Toying with the idea of a new road bike…

I’m very comfortable on my old (~2003) giant OCR 58.5cm frame so I thought I’d try and work out the stack and reach. Rough figures for the frame are a stack of around 600 mm and a reach of around 430 mm.

It has a 200mm head tube and a virtual top tube of around 610mm. From memory it has a 110mm stem…

When I compare this to modern bikes it seems quite different. brands like Cannondale, Canyon and Specialized With a stack of around 600mm end up with a reach of only 400mm.

Have road bike designs changed or have I stuffed up my measurements? I like being stretched out, and if the reach is 30mm less, I’m not sure I want to run a 140mm stem…

Any help appreciated

PS I’m 190cm tall, rough inseam of 89cm if that makes any odds!

Bump for the insomniacs…

Anyone?

Looks like you are correct. Reach tops out round 40cm on XL frames

I have collected loads of gravel bike geometries and 400mm seems about standard with stack between say 610mm and 640m.

I googled a few proper race bikes. Stack about 600mm and reach about 400mm

It seems unlikely actual stretch has changed so may be you stuffed up the measurements, it can’t be easy to do.

But at the end of the day you just need to get to a bike shop and ride a modern bike….

a reach of around 430 mm.

Sounds long, for any 58-60cm road bike. No reason why it shouldn’t be but it’s not mainstream sort of fit.
Edit – unless that’s a 58.5 C-T on a sloping frame, so it’s like a 64cm or more C-T trad level TT frame. Probably is for a 2003 Giant?

Probably not much of a help, but I reckon you might better off just trying a few bikes for size, and maybe visit Giant dealer and ask for a test ride on the current OCR replacement?
I’ve had a few frames where the measurements were slightly off from the official charts, hence why I’d rather swing my leg over the toptube and do a quick spin.

Sorry to be a pain but stack and reach are measurements of mountain bikes. The idea being that traditional measurement methods were becoming less relevant to MTB as we were riding more out of the saddle these days than back in the day. So a couple of US manuf. came up with stack and reach as a way to measure out of saddle size.

For a road bike you need to be more aware of the various traditional lengths when sizing. Bernard Hinault was a pioneer of bike measurement (!) and this should be of great help;

http://www.strawberrybicycle.com/Hinault-Genzling.php

Not necessarily just for mtb. My recent Retul fit measurements sheet included stack and reach along with all the other data.

stack is seated, reach is standing, sorry, use it if you wish but there are more concise methods for road bikes

http://www.vitalmtb.com/features/Modern-Mountain-Bike-Geometry-Defined-Transition-Explains-Effective-Top-Tube-Versus-Reach,841

Sorry to be a pain but stack and reach are measurements of mountain bikes.

It’s a measurement of any bike and was popularised first by a road brand. MTBs esp hardtails vary in reach as suspension moves, road bikes don’t, so it’s a useful and fixed measurement for a rigid bike as well as a good guide for MTBs.

It’s a measurement of any bike and was popularised first by a road brand. MTBs esp hardtails vary in reach as suspension moves, road bikes don’t, so it’s a useful and fixed measurement for a rigid bike as well as a good guide for MTBs.

Missed that one, Transition seem to have created it, never mind, which road brand? when? In fact, you are talking total bollocks

No, I’m not. Some MTB brands started using it 2008 or 2009 but I remember seeing Cervelo fit info which included reach and stack before that. It was in use a few years before, just not as a mainstream thing that many brands used.

That aside, explain in detail this statement “MTBs esp hardtails vary in reach as suspension moves, road bikes don’t,”

Because R+S are the horizontal and vertical from the BB and a hardtail pivots around the rear axle as the fork compresses. FS bikes also vary but can sag equally.

As I thought, load of bollocks. Must apologise to OP, hope you enjoy your new bike

Nothing like a bit of observer bias… 😉

The static reach on a hardtail needs to be at least a size shorter for it to fit like a full-sus.

Sorry to be a pain but stack and reach are measurements of mountain bikes.

Nope

stack is seated, reach is standing, sorry,

According to this one website you picked, yes.
But it isn’t either and s&r are very useful when comparing frames. Also, most road bikes have far less slack seat tubes than mtbs, making reach more useful again.

I don’t know what else to say : )

Back to the OP, your stack and reach measurements both look a bit too big to me. The reach especially looks long. I ride a 58 and the reaches on my 2 road bikes are 396 and 384mm.

My 58 PX RT58 carbon has, according to the Retul measurements a frame (measured to centre of top of head tube) stack of 602mm, reach of 387mm. The Stack & reach to the centre of the handlebars is also given (100mm stem); stack of 675mm & reach of 470mm.

Back to OP, pretty sure this is about compact frames and their C-T seat tube measurements vs trad sizing. So you’re comparing the reach of a very large frame to the reach of a trad 58 (ie not so big) which may be closer to 390 to 400mm on average.
The C-T seat tube dimension on a compact frame can be misleading when compared to trad road sizing. Hence why+where R+S becomes useful.

jameso – Member

I don’t know what else to say : )

you know when Obama dropped the mic’?

Here’s a list of some of the biggest bikes on the market – stack and reach being the factors defining ‘big’.
I’m 6’7″ with an arm-span of an orangutan and I’ve just got a 66cm Soma ES and it’s a fantastic fit for me – I’d like a tiny bit more stack but the reach is great.
Just to give you an idea of the top end of sizing and what reach might work.

https://www.cyclingabout.com/list-of-xxl-xxxl-bikes-for-tall-cyclists-62-63-64cm/

I don’t know what else to say : )

Maybe you should just stick to designing bikes for a living! 😉

I don’t know what else to say : )

well your sensible reasoned explanations fell on deaf ears, so might I suggest simply claiming “you’re all talking bollocks and I’m right!”, it seems to work well enough for some people…

Some MTB brands started using it 2008 or 2009 but I remember seeing Cervelo fit info which included reach and stack before that.

