Serotta's Opinion on Compact or Level?

[dbrk]

Some builders don't build slopers; others (I think, Giant, for example, no opinion on the bike) only slopers. Call them what we will: sloper, compact, etc. But the point is the effect of dropping the top tube at an angle to achieve...what exactly? Weight loss? Sizing up (yes, this can happen without terrible consequences in overall design)? More nimble ride? Just for stand over fit issues otherwise not achievable? What do you think? Some folks with serious design creds (from the Latin credo, like the French coeur, so people with heart and verifiable -entials, people in whom you could place your faith, the Sanskrit shraddha comes from the same IE etymology as credential, etc.) like TomK have argued certain benefits and advantages to sloping top tubes in ride, not mere style. Most builders all started out level and didn't slope (some still don't, like RS, I think, or rarely, like Dario), while others like Ibis (the original) and FatCity, IF all really coming from mtn bikes have always had some slope in their road bike designs. Others came around for fashion. Personally I prefer level top tube aesthetics and haven't found the ride advantages (even in weight terms, which rarely concern me).

Serotta once built only level designs and now I think most designs are slopers, though I wonder about that and ask. But does anyone know if Serotta has a design view (better, worse, what's gained, lost, done with) about slopers versus level top tubes? Caveat (well not really since caveat actually means "warning," not qualifying remark): the _whole_ design is the bike, not the top tube sloping or level. But I think it's true (uhh, I'm more than sure) that a similar, truly equivalent fit can often (not always but often) be achieved both ways...so does Serotta believe there are advantages given similar fit? I'm not talking about slopers that permit standover but rather if level vs sloper produces pretty much the same fit. Just askin'. Just curious.

dbrk

[merckx]

I have no opinion on this other than to say that I got kicked out of the circus when I was eight and haven't been on a circus bike since.

[J.Greene]

It will be interesting to hear Serotta comment. I ride small bikes (53-54cm) and slopers just look too small to me. I also have a bias towards level frames and don't take the others too seriously.

JG

[Jeff Weir]

Could it be a marketing trend??????????????

Give it a few years, we'll be back to level top tubes.

[Pete Serotta]

For most of us it is a toss up of what you like. For others, a sloper is recommended to get the bars up to where they should be for the type riding that one does. Another thought is that a sloper is stiffer....


From a fit point of view a sloper has some advantages if you need the bars up and do not want a stem that is not level.

I have ridden both and they work fine for me. But then I am far from a power stroker. Some folks like a level top tube or less than 2 degrees, Others like the slope. Some manufacturers can make less sizes by going to a sloper. Giant at one time had a small, med, large, extra large. THe top tube effective length detemined what size you took,


I will send a note to BEN, STEVE, and Kelly to see if I can get a view from the experts. PETE

[bronk]

Don't know about Serotta but I believe that the movement away from the quill stem contributed to the sloping top tubes -- needed to slope in order to minimize the spacers or head tube extension. Two wrongs make a right?

[coylifut]

what i find interesting is the move towards the integrated seat mast to compensate for the flex caused by an extra long seat post on the sloper. yeah, I know, some of the level top tube bikes have them as well, but they began as a fix to a problem that never existed before the sloper came along.

Terry (I ride a sloper Spectrum) Keele.

[stevep]

i thk its just style

its in style now... might not always be.

[Fixed]

bro it don't matter ............except to me atmoimho
cheers

[e-RICHIE]

i thk its just style

its in style now... might not always be.
agreed. this is the sporting goods business atmo.
you either slope with élan, or you don't. but in this
market, it sells bikes.

[Peter P.]

Here's my understanding of this issue. First, some definitions:

Compact: The seat tube gets shorter, but the head tube remains the same size as if the frame had a horizontal top tube.

Sloping: Enables the head tube to be any length, particularly taller than if the frame had a horizontal top tube, in an effort to get the handle bars up higher.

I feel it's an important distinction.

Anyway, I think Giant was the first to offer a compact frame, and Jalabert and his Once team were the first to use them. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I remember the ads/reviews, the claim to fame was stiffer and lighter, two factors which always sell more bikes. The consumer doesn't care if fewer sizes are offered. The INTELLIGENT consumer doesn't care as long as the frame fits; there's a difference.

So time has blurred all the reasons why compact frames came to being in the first place. A while after their birth, when it was realized the handlebars weren't going up as the seat tubes got shorter and the positions got more impractical, SLOPING frames were "invented". The limitations of threadless headset stem height adjustment played a role in this feature.

Sloping top tubes are a great idea if you need to get the bars higher but run into the aforementioned limitations. Custom frames solve the problem by giving you any seat tube length you need with a horizontal top tube to get the bars as high as you want, but custom frames are price prohibitive for most people.

The "look" of compact/sloping frames has become accepted in the market, so they're here to stay until the market goes retro again and horizontal top tubes become the rage. We just have to invent a marketable reason to return to them.

I think the stiffer/lighter claims are dubious at best and not worth the effort.

I do hope Tom Kellogg will at least voice his support of them in this thread. I know he's a believer in sloping geometry and I always enjoy reading his opinions. You lugged builders should chime in too, though I know your opinions are somewhat constricted by the dearth of sloping lugs, Kirk's new offering notwithstanding.

[Grant McLean]

In the 'custom' bike world, I look at the sloping top tube
as the disconnection of frame size and head tube length.
There used to be "standard" proportions - a certain "size"
would have a fairly narrow range of top tube combinations.

I used to "fit the rider to the bike" now it's pretty much the
other way around, for better or worse, who's really to say.

-g

[dirtdigger88]

its just style-

I wish the zank had been finish in this picture- the stem and saddle went down - when the two bikes were set up correctly every contact point was exactly the same

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l162/dirt_011/zank001.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l162/dirt_011/pauls001.jpg

Jason

[e-RICHIE]

In the 'custom' bike world, <cut>

-g
i'm interested in hearing the company line; this would be a
perfect place to chime in atmo. meanwhile, looks notwithstanding,
i never understood the weight argument wrt to sloped frame
geometry. i have weighed the offcuts of tubes against the
added seat post length needed, and the penalty always
comes out in the favor of level top tubes. has anyone else
wasted time on thismo? the 'stiffness' issue is lost on me
because i cannot conceptualize how two or so less inches
of tube length can be felt by the human body - the average
one, at least. all this said, i like some sloped bicycles and
dislike others.

[Fixed]

i use to have a white german shepherd that looked like that when he got old
cheers

[shinomaster]

i use to have a white german shepherd that looked like that when he got old
cheers


Did the back of that get crushed by a garage door? ;)

[taz-t]

i use to have a white german shepherd that looked like that when he got old
cheers

Damn Fixed - you read my mind. I don't like to disparage other people's bikes but a DKS rear with a sloping top tube has always looked like a German Shepherd to me too.

- taz

[saab2000]

I am not able to write with the same eloquence as the esteemed DBRK, but I will at least attempt to comment on his post in complete sentences, not like the college text message-style of the day.

There are two types of slope. Those which slope up from seatpost and those which slope down from the stem. Sounds the same, no? Some are done to acheive a higher handlebar position and some are done to make a more 'compact' frameset, leaving the handlebars in the usual place.

Personally, I am not a fan of the aesthetic of the sloping top tube, but it is the style of the day with modern race bikes and as we all know, 'what we race on Sunday, we sell on Monday.' So there ya have it.

I can imagine that the latter of the two described designs might have some measureable increase in frame rigidity given the smaller triangles, but this will also require a larger diameter seatpost to maintain some level of rigidity there.

I guess I can imagine owning a sloper someday if I ever get around to getting a Spectrum. But I'd rather just go with a level top tube. I could probably be convinced to accept a few degrees of slope, but not much. Because I, like Douglas, prefer the traditional shape of the level top tube frameset.

This is the retrogrouch bike I rode today. Level top tube and I liked it.

I'd stiffen up the torsional rigidity and make the handling better, like my Grandis, but that's a whole 'nuther story. My next bike will have those attributes.

