Standover measurement

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
ron2old
Posts: 176
Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 11:46am

Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 29 Mar 2013, 12:30am

Can someone tell me something really simple.What does a manufacturer mean by standover height. I apologise for being stupid but do they mean my inside leg measurement or the distance from the floor to the top tube. If the later then where on the top tube? From the floor through the centre of the spindle to the top tube or from somewhere further forward or back. I know this sounds silly but it does make a difference with a sloping top tube. The first option if correct of taking inseam measurement, is that minus 1cm or 2cm or what.

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby reohn2 » 29 Mar 2013, 2:10am

It's floor to toptube,on compact frames the measurement is usually around the middle of the tube.
-----------------------------------------------------------

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 29 Mar 2013, 2:38am

Thanks for replying. I thought I might be ignored and thought of as stupid but I'm new to this bike sizing malarky. The bike I'm looking at say's 75.4cm standover and I have an inseam of 78cm. But the bike I already have has a 50cm measurement on the seatube and I can standover comfortably above the pedals but increasingly less so as I move towards the front of the bike. The bike I'm looking at is a 54cm model (much bigger than my present bike) but it say's 75.4cm standover 50cm seat tube with a much longer top tube. How can they both fit? I know I should go try in real life and I will if I decide it's what I want. Although I am embarassed to order a bike in and then not buy it. I just thought someone in the know on this site could explain how two completely different sized bikes can fit the same person.

Ayesha
Posts: 4192
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 9:54am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby Ayesha » 29 Mar 2013, 7:32am

At last look, Specialized Bicycles gave their 'Standover height' as the height of the toptube where it joins the headtube.
This would be the equivalent of a horizontal toptube.

With a sloping toptube, a bike with a short headtube will have a lower 'SO' height than a bike with a taller headtube for the same seat tube length.

An estimation can be made for toptube clearance by doing some trig with the SO, seat tube length, reach, seat angle and BB height.
Last edited by Ayesha on 29 Mar 2013, 7:35am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 29 Mar 2013, 7:35am

Ron....from previoius threads, this is your current bike....

http://www.evanscycles.com/product_document/file/108/648/ddc/1280/pinnacle-arkrose-geometry-data.pdf....SIZE SMALL??

Image

If you post what you are looking at now, we can take a look.

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 29 Mar 2013, 8:03am

ron2old wrote:........... I just thought someone in the know on this site could explain how two completely different sized bikes can fit the same person.


Are they supposed to fit the same person?
Several manufacturers do that thing where the bike "size" is bigger than the actual seat tube measurement, which could be a bit of a clue that you should be looking at the "size" rather than the measurement.
I'm 5' 10" with 32" trouser inseam, and a bike that measures 54cm is about right for me.....unless its sized 57 and measures 54, in which case its too long.

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby ron2old » 29 Mar 2013, 8:34am

I was looking at a Trek Domane Triple, with a triple chain set to give more lower gears, a big head tube length (160mm) to give a more upright comfortable position, endurance geometry for all day comfort and lightweight for climbing or the occasional audax or rtt when using the big (50t) chainring. Specs are - 54cm actual frame size, 8.0cm Bb drop, 54.2cm effective top tube, 71.3 head angle, 73.7 seat tube angle, 50.0cm (ct) seat tube, stand over 75.4cm. 101.0 wheelbase. That is the same seat tube length as my present Arkose 3 but two sizes up(my Arkose is called a50cm frame). Do they both fit?

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 29 Mar 2013, 9:08am

We had a recent thread on trek madone/domane, which mentioned Trek recommend a minimum saddle height for each frame size, there should be lots of other information there.
Currently the sun is out for the first time in weeks, I will return to this later!

Wesh-Laurence
Posts: 372
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:00am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby Wesh-Laurence » 29 Mar 2013, 12:57pm

Hi Ron,

It's me again.

If the TreK Domane is a "Road Race" bike it will probably have a different geometry to your cycklocross Arkrose. The standover height is important because you need a couple of inches clearance between the top tube and your crotch when standing on the ground astride the bike. However you may find that the top tube on the Domane is longer than on the Arkrose, which will give you a more prone riding position. Road race bikes generally give you an "aggressive" or more prone riding position compared to frames designed for Audax, Cyclocross or Touring, these latter frames are designed for comfort on longer rides.

If you have set up your current bike to give you a comfortable riding position then you should try to find another bike that will give you the same riding position.

It would be better to change all of the drivetrain on your current bike to give you lower gearing than buying another bike which you then find the frame geometry gives you an uncomfortable riding position.

