In my view pros in the past, lets say in the 80's and 90's, rode in a more upright position. Bikes for top pros were custom made. You only have to look at images of riders from that period and you can see how rediculously upright they look. Indurain is a good example. The stretched out low position is a product of the modern age with the emphasis on aerodynamics.

The Fascenario geometry (pretty much the same as the Aernario) in my view is a very up to the minute pro geometry. I think Markus Storck wants to produce the ultimate racing machine and he's achieved it. The Fascenario puts you in a racy aero position. Then you have the ride quality which is truly sublime. The bike is so agile yet so grounded it's untrue. You just feel like Cancellara the minute you set off on a Storck. You just feel faster.

Another thing, it did take a little while till I felt really comfortable on my F0.6. The more I ride it the better it feels. Now I feel it fits me like a glove.

mrfish Storck is not a volume producer. If you want a high end Storck you're in for a long wait. It can be a hassle buying one as there aren't enough to go around.

Despite being a Storck owner myself, I'd agree that the geometry of the smaller frame sizes (below 57) is rather questionable and often leads to many spacers above the headset and/or extremely short stems.
It's really a pity as most of the Storcks are obviously a fantastic ride and so should fit a larger audience.

BTW: Afaik are the geometries designed around zero setback seatposts.

_________________
“I want to clear my conscience. I don’t want to be part of the problem any more.”

fdegrove, prendrefeu and others who have posted on Storck's geometry, can you please elaborate on your thoughts a bit more? I do agree that the geometry is 'different' from most manufacturers, but I personally have not found it difficult to find the proper size and get the bike moving. Do you think it's just the stack and reach number that make the sizing odd or is it more related to angles and apparently being built around non-setback posts?

For what it's worth I run a setback post and don't feel like something's off, but I also don't think my Fenomalist is the best bike I've ever had (it's pretty good though).

_________________
Storck Fenomalist 6.8kg

Hi,

@HakeemT: My remark is the exact same observbation as Calnago's. It all just does not compute unless you're some sort of superman and then some.
Prendrefeu's and CharlesM analyses are also on the money.
All in all it's one of the oddest geometries I've ever seen making even Canyon's oddities more or less acceptable. At least the latter's can be be more easily be circumvented by the use of Kerautret style handlebars and what have you.

I can understand the tendency to put people more "forward" on a bike (in the illusion that that would make the bike and its rider more efficient, (TT style) but the way this is going is not unlike putting the steering wheel out on the hood of the car as opposed to in it.....
Once again, great tech for whom the shoe fits.

Ciao,

_________________
Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

Hi guys, just to add my two cents worth and based solely on a Storck size 51, I have personally not found fitting into that geometry difficult and I had been transferring my geometry from Cervelo (S5 size 51) and Pinarello (Dogma Size 51.5) - the latter being more "conventional" I guess. In fact, the Cervelo was more difficult to fit as the head tube was too high to correct unless I used a negative stem.

My LBS who does RETUL fits for a few Stocks already have not found any problems fitting people out for optimal power and angles - though they are predominantly the smaller sizes. Some variations in spacers and stem length were needed compared to "conventional" geometry - and this has to be expected because the geometries are just different but I don't think I will go as far as to say who is right or who is wrong.

In my case for example, I had to add 10mm (I am still ok up to a further 5mm) on spacer height to increase stack and subtract 10mm from my "normal" 120mm stem length to achieve an optimal fit - variations which are not too extreme I guess. I did use a zero setback post though but that was because it gave me a better open hip angle on the drops and an overall better balance on the bike on the drops. A normal setback post would have worked too (perhaps better for a climbing build) but I would be more upright, with added spacers and seated further back while preserving my optimal body-knee hip angle. As the terrain is mostly flat in Singapore, the zero setback was more optimal in my case for flat runs. I guess it differs from rider to rider and course to course but generally no issues in fitting with regards to the size 51.

The most important thing to me at the end of the day is that the bike must feel balanced with proper power transfer and that proper fit is not difficult to achieve on a Storck. However, I could be generalising as I am basing this feedback on a Storck size 51 and maybe my body geometry is within a "Storck geometry acceptable range".

I am no expert on how seat tube / head tube angles / rake / chainstay length / BB height /rake / stack and indeed even material differences ALL interact to affect handling but intuitively I would think that we cannot isolate a few of these factors and conclude that Storck's geometry does not work. From the literature and having the opportunity to hear from one of Markus' talks, Storck uses proportional tubing (in addition to asymmetric) which means virtually every bike size of the same model is a different bike - the material thickness, carbon layout etc are different for different sizes. Maybe this is why Storcks have a premium price - the cost must be high too Theoretically, this results in better matching of material and carbon layout design ("hidden" factors but very real) for different rider sizes so that smaller riders do not get a stiffer frame than required and bigger riders do not get an overly soft frame.

I am speculating here (don't flame me) but this difference in internal design may account for why zero setback posts, which are generally less forgiving, can match Storcks better (apart from the shorter reach it translates to) that so many people have reported and perhaps maybe less rake is required (this is out of my league I concede). Yes, this still does not explain the reach and stack differences on Storcks but my point is that judging Storck's overall handling on geometry alone may not give the full picture. Also yes, fit issues are more remote from material and internal design but I have also seen various fit experts e.g., John Cobb advocating a lower stack-longer reach with slightly more forward positioning not to mimic a TT position per se but to preserve a more or less same hip angle (which affects power and breathing) compared to the more traditional further back-higher stack-shorter reach geometry. His logic is simple - the hip angles are the same in either positions but more aero in the former which seems to describe the Storck geometry better. I know there will be people who will disagree but this is just one school of thought that maybe Storck bikes share the same idea.

