I have a bike with a "compact geometry," i.e., sloping top tube. I have yet to see or read anything about the advantages of compact geometry and I certainly can't feel any difference, given my limited experience. The only advantage I can think of is that the bike might be a little lighter for a given level of structural strenth.

---

====================================
Do not take counsel of your fears.--Andrew Jackson

Mike Burrows is credited with the design as far as I know. He's the guy who designed the Lotus beam bike which is still regarded as probably the most aero bike ever made. I believe Giant was tha first to put the compact frame into production. Everybody laughed until Team Once showed up at the TDF on the compact Giants. Since then everybody has copied the compact frame.

In theory it allows for a lighter frame but this is often negated becase a longer seat post is required. In theory the frame should be stiffer but a long seat post again may negate this advantage. In the aero department John Cobb has found no advantages or disadvantages between a compact or traditional road frame. As far as I know, Cervelo is the only company making a compact road frame with legitimate aero tubing with theSoloist

Now here is my personal opinion. There seems to be a slight advantage for climbing or sprinting with the smaller (read stiffer) smaller rear triangle that the compact geometry frame allows. My Giant TCR seems to kick up the hills in comparison to my regular geometry road bike. It could also be because the TCR is lighter, but I think the compact frame seems to work better. And nobody will ever convince me that a steep angle bike climbs as well as does a compact road bike. My P2K just doesn't, pure and simple. There have been people on this forum making claims otherwise, but if steep angles were the way to ride on the hills that's what they would be doing on the TDF, and it just ain't happening.

The other thing I believe is that the compact road frame lends itself better than a standard road geometry for setting up in a more forward 75/76 "multi-sport" position for tris or TT's. This is how Cervelo designed the Soloist and the geometry on other compact road frames is very similiar. A TCR, Specialized, or any other compact frame could easily be set up just like a Soloist in the multi-sport position.

That's my $.02.

My bike has a sloping top tube, but I still suck at climbing.

"My bike has a sloping top tube, but I still suck at climbing."

It's all about the engine and BTW, I'm no screaming hell on the climbs either, but I bet you'd suck more on a steep angle.

He sings praises for the stiffness and climbing edge the slope gives on his ti bikes. Stiffness and climbing feel is pretty relative. I have owned bikes that seem to climb better than others, but comparing bikes of different sizes or frame materials is sketchy at best.
Seems to make sense though that the same bike with a smaller triangle would be stiffer. G

Don't compare pro cyclists to triathletes in this particular problem. No one is arguing that the best bike to perform the task of climbing is the standard road setup the pro cyclists are riding. I don't think even Slowman would contend differently. What we contend is that for TRIATHLETES, riding rolling and moderate hills such AND having to RUN after they finish the bike, riding a steep angled bike, remaining in the aero, and spinning up the hill, is the best strategy. If you want to argue that theory, there's certainly room to maneuver. However, extrapolating from the pro cyclist model leaves too many triathlete variables out of the equation to produce reliable data.

The Ghisallo is a beautiful bike. (Did you see the Lotto team riding them in the TDF last year?) I had the chance to ride one for about 20 miles last year. It's a great climbing bike and VERY light but descents and fast cornering I found a bit scary compared to my TCR, although a heavier wheelset might make it a bit more stable. If you weigh much over 150lbs, I don't think it's a very good do-all bike, more just a specialist climbing machine. If you're going to lay out that much cash, think carefully about how you're going to use the bike mostly. If you're looking for a tri bike, IMO it's better to look elsewhere.

I don't think you'll detect any difference in ride quality between a standard and compact frame. This is more down to frame materials, geometry and build quality.

---

Put the bunny back in the box.

matt. the main difference you will feel, all other things being equal, is a little difference in how the bikes swings back and forth. a sloping bike's weight is a little differently proportioned and you can feel the differnce when gripping the bars and flicking the bike side to side. it is not better, just different.

my own rides way nice, and some say the longer seatpost contributes to this, but i dunno. by contrast, i have a vintage horizontal mt bike that rides just as good.

cerveloguy and i have been over this before, but the design was around way before burrows was even with giant.

mostly it is a looks thing. there is essentially no other difference than the tt sloping from a regular bike. maybe some consideration as to tubing guages and all, but no more than would be prudent for a small vs large bike of any style. i think they look wicked cool, for the most part, myself.

is it me or is the compact frame idea really just lighter MTB frame as a road bike? 71/73 is mtb geometry if i remember right....? at least thats what it looks like....

I don't think there is any appreciable difference between a well executed standard or compact frame, from a performance standpoint. The differences amount to personal preference. For me, I like the fact that my 54cm Specialized compact frame top tube is lower, especially when climbing out of the saddle. Its probably purely psychological, but it "feels" like there is less bike swinging back and forth between my legs in that situation. The extra exposed seatpost probably maximizes any shock dampening properties of my carbon seatpost too. Again, though, I don't think I'm any faster or slower on my current road bike than I have been in the past or would be on any new standard frame.

Short answer is no.

Let's get empirical here. Check out the frame designs of those who have won the UCI's World TT title over the two decades or so (before that: the d Prix des Nations, etc.). This such a windcheating-specific event that the specialisits who do it can, and do, grab every last possible legal edge they can.

Similarly, look at the bikes of those who've won the major uphill TT's of the Tour, Giro and Vuelta. Simply the best climbing efficienct referent you could ask for.

Sloping top tubes may not carry that important a disadvantage, but they certainly confer no demonstrable advantage.

like the hidden headset it's all about fashion.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

But compact frames are well suited to riders with short legs in relation to their overall height who might find it difficult to get a good fit on an off-the-peg 'standard' frame and can't afford a custom frame. And triathlon's not (in a lot of respects) about 'fashion'?, being different? and setting new trends???? or maybe I've been missing something the last 15 years????? I will agree though that the integrated headset is a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

---

Put the bunny back in the box.

have you ever jammed with mot the hoople?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Regrettably, no, but I have nogged a few nogs in my time.

---

Put the bunny back in the box.

"Any thoughts? Dan? Tom are you still lurking around out there?"

I believe Tom is still feeding tigers somewhere. Hopefully he makes it back:)


Gophers don't like large carnivours