact over the standard Vortex? One word: Aesthetics. If you love the stealthy lines of its sloping top tube, it's an easy choice. Let us be the first to assert that there is no other reason for going compact. From a geometry perspective, the two versions of the frame are identical. Blindfolded you couldn't tell a difference between the ride of the two -- they'll handle, corner, and absorb road shock with complete similarity. Furthermore, any weight savings you gain by choosing the compact frame will be lost due to the fact that you'll need to use a longer (and thereby heavier) seatpost. Aesthetics is a critical factor in choosing a dream bike, and rest assured that's the only difference between this and the standard Vortex.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1825
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
jtolleson said:
I bolded the ones that were hooey, and I didn't take anything out of context... it was a cut-and-paste of your claim that those characteristics inherently existed in compact geometry. They don't. Traditional geometry can be stiff, carbon can be noodly, etc.

The marketing hype around compact geometry is just that. If you like the aesthetics, fine. I built my Seven with a sloping TT (which, BTW required not only a longer seatpost but also longer headtube to get the bars where I wanted... no weight savings on total bike build). I did it because I liked the change from my Litespeed and my Bianchi. But the claim of functional difference is just silliness, and shouldn't be repeated here.

And yes, we can all believe what we want, but when you make a statement of fact that is essentially untrue, then you are probably going to get called on it.



Oh, and for asking this "dude" to compare apples to apples, I'm not a dude. And it was you who suggested inherent stiffness, lightness, ride comfort with compact geometry qua compact geometry, and it is simply not true.

But if you want to play literalist, here's a Competitive Cyclist analysis that is truly apples-to-apples... compact Vortex v. standard Vortex

Why choose the Vortex Compact over the standard Vortex? One word: Aesthetics. If you love the stealthy lines of its sloping top tube, it's an easy choice. Let us be the first to assert that there is no other reason for going compact. From a geometry perspective, the two versions of the frame are identical. Blindfolded you couldn't tell a difference between the ride of the two -- they'll handle, corner, and absorb road shock with complete similarity. Furthermore, any weight savings you gain by choosing the compact frame will be lost due to the fact that you'll need to use a longer (and thereby heavier) seatpost. Aesthetics is a critical factor in choosing a dream bike, and rest assured that's the only difference between this and the standard Vortex.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1825
Your custom seven would have had the same length head tube if it was standard or sloping.

Why do you think the Ghisallo is a sloping frame? Because it could be made lighter than a standard frame. I worked for Litespeed and they built some custom standard geometry Ghisallos and they were heavier then the sloping ones.

Have you ever looked at how much a seatpost flexes when riding next to someone on a sloping frame. Most of the time the alloy ones will flex more then a carbon post. That flex is helping smooth out the ride, that is something that does not happen on standard frames because of the 100mm shorter post. I am not saying it is impossible to make a standard frame ride like a compact or vise versa.

As far as the Competitive Cyclist analysist, of coarse they are going to say they are the same. If they claim one is better then the other the sales will drop off on the one that they say is worse. Then they will be stuck with inventory that they can't get rid of because they told everyone it was not as good as the other frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
jtolleson said:
I bolded the ones that were hooey, and I didn't take anything out of context... it was a cut-and-paste of your claim that those characteristics inherently existed in compact geometry. They don't. Traditional geometry can be stiff, carbon can be noodly, etc.

The marketing hype around compact geometry is just that. If you like the aesthetics, fine. I built my Seven with a sloping TT (which, BTW required not only a longer seatpost but also longer headtube to get the bars where I wanted... no weight savings on total bike build). I did it because I liked the change from my Litespeed and my Bianchi. But the claim of functional difference is just silliness, and shouldn't be repeated here.

And yes, we can all believe what we want, but when you make a statement of fact that is essentially untrue, then you are probably going to get called on it.



Oh, and for asking this "dude" to compare apples to apples, I'm not a dude. And it was you who suggested inherent stiffness, lightness, ride comfort with compact geometry qua compact geometry, and it is simply not true.

But if you want to play literalist, here's a Competitive Cyclist analysis that is truly apples-to-apples... compact Vortex v. standard Vortex

Why choose the Vortex Compact over the standard Vortex? One word: Aesthetics. If you love the stealthy lines of its sloping top tube, it's an easy choice. Let us be the first to assert that there is no other reason for going compact. From a geometry perspective, the two versions of the frame are identical. Blindfolded you couldn't tell a difference between the ride of the two -- they'll handle, corner, and absorb road shock with complete similarity. Furthermore, any weight savings you gain by choosing the compact frame will be lost due to the fact that you'll need to use a longer (and thereby heavier) seatpost. Aesthetics is a critical factor in choosing a dream bike, and rest assured that's the only difference between this and the standard Vortex.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/za/CCY?PAGE=PRODUCT&PRODUCT.ID=1825
Great Dude, marketing from CC. I made no claims of fact, in fact I said may/may not. You try to call me on it, but your blowing smoke out your arse.

You needed a longer HT, that's hooey. That should not have been a factor of slope vs traditional. All other things being equal the HT should be also. A longer seat post, OK. Your inclusion of the CC blurb supports my conclusion from the post that offended you soooo much -- the main difference is aesthetics. I do still believe that the additional exposed seat post does help the ride, but CC is allowed their opinion. Like CC, I do this for a living and may know just as much as they do.

CC, also makes the assumption in their blurb that both frames types are built exactly the same -- they are likely not. Why don't you call Litespeed and see if they add any extra strength to the traditional frame to arrive at the same characteristics. Maybe they will tell, maybe not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Ligero said:
Your custom seven would have had the same length head tube if it was standard or sloping.