Just found the following on the internet. Is this the Trek Domane Triple you are looking at:-

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/tre ... _#features

If it is, then the Trek is a Road Bike with a completely different geometry to the cyclocross Arkrose. The other significant difference is that the Trek has has caliper brakes with little or no clearance for wider tyres and mudguards, the Arkrose has disc brakes and bigger wheel clearances etc etc.....

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 29 Mar 2013, 2:03pm

I think cyclocross races are an hour, which is hardly a long time. However, as touring bikes are so unfashionable as to be beyond the pale, there are now lots of pretend cyclocross bikes that are actually designed as general-purpose bikes....I think the Tricross is among the best known, and Specialised now hardly bother to pretend its actually meant for cross racing. These bikes are generally what used to be called a "light tourer" but anything with the dread tourer label wont sell.
But yes, I agree about tyre/mudguard clearances.

Back to the coalface.........I can't get this bumf about Rons current bike to display....http://www.evanscycles.com/product_document/file/108/648/ddc/1280/pinnacle-arkrose-geometry-data.pdf

but this is the Domane stuff....

Image

bugger...their geometry table wont display either

http://www.trekbikes.com/ie/en/bikes/road/sport/domane_2_series/domane_2_3_compact/#/ie/en/model/features?url=ie/en/bikes/road/sport/domane_2_series/domane_2_3_compact

i'm now so confused I have to submit this and print off the geometry tables so I can see where I have got to!

OK....Rons arkrose looks about right size to me....500mm seat tube, 130mm head tube, 525mm effective top tube
relaxed steering at 70deg head and 50mm offset

For the Treks, the 52 has a bit longer head tube at 145mm (but will have shorter forks, so minimum bar height is little more than Rons current bike) effective top tube 530mm (Ron wanted a bit longer, as I recall?) ....minimum seat height of 655mm....whatever that means??!!....ask Trek.
seat angles comparable at 75 and 74.2... Treks steering will be a bit brighter, but none the worse for that. Trek don't quote front centres, so you need to check for overlap.

Trek 54 has 160mm head tube, and 542 effective top tube....ie its too big.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18744
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Standover measurement

Postby Vorpal » 29 Mar 2013, 2:32pm

531colin wrote:I think cyclocross races are an hour, which is hardly a long time.


Typical cyclocross races are an hour, but longer ones are becoming more common. The hardest are more than 40 miles, and the couple to which many racers aspire are 5 or more hours long.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 29 Mar 2013, 2:47pm

Vorpal wrote:
531colin wrote:I think cyclocross races are an hour, which is hardly a long time.


Typical cyclocross races are an hour, but longer ones are becoming more common. The hardest are more than 40 miles, and the couple to which many racers aspire are 5 or more hours long.


Not exactly a fortnight tour, or a 200K audax?

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.

Wesh-Laurence
Posts: 372
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:00am

Re: Standover measurement

Postby Wesh-Laurence » 29 Mar 2013, 2:52pm

531colin wrote:I think cyclocross races are an hour, which is hardly a long time. However, as touring bikes are so unfashionable as to be beyond the pale, there are now lots of pretend cyclocross bikes that are actually designed as general-purpose bikes....I think the Tricross is among the best known, and Specialised now hardly bother to pretend its actually meant for cross racing. These bikes are generally what used to be called a "light tourer" but anything with the dread tourer label wont sell.
But yes, I agree about tyre/mudguard clearances.


The point I was trying to make, poorly, is that road race bikes generally have longer top tubes compared to other types. Having said that some "traditional British" tourers also have long top tubes which I don't like. I used a Tricross (triple) for lightwieght touring because it gave me a more upright (and for my bad back, more comfortable) riding position. I also reduced the gearing by fitting a hybrid bike chainset on it. I didn't like the Tricross cantilever brakes and built my own tourer with disc brakes and mountain bike gearing based on a Kinesis Frame. When I built my own bike there weren't the disc brake equipped cyclocross bikes available nowadays.

I believe that Ron2old is trying to achieve what I have achieved by building my own bike. His original thread was about trying to lower the gearing on his Arkrose, he is now going down a different dead end by looking at road bikes.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18744
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Standover measurement

Postby Vorpal » 29 Mar 2013, 2:57pm

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:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

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

Re: Standover measurement

Postby 531colin » 29 Mar 2013, 3:20pm

Ron says its got a triple, but Trek website says compact double....I never looked until you queried it!! :roll:

You can end up with a long top tube on a tourer to get toe clearance for big tyres and mudguards....unless you make it slack head angle/long offset.
The 52 Trek (from memory!) is not different in top tube length from Rons current bike