HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
I'm 6'2" with a 34" inseam and I'm eyeing a 59cm absolutist. I keep reading about how the geometry is odd, but with few details.

I know the head tube is on the short side but I've read the fork is longer in compensation.

Other than that, can anyone help clarify what exactly is odd about the geometry and whether it might not be possible to get a proper fit?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Storck geometry
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:10 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:05 am
Posts: 19
odd? really?
I have no problem copy my fitting results to my 57 fascenario 0.7

This is how I did it.. Using solidworks sckech since it's parametric.

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
So without having a solidworks representation of my fit...

Recommended body height:

57cm: 180-189
59cm: 187-195

Being 188cm tall and right in between a 57cm or 59cm, I'm trying to get a feel for whether the 59 might be too big.

I'm aware it's impossible to get an exact answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:53 pm
Posts: 140
JackDaniels wrote:
Being 188cm tall and right in between a 57cm or 59cm, I'm trying to get a feel for whether the 59 might be too big.

I'm aware it's impossible to get an exact answer.

Actually it's easy to get an exact answer if you already know your fit coordinates or have a bike that you know fits you well. The only two things that matter are stack and reach. If you don't know what these are, do a google search on them and then you will know how to measure them. You can then look them up for the 57 and 59 and figure out which one is right/better. If you don't know your fit coordinates and don't have a bike that you know fits you well, you should probably have a fitting or you might end up with the wrong size bike. It's pretty common actually. Even some pros are on the wrong size bikes.

_________________
CLB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 9:21 am
Posts: 58
JackDaniels wrote:
I'm 6'2" with a 34" inseam and I'm eyeing a 59cm absolutist. I keep reading about how the geometry is odd, but with few details.

I know the head tube is on the short side but I've read the fork is longer in compensation.

Other than that, can anyone help clarify what exactly is odd about the geometry and whether it might not be possible to get a proper fit?

Looking at the charts, the geometry is long, low and front-heavy. The seat tube angle is relatively large/aggressive which combined with the recommended zero-offset seat post puts the rider over the cranks, somewhat similar to a TT/Tri fit. This seems to be less drastic in the larger sizes and largely be reverted to a more standard fit by using a 20-25mm offset seat post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:39 pm
Posts: 143
I ride a 59cm Fenomalist, and don't think there's anything particularly weird with either sizing or angles. Irrespective of the manufacturer's recommendation to run an 0-setback post, saddle position is largely influenced by ST angle and personal preference re. positioning behind the BB (at least that's my experience).

The 4 largest of the 6 sizes (for the Fenomalist model at least, haven't checked the other ones), have a 73.5 degree ST as well as HT angle. Yes the rake is a bit out of the standard 'range' and you could argue the chainstays are on the short end of the spectrum. However it is almost identical in setup to my 58cm SystemSix without having to resort to odd sized stem lengths, spacer stacks etc.

_________________
Storck Fenomalist 6.8kg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
There was a considerable discussion on their geometry in another thread (stemming from the Aernario bike)
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=111491&start=15#p952849

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1432
Yes, I don't remember if it was thread or not, but I for one think Storck's road geometry is whack.
Here's why. Let's take @HakeemT's example with a larger frame and a headtube angle of 73.5 degrees and a fork rake of 38mm (that's what it is according to Stork's webpage). This combination of headtube angle and fork rake along with a standard tire or 23mm on a 700c wheel will produce a trail of 6.11cm. That's a LOT for a road bike. It's getting into TT bike range. They will go great in a straight line at speed but in turns etc. they sill tend to want to "wash out". And on slow slogs of climbs the front end tends to flop with what is known as wheel flop. I know because I had such a road bike once before. It was a larger frame with a trail above 6cm (in fact a little bigger than 6.11 in this example). When riding behind a lot of folks up a hill I would often notice that their whole bike seemed to be tracking a lot straighter than mine. They would stand and their bike would sway side to side but it was essentially in alignment with the direction it was going, where my front end seemed to "flop" a bit from side to side. I was still going straight but it wasn't as fluid when standing especially. Then, on descents, it is great bombing down a straight line but would feel like it wanted to wash out a bit in the turns.

This is a challenge when building small frames because in order to have enough front center to minimize toe overlap a frame builder will slacken the headtube angle. And often, to compensate for what would produce a relatively large amount of trail otherwise, they will use a fork rake in the range of maybe 45mm or even more. In general, a standard fork rake for a road bike is around 43mm and a lot of manufacturers have standardized that. Trek uses a fork rake of 40mm on their larger bikes but they also employ a relatively steep head tube angle along with it. But there is no manufacturer other than Storck that I know of that thinks a trail of greater than 60mm results in a good handling road bike.

Then, to top it all off, they recommend a zero setback seatpost along with a seat angle that is relatively steep already. For a large frame, a 73.5 degree seat angle is a lot. In fact, I'll bet some riders who prefer a lot of setback might not even be able to get a decent fit with their saddles jammed all the way back in the rails. But maybe it's all by design (I think it is), and that you really do need to be more forward on the bike, like tt, in order to deal with the front end. To slap on a setback seatpost and jam your seat back I believe would result in quite poor handling characteristics with a front end like this. Instead, why wouldn't you get a road bike designed around standard tried and proven geometries using a set back post.

