Storck geometry

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Wizzo
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:47 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by Wizzo

Storck has changed their geometry a bit. I know that my AB 0.9 has a top tube eff. of 53.7 but the overall reach is 54.9. For 2011+ the TT EFF. is now a 54.2 but the overall reach is still the same of 54.9. I use to look at the TT Effectiveness but now I look at the overall reach. I am 5'8 and riding a 51cm. I found out from switching from Felt to a Storck, I run a shorter stem from 100mm to a 90mm now as well as a Zero Set back post. Most Storck owners/riders will have some type of a shorter stem and may sometimes use zero set back posts.

User avatar
carbon2329
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Utah

by carbon2329

Parlee Z3 custom:
seat-tube--73.5
head-tube--73.5
fork rake--43
axel-crown--367
BB drop--70mm

Ritte
Seat-tube--73.5
Head-tube--73.5
fork rake--45
axel-crown--???????????????? I will find out tomorrow, hopfully.
BB drop--68

Storck Fascenario 0.7
Seat-tube--73.5
Head-tube--73.5
fork rake--37
axel-crown--380mm (is this correct) (I updated this after recieve info from Storck)
http://www.upgradecycle.com/parts/fork/ ... ms-1k.html or
http://www.storckbicycle.com/usa/index. ... tolightums
BB drop--70

I did not list the angles because that has to to with reach and I have that figured out. What I am concerned about with the Storck is the handlebar drop/spacers.

Does any one have the axel -crown measurement for:
Ritte fork?

I am not too worried about the Ritte becasue I have one, and I know the drop, so it works.

It appears the Storck is 5mm longer which would reduce the spacer about 5mm (roughly, as long as it works in a 1-1 ratio, which I don't really know if it does, but it is a step in the right direction.

I am getting excited. I hope this leads me to be able to get one!

Thank you for the comments so far.
Last edited by carbon2329 on Mon May 09, 2011 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


User avatar
Mario Jr.
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:49 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

by Mario Jr.

I just measured some Storck forks.

UMS fork: 382mm, axle to crown race, with the aero cover installed.
Race SL fork: 378mm, axle to crown race. (This is the normal Fenomalist fork)

(Rake on all Storck forks is 37mm)

User avatar
carbon2329
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Utah

by carbon2329

That is helpful information.

Two more questions then:
1-Which measurment should I consider correct for the Fascenario 0.7 fork:
axel-crown--372mm (from thier website, if it is the one onthe Fascenario .07)
http://www.storckbicycle.com/usa/index. ... tolightums
or
382mm (quoted from Mario Jr..)
2-How much does a 36mm rake effect spacers compared to a 43mm rake (head-tube and seat-tube angles, being the same)?

I assume if the fork is longer, and has less rake, it would raise the front end up, but how much shoud I estimate. (I know there is now way to know for sure, online, but just an idea would be helpfull)..as a review-

I estimated I would need 35-37.5mm of spacers (as if the rake and axel-crown would be like my other builds:43mm rake & 367mm)

So...
About 5mm (for the longer axel-crown if 372 is correct)
About 5-7mm :?: (being optomistic?)
Perhaps 10-15mm?

So that would make the build with 22.5-25mm spacers. (that is ok by me)
Think this is "in-the-ballpark"?

This all seems to be pointing to a Storck in my future :D
Last edited by carbon2329 on Mon May 09, 2011 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mario Jr.
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:49 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

by Mario Jr.

Here's the total fork, headtube and headset height on 51, 55 and 57cm frames:

51: 50,8 cm
55 (with UMS): 54,1 cm
57: 55,6 cm

User avatar
carbon2329
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Utah

by carbon2329

That puts if within a cm of my parlee as far as lenght is concerned.

I wonder how much the axle-crown rotates the front end up, then.

I imagine I would be ok with 20mm of spacers and I would have a little more drop, which is ok, and with the taller fork I would be close.

Total height (HT, headset, fork):
Parlee: 570mm
Storck: 561mm (then add the rotation of the front end, due to the longer axle-crown length)

It's looking good.
You really have to conseder "it all" with any build, but especially a Storck with its unique differences.

Thank you, Mario

User avatar
carbon2329
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Location: Utah

by carbon2329

Sorry for the double post.

I just got a response form Storck (they said):
---------
Crown to top of axle 38cm (not the center of the axle)
Rake 37
---------

I'm not sure what "not the center of the axle" means, but.......

milroy
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:37 am

by milroy

carbon2329 wrote:Sorry for the double post.

I just got a response form Storck (they said):
---------
Crown to top of axle 38cm (not the center of the axle)
Rake 37
---------

I'm not sure what "not the center of the axle" means, but.......



Man I just hit the same wall as you did.
I want to buy a Fenomalist as a number 2 and as I have a 54 Pina (550mm TT) I went first to the 51. But I've now seen the 115 vs 152 mm head tubes.
Like you I wouldn't call my position super agressive but its hardly "old man either".
Anyways, I'd be interested to know how you get on. I'll be measuring things up tonight. No ways I'm going to run 6cm of spacers.

konky
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:26 pm

by konky

Don't Storck mean 'end' not 'top', ie the 'end' of the fork not the bit that the wheel goes in to.

Wcl4
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:33 am

by Wcl4

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"

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5629
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

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.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

konky
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:26 pm

by konky

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.

daj
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:36 pm

by daj

Image
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).

Machinenoise
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:39 pm

by Machinenoise

Could be worse, my girlfriends bike (an old columbus tubed Zeus :)) is a 53.5cm frame with a 9cm headtube (including external headset cups!)

But i agree that its a bit aggressive on those storcks!

by Weenie


User avatar
Mario Jr.
Posts: 2183
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:49 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

by Mario Jr.

But still take into account that the axle-crown height of the Storck forks are 10-12 mm taller than most other forks. This will have to be added to the head tube length.
FYI, the reason of this, is that it allows the fibres to bend more gradually from steerer to the legs. (This is most visible on the Stiletto UMS/260 fork)
With a short crown, the fibres would have to bend more abruptly. As we all know, fibres like smooth bends best.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post