link1896
Mr Greenfield
I’m amazed the collection of 5 1/4” floppy disks arn’t oxidised beyond usable.
Tell us how you’ve stored them so well for so long
The stupid questions thread.
- Thread starter fairy1
- Start date
Tell us how you’ve stored them so well for so long
Liquid N2.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
HamboCairns
Thanks for all the bananas
So i’m bored with time to kill while recovering from injury I thought it would be interesting to measure my bike’s geo manually vs the supplied numbers..
I want to measure the reach and found a method online that seemed too easy to be true.
The method was to have your bike standing straight with the front wheel butted up against a wall. You (A) measure the straight line distance from the middle of the BB to the wall, then repeat for (B) from the top centre of the headtube to the wall. Figure A - B = frame reach.. Seems too easy to me.. Am i stupid or does this give a legit number?
I want to measure the reach and found a method online that seemed too easy to be true.
The method was to have your bike standing straight with the front wheel butted up against a wall. You (A) measure the straight line distance from the middle of the BB to the wall, then repeat for (B) from the top centre of the headtube to the wall. Figure A - B = frame reach.. Seems too easy to me.. Am i stupid or does this give a legit number?
rextheute
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Geometry Geeks
The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.
geometrygeeks.bike
- there is a chart thing - I'm not maths minded
Or @beeb could prob translate into easily digestible words
Geometry Geeks
The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.
geometrygeeks.bike
rextheute
Likes Bikes and Dirt
That didn't work , so not only maths challenged , computer as well ...
measure the reach on my bike
But i think you are correct in your understanding
measure the reach on my bike
But i think you are correct in your understanding
I have the offical frame geo chart, the wheelbase measurement is 20 odd mm longer than stated so was curious if any other numbers are out..Geometry Geeks
The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.
- there is a chart thing - I'm not maths minded
Or @beeb could prob translate into easily digestible words
Geometry Geeks
The world's biggest open geometry database. Find bikes by name or numbers. Easily compare bike geometry side-by-side.
It is meant to have 453mm reach but so far i’m measuring ~460-470.. Need dead flat ground to be sure of the measurement..
beeb
Dr. Beebenson, PhD HA, ST, Offset (hons)
Should work. Reach is the horizontal distance between BB and the (centre of the) top of the head-tube.
The Duckmeister
Has a juicy midrange
Can someone please explain how "reach" offers a valid reference, because it completely ignores everything that goes on behind the BB axis, thus is only an incomplete measurement.
leitch
Feelin' a bit rrranty
It’s essentially become shorthand for “how big it feels when you’re standing up”, but a lot of that arms race has ignored a bunch of other factors, yeah.. like how it feels the other 90% of the time when you’re sitting down kneeing yourself in the wrists because of the 82° seat angle
The Duckmeister
Has a juicy midrange
So it's basically cutting the rider off at the ankles and shoulders and chucking out the big chunk of meat in between.
Because people are many many sizes and bike frames only a few it is still a useful measurement even though two riders of the same height may have different arm lengths, shoulder width etc, different bar width... It is a comparison number to gauge frame against frame. Yes?
leitch
Feelin' a bit rrranty
Definitely. But there’s a tendency to just say “reach should be x”. As a replacement for effective TT or seat tube length that preceded it as the vogue go-to metric, it still has its own set of shortcomings. As you say, all geo has to be read in context of the whole.
I also think the issue is reach is used without factoring in stack height. If a bike has a reach of 480mm, it will feel longer if the stack is higher than lower when compared to what you are currently riding.. A lower stack also usually means spacers and riser bars for the average punter so suddenly that 480mm is 460 when standing and the seated position gets cramped a Leitch pointed out..
I found this interesting article, https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/beyond-geometry-charts-399728.. It’s pretty nerdy but i am bored with time to kill.
Considering the amount of marketing telling you to upgrade for geo reasons, I think it is interesting to run an experiment on what size I am riding.
For example I * think* I want a longer reach 120-130mm bike for when things get a bit steeper at Bright etc, nothing outrageous, the sort of numbers revel and santa cruz use.. So far measuring my bike (2019 Primer with an angleset) against the newer bikes, the wheelbase is within +/- 2-3 mm, front centre +/- 2-3mm, head angle within ~0.5 degrees.. Reach and seat angle are the next to be measured. So looks like the geo charts are actually a bit off (after factoring in the angleset) and the desire to upgrade for geo reasons isn’t looking particularly strong.. Of course there are many other reasons for an upgrade though
..
I found this interesting article, https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/beyond-geometry-charts-399728.. It’s pretty nerdy but i am bored with time to kill.
Considering the amount of marketing telling you to upgrade for geo reasons, I think it is interesting to run an experiment on what size I am riding.
For example I * think* I want a longer reach 120-130mm bike for when things get a bit steeper at Bright etc, nothing outrageous, the sort of numbers revel and santa cruz use.. So far measuring my bike (2019 Primer with an angleset) against the newer bikes, the wheelbase is within +/- 2-3 mm, front centre +/- 2-3mm, head angle within ~0.5 degrees.. Reach and seat angle are the next to be measured. So looks like the geo charts are actually a bit off (after factoring in the angleset) and the desire to upgrade for geo reasons isn’t looking particularly strong.. Of course there are many other reasons for an upgrade though
..
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I also think the issue is reach is used without factoring in stack height. If a bike has a reach of 480mm, it will feel longer if the stack is higher than lower when compared to what you are currently riding.. A lower stack also usually means spacers and riser bars for the average punter so suddenly that 480mm is 460 when standing and the seated position gets cramped a Leitch pointed out..
I found this interesting article, https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/beyond-geometry-charts-399728.. It’s pretty nerdy but i am bored with time to kill.
Considering the amount of marketing telling you to upgrade for geo reasons, I think it is interesting to run an experiment on what size I am riding.
For example I * think* I want a longer reach 120-130mm bike for when things get a bit steeper at Bright etc, nothing outrageous, the sort of numbers revel and santa cruz use.. So far measuring my bike (2019 Primer with an angleset) against the newer bikes, the wheelbase is within +/- 2-3 mm, front centre +/- 2-3mm, head angle within ~0.5 degrees.. Reach and seat angle are the next to be measured. So looks like the geo charts are actually a bit off (after factoring in the angleset) and the desire to upgrade for geo reasons isn’t looking particularly strong.. Of course there are many other reasons for an upgrade though
TLDR...new bike time.
HamboCairns
Thanks for all the bananas
Riser bars are your friend. I went from 25mm rise to 50mm and it's made the bike much easier to live with.
The bars are now level with the saddle so before I was basically riding a 65 degree head angle xc bike lol.
The bars are now level with the saddle so before I was basically riding a 65 degree head angle xc bike lol.
moorey
call me Mia
No. Just, NO.
Who are you replying to? And as per @moorey, no.