[taz-t]

. Most builders all started out level and didn't slope (some still don't, like RS, I think, or rarely, like Dario), while others like Ibis (the original) and FatCity, IF all really coming from mtn bikes have always had some slope in their road bike designs. Others came around for fashion.
dbrk

wasn't Bontrager the original? All of the Ibis roads (pre carbon) and Slim Chances I've see were level. For better or worse, I think KB was the first.
FWIW, I heart my Roadlite but don't have any interest in other sloping/compact frames.

- taz

[Zimmy]

My limited understanding of the advantages offered by a sloping TT is that it has less to do with sizing, except giant, who I believe did it to cut down on production costs (less sizes=mo green) and more to do with stiffening the rear triangle and lowering the center of gravity, the lower seat cluster is supposed to make rocking the bike out of the saddle easier. I don't think many compact riders would tell you that is the reason they went for a sloper, most probably ride one because some lbs told them it was better.

[shinomaster]

I don't have a compact, but what I like about them is this. They give more stand over height to people like myself who have short legs and a long reach. I can't buy a stock frame with a 54st and a 57tt. A bike like a TCR offers a stock solution/option.

[Steevo]

I couldn't begin to answer the question, but here's one sloper owner's view...

When I test rode the Fierte in 2003, I didn't like the sloper look, nor the look of TIG welding for that matter. I'm an old school type, and much prefer the aesthetics of the level top tube and lugs. I rode the Fierte, and knew that was the ride I was looking for. The bike still looks a bit odd to my eye leaning against a garage door, but feels great when I'm riding it. For me, the ride quality and value trumped the aesthetics.

As a guy with shortish legs, the sloping TT is nice to have for standover clearance. My older (and larger) level TT bikes never gave me and meaningful standover issues, but I like the extra space the sloper provides. My next bike will have a level TT.

[dbrk]

wasn't Bontrager the original? All of the Ibis roads (pre carbon) and Slim Chances I've see were level. For better or worse, I think KB was the first.
FWIW, I heart my Roadlite but don't have any interest in other sloping/compact frames.
- taz

I think you are right, taz, that Bontrager was making slopers before Giant changed the industry aesthetic. But the early Ibis road bikes, particularly the
Ti Road, had slope. I recall because I didn't buy my Ibis Road (Sebastapol, old Ibis) until 1994, the first year the tt was level. There is a favorable review of the Road Ti in an old Bicycle Guide (or was it Road Bike Action?) about the Ibis Road Ti that also mentions the slope. This was about 1992, irc. I misspoke about Fat, I was thinking of Bontrager. Confusion due to dimming wits and memories.

I made the case long ago (here? previous Forum?) that slopers create the opportunity to size up, make easy stand over, and supply their own different aesthetic. But I was/am wondering if Serotta believes, say, as the redoubtable TomK, that slopers have a different feel, especially climbing. I confess this is not my experience but I'm curious if there is a company view.

Non-sequitor Thread Drift Question: Has anyone here heard of a highly regarded Japanese builder named Hoyosama?

dbrk

[Jack Brunk]

For me there's only one type of road frame and that's a sloping/compact frame.

[e-RICHIE]

For me there's only one type of road frame and that's a sloping/compact frame.
but - whymo?

[Jack Brunk]

but - whymo?
They just feel better underneath me. Can't explain but I can feel a noticeable difference in how the frame feels under me except on the track where traditional frames rock.

[giordana93]

I don't have a compact, but what I like about them is this. They give more stand over height to people like myself who have short legs and a long reach. I can't buy a stock frame with a 54st and a 57tt. A bike like a TCR offers a stock solution/option.

bingo. the question then becomes, how much standover does one really need? not that much. from a fashion standpoint, how much seat post does one want to be showing? doesn't that drive much of this?
I am the proud owner of a sloping frame: my hardtail, no suspension fork, early 90's Diamondback mountain bike. they (mtb's) seem to be the original slopers, that someone figured out could be repackaged and marketed (lighter, stiffer, as noted above always sells, especially if weighing frame only, not a built up bike). radical slopers always remind me on a descent how much I do the thigh grip on the top tube maneuver on a level top tube.
hooey, time for bed!