So, basically Storck for some strange reason which escapes me tries to place you in quite an aggressive forward position over the bike which is not very comfortable in the long run for most folks. As for the headtube being substantially different, that is neither here nor there because as has been pointed out above, it's because Storck likes to use longer fork legs than average as well. I guess he just likes to be different for the sake of being different.

I once contacted the distributor for Storck to explain to me the reasoning behind the Storck's strange geometry when compared to just about any other road bike. Their answer was quite unsatisfactory, and to the effect of "it's just one guy's (Marcus Storck's) philosophy of bike geometry". That was it, no explanation... just that's how he does it.

So, if you think that Marcus Storck is on to something that has for years and years escaped all the other builders of bicycles to this point in time, then by all means go ahead and get one. But at least you're doing the research and asking the right questions. That's what I did, and never got any good answers.

I know I've just repeated a lot of what I said in some other thread, but I have no idea where that is at this point. Maybe the link that @Prendrefeu just pointed to.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
Thanks for the detailed answers. I went ahead and pulled the trigger because it was such a good deal.

If I don't like it, I'll probably just quit cycling and drop out of society (or quietly sell it).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
:lol:

They're good bikes. Hopefully the fit is right and you won't need a slew of spacers or some too-short stem. They tend to have a high resale value, too, which is always a nice benefit for those who want to give them a shot.

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:08 pm
Posts: 18
Location: Dublin, Ireland
I'm not sure I can add much to the thread in terms of technical explanations of what the Storck geo is like, but I'll simply state my own experience. I'm 185cm and went with a 57. I'm running an inline seat post and a 100mm -6deg stem. I came from (and still have) a 56 Planet X SL Pro Carbon. I read a lot about the Storck "long and low" geo before buying but decided to go with it in the end. Bought online having never tried one of the frames. To be honest, I was able to transfer the measurements over from the PX in as close as I was able to with my own lay experience and a tape measure without any great issues. I find the fit on it great.

All this is a bit late seeing as you pulled the trigger anyway ...

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1432
JackDaniels wrote:
Thanks for the detailed answers. I went ahead and pulled the trigger because it was such a good deal.

If I don't like it, I'll probably just quit cycling and drop out of society (or quietly sell it).


Excellent attitude. Won't know until you try. I'm sure you'll be able to get the fit right or very close, it's just the handling that I question with that geometry. And if it doesn't work out, and sometimes you won't even know till you try something different, like you say... chalk it up to experience and take up golf. I hear cycling is the new golf, anyway.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:39 pm
Posts: 143
Thanks for the insights Calnago.
To be honest, I've not given the whole trail/rake thing much thought. Then again, that's probably because I haven't experienced the bike wanting to 'wash out', or other erratic behaviour going around corners (and I race plenty of criteriums). In the end, I've set up the bike with my preferred saddle height and position relative to the BB, and then just race the shit out of it.

_________________
Storck Fenomalist 6.8kg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
I would go out on a limb, and think maybe Marcus Storck is one of those guys with a short torso and long legs but short femur bones, in which case the geo (with the inline seatpost in place) actually makes a lot of sense. I.e rider positioned far forward and with the bars low.

Horses for courses, but I can definitely see a course for this horse, even if it's obviously not for everyone, you might be thankful that it is there at all as these geos are few and far apart for the riders who need 'em.

We're not all built around 72,5/73 geo with 20mm setback and 120mm stems.

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:26 pm
Posts: 832
I suppose Storck geometry isn't for everyone, some who have actually ridden a Storck say it's not for them. However you do get an awful lot of people who have either never ridden one or only ridden one for a short time criticizing its geometry. Sorry Colnago but you are one of them. You really have to give a Storck several months trial and some component tweeking before you can comment. (I reduced my usual stem length by 10mm and fitted a tightish low reach/short drop bar.) That's how it was for me. I found my Fascenario a bit awkward at first but I have quite quickly learnt to love the Storck ride. In fact I'd go as far as to say it is the best I have ridden. I've ridden lots of top end bikes in my time and I would say I have found my home with the majestic road feel of my Storck. I find the combination of rock solid and agile handling incomparable.

Some it won't suit, I'm sure there are people out there who have ridden a Storck for some time and not learnt to like it. But I think most that do give it a proper go would reap the rewards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:57 am 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Benno, caddis, JURE, ku_hi, RippedUp, Yahoo [Bot] and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Felt F1 Pr Geometry?

in Road

boots2000

7

670

Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:10 pm

LionelB View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Emonda SL geometry

in Road

BigPoser

3

275

Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:03 pm

BigPoser View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Colnago C59 geometry compared to EP?

in Road

wilwil

0

188

Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:53 am

wilwil View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Costa's 'custom geometry' Merica Reacto?

in Road

ultyguy

2

715

Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:30 pm

ultyguy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Geometry advice needed on a prototype Merckx frame

in Road

SWijland

14

1095

Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:44 pm

legs 11 View the latest post


It is currently Sun Dec 28, 2014 2:08 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB