Binxsy

So what is up with this, Most of my bikes are all lugged and very tall. They all have very long head tubes and just look very tall.

Anyway I have always wondered why newer bikes look so compact and small. Short head tubes lower to the ground and well I think most of them are ugly and rather boring looking.
Seems like most of the newer bikes choose higher seat posts and elevated long stems.

Why is this? Is it a cost thing? Or has all the class gone out of everything? I really have no experience with newer bikes, I look at them occasionally when I am in a shop but for 800 bucks for bike with low end Shimano components seems well ridiculous. My friend got a last season trek for 800ish it had the step below 105 components on it?! I dont get it, I built a ultegra level bike that winter for about 500 and I didnt skimp on component quality for the most part.

Rant I guess for the night...or something...

On a side not I was going to include some pictures and if you type in sekai 2500 into google images you get a bunch of weird anime with it.

Captain Blight

MFR's are marketing smaller bikes, I think primarily as a weight-saving ploy. Less metal goes into a smaller bike so naturally, all else equal, it'll weigh less.

randyjawa 

Though I cannot qualify this statement, I believe that guys in the old days preferred big bikes. The theory was that a big bike goes faster than a smaller one, all things being equal. Horse hooey, of course, but that might explain ALL of the big frame set bikes I see.

Also, modern technology has made it possible to build differently. A wheel is still a wheel but everything else has pretty much changed over the years. Bike frame sets are no different, in my opinion.

As for looks, some of the new bikes make me drool! Of course, quite a few old ones do also.

big chainring 

I think its just a trend. See how small a bike you can fit on and have lots of seat post showing. I think the other trend is to see how much you can spend on a bike, especially wheels. $1000 and up for a pair of wheels, absurd. And I swear the only colors bikes come in these days are black, white, and red.

Bikedued

Most of the new component groups that are "high end" don't work much better than my 80's stuff, but the prices have skyrocketed. Sram Red is just annoying, to work on, and to shift. One thing though, a 58cm late model Specialized frame feels huge compared to my old 60cm steel bikes? I'm not even sure how they measure bikes anymore, since a 58cm frame has the seat tube length of an old 56cm steel frame,,,,BD

My coworkers tend to call all my old bikes "square geometry". They seem to think all of them have the same length top and seat tubes, which is rarely the case at all?

newenglandbike

It boils down to the bottom line: less sizes available to cover the most potential consumers. Cheaper to stamp them out in bulk, less tooling requirements. The average american is something like 5' 9" tall. Make a few sizes to fit folks near the peak of that stature bell-curve, and market it as 'normal' for a guy 5'11 or taller to have a s***load of seatpost showing. Not to mention the fact that most racers today prefer smaller bikes since they seem to ride on the hoods (where their shifters are) more often than not, and as with NASCAR, what these ostensibly competing billboards do, the average american marketing target wants to do.

Rocket-Sauce 

Blue white black is the new red black and white. See Team Sky, Leopard Trek, Garmin Cervelo....

Italuminium

new bikes often have very long top tubes compared to seat tubes. This leads to a smaller frame and definately and optically smaller frame because most people judge the size of a bike automatically by eyeballing the seattube. Besides, they are often compact further enhancing this effect. This is why my principia SX looks a lot smaller than my ALAN, even though its (virtual) tt and seattube are bigger. Another difference is that until colnago broke the trend in de late 70's al frames were built with the same angle on the ht and st.

Kobe 

One of the main reasons I have stuck with classic bikes. I ride frames at least 65cm, most modern frames only go up to 61cm. They just feel tiny to me even though you can make the geometry close with longer stems and seat posts. After adjustments I don't think there is any weight savings at all.

auchencrow

Traditional seatpost 7-1/2"
Modern seatpost = 14"

Difference = 6-1/2" (Tells a lot.)

Italuminium

unless you're tiny

mkeller234

Yeah, I agree. If money was not an issue I would want to try a modern bike. I'm just as curious about some of the new stuff because it's very unfamiliar to me.

RobbieTunes

Modern bikes are nice.

I've sold my Kestrel and taken the Y-Foil back to the shop for display.
Now I'm stuck with 6 steel bikes and a 1986 aluminum. Drat.