[eddief]

I have 3 slopers; rex, giant, rockhopper---and one leveler; kogswell p. and been through a couple of other slopers and couple of other levelers. viva la difference. blindfold me and i could never tell which was which...as it relates to the slope of the top tube.

aesthetically i'd always choose a well proportioned all steel threaded beauty. unfortunately with my bar height needs, it is not so easy to get an aesthetically pleasing leveler. for me a 60 cm leveler gets the bars high enough, but then the seatpost aesthetic is too short...in my opinion.


nice to see serotta is showing bikes both ways in photos on the site.

[Ti Designs]

meanwhile, looks notwithstanding,
i never understood the weight argument wrt to sloped frame
geometry. i have weighed the offcuts of tubes against the
added seat post length needed, and the penalty always
comes out in the favor of level top tubes. has anyone else
wasted time on this? the 'stiffness' issue is lost on me
because i cannot conceptualize how two or so less inches
of tube length can be felt by the human body - the average
one, at least.


I'm fighting back the urge to quote Monty Python...

Those who plunk a whole bike on a scale don't really get the dynamics of riding. The claim is that the bikes feel lighter while climbing out of the saddle, which is because the weight is moved down. When you climb out of the saddle the bike swings from side to side as you position the pedal directly under the hip. The energy used to move the bike side to side (which does nothing to move the bike forward) is M*r^2 where r is the distance form the ground up. When I had Peter Mooney make my race bikes I had him use cast wishbones for the seat stays instead of cast caps at the seat lug because it moved the weight down. When you're 125 pounds and 5'10" you tend to notice little things like that.

Much later on I was test riding an IF prototype which was their answer to the Litespeed Ghisalo or the Seven Alta (sub 2 pound Ti frames) when I noticed the real down side to too much slope. A traffic light turned yellow, which around here means "go faster". I sprinted across the intersection, stopped at the other side to check if one or both on my QRs were loose. As the two tubes get closer together the frame loses it's ability to resist twist. The combination of thin Ti tubing and the design made for a frame that scrubbed speed because the wheels didn't stay in the same track.

Fitting is yet another issue. Fitters will get this 'cause they see so many people. Most people only see it from their own perspective - I fit on this, that's all there should be sort of thing. In the case of frame builders who use lugs, it's also a matter of what there is and not wanting to get into the endless angles needed to start down the sloper road. I find the guys with the long torso and short arms and legs are perfect on slopers. I go one size larger, stand-over isn't an issue and their torso gets them forward and up while their arms don't make it that far back down. The bike has a longer top tube and taller head tube, it's a good fit. On the other hand, there's this freak working at my shop who's top tube slopes down to the front, and he runs a -17 degree stem...

My prediction of the market: Companies will look at what sells. Right now you have long and low, you have short and high and lots between those two. I find it works well because there's a bike for most without going custom. The bike industry will screw that up. They will look at what sells and all target the same cross section of the population. Carbon bikes, sloped top tubes, higher head tubes, centered around a 56cm frame with a 56.5ish top tube and 73ish degree seat tube. They'll be different colors so you can tell them apart.

[I Want Sachs?]

Level top tube=classy ride
Sloping top tube=modern ride
Sloping top tube only=loss of history
Level top tube only=loss of customers

Ergo: Serotta will build classy and modern bikes. :beer:

[mjb266]

Isn't Trek's move with the new Madone a perfect reflection of a sloping top tube's place and purpose. It's a marketing decision. The appearance of a frame is driven by the same marketing that gets Cannondale's or Specialized's name in no less than eight places on a frameset. The sizing argument goes out the window when you consider that there many manufacturers have a racing geometry sloper and a recreational geometry sloper. The Tarmac and the Roubaix both slope...one just has a longer head tube. Same thing with the different Madones. Why would a HSG have a sloping top tube when racers are running 10cm of drop?

