Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Pivotal figure
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
Something that makes sense and is easy to understand. Who knew?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
How is this good? It is so dependant on fork length, wheel size, even tire size and has no relation to the position of the saddle. You can't measure just a frame like this, it must be a complete bike. This is not needed, there is nothing broken so why fix it?
 

·
Takw/agranofsalt
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
I think, (and hope) that every bike manufacture will look at this and consider adopting a standard. The traditional way really only applies to a traditional hard tail, not so well to today's plethora of frame designs. This seems like a pretty good solution, I hope it catches on.

edit: I'm glad to see Transition and Turner collaborating on this, two bike companies that I respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
fixbikeguy said:
How is this good? It is so dependant on fork length, wheel size, even tire size and has no relation to the position of the saddle. You can't measure just a frame like this, it must be a complete bike. This is not needed, there is nothing broken so why fix it?
well when making a bike there is a recommended fork/tire size and that is how it would be sized, how its supposed to be ridden, wheel size? come on this is the dh/fr forum

also, saddle??? how many here sit the whole time they ride? how many sit for any bit of their ride? not too many
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
My goodness, there are some bright posters over at Pink Bike...

If you want to waste your time reading the responses, you will find a clarification post from Kyle Young down a bit. Nice to see he can ignore the noise, and post anyway.

Regardless, great idea. It allows me to walk out in my garage with weighted string and a tape measure and see how my old Bullit will compare in "feel" to a new bike with listed Reach and Stack. Makes total sense, easy, and useful. Cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
scorpionsf said:
well when making a bike there is a recommended fork/tire size and that is how it would be sized, how its supposed to be ridden, wheel size? come on this is the dh/fr forum

also, saddle??? how many here sit the whole time they ride? how many sit for any bit of their ride? not too many
Did you even read the press release? It says that it is also suitable for measuring XC bikes. I sit when I ride XC.
 

·
maker of trail
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
fixbikeguy said:
How is this good? It is so dependant on fork length, wheel size, even tire size and has no relation to the position of the saddle. You can't measure just a frame like this, it must be a complete bike. This is not needed, there is nothing broken so why fix it?
You are right. However it is a good way to quickly compare frames with in the manufacturer's recommended use. I have no easy way to include a relative saddle position in there though...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,887 Posts
scorpionsf said:
well when making a bike there is a recommended fork/tire size and that is how it would be sized, how its supposed to be ridden, wheel size? come on this is the dh/fr forum

also, saddle??? how many here sit the whole time they ride? how many sit for any bit of their ride? not too many
Reccommended fork size? Come on... how many of us are using forks that have different axle to crown heights and amount of suspension travel than what the manufacturer reccomends? Wheel size? Yeah, that would be relevant since this intended standard is supposed to be broad and therefore cover the spectrum of 29ers, 26/24 combos, 29/26 combos, etc.

And saddle, well I don't know about you (maybe I'm just not that lazy) but unless I'm sitting on a chairlift to get to the top of a trail I'm almost always pedaling. Maybe you just don't understand that the best descents are at the top of a challenging climb... but maybe you'd choose to hike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,060 Posts
fixbikeguy said:
How is this good? It is so dependant on fork length, wheel size, even tire size and has no relation to the position of the saddle. You can't measure just a frame like this, it must be a complete bike.
You run into the same exact issues when sizing via the ETT.

fixbikeguy said:
This is not needed, there is nothing broken so why fix it?
It is needed for FR and DH bikes, as TT length gives no indication of actual size, and is pretty much meaningless. A quick reread of the article will tell you that.

Reach/Stack makes much more sense and is a much more accurate measurement for just about anything with over 6" of travel. XC bikes can still use ETT sizing.
 

·
gnar, brah
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
fixbikeguy said:
Did you even read the press release? It says that it is also suitable for measuring XC bikes. I sit when I ride XC.
Weird...I always thought that the "saddle" was that thing that prevented your butt from getting sucked into the rear wheel when your feet blow off the pedals. I didn't realize people actually "sat" on them...
 

·
I AM I AM
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
I tried it, as a comparison on two of my bikes and I don't find the measurement that useful at all. For me at least the HT to BB measurement would give a much more accurate comparison and a lot easier to measure. Yes I can see the point of triangulating it, but I would have thought that it was more crucial for XC, but then again saddle position is mighty important for XC compared to DH.

But still I won't be complaining if they want to give us more numbers to compare and think about, as long as those don't end up being the only numbers (ie don't phase out the other measurements ). With the way Turner is doing it in not providing a TT measurement it's a bit like "oh I'll have to take faith in the manufacturer saying that since I'm 5ft6 I should get a 15" bike" because the reach & stack numbers don't really mean anything to me.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top