Pros and Cons of a compact frame

2wheelsbetter

Hey,

Just out of curiousity, what are the pros and cons of a compact frame for a road bike?

Raam

Compacts typically fit a wider range of heights. Apart from that it's really just aesthetics.

Lumen

Functionally, a compact frameset has a smaller main triangle and a longer seatpost. All things being equal, this gives stiffer power transmission with a fractionally smoother ride.

Of course, it depends on how the frame is designed - either approach can produce bikes with any number of ride and handling qualities.

Practically, compact framesets are cheaper to produce and sell because fewer sizes are needed - standover height isn't an issue.

Compact frames in small sizes (e.g. Planet-X Pro Carbon) will often not accomodate two water bottles, which is significant PITA.

Most importantly, bikes with horizontal TTs look more elegant. This is absolutely unarguable. :pac:

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Most importantly, bikes with horizontal TTs look more elegant. This is absolutely unarguable. :pac:

They get in the way of my knees. But I do agree about the look... kinda

2wheelsbetter

Lumen wrote: »

Compact frames in small sizes (e.g. Planet-X Pro Carbon) will often not accomodate two water bottles, which is significant PITA.

Prevention of Immoral Trafficking Act?

Thanks guys.

Hungrycol

Compact generally for more comfortable long distance ride, more relaxed geometry. Traditional frames seem to have more racier geometry.


Question, so compact frames have a shorter wheel base?

2wheelsbetter

Does a compact frame take the same sized components as a normal frame?

ROK ON

2wheelsbetter wrote: »

Does a compact frame take the same sized components as a normal frame?

Yes.

ROK ON

Hungrycol wrote: »

Compact generally for more comfortable long distance ride, more relaxed geometry. Traditional frames seem to have more racier geometry.

Question, so compact frames have a shorter wheel base?

Not sure of this. I have both compact and traditional. Both are fine on long trips. FWIW, my compact is much more comfortable on very bad roads, less road vibration. My traditional frame is pretty stiff, and while a dream to ride on good roads, it gives a lot of feeback on roads with bad surfaces.

2wheelsbetter

ROK ON wrote: »

Yes.

Can you add to that? Is it just that a shorter length chain is required or is there a difference with the braking mechanisms and crank and derailleur?

ROK ON

2wheelsbetter wrote: »

Can you add to that? Is it just that a shorter length chain is required or is there a difference with the braking mechanisms and crank and derailleur?

Cranks, derailleur, brakes are the same on both my comp[act and traditional frame. The chainlength is determined by distance reqd to wrap arpund large front and rear cog plus one link IIRC. But you can take a groupset from a compact frame and fit it to a traditional frame and vice versa, if thats what you mean.

Lumen

The geometry of the frame makes absolutely no difference to any of the drivetrain components.

You should size a bike by "equivalent horizontal top tube", which eliminates the effects of top tube slope.

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Compact frames in small sizes (e.g. Planet-X Pro Carbon) will often not accomodate two water bottles, which is significant PITA.

Arundel make a side loading cage called the ...SideLoader to deal with that. If you are a leftie then they make a version of it called the ...OtherSideLoader. They seem to employ very literal people in their marketing department. I've not tried the SideLoader but I've read good reviews of it online.

I was considering a SideLoader for my frame (not really a compact, but a small size which equates to nearly the same thing in terms of clearance for bottles) but I opted for an Arundel Mandible instead which has dual mounting holes. The dual mounting holes allowed me to mount it lower on the seat tube so leaving plenty of clearance for a 24oz bottle (Camelbak Podium bottle, which is shorter than a similar capacity regular 750ml bottle).

Lumen wrote:

Most importantly, bikes with horizontal TTs look more elegant. This is absolutely unarguable.

I find traditional style horizontal tob tubes tend to make most bikes look like garden gates. I'm a fan of the compact look myself. Being short probably makes me biased against bikes that look big!

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

I opted for an Arundel Mandible instead which has dual mounting holes.

Is it good? Where did you buy from?

I got a quote of £35 each from echelon-cycles.co.uk. :eek:

(sorry for off-topic)

DirkVoodoo

Might be handy for a medium, but what Lumen is referring to is that the small doesn't even come with a second set of bottle bosses. There are other solutions, but it's something to remember.

I have a medium and getting a 500ml bottle out is tricky, I wonder if a 500 will even fit between the frame and front mech clamp on a small.

doozerie

Lumen wrote: »

Is it good? Where did you buy from?

I got a quote of £35 each from echelon-cycles.co.uk. :eek:

(sorry for off-topic)

Yup, that's exactly where I got mine. I flinched at the cost too but that it actually a very good price as they are US$65 from some sources. I've only used them on one spin so far but I like them a lot - they grip the bottle tightly but are easy enough to get in and out of. I'm certainly a lot less concerned about losing a bottle now.

Golfanatic

specialized z cage is the same principle there real nice. light too and only a tenner

Golfanatic

http://www.specialized.com/zz/en/bc/SBCEqProduct.jsp?spid=46932&menuItemId=9307&eid=5102

cantalach

Hungrycol wrote: »

Compact generally for more comfortable long distance ride, more relaxed geometry. Traditional frames seem to have more racier geometry.

There is no intrinsic factor making traditional frames more racy. In fact, the granddaddy of compact road frames - the Giant TCR - has a very twitchy, racy geometry.

cormacjones

Would pros generally ride compacts?

Lumen

cormacjones wrote: »

Would pros generally ride compacts?

Yes. But then they ride what they're paid to ride.