I’m pretty sure it started doing the rounds in the very early 00’s in some Tri circles too, and I remember an article maybe Slow Twitch going on about it. Even if not being published by manufacturers it was certainly being used in fitting around then and probably for many years before.

OP, I think, as others have said you might be falling foul of comparing sizes that although listed as equal, are in fact not due to different manufacturers having different ideas about how to publish their sizes. You also might be best off getting down to a shop or two (take your tape measure as well!) and trying some things out, as much as I love to lose an evening in geo charts it’s not always going to get you the info you need, especially given how frequent errors in those charts can be 🙁

Ah ha! Found it in the Internet Archive, article dated 2003, and referring to an article ‘earlier in the decade’ so back when Transition was but a glimmer in an eye and years before they and Turner pushed it as a new stadard.

Choosing_a_Tri_Bike_via_Stack_and_Reach/Stack_Reach_Primer_Chapter_One_95.html

I knew my memory wasn’t failing me, I remember a couple of the local triathletes going on about it in the shop when they came in looking for ways to buy more speed and complaining that traditional sizing methods didn’t work for Tri bikes.

Most brands like to keep the wheelbase short on race bikes hence the reach doesn’t change much, just the seat angle gets slacker and the head angle steeper. Longer stems are good if you’ve got long limbs, otherwise you’ll end up with not much weight on the front.

Well buckster is a cheery chap

“There is non so blind as those who cannot see”

To my mind these numbers are useful as they cover what can’t changed about a frame (well you could change the fork length but that isn’t really a variable). Another way of saying the same thing is that they make comparison easier between frames

I’m pretty sure it started doing the rounds in the very early 00’s in some Tri circles too

Yeah, I didn’t want to mention that something cool MTB brands were getting credit for actually came from triathlon : ) Those crazy seat angles they have started something quite useful.

TooTall – thanks for your list – I’ll have a look but never felt 6’3″ was that tall (even if I am grateful for 29ers so I don’t look like I’ve nicked a childs bike).

Without giving Buckster too much credit, the old Hinault style set ups tended to out me on around a 60c, road frame

ampthill – I’m looking at gravel/CX style frames, and most seem to only go to XL hence I was stuck with those stack and reach measurements.

Did you buy a bike or are you stuck looking like me? What did you go for?

Thanks for all the useful (and not so useful) answers.

Having dabbled in tri, I was pretty sure that the people at Slowtwit kinda claimed the honours behind stack and reach, and it’s promoted massively in TT/tri bike sizing… I also realise that it is just a useful way of comparing frames, not everything I need to know.

The annoying thing is that the bike I quite fancy is a Kinesis which doesn’t seem to be easy to throw a leg over in shop (Kinesis have no 60cm in their demo fleet at all apparently), and my LBS is rather limited on brands… I guess the next thing is to see who on here will lend me a 60cm Pro6 and a 58&61cm Caadx to compare.

Had never really measured the Giant before – reckon it’s at least a 60cm seat tube if measuring to an imaginary horizontal top tube. Why did they label them as 58.5cm?!

I am looking mainly at all purpose/CX/Gravel bikes and most seem to top out at 60cm frames… I guess it’s time to call all the not local shops to see who has a 60cm+ bike I can run a tape measure over/test ride. I also realise that a CX/gravel bike prob wont be as stretched as a full on road bike.

Just remembered I hired a bike on holiday last year, a 60cm Emonda and that seemed a decent fit. Off to google the geo now…

ampthill – I’m looking at gravel/CX style frames, and most seem to only go to XL hence I was stuck with those stack and reach measurements.

Did you buy a bike or are you stuck looking like me? What did you go for?

Not yet

I don’t think fit will be a problem. I road an Pinnacle Arkose and it was about right for me with a stem flip. I think its a little lower than some at 616mm stack. But it suggests I should be able to make anything 616 mm upwards work. The only reason I’ve not bought one is that work only does Halfords cycle to work scheme.

Current favourite is the Ridgeback Ramble in part as I think it looks nice

The only XXL bike I’ve seen is the huge GT grade. But that is just more stack, not more reach

Seat tube 635mm, stack 650mm but stack 398mm

Is the issue with reach as you lengthen the head tube you move the bars up but also back? So even with a longer top tube you gain less reach than you expected.

Davids comment might be significant as well

Most brands like to keep the wheelbase short on race bikes hence the reach doesn’t change much, just the seat angle gets slacker and the head angle steeper. Longer stems are good if you’ve got long limbs, otherwise you’ll end up with not much weight on the front.

I”m 6’3″ and my caadx is a 58cm, and is ‘reachier’ than my cube 62cm road bike. Like you, I’ve always considered myself a roadie 60cm, just shows you need to try if you can.

bugger…

Sh!t day at work, cycled home thinking “Sod it, I’ll buy the 60cm Pro6 frame I saw discounted online, almost rude not to, bet it’ll fit”.

Go online to see website has put the red frame back up to the same price as the blue frame so no longer a bargain 🙁

Back to trying to find bikes to test ride…

The cannondale will probably be too small. The 61cm may fit but I reckon you’d need a very long stem which might not be ideal for what it’s intended for.