| Re: Compact Geometry Question
In article <OU-dne5ZMI5YR1rYUSdV9g@ptd.net>,
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
> Scott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> How does it work that fewer sizes will fit the same collection of
> riders? A compact frame can possibly be jerry-rigged to be ridable by
> more riders than a standard frame, in that you could get on/off a bike
> that is way to big for you if the top tube doesn't bash up the boys, but
> that is not the same as saying it fits.
From doing a little Googling, I perceive a
concensus to the effect that "traditional
geometries" allow for finer fit adjustments
than do so-called compact geometries.
>> Can anyone describe to me the pros and cons of these geometries vs more
>> traditional ones?
>
> I think they are ugly. But, then, most new bikes are.
It also seems at least some compact geometry designs
are applied with the intent of making bicycles which
are "twitchier" and more responsive -- e.g: shorter
chainstains to reduce wheelbase. I guess that in
conjunction with an agressive headtube angle and
maybe some other features might be considerations
in a purpose-built crit bike. Apparently comfort
is at least one trade-off.
There may be some contention about whether compact
geometries have some intrinsic aerodynamic advantage
(I suspect if they do, any advantage would be so small
that it would easily be overshadowed by other factors.)
I also noted some interest in compact geometries
especially among the triathlon community. And
we all know how prone they are to come up with
weird notions ;-)
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|