Why do you think the Ghisallo is a sloping frame? Because it could be made lighter than a standard frame. I worked for Litespeed and they built some custom standard geometry Ghisallos and they were heavier then the sloping ones.

Have you ever looked at how much a seatpost flexes when riding next to someone on a sloping frame. Most of the time the alloy ones will flex more then a carbon post. That flex is helping smooth out the ride, that is something that does not happen on standard frames because of the 100mm shorter post. I am not saying it is impossible to make a standard frame ride like a compact or vise versa.

As far as the Competitive Cyclist analysist, of coarse they are going to say they are the same. If they claim one is better then the other the sales will drop off on the one that they say is worse. Then they will be stuck with inventory that they can't get rid of because they told everyone it was not as good as the other frame.
Thanks Ligero!! Some common sense and experience added to the equation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
critchie said:
Great Dude, marketing from CC. I made no claims of fact, in fact I said may/may not. You try to call me on it, but your blowing smoke out your arse.

You needed a longer HT, that's hooey. That should not have been a factor of slope vs traditional. All other things being equal the HT should be also. A longer seat post, OK. Your inclusion of the CC blurb supports my conclusion from the post that offended you soooo much -- the main difference is aesthetics. I do still believe that the additional exposed seat post does help the ride, but CC is allowed their opinion. Like CC, I do this for a living and may know just as much as they do.

CC, also makes the assumption in their blurb that both frames types are built exactly the same -- they are likely not. Why don't you call Litespeed and see if they add any extra strength to the traditional frame to arrive at the same characteristics. Maybe they will tell, maybe not.
Oh, I should have added that I disagree with CC's analysis that the extra length needed in the seat post offsets any weight lost with compact frames. Assuming the seatstays are attached at the same place on the frame in both traditional and compact, a compact will be lighter. In the traditional frame not only will the ST be longer, but so will the TT and the seatstays. These three tubes with additional length will be heavier than just the bit of extra seat post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
I was hoping that this thread would not turn into a debate about compact vs. traditional frame geometry. But I do have one question sort of back on topic. If a CF frame has such wonderful properties when it comes to shock absorbtion, then why would you need a compact frame design and longer CF seatpost to do the same?
 

·
You're Not the Boss of Me
Joined
·
7,746 Posts
I wouldn't necessarily have needed a longer HT because of the sloping TT (but I'm glad to have taught you the word "hooey), but did to get the bars where I wanted them and still have the aesthetic I wanted. That was my only point; that a bike must be analyzed as a complete ride, not based on the assumption that a mere shortening of the seattube means that the end product will be lighter in any meaningful sense.

Oh, and I'm not a dude (again).

I see you are waging this war in two threads, so you obviously choose not to be reasoned with.
 

·
You're Not the Boss of Me
Joined
·
7,746 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
Why does this sentence apply to CC and not to Litespeed also. As to why Litespeed built the Ghisallo as a compact rather than as a traditional frame design, two words, MARKET DEMAND! Please don't think us so nieve that we should believe that Litespeed in it's benevolent corporate culture only did this to save weight.

It is also interesting to note that the Ghisallo is a noodle under anyone over 175.

But wait... gee... I thought compact frames were so stiff...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Ligero said:
...
As far as the Competitive Cyclist analysist, of coarse they are going to say they are the same. If they claim one is better then the other the sales will drop off on the one that they say is worse. Then they will be stuck with inventory that they can't get rid of because they told everyone it was not as good as the other frame.
Why does this sentence apply to CC and not to Litespeed also. As to why Litespeed built the Ghisallo as a compact rather than as a traditional frame design, two words, MARKET DEMAND! Please don't think us so nieve that we should believe that Litespeed in it's benevolent corporate culture only did this to save weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
I was hoping that this thread would not turn into a debate about compact vs. traditional frame geometry. But I do have one question sort of back on topic. If a CF frame has such wonderful properties when it comes to shock absorbtion, then why would you need a compact frame design and longer CF seatpost to do the same?
You don't need the longer post for shock absorbtion. However, unless you live where there are no bumps in the road, any advantage that one can get is welcome -- afterall there aren't any shocks on these puppies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
WheresWaldo said:
Why does this sentence apply to CC and not to Litespeed also. As to why Litespeed built the Ghisallo as a compact rather than as a traditional frame design, two words, MARKET DEMAND! Please don't think us so nieve that we should believe that Litespeed in it's benevolent corporate culture only did this to save weight.
Or LIGHT WEIGHT. And enough people were naive enough that they bought that noodle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
jtolleson said:
It is also interesting to note that the Ghisallo is a noodle under anyone over 175.

But wait... gee... I thought compact frames were so stiff...
No one send every compact was stiff, this bike is likely even worse in traditional format. It is a noodle!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
jtolleson said:
I wouldn't necessarily have needed a longer HT because of the sloping TT (but I'm glad to have taught you the word "hooey), but did to get the bars where I wanted them and still have the aesthetic I wanted. That was my only point; that a bike must be analyzed as a complete ride, not based on the assumption that a mere shortening of the seattube means that the end product will be lighter in any meaningful sense.

Oh, and I'm not a dude (again).

I see you are waging this war in two threads, so you obviously choose not to be reasoned with.
It is the same discussion, obviously folks on two threads need education.

I fully realize that a bike is the sum of all parts, and I did not say that a shorter ST means a meaningfully lighter product -- what would meaningful be for you anyway? How about 100grams, 90, what? If the bike started at 1100grams and you lost 100, that's a 9.1% decrease is that meaningful. That's a pretty hard concept to argue -- what may be meaningful to some won't be to you, or vice versa.

Sorry the dude thing gets you so upset.
 
21 - 40 of 56 Posts
Top