Does "compacting" a frame makes it look ugly?
06-15-07, 02:01 AM
#1
Banned.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Does "compacting" a frame makes it look ugly?
I need help from the OCP crowd here.
I'm looking at some compact frames and the LBS have lots of brand with compacts, among them Giant, Specialized, and Raleigh.
Here's my dilemma, I ride a 54cm and when fitted to a Giant advanced I have lots of seatpost--like ~ 280 cm- sticking out. I also ended up with a -17 stem since I want to get as low as possible in the drops. However, after getting fitted, the bike looks really ugly. especially where the stem is angled and how the handlebar looks on the side. Are there any tips to make compact frames look more eye-pleasing. With traditional frames, any stem/handlebar set up could potentially look nice. Not so with compact frames.
I'm looking at some compact frames and the LBS have lots of brand with compacts, among them Giant, Specialized, and Raleigh.
Here's my dilemma, I ride a 54cm and when fitted to a Giant advanced I have lots of seatpost--like ~ 280 cm- sticking out. I also ended up with a -17 stem since I want to get as low as possible in the drops. However, after getting fitted, the bike looks really ugly. especially where the stem is angled and how the handlebar looks on the side. Are there any tips to make compact frames look more eye-pleasing. With traditional frames, any stem/handlebar set up could potentially look nice. Not so with compact frames.
06-15-07, 02:20 AM
#2
Roman Killer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,161
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That seems to be the new asthetic dillema- the inherant visual incompatibility of steeply dropped stems (level 17's) on severly compact frames...
I got nothing for you. I ride a gently sloping frame and only a 6 degree dropped stem (ritchey wcs axis)... looks purty. But I've always been a climbing specialist, so the 17ers never interested me much anyway...
As for the excess post- I ride a lot of post too- I'm almost 5'11" and I've always ridden standard 54's... now I'm on a 53 sloping that works out to a 54.5... I think a bunch of post showing looks hot, I wouldn't sweat that. But I feel you on the mismatching stem angles... that sh*t's gross.
I got nothing for you. I ride a gently sloping frame and only a 6 degree dropped stem (ritchey wcs axis)... looks purty. But I've always been a climbing specialist, so the 17ers never interested me much anyway...
As for the excess post- I ride a lot of post too- I'm almost 5'11" and I've always ridden standard 54's... now I'm on a 53 sloping that works out to a 54.5... I think a bunch of post showing looks hot, I wouldn't sweat that. But I feel you on the mismatching stem angles... that sh*t's gross.
06-15-07, 02:26 AM
#3
Originally Posted by FranckCisco
I need help from the OCP crowd here.
I'm looking at some compact frames and the LBS have lots of brand with compacts, among them Giant, Specialized, and Raleigh.
Here's my dilemma, I ride a 54cm and when fitted to a Giant advanced I have lots of seatpost--like ~ 280 cm- sticking out. I also ended up with a -17 stem since I want to get as low as possible in the drops. However, after getting fitted, the bike looks really ugly. especially where the stem is angled and how the handlebar looks on the side. Are there any tips to make compact frames look more eye-pleasing. With traditional frames, any stem/handlebar set up could potentially look nice. Not so with compact frames.
I'm looking at some compact frames and the LBS have lots of brand with compacts, among them Giant, Specialized, and Raleigh.
Here's my dilemma, I ride a 54cm and when fitted to a Giant advanced I have lots of seatpost--like ~ 280 cm- sticking out. I also ended up with a -17 stem since I want to get as low as possible in the drops. However, after getting fitted, the bike looks really ugly. especially where the stem is angled and how the handlebar looks on the side. Are there any tips to make compact frames look more eye-pleasing. With traditional frames, any stem/handlebar set up could potentially look nice. Not so with compact frames.
chances are you might look fast, rather than be fast.
06-15-07, 02:35 AM
#4
Senior Member
Originally Posted by botto
is this an aesthetic choice?
chances are you might look fast, rather than be fast.
chances are you might look fast, rather than be fast.
That severe drop between seat and bars is rampant on road bikes today. Being an old dinosaur from the Seventies, I still don't ride a bike with more than a fistfull of seatpost showing. That's strictly preference though. Good luck on whatever you choose.
