| Re: Compact Geometry Question
Tom Keats wrote:
> 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.
No, that's not really it. Compact frames are marketed with fewer sizes.
The number of sizes needed to properly fit most people --- most
importantly being the effective top tube length -- is independent of the
type of frame. Dealers in compact frames expect the buyer to adjust to
fewer sizes, as I said before because the single least important part of
sizing (straddle clearance) is not an issue.
> 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.
Nah. That is a function of the chainstays, not the top tube, and lots
of traditional frames have very short chainstays. "Twitchiness" also
comes from the angles of the head tube, again not a thing specific to
compact frames.
> 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.)
That stuff is marketing BS
>
> 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 ;-)
Yeah, well, you wanna buy some 650c wheels?
--
David L. Johnson
Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you
that mine are all greater. -- A. Einstein
|