When did stack & reach become a thing?

[e-RICHIE]

Originally Posted by fourflys

So I know this might be a controversial question, but...

How do you know what is the right drop? As a 47 y/o guy with a bit of gut currently, where do I need/want to be? I know I don't want/need the drop that most elite riders have, but maybe I need/want some? I think this is relative to the conversation as I assume others may have a similar question and it does factor into bike fit as we're discussing...

I guess the question may come to this: Do you fit the bike to you (higher bars, etc) or you to the bike (just deal with the drop, try to "ride into it")?

It’s not controversial at all.

How do you know? You ride. You ride lots. You ride lots regularly.

Your body tells you what’s right (and works.) Not a fitter. Not your own version of you trying to assimilate a position similar to Bartali’s. You, riding, know what’s best for you. That’s the only driver.

The only disconnect I see as a tradesman is that many seek to consume (buy) a bicycle designed for folks who do what they can’t. And that is, ride in a certain position that’s depicted daily on the internet. Unless you’re the folks in the race stories, there’s a good chance getting a bicycle like theirs is a bad idea.

[9tubes]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

Stack and reach may be a slight oversimplification, but to say it’s not useful and is totally marketing is way off base.

I didn't say that. I agreed with the previous poster that "the industry has been [driving] toward simplification and rough estimates rather than greater precision."

The typical bike shop now has four measurements to use: seat post, top tube, stack and reach. If one of the four works to sell a particular bike, then the clever salesperson merely omits to mention the other three.

The rest of us know that stack and reach are very useful if used properly.

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

This. The industry saves money (design, frame molds, inventory costs) by having fewer sizes. S&R is another way of confusing the general consumer so that -- voila! -- the salesperson can announce that this particular bike fits. Judging from the bar/stem/spacer combos we see on charity rides I'd say that most riders have no idea what a properly set up bike looks like, and maybe the salespeople didn't either.

I don't see how you can use stack and reach to show a bike that shouldn't fit, fits. Certainly not more than the alternatives of small/medium/large or 52/54/56/58.

People definitely get put on bikes that don't fit, I don't disagree.

But stack and reach has taken ambiguity out of the fit equation, not added to it. I'm not saying that ambiguity doesn't exist, but surely it's a better measure than referencing a top tube length as bike size.

I mean, two similar size bikes with neither having 'outlier' seat tube angles, stack and reach does an excellent job of allowing comparison. Edge cases exist, but I feel like contrarian types just take glee in throwing the baby out with the bath water on this sort of stuff.

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by e-RICHIE

It’s not controversial at all.

How do you know? You ride. You ride lots. You ride lots regularly.

Your body tells you what’s right (and works.) Not a fitter. Not your own version of you trying to assimilate a position similar to Bartali’s. You, riding, know what’s best for you. That’s the only driver.

The only disconnect I see as a tradesman is that many seek to consume (buy) a bicycle designed for folks who do what they can’t. And that is, ride in a certain position that’s depicted daily on the internet. Unless you’re the folks in the race stories, there’s a good chance getting a bicycle like theirs is a bad idea.

Thanks Richard! I always appreciate your take on this kind of stuff and you certainly have the experience... I rely on the builders/desingers to know what angles need to go where, tube length, etc... I just want to get on my bike and ride!

And I'm certainly am not trying to emulate anyone that gets paid to ride a bike!

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

I didn't say that. I agreed with the previous poster that "the industry has been [driving] toward simplification and rough estimates rather than greater precision."

The typical bike shop now has four measurements to use: seat post, top tube, stack and reach. If one of the four works to sell a particular bike, then the clever salesperson merely omits to mention the other three.

The rest of us know that stack and reach are very useful if used properly.

You described it as another way for a salesperson to confuse the customer. I’m not as cynical about bike shop employees, I suppose.

[buddybikes]

My little cryptic comment -- plan for the future. Wish I had bit more with my prized Firefly drop not happening well as I get old.

[9tubes]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

You described it as another way for a salesperson to confuse the customer. I’m not as cynical about bike shop employees, I suppose.

Ha! I've spent years reading the claims about aero gains...

Some mfg websites would make PT Barnum blush.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Ha! I've spent years reading the claims about aero gains...

Some mfg websites would make PT Barnum blush.

Yes, but that’s a manufacturer claim. I doubt that rank-and-file shop floor employees are using stack and reach to intentionally mislead customers.

[reuben]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Ha! I've spent years reading the claims about aero gains...

And you'll never get that time back.

[El Chaba]

Originally Posted by 9tubes

Ha! I've spent years reading the claims about aero gains...

Some mfg websites would make PT Barnum blush.

I used to keep a list of aero gains promised by various products. When I quit the gains totaled to a figure that would have me finishing a 40 km time trial ten minutes before my start time had I only purchased and used all of the products.

[ripvanrando]

Originally Posted by El Chaba

I used to keep a list of aero gains promised by various products. When I quit the gains totaled to a figure that would have me finishing a 40 km time trial ten minutes before my start time had I only purchased and used all of the products.

The gains are not additive. (Unless you are joking)

[fourflys]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

Yes, but that’s a manufacturer claim. I doubt that rank-and-file shop floor employees are using stack and reach to intentionally mislead customers.

exactly... when I worked in a shop part time, I never intentionally sold a customer a bike they either 1. didn't fit on or 2. didn't need (if it was a new rider, I wasn't trying to sell them a $5K bike)...

not sure who so many folks think shops are trying to screw them... are there those folks out there? I'm sure, but I think most shop employees have a genuine love of bikes and riding and just want the customer to be happy.

[retrofit]

Originally Posted by reuben

And you'll never get that time back.

[Mark McM]

I don't understand the objections to Stack and Reach. It's just a different way to measure the same thing. If you take a given frame, and measure its size by Stack and Reach, or by Seat Tube and Top Tube, its the same size, just using different dimensions.

In a way, Stack and Reach vs. Seat Tube and Top Tube is like Metric units vs English Units.. If you have a piece of string that measures 1' 3" or 371 mm, it is the same length. The difference here is that metric units are easier to work with, because everything is decimal based. With English units, you have to use different conversions, say from inches to feet or feet to miles. So too, the Stack and Reach system requires fewer conversions. Since bike fitting nearly always starts the origin of the Bottom Bracket, the Stack and Reach system measures the position of the top of the head tube directly from the bottom tube, and not through the circuitous route up and back along the seat tube (and possibly to virtual location beyond he top of the seat tube for sloping frames), and then forward again to the head tube.

I'm used to dealing with both English and Metric measurements, and can go back and forth between them (although working with the Metric system is easier and has lots of advantages). Similarly, I can deal with Stack and Reach and with Seat Tube and Top Tube, although Stack and Reach is easier and has lots of advantages). Which makes me wonder whether those who think Stack and Reach are fundamentally different measurements really understand how to measure a frame at all.

[ripvanrando]

Stack and Reach OR Seat Tube and Top are necessary but insufficient without some angles, STA specifically.

For many, many decades seat tube angle varied. Shorter riders had steeper STA and taller riders had less steep STA. Then, suddenly 73 degrees STA became very common on carbon frames molded in two pieces. I wonder how many custom steel framemakers keep the STA at 73 degrees for all riders? I bet very few. I know for me at nearly 6'4', there is no way I can get a proper position with 73 degrees unless one considers KOP and 200 mm cranks the way to go.