Why do those German people have to make frames with such a stupid geometry. While canyon make the headtubes to long, i was looking further and watched the Storck website. Hmmm, that Scenario Pro frame is a real beaty.
*click*
Geometry: seat angle: 74degrees, check
Top tube: 544m, check
Head tube: only 115mm

Right now i'm riding a Cervélo SLT with a 140mm headtube and 1cm spacer (it's just the 1cm high headset bearing cover http://img98.imageshack.us/f/dsc00891sw3.jpg/ )
Do i miss something, like axle-to-crown distance or so, or are those Storck head tubes just insanely short?

_________________
I Will make the leap

I own a Storck Fenomalist, and yes, compared to other brands, the geometry is a little interesting and is more aggressive.
You will see a lot of Storcks have a 90mm or so stem, since many people prefer to go up in size for the taller headtube.
I've also seen many people with 5cm of spacers, with no issues.
I have a size 57cm, with a 100mm stem, and about 1.5cm of spacers. No problems for me - I love the bike. I am about 5'10".
There are many Storck owners in this forum, hope we can answer your questions.

The Storck forks are 10-15mm longer axle to crown, compared to most other forks on the market. That you should add to the head tube length.

For instance, the 51 Fenomalist I ride now, has 115mm head tube. I have no spacers under the stem. On my former Addict with 120mm headtube, I had 10mm underneath. My saddle to handlebar drop is the same.

Yes spot on Mario - I would second your advice on checking the absolute stack height from front wheel axle to the top of the head tube as Storck forks are longer than other brands offerings - the Storck UMS fork is even longer than say a standard Storck SL fork so taking time to check may bring you to the conclusion that the Storck geometry is closer to what you need than what you initially thought.

I found on the website of fairwheelbikes that the axle-to-crown is 372mm, that's 5mm more than the 'standard' 367mm.
So that would bring the head tube to an equivalent of 120mm. Still 20mm shorter than mij current head tube.
The total stack of spacer would be around 3cm, which is a bit to much.
Too bad...

_________________
I Will make the leap

I haven't looked at a range of bikes but the say 51 Cervelo R3SL head tube is 120mm. The R5 has been been changed to 128mm but considering the Storck fork is a tad longer they really aren't that different.

I checked out if a larger frame would fit me better.

Now i'm on a 54cm Cérvelo SLT:


The reach is 380mm, head tube is 140mm.
This requires a 1cm spacer/bearing cover and a 105mm stem. When i got me fitted on the bike, i first had a 110mm Ritchey stem and a Ritchey handlebar with a reach of 85mm.
But i switched to an Syntace 105mm stem and a Syntace bar with 95mm reacht, so that equals out.

A 55cm Storck scenario pro looks like this:


The reach= (top tube length) - (the layback of the seat tube)

553 - cos(73,5) * 572 = 390,55mm

So the reach of the Storck frame is 10,5mm longer than the Cervélo. This equals a 100mm stem and a bar with 85mm reach.
The headtube (139mm) is 1mm shorter than the Cervélo. Buth, the Stilleto's axle-to crown distance is 5mm larger.

A little math:
Cervélo: 367mm axle-crown + 140mm head tube + 10mm spacer = 517mm

Storck: 372mm axle-crown + 139mm head tube + 6mm spacer = 517mm


Conclusion: i think a 55cm Storck frame would fit me quite well. Or did i make any mistakes in the calculations?
I also have to check the setback of seat.

_________________
I Will make the leap

My size would be a 57 and with the 161mm head tube is just 4mm lower than my Look. So it doesn't seems too crazy geometry to me.

Riding a 51, I have to ride with no spacers to get in right. I would just test ride. If you can't do that, I would just go with TT-EFF.

_________________
2012 Izalco Pro 2.0*Re-Grouped*

Well, LOOK, that is a huge difference in fork length!
Don't know the reason, perhaps the longer fork helps dampen the vibrations more?





(They are not the same size, just found this two pic quickly)

Just in case anyone else was interested, but according tonthis website, Storck purposely makes the TT about 2cm longer since Storck believes using a straight post is a better position and generates more power.

http://www.velocevelo.com/bicycles/road/storck/

I have a 55 Fenomalist and the 139 headtube is more like a 145. Using a straight post, the geometry works well for me at 5'10"

I recently looked into the Storck frames for a friend. I didn't really understand their philosophy and some of their design choices. On the smaller frames, the angles look quite acceptable but when you get to the larger frames, a 73.5 degree seat tube is getting a little steep. Combine that with a philosophy that it's designed around a zero setback seat post and it becomes even more confusing to me. If someone can explain to me why Storck feels that all of a sudden you should change your entire position on the bike I would like to hear it. The distributor couldn't, their answer was "it's just one guy's philosophy, and that's the way he does it". I understand that but I'd still like to hear some rationale for it. More power? Really? What about a proper fit for all day riding. I just don't know but if someone does this seems like a great place to explain it. I don't mind if the fork legs are longer to the crown; one can easily adjust to get comparable head tube lengths as the OP did. And while we're talking about the fork, why a 38mm rake? The head tube angle isn't all that radical to require such a radically different fork rake from all the rest. I think it might translate into some "floppy" handling while climbing steep grades. Again, I don't know. Maybe someone here does. But until then, I'm at a loss as to why they do some of the things they do, especially in their larger frames. If my friend does indeed end up with one, maybe I'll get to try it and find out for myself.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ

I disagree. The smaller frames have a more extreme geometry not the other way around. Both reach and drop is comparatively greater on the smaller frames. The 51cm is the most extreme.

Compare the Storck Fenomalist stack/reach to the Cervelo R3

With the Storck there is hardly any difference in reach between sizes 51 through 59.
So I think I can safely say that the Storcks are rather long in the smaller sizes.
The choice between a size 48 and 51 depends on reach, not stack (and whether you're willing to ride with the ridiculous 71 degree head tube angle on the 48).

Cancelled post