On Mar 27, 2:47 pm, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote: > I'll resoundly disagree. If well designed, I find nothing wrong with > a compact frame. (Witness the Sam Hillborne).
Oh boy, now don't go calling the SamH compact. It's expanded! ;>) from RR41: The Sam frame is “expanded,” with a sloping top tube that gives it the look of a compact frame. But in a compact frame, the head tube is the normal length for the frame size, and it slopes down to a shortened seat tube. You get a shorter seat tube and more standover clearance—big deal, who needs it? You save an ounce or two in frame weight, but make it up with a longer seat post. Now, the expanded frame is another deal altogether. The seat tube length is true to the frame size, and the top tube slopes up 6-degrees toward to the head tube. The head tube grows (expands) to intercept it, and the result is a higher starting point for your stem & bar—so itʼs a cinch to get the bar high enough (as opposed to “impossible” on most bikes). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