Simply put, I know my place.

frantik

newer bikes all tend to have sloping top tubes which make the seat tube shorter and the top tube longer than if it were traditional horizontal top tube bike

it probably does have mostly to do with economics.. why manufacture a frame that only very tall people can ride when you can manufacture frames more people can ride and then just offer long stems and seat posts for very tall people

bradtx

Binxsy, By coincidence I have two 23" frames from two eras with level top tubes within sight. It would be tough to tell they were the same size simply from a photograph.

As far as the sloping top tube bikes, well for the manufacturer it possibly serves two points, one is there is only five or six broad range sizes rather than the traditional 2 cm steps and it reduces, for marketing, frame weight (which is negated, or nearly so with a taller seat post).

1980 RRA


1995 Cannondale T700


Brad

RobbieTunes

Funny.
I founded a biathlon 25 years ago with two cohorts. Run 5k, Bike 15m, and then a free Mexican meal.

Two weeks ago, the 25th annual was held. 2nd place overall was a guy on a steel Specialized.
He lurked here and asked some advice months and months ago, finished his bike and has been riding since.

The event has become sort of a personal spring coming out party for a local triathlon group.
The fee is now up to $50, and it's highly populated by $3000-$6000 bikes and folks wearing $400 in tri gear.

Kind of cool to have a $250 steel bike way up there.

Alan Edwards

I think there is French fit ( largest bike you can ride ), standard fit ( 1" under standover hight ). Lastly racing fit, the smallest frame you can fit. Styles change and certain people gravitate toward newer bikes. Look at the sloping top tube design, do you thik it's gaining ground or fading away. Nascar style flashyness is here to stay, manufactures like to get there name out and lots of people like to show off there bike.

RFC

I don't think it is a trend or style.

Reasons for sloping TT / compact geometry:

Cost -- fewer sizes
Weight
Stiffness

Don't expect the design to change towards C&V triangles, expect in response to "retro" styles.

canyoneagle

I used this idea for fit from '80 until the mid 90's, when I raced on a regular basis - I liked the tighter geometry of the smaller frames, and was able to run with my preferred saddle to handlebar drop of 7+ inches. It worked for me.

That is changing now, as my needs have shifted. I still tend to ride somewhat aggressively, and despite my attempts to slow down and take it easy on a more upright bike, I just can't seem to ride that way. However, I have changed my position to more of a handlebar = saddle or only slightly lower positioning, and I quite like it.
As a tall person (6'2), I generally dislike the sloping toptube bikes due to the mile of seatpost that results from even the largest of standard frames.

It does seem that the bike shops these days are catering to the QQ factor of the flashy race bikes and exotic materials. I really have not seen any CF bikes that tickle my fancy. The aesthetics just fall flat for me.

I think the only way to get a more traditional fit is to go with one of the few off-the-shelf frames with traditional geometry (VO, Soma, etc) or something like a Rivendell or a custom bike. Well, of course, there is ALWAYS the option of getting an older bike with he correct dimensions

atmdad

From the Giant Website

"THERE ARE THREE QUALITIES OF COMPACT ROAD DESIGN THAT EVERY RIDER CAN APPRECIATE:

1. By effectively sloping the toptube downward toward the seatstays, Giant is able to reduce the overall size of the front and rear frame triangles, resulting in the now-distinctive compact layout. Functionally, the compact configuration reduces weight and increases lateral rigidity. As a result, the frame accelerates faster thanks to less energy loss through unwanted flex.

2. Stiffer is more efficient, but it doesn't always offer the most comfortable ride. To address this, Giant engineers are careful to incorporate just the right amount of vertical compliance (a good thing) into each Compact Road Design for increased forgiveness and control.

3. A full range of sizes (up to seven in some series) ensures that riders of every size can find their ideal fit."

I have several bikes in my stable but for comparison sake I have the 2010 Giant Defy Advanced full CF and an '82 Miyata 610. Both are very nice rides and I have no problem putting 60-70 miles on them during a ride with little to no discomfort. The Giant is obviously lighter and noticeably stiffer. I don't mind the look, granted i'm the target 5'-9" rider so there is no excessive seat post or stem showing, maybe the occasional butt crack .

