Standover measurement

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Standover measurement

Postby Mark1978 » 31 Mar 2013, 4:04pm

reohn2 wrote:I didn't think you'd have t/overlap.
The stem in the photos doesn't look like a 120mm to me :?


That was my first thought! Could be the proportions in the picture but it looks no longer or even shorter than the 90mm I took off my bike.

Is the 120mm written on the stem or measured?

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Standover measurement

Postby reohn2 » 31 Mar 2013, 6:35pm

Ayesha wrote:........ The 'quicky' method which seems to have worked for 100 years is the FWS being hidden.


Bunkum!
And it's bunkum because there are drop bars with differing reaches,people who like to ride different toptube/stem length combinations.People with all kinds of different arm/torso combination ratios.
There are also people who like to ride stretched out and people who like to ride with the h'bars closer whether those h'bars are drops(of varying reach) or straights of varying shapes widths and designs.
Even if your Lumbar Vertebae is at 45 degrees.
-----------------------------------------------------------

ron2old
Posts: 176
Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 11:46am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 31 Mar 2013, 9:08pm

531Colin - Love your maths. The bb drop on the Trek is 1cm higher at 8.0cm as opposed to 7.0cm on the Arkose. So what about the 52cm Trek? 530 effective top tube (+5), seat angle not a lot different 74.2 (-8) a difference of only (+4.2). But the seat tube is shorter at only 47.5cm but this is offset by a higher bottom bracket. All in all the 52cm is more or less what I have now but with a triple and much better frame material and doing away with those awful squeaky disc brakes. Also slightly tighter frame angles that could aid in climbing whilst not being too steep angles to be uncomfortable on all day rides. After all it is advertised as an all day endurance frame set. I'm still talking myself into this aren't I?

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13413
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 31 Mar 2013, 9:24pm

52 trek is no longer than current bike. I'm sure there will be a long bike out there somewhere.....

ron2old
Posts: 176
Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 11:46am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 31 Mar 2013, 11:44pm

O.K. Dream over! Carry on with the Arkose for now. I've already put 1200miles on the clock might as well do another 1200 I suppose. Something about it all is going to nag at me though. Can't quite fathom what it is that's wrong though. I will get to the bottom of it eventualy I know I will. Meantime I've learnt a lot again. Up until now I've been thinking that reach was from the nose of saddle to back of bars. I now know it's an imaginary line from centre of bottom bracket to centre of head set. No wonder those charts I kept looking at with reach measurements did'nt make sense to me. I'm learning all the time and with that learning will come an answer to the perfect bike fit and gearing etc etc. Right now I just want to go and ride a bike any bike!

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13413
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 1 Apr 2013, 7:40am

ron2old wrote:.............. I now know it's an imaginary line from centre of bottom bracket to centre of head set. ................


That's "frame reach" for Trek bikes.
Its a useful number, but not many manufacturers quote it, so you have to look at (effective) top tube and seat angle.
You need to ride as many bikes as you can. Clubmates bikes, shop testers....they all feel different.

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Standover measurement

Postby reohn2 » 1 Apr 2013, 8:53am

O.K. Dream over!

So what was the dream?
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
breakwellmz
Posts: 1982
Joined: 8 May 2012, 9:33pm

Re: Standover measurement

Postby breakwellmz » 1 Apr 2013, 4:22pm

reohn2 wrote:
Ayesha wrote:........ The 'quicky' method which seems to have worked for 100 years is the FWS being hidden.


Bunkum!
And it's bunkum because there are drop bars with differing reaches,people who like to ride different toptube/stem length combinations.People with all kinds of different arm/torso combination ratios.
There are also people who like to ride stretched out and people who like to ride with the h'bars closer whether those h'bars are drops(of varying reach) or straights of varying shapes widths and designs.
Even if your Lumbar Vertebae is at 45 degrees.


Is my stem too short?-

http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/steg-f.jpg

:lol:

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Standover measurement

Postby reohn2 » 1 Apr 2013, 5:51pm

breakwellmz wrote:
Is my stem too short?-

http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/steg-f.jpg

:lol:

No,yer FWS is too far forward :)
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 12508
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Standover measurement

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 1 Apr 2013, 7:17pm

Hi,
"breakwellmz wrote:
Is my stem too short?-
http://www.rogerco.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/anew/steg-f.jpg

Except the arms the rest is pretty spot on.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.

ron2old
Posts: 176
Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 11:46am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 2 Apr 2013, 2:28am

Mark 1978 the 120mm was as listed on EBay. No markings on stem itself and it came wrapped in tissue and brown paper. It was only £10.50 though secondhand and it does the job. I have now measured the stem centre to centre as instructed and it measures 110mm. Can't rely on E Bay listings then. Naughty but whatever the true size it's the right length for me at the moment.

ron2old
Posts: 176
Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 11:46am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 2 Apr 2013, 2:32am

Reohn2 the dream was to buy a bike that fitted better, had lower gears, did NOT have disc brakes and eas in every way better than the Arkose 3 I have at the moment. It will still happen!

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Standover measurement

Postby reohn2 » 2 Apr 2013, 8:12am

ron2old wrote:Reohn2 the dream was to buy a bike that fitted better, had lower gears, did NOT have disc brakes and eas in every way better than the Arkose 3 I have at the moment. It will still happen!

Have you got the bike fit anywhere near?
By all accounts the saddle is in the right place as you've achieved KOPS,which isn't the Holy Grail but seems to be right for most people,myself included.
You've no toe overlap up front.
Are the handlebars in the right place?
If not how could they be improved on?
I've three bikes with BB7 discs(160mm rotors on the solos,203mm on the tandem)I've no complaints at all,in fact they're best brakes I've had on any bike,especially in the wet,they do need to be set up right though.
what's the problem with your brakes?
-----------------------------------------------------------

ron2old
Posts: 176
Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 11:46am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 2 Apr 2013, 11:13am

I have BB7 brakes but they just squeak w he never they feel like it don't even have to be braking (embarrassing ). Went back to shop with it they sold me a can of disc cleaner for £6. I used that every day for a fortnight , until the can ran out. The shop then suggested I use white spirit to clean the rotors. Could be cheap rotors along with the cheap wheels. I'm just fed up with it, caliper brakes don't have this problem so on my next bike it will be calipers. You must be lucky because the bike shop said its a common problem with discs especially in bad weather.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10415
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Standover measurement

Postby horizon » 2 Apr 2013, 12:12pm

Vorpal wrote:
531colin wrote:My point was that bikes sold as "cross" bikes that are "ideal for touring" are actually neither......they aren't competitive cross bikes, and they aren't ideal for every type of touring....but they bear more than a passing resemblance to "old" light tourers....like an "audax" bike, but with clearances for big tyres.....some even have triples, which I guess are a bit thin on the ground on race days.

Its the blurring of the boundaries by marketing baloney that I object to....I don't have a problem with multi-purpose bikes.

I won't argue the point :D I just wanted to point out that there are long distance cyclocross races.

I actually think that some of it is down to globalism. Audaxes aren't called audaxes in the USA or Canada and touring bikes, as sold in the UK haven't been readily available in some other countries for a couple of decades, at least.

So people doing marketing for Specialized don't want to do different marketing packages just for the UK. Therefore, nothing gets called a touring bike or an audax, whether it is or not. :roll:


Here's a nice touring bike, also suitable for audaxes :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.vannicholas.com/Touring/5/allbikes.aspx (Click on the Yukon, not the 29er)

I'm pretty sure it's meant for the US market but I don't think they expect anyone to ride it, it's just for posing.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher