Originally Posted by blue_nose
This is the real reason many more bikes are being made with compact geometry. If there were any competitive advantage (speed, weight…) then all pro riders would be using this type of frame. In fact, pro teams have relationships with manufacturers that have compact and traditional geometry bikes.
With a mix of seat position, stem length and angle there is no real difference between a well fitted standard or compact geometry bike.
As an illustration, you can take two different bike manufactures with similar bikes. I use these two bikes as illustration only, but are representative of the size differences for frames with standard and compact geometry.
The Trek 5000 has traditional geometry comes in 7 sizes:
50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62cm
In contrast, the Giant OCR2 has compact geometry and comes in 5 sizes:
XS, S, M, L, XL
In realty, you can fit the same broad population with the range of bikes sizes from both manufacturers. Thus, Giant can save some production and inventory costs by manufacturing 5 frame sinstead of 7.
I personally like the look of traditional geometry, but that is just a personal preference.