compact versus traditional frames

redmenace1

Hi all

what is the considered view of people on the issue of compact frames versus traditional ones. I have always owned trad frames but have ridden a semi compact.
I suppose the question is are they just a fashion statement or do they have real purpose behind them. I know they are meant to be stiffer etc.

The reason i am asking is that I am changing bike next year & want to makesure that any investemnt is a good one. My main cycling is leisure sporitves, so comfort & good handling are paramount.

Any thoughts please, especially from those who have experienced both or have a view as to what way the trend in frames is going.
cheers :?:

Smokin Joe

I've got both.

Compacts are a bit lighter because there is less material in the frame, they are supposidly stiffer too but you would have to be good to tell the difference. The main advantage is with fit, you only have to worry about top tube length as seatpin adjustment takes care of the height.

Looks wise it is a matter of taste, I used to think compacts were a bit ugly but they grow on you. My winter bike is a traditional frame and next to the compact frame on my best bike it now resembles a five bar gate. So my advice would be for a compact, but you will find lots of others who disagree.

fizz

I spent alot of time on a traditional frame, my latest purchase is a Compact Van Nicolas Vardar. TBH theres not much difference between my traditional framed commuter and the compact. The main things I notice is that it steers a little faster and its a bit twitchy, but I find it quite flickable through corners and bends.

I've rubbed my foot on the front wheel a few times but now I know about watching for putting the steering lock on full I havent done it since.

I only bought the vardar because I got a stonking deal on it in my LBS. I quite like the fact that on the Sportive I did this year. I didnt see many compacts and I like to be a litle different and stand out from the crowd so for me thats another advantage. When I've been out and passed other cyclists I've had a few people ask me what its like and whats it like to ride and I've never had a negative comment made about it.

Personally I dont really worry about fashion, that much I just buy what I like and what i think is going to work for me. If you see a compact that you like then I'd say go for it.

Down the Road

Saves the manufacturer about 2 inches of downtube per bike.

Doesn't sound like much but it makes them all a fortune in savings when you work out how man frames a year they make.

Other than that no real advantage.

How many TDF won on a compact in the last 15 years?

Monty Dog

IME It makes naff-all difference to the handling of a frame - as long as the geometry is correct for the size of the bike - I've got three compact frames and three traditional frames and their handling traits are all down to head and seattube angles, length of wheelbase, fork rake etc - nothing to do with the angle or position of the toptube. Compacts are better for smaller frames as it gives you slightly more stand-over and potentially a slightly longer headtube for increased bar height and more even load on the headset bearings. Front wheel overlap and twitchiness are nothing to do with 'compact' designs per se, just poor design/geometry which you could equally make with a traditional horizontal-tubed frame.

OnTow

Yup - I've got a 20 year old Raleigh with wheel overlap that's worse than my two new compacts.
They're only compact by accident - I started out sitting on a jig, and just found the setup really comfortable.
The photos from this year's sportives make me look a bit "sit up and beg", but I actually enjoy churning up the miles on these bikes - which more than makes up for it - unlike my 20 year old steeley, which although good, with beautiful welding and lug work, makes the new ones feel like armchairs.
A fifty miler followed by digging the garden the next day - unavoidable in this "time poor" society, no longer fills me with dread!

redmenace1

thanks for all the kind replies. i shalll bear them in mind.
Fizz I take it that you like the Van Nicholas?

fizz

redmenace1 wrote:

Fizz I take it that you like the Van Nicholas?

Yep, really pleased with it, its lovely to ride, the ride is comfy, but I dont feel isolated from the road surface. But its really comfortable at the same time. If that makes sense. I got my built up with full 105 groupset as my LBS were doing a deal on it and I'm really pleased with it. I'd definately recommend one.

Garybee

The only advantage that i can see of a compact frame is more seat-pin exposed. If you've got a carbon seat pin (which can help to dampen road buzz and small bumps) then there's more of it to flex. They are certainly not any more flexible when it comes to sizing, it may allow a lower saddle position but it won't allow the bars to move down equally. So choosing the correct sized frame is just as important as with a traditional geometry frame.

Pirahna

If you go compact pay careful attention to the lengths of both the top and head tube. Some frames are very low at the front, others are tall.

As an example, I ride a 57 top tube. On a traditional frame with an external headset I would expect an head tube around 170mm. Depending on headset this becomes approx 200mm when the headset stack is taken into account. So on a something with an integrated headset I'd bee looking for around a 200mm head tube. I've seen frames as low as 165mm.

smoo

If you go compact pay careful attention to the lengths of both the top and head tube. Some frames are very low at the front, others are tall.

This is the key point exactly. A compact frame potentially allows you to have a headtube length which would be impossible on a traditional frame while still allowing adequate standover height. So if you want a relaxed, upright position you can go for a relatively large size in a bike with a long headtube length in relation to the top tube, e.g. the Specialized Roubaix. That way you get a frame designed for an upright position rather than having to achieve it with spacers on the steerer and/or an upwards sloping stem (in the past with quill stems you would just have raised the handlebars). On the other hand, a compact frame may have a "normal" length headtube (mine does), in which case it is effectively the same as a traditional frame in terms of fit except that the top tube slopes.

meesterbond

Down the Road wrote:

Saves the manufacturer about 2 inches of downtube per bike.

Doesn't sound like much but it makes them all a fortune in savings when you work out how man frames a year they make.

Other than that no real advantage.

How many TDF won on a compact in the last 15 years?

It also means that they only need to make the frame in 3/4 sizes rather than 6+, although many brands seem to be making compacts in 6 sizes now so makes that point moot..

As for the TdF question, as the compact frame only really came about 10/11 years ago and apparently Lance never really liked compacts that leaves Ullrich (I've got a feeling T-Mobile were using Pinarello bikes back then), Pantani (Bianchi perhaps?), Pererio (Pinarello Dogma) and Contador (some Madone or other - I think all 07 Madones were traditional)..

So that would be none... although I've got a feeling Landis's BMC had a slightly sloping top tube if you want to include him...

Jajacp

Pantani rode a compact didn't he? Allegedly so he could have a longer head tube and climb in the drops. Then evey one wanted a bike that looked like Pantaini's so Bianchi started churning them out for the masses. Pinarellos weren't compact.