| Re: Compact Geometry Question
On Feb 5, 1:04 am, Scott <nos...@null.com> wrote:
> Can anyone describe to me the pros and cons of these geometries vs more
> traditional ones?
If the frame puts your head, hands, and feet where you need them to
be, then it hardly matters what the angle of the top tube is. Compact
frames can run the same gamut of stiffness that other frames do, and
given all the variants in tube design, frame material, and other
aspects of frame geometry, pointing at one factor (top tube angle) and
suggesting that a frame derives all its riding character from it, is
silly.
I suggest evaluating bikes by fit and feel, the way you normally
would, and let the top tube angle be a minor factor in your decision.
If a frame doesn't fit, it will be because one or more of its
dimensions is wrong for you -- the effective top tube length is too
long or too short, or the seat tube angle is too shallow or too steep,
or the head tube is too short to allow you to easily set the bars high
enough, or something like that -- and compact frames have the same
kinds of measuments as any other bike.
Personally, I have two bikes with traditional geometry and one with a
compact frame. All three fit the same, although they are otherwise
quite different from one another, which is the empirical reason for my
opinion on this.
RichC
RichC
|