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: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1432
HakeemT wrote:
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.

@Hakeem, the characteristics I'm speaking of are subtle for sure, and if you are racing the shit out of it you are probably in a pretty aggressive position most of the time, weight pretty forward and thus planting that front wheel in crit turns etc. I certainly don't mean to imply that it's unridable and is going to wash out when you look sideways. And the body adapts to the handling of any bike it's on quite frankly. Keep riding the shit out of it.
:beerchug:


@Konky: Yes, I am one of those people. In order for those people to even comment they probably have a fair bit of knowledge about the geometry they are looking for and geometry in general, gained from experience and a good bit of study. The handling characteristics of long trail versus short trail as defined by head tube angles and fork offsets, weight distribution etc., are not specific to any one bike. Storck is that outlier in a cluster of finely tuned road bikes. I merely question why, what is their reasoning behind their geometires. The body is very adaptable. If I don't feel right on a bike after a week, then the bike is not right for me... let alone several months as you suggest. I don't want to have to "learn to love" it. I want to love it from the start. I know that Storck's geometry is not right for me, and apparently lots of others too... and when the distributors were at a loss to answer any of my questions it just screamed "pass on this one". At the time I was researching these frames for an interested party. That you have found your home on Storck is great. But you're right, it's not for everyone. I've often wondered what a "majestic" ride might feel like however. So if I come across one in my size, I will for sure take it for a spin.


DMF wrote:
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.

@DMF: I get what you're saying, and I do not know what Marcus Storck's physical attributes are, but he is producing bikes to sell the the public, not his twin. If he's convinced there's that many people out there with those attributes, then great... produce away. It's just that he really seems to be more about producing different designs merely for the sake of being different than improving on the existing.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
If everyone only made frames that fit the most common body proportions, i.e 'one size fits all' philosophy, there wouldn't be any bikes left for the rest of us. I for one need (don't want, need!) a 75 degree STA with an inline seatpost. That's just down to uncommon body proportions.

Everyone else already makes the common geometries, I don't see why you are putting down Storck for catering the other guys. Sure it's not the most profitable approach, so because of that I think it's just darn nice of them to consider someone else than the general public.

For these people, Storck might even be the only choice next to going custom.

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:07 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1432
It's not a "one size fits all philosopy". Colnago for example probably offers the most size choices of any manufacturer today, and still offers a custom geometry if you want one. This is more about the philosophy behind Storck's designs, why he does what he does. He is not "catering to the other guys" because of fitting constraints. Relatively steep seat tube AND recommending an inline seatpost pretty much tells you that he intends for you to be positioned very far forward, whether you're common proportions or not. Then the whole front end geometry escapes me for reasons I've already discussed. Unless it's a tt bike, this positioning does not make for the most comfortable of bikes. If you want to run a set back seatpost with your seat jammed all the way back in the rails on one of Storck's bikes, that's fine, but it probably indicates you should have gone with a different bike, as it is not the way Storck has intended you to be fit on the bike.

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
Calnago, I think you answered your own question in those last lines. It IS essentially a TT fit and that just fits some people. But unless you want unstable handling with the TT fit, you go for more trail. That is what's been done here. I personally prefer a TT fit with very twitchy handling so will go for more rake/less trail.

I think you are missing the point that not just is it not for everyone, it's very likely not intended to be for everyone. If you want TT fit with stable (majestic) handling, get the Storck. If you don't want this and still want a Storck but with a setback seatpost, for the love of God don't get a Storck. And if you just don't want a stable handling TT fit, get something else.

I don't understand why you can't just be happy for the customers who wants a TT fit. Why does the Storck have to fit everyone else too? If it's not for you, it's not. Pretty simple?