I know that TK likes them and, were it not for his opinion, I'd be completely confident in mine.

[saab2000]

The bubble is in the middle on this one when you put a level on the top tube. Even on the seat if you put a straight edge on it, even though it doesn't look like it would be.

It's all a matter of taste in the end. There is no right or wrong, better or worse, except in our own world. And my world has level top tubes.

If it don't have at least a few thousand miles or kms at the end on Dec. 31 it's all a moot point anyway, right?

[Marcus Torino]

I have frames with both sloping (3) and level (4) top tubes.

The level ones are the bikes that get ridden on all day flattish rides. The slopers when it's going to be a long hilly ride that has me out of the saddle a lot. If I'm riding on unsealed roads, the level ones (but they also have more tire clearance, and hence fatter Pave CG tubulars), they just "feel" better on the rough roads. I have one bike that I'll do it all on, and that has an ISP AND is a sloper (in Ti with carbon top and down tubes) AND can take ALL Weather CG's. If I had only one bike, it would be The One, if I had two, the second one would be a level top tube full steel rig. If that isn't confusing, I'm drinking Blue Moon, and there is a full moon tomorrow.

One thing is for sure, they would both wear Campy and tubulars :p

[cleavel]

Hi,

I am fairly "old school" too when it comes to top tubes. When I was frame shopping last year I wanted a level top tube. I was chagrined to find that there were zero stock frames that fit my needs that had a level top tube. The closest in fit were the Time VXR Proteam and the BMC Pro Machine SLC01. Both have mildly sloping top tubes and ride very differently.

In the end I decided to go with the Attack because it was a custom carbon frame even though I was disappointed that it only came with a sloping top tube. :( The cost of the Meivici was just too much for me. However, the ride more than makes up for the aesthetic deficits and I will say that the bike's "look" is growing on me. :)

My favorite steel bike of all time was:
http://www.pbase.com/cleavel/image/87529795/original.jpg
Note that everything was level on this bike: the top tube, the saddle, the stem, and the bottom of the handlebars. :rolleyes:

Also, the Attack was not my first bike with a sloping top tube. I rode this Bianchi for a few years:
http://www.pbase.com/cleavel/image/42904422/original.jpg
I know it's kind of hard to tell that the top tube slopes with the rear wheel off the ground. ;) I end up selling it mostly (but not solely) because I just didn't like the aesthetic of the bike.

Pretty long way of saying that I like level top tubes. :p

[rwsaunders]

Most of the bikes on the Serotta homepage have sloped tt's.

[jeffg]

My Serotta is my only bike with a sloping TT and I agree with dbrk that the bike does not need one (i.e. the fit solution could have been achieved with a level TT). One factor, though, is that Serotta has very short standard HTs, if I am not mistaken. I have a smaller Pegoretti with slightly less HT extension, same HS & 1cm of spacers and that achieves the same handlebar height as my Legend.

I think the Legend handles like a dream and I set most of my best double century or gran fondo times on it. It looks fine imho as a sloper but could work with little or no slope to the TT. Next time ... ;)

[classic1]

Former English pro and frame builder Dave Lloyd started making (custom) compact bikes in the late 80's. They were the first modern ones I ever saw.

I suspect Mike Burrows stole the idea off him or was in contact/consultation with Lloyd at the time. Burrows sold the sloping idea to Giant.

[Ray]

Those who plunk a whole bike on a scale don't really get the dynamics of riding. The claim is that the bikes feel lighter while climbing out of the saddle, which is because the weight is moved down. When you climb out of the saddle the bike swings from side to side as you position the pedal directly under the hip.
Yeah, and I think this is all Tom K has ever claimed about compacts as well. When I was buying my first custom from him, he gave me the choice and said that compact will feel a bit lighter (due to the lower weight - LOWER, not LESS) when climbing out of the saddle but no different when seated. I've owned slopers and level bikes and I think the difference between the two is overwhelmed by other differences. I currently have two sloping Spectrums - one is incredibly lively out of the saddle and the other is much less so. I've owned plenty of horizontal TT bikes and some felt far more lively out of the saddle than others. Wheelbase, particularly chainstay length, bar position, reach, front end geometry, etc, all seem to make more of a difference to my amateur sensations.

