Old 10-21-22, 12:39 PM
  #8  
chaadster
Thread Killer
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 12,452

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3152 Post(s)
Liked 1,717 Times in 1,036 Posts
Originally Posted by stlutz
I mean that if you go the sites I linked above and enter in all of the frameset measurements from the manufacturer, they should yield stack & reach figures that match what the mfr. publishes in those same geo charts. (Note that there is always a little wiggle room due to factors like headset cups--I'm talking about being off by 2cm, not 2mm).

You do it for a Specialized, Cannondale etc. (i.e. companies with the resources to QA their websites), the raw data always results in the published stack/reach numbers. For smaller companies, I've found that they seem to be more prone to make errors when the data gets moved from their design drawings to their websites.
Ah, I was thinking that Stack required fork length, which is a measurement not usually included in geometry charts. I’m wrong about that? I mean, since Stack and Reach don’t account for Seattube Angle, how do you “reverse-engineer” fork length from the geo charts?
chaadster is offline