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1432
Well, I agree with you @DMF. Now that I know you want a TT fit on a road bike, it makes perfect sense. :)

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
We're all different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
I think the Planet X in Introductions (link in my signature) says it all :)

The Storck geo with a shorter fork (which seems very possible) slips it right into my ballpark on all accounts too, now if I could only ever afford one. :)

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 pm
Posts: 36
It's time to move on up from my road bike which I've had for 4 years. It's a Fuji CCR. I have been eyeing a Storck Absolutist and I am pretty certain it's what I'm going to get but can't figure out the geometry. Now my current bike is a relaxed geometry bike which I have felt to be a little big as I have a 90mm stem on it. I want something more aggressive this time. For the Storck I am looking at size 55. Here is the comparison between my current and Stock geometry:

Image

Now the Storck is smaller than current which is a good thing on most of the measurements but there are 2 major differences which are the head tube length and rake. I have no spacers on my current bike and I would like a little more aggressive position so I could go with a 1cm spacer on the Storck and meet halfway for now. Then I could also run a ~110mm stem as well on Storck. What you guys think? The next size up Storck just looks too big.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
Buying a frame to fit the preferred length of stem is not actual bike fitting, that is aesthetics over actual bike fitting every day of the week. Secondly you can't compare head tube heights with the Storck as it has a much taller fork. Look at the stack instead.

Are those comparison numbers really correct for both sizes, it seems to me one of them are off or they don't make any sense. The Storck has a longer reach with a shorter ETT, a lower stack and the same STA?! May be down to where the manufacturers take their measurement though...

Anyway, if those numbers add up (I can't see how...) then a 110mm stem with a 10mm spacer would be about 20mm taller reach than the 90mm stem, no spacer, on you current bike. You could get a shorter reach bar if you really just want the 110mm more-pro-looking-stem. Not that I see the point...

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 pm
Posts: 36
DMF wrote:
Buying a frame to fit the preferred length of stem is not actual bike fitting, that is aesthetics over actual bike fitting every day of the week. Secondly you can't compare head tube heights with the Storck as it has a much taller fork. Look at the stack instead.

Are those comparison numbers really correct for both sizes, it seems to me one of them are off or they don't make any sense. The Storck has a longer reach with a shorter ETT, a lower stack and the same STA?! May be down to where the manufacturers take their measurement though...

Anyway, if those numbers add up (I can't see how...) then a 110mm stem with a 10mm spacer would be about 20mm taller reach than the 90mm stem, no spacer, on you current bike. You could get a shorter reach bar if you really just want the 110mm more-pro-looking-stem. Not that I see the point...


I was just using the longer stem as an example and don't care to stay with a 90mm one. The geometry of my bike was taken directly from manufacturer (Fuji). My main goal is a more aggressive riding position and not have the feeling that the bike is a bit too big for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
Essentially the Storck will have the top of the head tube 18mm lower, and the top of the head tube about 5mm further forward than the Fuji, a little less than half that with a 10mm spacer. (Every 40mm of spacers moves the stem 10mm horizontally).

So they are pretty much the same for fit. A 110mm stem on your Fuji is about the same as a 105mm stem with 18mm of spacers on the Storck. Fit wise there is nothing the Storck does that your Fuji doesn't already do. The only change you will get is in handling, and the Storck is a lot less aggressive at that.

If you want a more forward and lower fit, you would need to look elsewhere.

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:15 am
Posts: 94
I've just started roughing out the fit with a tape measure. Nothing really appears that radical yet.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 am
Posts: 963
Location: Sweden
As already pointed out, you'd have to take the radical fork rake/front wheel trail into the equation and how that influences handling if you try to fit the bike to yourself rather than fit yourself to the bike. Stack and reach is not the whole story.

_________________
Roadbike
Planet X Stealth w/ drop bars

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 pm
Posts: 36
Well I talked to the shop and voiced my concerns and they said if I can't get fit dialed in I can return the frame and go for something else. $1250 out the door for the frame was just too good to pass up. Going with Ultegra 6800. They also have some Reynolds Assault for $1k and then $200 for the 6800 11sp hub installed.

Sent from my XT926 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:13 pm 


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Storck geometry
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:23 am
Posts: 257
Location: Covington, WA
Myself and a buddy with Storks both agree that with reasonably-sized components, you either feel like you "fall into" these frames, or not. By that I mean a feeling of actually supporting your proportions, seat/foot/hand distance. Yes this can always be fine-tuned by the componentry, but that "something unique" aspect about Storks has, IMHO, yet to be put into words.


Top
 Profile  
 
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: aerobikewheels, Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 35 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

644

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

263

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

185

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

706

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

1067

Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:44 pm

legs 11 View the latest post


It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:32 am

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