Tim
06-15-07, 02:37 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Gainesville/Tampa, FL
Posts: 2,343
Bikes: Trek 1000, two mtbs and working on a fixie for commuting.
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ride as low as possible on the drops at which I can maintain my speed. I remember reading another post in which someone pointed out that when you get too low up front, you end up jamming you knees into your chest and someone not used to that would actually lose power and efficiency to the point where the loss would overcome any aerodynamic advantage.
06-15-07, 04:37 AM
#6
Large Member
velospace 2744
giant TCR small frame (about 54cm oldskool) with lots of drop and lots of seat post. ugly as hell, but climbs fast. you want aesthetics or wins? i don't hit my chest with my knees when in the drops, but it's not far away...
excuse the bad photos, they are the fault of the downsized from originals as much as the ****ty camera.
and now that i look at it again, it's not that much drop, and I could flip the stem too!
giant TCR small frame (about 54cm oldskool) with lots of drop and lots of seat post. ugly as hell, but climbs fast. you want aesthetics or wins? i don't hit my chest with my knees when in the drops, but it's not far away...
excuse the bad photos, they are the fault of the downsized from originals as much as the ****ty camera.
and now that i look at it again, it's not that much drop, and I could flip the stem too!
06-15-07, 05:54 AM
#7
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,357
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Liked 769 Times
in
396 Posts
Just go with the Team Advanced.
06-15-07, 06:02 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FranckCisco
Here's my dilemma, I ride a 54cm and when fitted to a Giant advanced I have lots of seatpost--like ~ 280 cm- sticking out.
06-15-07, 06:44 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Davis CA
Posts: 3,959
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check, '85 Giant road bike (unrecogizable fixed-gear conversion
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Compact frames look good on carbon fiber racing bikes and on other bikes that attempt to follow that particular style. But other styles, such as SSFG bikes, do not lend themselves well to compact frames. A good example is the Redline 925. A classic steel fixed gear commuter should have a classic geometry. I won't get a Redline because of the compact frame.
My Trek 1000c had a very compact frame. The bike looked good. Until I stuck a Brooks saddle on it. For some reason it didn't look right. So one of the reasons I got rid of it and got a Surly Crosscheck was that it went better with my Brooks.
My Trek 1000c had a very compact frame. The bike looked good. Until I stuck a Brooks saddle on it. For some reason it didn't look right. So one of the reasons I got rid of it and got a Surly Crosscheck was that it went better with my Brooks.
06-15-07, 02:28 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,154
Bikes: (2) 2004 Trek 1500, Team Colors:2004 Cannondale Ironman w/ Renn and Zipp: 2005 Kestrel Talon SL: 2001 GT Agressor: 2001 Schwinn Moab: 2001 Specialized S-Works M4 Festina Team Bike: 2002 Pinarello Prince: 1980 Schwinn Voyageur 11.8
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The answer to the title's question is yes.
06-18-07, 07:47 AM
#24
Senior Member
You don't get a beautiful bike that comes out of a factory in asia. If you wan't beauty get a Nervex lugged Reynolds 953 steel frame. It will cost you about 4,500$ for the frame but it won't rust. While not stainless Reynolds 953 is as light as titanium and has corrosive resistence unlike any other bicycle alloy. A compact frame is always going to be butt ugly. You bought a compact for comfort right? Just ride it and enjoy it. I suppose if you wanted to spend oodles of cash on making your bike look good you could get a lugged stem. I think they look great but the 200$ price tag doesn't appeal to me.
06-18-07, 07:54 AM
#25
Originally Posted by SoreFeet
You don't get a beautiful bike that comes out of a factory in asia. If you wan't beauty get a Nervex lugged Reynolds 953 steel frame. It will cost you about 4,500$ for the frame but it won't rust. While not stainless Reynolds 953 is as light as titanium and has corrosive resistence unlike any other bicycle alloy. A compact frame is always going to be butt ugly. You bought a compact for comfort right? Just ride it and enjoy it. I suppose if you wanted to spend oodles of cash on making your bike look good you could get a lugged stem. I think they look great but the 200$ price tag doesn't appeal to me.