Aesthetically, I like the compact look better on ti bikes (probably other welded joint bikes as well - but ti is all I have in welds). But I'd always go for level on a lugged steel because it just looks right to me.

-Ray

[Tom]

The note on my fit sheet said a slight slope was necessary "because of the 10 degree stem", signed by one K. Bedford.

I insisted on level purely based on looks and that's the way it was built.

The funny thing is I put a 73 degree stem on the thing this spring and I love it. I swear to god that I ride more comfortably and the handling is really improved even though the stem is the same length as the old one and I can get a lot more pull when I'm down in the drops. Same bars.

[William]

i'm interested in hearing the company line; this would be a
perfect place to chime in atmo. meanwhile, looks notwithstanding,
i never understood the weight argument wrt to sloped frame
geometry. i have weighed the offcuts of tubes against the
added seat post length needed, and the penalty always
comes out in the favor of level top tubes. has anyone else
wasted time on thismo? the 'stiffness' issue is lost on me
because i cannot conceptualize how two or so less inches
of tube length can be felt by the human body - the average
one, at least. all this said, i like some sloped bicycles and
dislike others.


I never understood that claim either. Sure the seat tube is shorter, but you need added length in the post to make it back up. It seems that that would cancel each other out. Also, “feels lighter” and “is lighter” are two very different things. As has been said, I think it’s mostly (giving a nod to Ti Designs about short limbed, long torso folks) marketing hype in the need to constantly be different & come up with “new” things to sell. Eventually level top tubes will come back into vogue.

Of all the bikes I’ve owned, only one was a sloper. I wouldn’t say that I didn’t like the ride, but I didn’t notice anything different or special about the way that it handled. If anything thing it felt a little funky due to the very long seat post needed to make up the distance for the shorter ST. I will say that for climbing, I’m a seated climber ala Big Mig so again, no difference felt for me.

Aesthetically, I find level TT more to my liking. That and the baby smooth joints of a good fillet brazed bike get me going.


William

[93legendti]

Dave Kirk is building this for me as we speak:

http://www.kirkframeworks.com/jk_special.htm

I hear it rides great.

Ride what you like.

[soulspinner]

what i find interesting is the move towards the integrated seat mast to compensate for the flex caused by an extra long seat post on the sloper. yeah, I know, some of the level top tube bikes have them as well, but they began as a fix to a problem that never existed before the sloper came along.

Terry (I ride a sloper Spectrum) Keele.

Yeah. Had a laugh about carbon seatposts having give noticeable on slopers due to more exposed(this was supposed to be good), now we just go to integration to get the stiffness back. So the marketing goes both ways. In this case why not go with a level top tube and a stiff alu post? Oh thats too heavy? Sheesh :confused:

[Too Tall]

I don't think we have yet to hear the party line on this one and thanks Pete for your comments. From a design and performance perspective I'd appreciate hearing from Ben et. al. Asking for marketing comments is out of place, no need for that.

When I asked T.K. to build a race bike he had free hand. Given my freakish proportions and propensity for old school bikes he could have easily built and sold a level TT Ti race bike. He did not.

To give you an idea how dramaticly different the feel of T.K.s race bike is versus any other bike I've ever ridden I'll ask you to remember what it is like to ride the same bike day in day out than switch to another bike. Your memories both physical and mental of the prior ride are fresh and DIRECTLY compare to the new ride in these situations. In this case for me it was striking how lively and snappy his sloper felt out of the saddle.

Yeah I know it does not make sense. That's my story.

To complete this pic. for Serotta to "claim" their sloping TT bikes are snappier or lighter or (gag) a better fit might negatively influence buyers across the board. Yes?

