02-05-2007, 08:53 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
| | Re: Compact Geometry Question
Hi, I have been out of the road cycling scene for more than 10 years. I
> want to get back into it and I am looking for a new bike. I see a lot of
> bikes with "Compact" geometries. I have read that this is to make it
> easier to fit a bike to the customer because the manufacturer only needs
> to make a few frame sizes.
>
> Can anyone describe to me the pros and cons of these geometries vs more
> traditional ones?
Top-tube length is often the key to proper fit, and to the extent that a
manufacturer reduces the number of sizes (when using a compact geometry),
fit suffers. It doesn't have to; if a manufacturer chooses to make a
"compact" frame design and retain a reasonable number of sizes (6? 7? Tough
to know, but it's certainly more than 4!), then what you've got is basically
differing style points and an enhanced ability to fit someone with very sort
legs but a longer torso.
As far as saving weight, there are limits to what can be accomplished, since
a longer seatpost adds weight, and the increased leverage it applies to the
frame means it (the frame) has to be made a bit heavier in that region. It's
mainly all about looks, or, for manufacturers making fewer sizes, saving
money.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
|
|  |