Jas0n
journeyman
Reged: 01/26/04
Posts: 62
Loc: Westchester, New York
|
Re: Calfee Compact Frame Options
07/11/04 02:01 AM (172.172.193.90)
|
|
|
the issue of compact frames is an interesting one. it is historically accurate to suggest that compact frames were indeed created by giant so as to be able to produce bikes in a narrower array of sizes. there are, however, practical benefits which include comfort and to an extent, stiffness. the idea behind a compact is that for any given saddle height, more seatpost is exposed in a compact frame with a shorter seat tube than in a traiditional frame. this allows more flex of the seatpost, and therefore, more comfort. this WAS particularily the case for Al frames, and is now a lesser concern with compact carbon frames. the stiffness arg. is as follows: shorter tubes (seat tube, for example) can resist force better than longer tubes (given leverage) and the frame will therefore be stiffer. to me, however, this arg. seems flawed because of two things. the leverage issue works the opposite way for the seatpost. if a shorter tube is harder to flex and a longer one is easier, then instead of the seat tube (as in a traditional frame) causing flex, in a compact frame the seatpost will now flex. any flex is a loss of effieciency; flex = energy. therein lies my second objection: i dont necessarily believe that it is the seat tube which causes flex as much as it is the bb area. engineers, please chime in here. that said, i think compact geo. is great for AL and ti bikes, but carbon, particularily custom carbon, doesn't require it (except, perhaps, for people requiring extra standover, etc ...). as for why calfee doesn't offer it, i too belive it has to do with the lugs. i also believe it has to do with calfee's design philosophy. but then again, who knows. ill ask dean the next time i speak to him.
--------------------
eat to live, live to ride
if it ain't rainin, it ain't trainin
|
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Flat
Edit
Reply
Quote