I think on-road tests are ultimately important to conclude whatever works or not. After all, there are far more permutations of body geometries than Storck geometries. You have to ride the talk to judge or better still, talk the ride.

Again just sharing some of the stuff I have read and providing real feedback from my experience with the Storck geometry (and on a size 51) so far.

_________________
Current Bikes: Storck F0.6 6kg , Storck Aero2 7.04kg
Storck Organic Light 11.1kg , Storck F0.7IS Di2 4.8kg

Does anyone know the coloration on the Platinum? It looks like Gloss Clearcoat on Raw Carbon with Silver Decals.

Any pictures?

I am also trying to find out more. The picture on the website is soooo small. However, I do know that Storck describes it as Matt Black with special "shine though" paintwork. No idea on decals' colours.

_________________
Current Bikes: Storck F0.6 6kg , Storck Aero2 7.04kg
Storck Organic Light 11.1kg , Storck F0.7IS Di2 4.8kg

Is it at least deviod of any Blue Accents?

I don't think anyone doubts that the geo will work for a few people, but find me another manufacturer who's size 51 is an effective 55 tube bike has an 11.5 head stack... The sizing is odd up the range.


Your signature list of current bikes makes it easy to see you've found a home with Storck, that is fantastic for you and I'm jealous. because theyre very good for all measurable purposes ala the tour tests and in the couple of rides I've endured a very bad riding position long enough to feel the ride quality/stiffness and weight. But I hated the handling/front center/cog/fatigue that came with what is simply odd geometry by virtually all accounts.

I believe you're both lucky and an odd fit and youre perfectly honest, but that what you find isn't representative of what most others should expect...

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com

Just my own experience about the 'wierd' Storck geometry. I used to obsess about frame geometries, and bought many frames based on their geometries, all of which fitted really well. I had a few professional bike fittings before so I was 100% sure on my numbers.

I then had a chance last year to get a Storck Fenomalist at a really good price, but when I checked the geometry I thought 'No way am I gonna fit that !' , but the deal was too good to pass up so I bought it more out of curiosity just to ride a Storck, all the time thinking that I would probably be selling it on after a few weeks as it wouldn't fit. The TT would definitely be too long and the HT was definitely gonna be waaaay to short ... guess what ? It fits like a dream !

Yes I moved from a setback seatpost to Storck's inline post (the saddle is actually setback a little ), this opened up my hip angle a bit, and also allowed for a much more aero position than I previously had, not to mention superb balanced neutral handling, best fitting bike I've ever had !

Marcus Storck, by all accounts is a pretty smart guy, and has his own unique take on virtually everything. Storcks geometry certainly raised my skepticism until I actually tried it, its works, beautifully.


Bottom line, yes numbers can be a good guide for fit but you just can't beat actually riding a bike to see how it REALLY fits.

Before anyone dismisses the Geometry - you should try one for a few hundred KM's - Yes they do fit differently and you may have to ride a size larger than normal - but man do they Carve a line.

The theory behind the steeper seat tube angle is to keep a constant weight distribution for handling on the larger sizes. As most bikes have the same size chain stays if you relax the angle too much your weight distribution gets really wacky as most of a rider's weight is on the rear. You have to remember as the tube is laid back in the larger sizes the longer Tube/Post length for taller ridesplaces the rider farther back than a normal rider -

I fit nicely on 58/60 Trek's 60 Cm C'Dales and M\L Parlee's - nothing handles as nicely as a Storck - He knows what he is doing.

Find me a magazine write up that doesn't gush about Storck handling.

... ok. So far we've heard that "yes it really works! I went from a setback seatpost on the old bike to a straight seatpost on the storck and I feel great!"

And yet, still, those are individual accounts. We are all individuals on this planet, 7 Billion of us.

Raise your hand if you are currently running a non-setback seatpost on your frame that isn't a Storck yet the Storck geometries still won't work for you.

7 Billion people. Not everything works for everybody.

So, as stated before - and please guys, we really don't need another post that says "it really works!" - Storck has unique geometries. They are driven by Marcus' fitting philosophy. The bikes are great, if they will work for you. The fit will work for some people, it will not work for others. Period.

_________________
Exp001

+1 ...

I did ride for a few hundred k... Twice.

My contact points work pretty well on most all other companies stock bikes.


Riding the storcks didn't change my contact points, suddenly making the straight post, 80 stem and big stack of spacers any better than the resulting weight distribution...


The geometry is what it is... Different than the vast majority of major (and second tier) brands...

_________________
charles@pezcyclingnews.com

Ironically enough, Discoverspeed, is the fact that you say the Cervelo's long headtube gave you problems, when the Storck and Cervelo are nearly identical in stack. Its just the fact that the Storck is 3cm longer in reach that makes it a weird bike geometry-wise.

To be clear about where the Storck lies:
Storck 51 stack reach: 526 / 398
Cervelo S5 stack reach: 530/369

Many tri bikes are closer to 526/398 in ~51cm:
BH GC aero 520/390
Kestrel 4000 525/394
Specialized Shiv Tri 515/385

Murph100, and Discoverspeed have really given some good insight into Storck bikes in this thread. I too recently had the opportunity to get an Absolutist at a price I could not pass up. My sizing is a 55 Absolutist. Like other poster I too dropped stem length to accommodate top tube measurements:from 120 to 110. Likewise run a non setback seatpost.
In following this thread I read there are some axes to grind that I am not going to attempt to enter a reply. All I can volunteer is that the work I have put in to finding that perfect spot has been well worth the effort.
For those on the fence or curious I would gladly forward that the Absolutist is the best handling, responsive, and confidence inspiring machine I have yet to throw a leg over. I highly believe in fitting through trial and error, so if your willing to give Storcks a try you might discover a real gem.