It's fine if you just don't like the looks of the compact frame design or they exceed your budget but from the ride perspective they are pretty sweet IMHO.

steppinthefunk 

I think the problem is that so many modern fitters insist on the "competitive" fit which puts you on a smaller bike with a higher seatpost.
But since not everyone is built or flexible enough to be in that extreme haunched position people end up with a bunch of risers under the stem and a
positive rise in stem angle.

At least some fitters now-a-days aren't just basing their fit on measurements but they are actually taking into consideration range of body motion and flexibility.

rat fink

If there is one fad serious fad in today's bikes, it's the graphics. The billboard thing comes and goes and some brands push it more than others, but there are a lot models that are doing ghost decals lately. That, and the bright colors thing might be new trend soon. I guarantee you, that if old bikes had as much usable surface area as current ones, most manufacturers would have been doing it sooner.

As to the geometry and aesthetics of new designs, that's here to stay. Back in the day, a lot riders didn't change anything on their bikes to get them to fit. If a rider unusual body geometry, he would ride an ill fitting bike and adapt his riding style to deal with it, (which I think, is why many pros developed such unusual riding styles). The idea of a fistful of seat post is, without a doubt, one of the silliest notions since sizing your bike by standing over it. Think about it: Two riders, one taller than the other, but each needing the same reach. The taller rider has a 34" inseam; the smaller, a 32" inseam. So, the the taller rider need a saddle height of 79cm with a 175mm crank. The smaller rider has a saddle height of 75cm with a 170mm crank. They would be on different sizes say, 60cm for the larger and 55cm for the smaller, right? Fistful of seat post says, "yes". But what if the taller rider had a significantly longer wingspan? To get the same same torso angle, he would need a larger saddle to bar drop, wouldn't he? What if the taller rider felt most comfortable on a model of saddle that had a stack height of 3.5cm as opposed to a saddle of with a stack height of 9cm. Well, he'd have 5.5cm more seat post showing.

canyoneagle

+10000
I see this all the time, and in my view, few things in the cycling world are goofier than a CF race bike with a riser stem.

rat fink

To answer the questions regarding the idea of changing the seat post and stem rather than frame size, it's simple: It's better. Going back to the idea that most riders used to adapt rather than change the bike's fit, there is a lot more known now about ergonomics, physiology, and biomechanical efficiency. New bike fit theory benefits from this.

Before I go on, know that it's still imperfect. The tools are as good as they ever have been, but there are still many an uneducated/unskilled craftsmen (bike fitter). The problem with the process, is mostly that it's the rider who knows/is capable of knowing what is best for his body, but most riders do not understand how to interpret that data since bike fit is often counterintuitive. But that's a discussion for another time.

Anyway, imagine if you will, you, suspended in space, with you connected to all the contact points on the bike just as if you were riding it. Now picture you pedaling along being able to manipulate the positions of all the individual contact points with you mind until the reached the position that gives you optimal compromise of comfort and efficiency. Now, you can ride your bike in that way. Well, that is what modern bike fit theory tries (ideally) to do. Bike frames have become more versatile, not less. If you select a frame that measures within a functional range for you, you have a choice of having a saddle height range of about 38cm in given frame with seat posts that are as long as 410mm and you have a choice in seat post offset anywhere from 0 to 3.5cm offset, stems typically range between 90-130mm with angles ranging from -17 to +17 degrees. Drop handlebars are available with a reach anywhere from 70mm to 120mm, and drop 130mm to 150mm. Add to that, the shapes and styles of bar, hoods, crankarms, pedals, shoes. This means simply one thing: more types of riders, and riding styles are supported by modern tech than back in the old days.

KonAaron Snake 

As someone who used 80s parts group...no...they don't work anywhere near as well as a Campy Ergo group. Shimano indexing was primitive, annoying to work on, error prone and in constant need of adjustment. Synchros was worse. Modern Ergo is perfect...every shift. You might like them more for nostalgia, you might think they looked better...but they certainly didn't work as well.

What's your definition of works better? If it's cheaper and more durable, maybe. If it's smoother shifting, convenient shifting, faster shifting, more accurate shifting, better ranges of shifting...than no...definitely not.