Visual Geometry Comparison

Hey all, some friends and I have been working on a hobby project called 99 Spokes that makes it easy to compare bikes from different manufacturers in a single location. We just added a visual geometry comparison feature that we’re super excited about. It uses size and geometry information from the manufacturer to draw multiple bikes in a comparison view, making it easy to see the primary geometry differences at a glance.

Here’s an example comparison.

Would love to hear any feedback you may have.

Thanks!

I like it. Missing Bird as a manufacturer. Also would be nice to be able to enter a custom geometry in the comparison.

Edit: Shows the Pivot Firebird 29 as having 27.5 wheels

An excellent idea. Thanks for the effort.

Really neat idea! I did the same in AutoCAD for the last bike I bought, I’ll check your tool out tohave a look compare the results.

Pretty sure your mates have posted this before…

edit, or, at least someone beat you to it

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/geometry-geeks-we-made-a-thing/

That is fantastic! I love the visual aspect, it really helps to add some context to the numbers and spreadsheet. Good catalogue of bikes, but there are some brands and specific bikes missing. Would also be great to have regional pricing, i.e- UK price in £.

It’s a better site and step up from Geomtry Geeks.

Missing Bird as a manufacturer.

I’ve added Bird to our list of bikes we’d like to import.

Edit: Shows the Pivot Firebird 29 as having 27.5 wheels

Thanks for the heads up @mark90, we’ll get that data fixed up.

Very cool but it’s drawing a 67 head angle slacker than a 65 degree angle (Cube Stereo 140 vs Stanton Switchback)-

https://99spokes.com/compare?bikes=stanton-switchback-631-next-gen-standard-2018,cube-stereo-140-hpa-sl-27.5-2017

Great site!

Not wanting to be an a&$hat but doesn’t bikecad do the visual comparison and allow users to input their own measurements?

It might be because I’m using non-windows but the visual doesn’t match the numbers – the smaller standover number displays as being a taller bike.  Also if I change the size of one bike it changes the geometry numbers of the other bikes to the same size in each bike but doesn’t change the displayed size.  So I I start out comparing M to M and then switch one to L, the Geo numbers of the other bikes change to those for the size L but in the size box it says M.

How do you deal with the different manufacturers quoting sizes differently?  I recall a discussing about the Kona Unit seat tube length – owners measured their bikes and it turns out that certain model years quoted seat tube centre to top of top tube and others quoted centre to top of seat tube – and the top tube was 1-2.5″ below top of sent tube.  Makes a huge difference to get.

Very cool but it’s drawing a 67 head angle slacker than a 65 degree angle (Cube Stereo 140 vs Stanton Switchback)-

https://99spokes.com/compare?bikes=stanton-switchback-631-next-gen-standard-2018,cube-stereo-140-hpa-sl-27.5-2017

@kayla1, I think what you’re seeing here is the Cube has more fork rake than the Stanton. I can see how this is confusing, we’ll add the computed fork rake value to the table. Thanks for the feedback!

doesn’t bikecad do the visual comparison and allow users to input their own measurements?

@cromolyolly, Looks like they do… We’re trying to build something a bit more accessible to the general bike consumer. We’re also working on adding custom measurements.

It might be because I’m using non-windows but the visual doesn’t match the numbers – the smaller standover number displays as being a taller bike.  Also if I change the size of one bike it changes the geometry numbers of the other bikes to the same size in each bike but doesn’t change the displayed size.  So I I start out comparing M to M and then switch one to L, the Geo numbers of the other bikes change to those for the size L but in the size box it says M.

We draw the bike frame using the published effective top tube length measurement. Manufacturers typically don’t provide enough data to render the actual top tube shape and position accurately, so at the moment we just visually attach it near the top of the seat tube. You’re right that we could use measurements like standover height to better represent the actual bike’s physical construction.

How do you deal with the different manufacturers quoting sizes differently?  I recall a discussing about the Kona Unit seat tube length – owners measured their bikes and it turns out that certain model years quoted seat tube centre to top of top tube and others quoted centre to top of seat tube – and the top tube was 1-2.5″ below top of sent tube.  Makes a huge difference to get.

We take the manufacturer data as is. We’re adding support for editing the values in the table so you can work around any data issues. We also have a “send feedback” link on each bike page where users can report bad data.

Thanks for the feedback!

I hope I didn’t come off as overly critical. I like the user friendly aspect and quick look up, not requiring me to do any CAD work.

If you could take a look at this:

https://99spokes.com/compare?bikes=kona-unit-2017,genesis-longitude-2018

There is something strange happening E.g. the standover numbers of the chart don’t match the visual display – the shorter bike looks taller.

Good luck with it!

@cromolyolly I expect that’s down to a lack of different frame designs in the drawings or it being a calculated number. Standover is probably not a good number to work with .

<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>One issue that might cause problems is BB height . You’ll really struggle to get a grip on that as the BB drop is often not quoted and BB height is a number based on no specific standard afaik, so it’s just dependent on what the designer decided would be the right wheel size for their maths. </span>