If a rider should be on a 56 cm frame, but instead is riding about a 53, are there any down sides provided the seat height is set properly and the handlebar stem is the correct length for an adequate reach?
Are there any advantages, or disadvantages to compact frames?
Thanks for your thoughts on this!

You'll get so many varied responses to this, so here's mine. I am 5'9" and I ride a compact frame with a 53cm top tube, since standover is not an issue with the sloping top tube. It comes down to this simply: what is comfortable for you and your riding style? I prefer a small bike cause of having a shorter torso and arms with the added negative of a slighty bad right shoulder. I can change the stem out if need be to go longer, but I can not change a toptube length if my bike was too long in the TT. Also for climbing a smaller bike is easier to throw around (and it weighs just a little less if you are a weight weenie). For me a smaller bike is just more comfortable. At 5'9" I should more than likely be on a standard 54 c-c frame, but I always go by top tube of 53.

I have found I like a small (short top tube) bike myself--my current bike is probably 2-3 cm smaller than one might think I'd ride.

It's a fit thing, though--nothing to do with some perceived advantage of stiffness or weight.

The problem I have with using a small bike is that there's a hellacious drop to the bars. I can correct somewhat with stems and spacers, but it effects handling--road feel has completely gone away, and the front is a bit vague in general. It also limits the length of rides I can take comfortably, since there's a lot of weight on my hands and my lower back also gets tired.

So I think the biggest disadvantage is the proportionally larger drop to the bars.

Needless to say, I'm taking steps to remedy the situation.

Assuming the fit's right, it should work. FWIW, though, I rode 62cm frames for years because that's what local bike shops and the conventional wisdom said I needed. When I bought my Atlantis, Rivendell's size guide put me on a 65cm (I'm 6'4"). They didn't make that size then (they do now), so I ordered a 64, and I was instantly more comfortable than I've ever been on a bike. Since then I've built a singlespeed out of a 25-inch (63.5cm) thrift-shop Trek frame, and even that fits me better than any of my semi-expensive 62s.

There biggest difference is in the head tube length. If you're a beginner and/or lacking fitness, you may not be able to tolerate a typical 6-10cm drop from the saddle to the handle bars. If the head tube is too short, you mayl need too manyy spacers and/or a high rise stem to get the bars up to the height you need.

Another difference will be the need for a 10-20cm longer sterm. Nothing wrong with that, unless a 130mm is still too short. You can get a 140mm, but not in all brands and models.

The smaller frame will have more weight on the front, but that's generaly a good thing.

You don't see pros riders on a frame that's too big.

The typical LBS pushes new riders toward large frames with short stems, mainly due to the taller head tube.

Hi There!

I also ride a bike that's 2cm (tt) shorter than what I should be riding. However, my54 has 110mm stem length just like my other 56cm bikes. This 54 is my city bike. I hop on it when I mangle with city traffic or do short rides to the bike path. Due to the smaller frame, I find it to be more responsive and maneuverable in urban terrains.


Ride Safely,

Joe

You don't see pros riders on a frame that's too big.

The typical LBS pushes new riders toward large frames with short stems, mainly due to the taller head tube

I prefer a smaller frame and I enjoy riding in a more cramped riding posture. Your right you dont see pros riding frames on the larger side. When I get the frequent 'expert' comment from a rider about my frame being too small, I mention Sean Kelly and his successful career on a much maligned ill fitting bike. Your also very correct, bike shops are always pushing riders to ride bigger frames. As much as I enjoyed my Rivendell I never agreed with Grant Petersens logic on sizing. I felt out of control on my Allrounder frame, but man it was gorgeous.

I too enjoy my new Impala frame. It's almost cyclocross style sized; 2 cm shorter than the top tube length. I have a 56.4 cm top tube with a 54.2 seat tube. The stem is a 120. The only thing hard to get used to is the extra amount of seat post sticking up and out of the frame. You can throw the bike around pretty good and it climbs better than my conventional lugged road bike due to the shorter seat stays. It is a little lighter than my lugged bike but that's not really important to me. It's a snappy little ride! I normally ride a 56 thru 57 top tube frame. In the old days everything was measured using the 2 inches below your crotch method. Frame styles and builder's interpretations of the perfect frame have changed dramatically. There is a cut off point to a frame being too small. For now enjoy your smaller frame and the only opinion that matters is yours.

isnt it advantageous to ride a smaller frame just because there is less weight to begin with? (I'm not taking fit into cosideration. as everyone knows, that takes precedence)

If......(yadda, yadda. yadda)...........
Are there any advantages, or disadvantages to compact frames?
Thanks for your thoughts on this!

I hope you aren't getting "compact frame" confused with a "too-small frame". A compact frame is one which has a sloping top tube and a seatpost that sticks out further. If you have a frame that is 3cm too small,that doesn't usually mean that it's a "compact".