[soulspinner]

I never understood that claim either. Sure the seat tube is shorter, but you need added length in the post to make it back up. It seems that that would cancel each other out. Also, “feels lighter” and “is lighter” are two very different things. As has been said, I think it’s mostly (giving a nod to Ti Designs about short limbed, long torso folks) marketing hype in the need to constantly be different & come up with “new” things to sell. Eventually level top tubes will come back into vogue.

Of all the bikes I’ve owned, only one was a sloper. I wouldn’t say that I didn’t like the ride, but I didn’t notice anything different or special about the way that it handled. If anything thing it felt a little funky due to the very long seat post needed to make up the distance for the shorter ST. I will say that for climbing, I’m a seated climber ala Big Mig so again, no difference felt for me.

Aesthetically, I find level TT more to my liking. That and the baby smooth joints of a good fillet brazed bike get me going.


William

I used a 250 mm post with a 7degree slope on my bike purposely. More slope makes me go to the longer post. It can be done if the size of the frame allows. Does it matter, naw, did it because I wanted a sloper and always had level tts before.

[RudAwkning]

I went 8 degrees on my Waterford R33 because my Nitto titanium stem, inverted, was -8 degrees. I'm a stickler for having my top tube match my stem angle :D

My only other bike with significant slope on it is my Gunnar Crosshairs.

My new Waterford fixie has 1.5 degrees of slope (intenional as I wanted to use a Dura Ace AX seatpost but was afraid I'd have to insert the seat post further than the aero taper to get the desired height. Turns out I was right)

These 3 bikes are also my only 3 tigged bikes.

The other 7 bikes in my stable all have level top tubes (6 lugged and 1 filleted).

[soulspinner]

That white Waterford is soooo nice!

[Tom Kellogg]

If you dig deep enough into past discussions of sloping (compact) frames on this forum, you will find my thoughts, but someone asked me to put my thoughts down again, so here goes.

I am NOT some sort of compact promoter. I ride one and have ridden any number of compacts over the last dozen years or so. After all that time, I still think my bike looks like some sort of BMX bike, and I tell my customers just that. Beautiful frames should have level top tubes ... except:

A) Sometimes, designing in sufficient standover clearance AND high enough handle bars without a quill stem requires some combination of sloping top tube, headset extension, headset spacers and positive rise stems. To my eye, none of these things looks as attractive as their absence. I do have to live with reality though.

B) If a rider is looking to get the "snappiest" bike possible, a sufficiently sloping top tube (6 to 10 degrees) is one of the most effective ways of increasing that feel.

Now to what that "snappy" thing is. (for those of you who have heard this drivel, just skip to the next paragraph) A couple of years before Giant came out with their first production compact bikes with an effort to save production costs and come up with a marketing gimmick, I was working with the folks at Merlin on new model designs. We made a prototype compact which I still have hanging up somewhere around here. We decided to make it REALLY compact (17 degrees) in an effort to go to the extreme so that we would have a better chance of being able to measure what it did relative to standard designs. I already had an otherwise identical traditional frame to compare it to. Same tubing diameters, gauges, angles, etc. Was it stiffer? Kind of. We could measure an increased torsional rigidity in the front end, likely from the shorter top tube and seat tube. We also measured increased BB stiffness, likely from that shorter seat tube. Could I feel those differences on the road? Absolutely NOT. The machines didn't lie, but the numbers, while significant, were too small to be felt. Keep in mind that we were able to keep "everything else equal." OK, so what did I feel? The first time I stood up on the bike, I felt like I had gotten on my old BMX bike. The whole thing felt much lower and lighter. Remember, the functional geometry was identical to my traditional frame. The only real difference was that much of the mass of the frame was now closer to the rotational axis of the bike (the tracking line of the wheels). Yes, the bike was about three ounces lighter, but I know from experience, that three ounces is too little of a difference to feel like this did. The moment I sat back down, all that snappy feel was gone. The sloper felt just like my traditional bike again. I still ride those ugly bikes because I just love the feel. I am primarily a criterium racer and the design's ability to move around more quickly when I want it to is something I value a few times each race. While I value the way my compacts work, ultimately I am willing to be seen on ugly bikes because they are more fun for me to ride. Okey Dokey? :p