Am I the only one growing a little suspicious of all these heavily discounted bikes suddenly turning into miracle machines ?
just wish I had miracle legs !
Well, that was more or less my initial remark about it, wasn't it ?
While that can somewhat be remedied by training there's only so much you can do about the geometry of a frame.
Glad to hear it worked out so well for you but I just can't help but wonder who on earth buys a frame (no matter how deep the discount) to then see if it would fit them.
I'm sure you can follow the reasoning.....
(That's a genuine question!)
I bought a top -end frame in 2011; Money was not a problem so I tested/looked at/tried several frames I wanted a frame that was
In the end I went for a Parlee z5SL as felt the best, I considered Cannondale, Storck and Cervelo but the Parlee did it all - it was light and responsive and it was quite exclusive I rode a Storck and whilst being stiff and light it was on par with the others. Really the only frame that felt different (and only slightly different) was the Parlee. Maybe it was the fortunate fact that it fitted me but it really was slightly better than my Cervelo R3sl the others were quite the same (Cannondale scoring well)
My point - I have no doubt that this latest Storck is good but is it really better than previous offerings or is it just last years model with a few tweeks?
I have been a WW since 2002 so please don't kill me but experience has taught me that all thay glitters is not gold
Cervelo S5 stack reach: 530/369"
Again, I am no fit expert but I would guess you need both stack and reach to compare frame fit.
The stack-reach ratios are not the same between the S5 and Storck. The Storck has a more "aggressive" ratio of 1.32 vs Cervelo S5's 1.44. To get to my current fit (which has been through a RETUL fitting) on the Storck, I would have to drop my Cervelo S5's stack.
In fact, the size 51 Storck geometry is the most aggressive in the Storck range. I used to joke that if you can fit into a size 51, the rest of the sizes should be easier to fit - I can't say that as a sweeping statement of course as body ratios/ arm lengths are different for all people. Personally for me, If I wanted a slightly more relaxed fit, I could go onto a size 55 (stack-reach ratio 1.37) as I am somewhat of an "in-between" size on the Storck chart. BTW, the Storck stack-reach ratios increase to >1.4 from size 57 onwards.
Interesting that you highlighted the TT geometries as I am predominantly a TT guy - maybe that is why I find the lower stack-reach ratios more comfortable. I guess I am far more comfortable or more accurately, as my fitter says, I am engaging more of the same muscles when I am on the lower stack-reach ratios for road bikes. My hip angle remains more open with the longer reach on the lower drop, and this opens my abdomen and lungs more.
So again, what I am saying is that the stack-reach combination of the Storck size 51 geometry works good for me. My caveat has always been there - I cannot say it is the same for the rest of the 7 billion people in the world and I am not even suggesting that the geometry will fit a person of my current 1.74m height. But what I will say is that whether a geometry works for you or not should be decided on the bike and better still, by a proper bike fit - body, hip angles and resultant watt/ HR outputs are more objective numbers to see what works or not.
CharlesM wrote:Discoverspeed wrote: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
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...
Yes I agree with you completely that there isn't a definitive statement that because it fits/ doesn't fit someone, it will therefore fit/ not fit another person.
BTW, regarding the short head tube length that you noticed for the size 51 Storck, I read in another thread in ww that this is partly due to the longer fork that Storck uses that allows the carbon at the fork crown to bend more gradually in order to preserve carbon's strength and integrity. Again, I don't know if this is correct or wrong but it sounds logical. Even allowing for this, the stack is still low but not as crazy as a head tube length of 115mm would suggest.
The key thing at the end of the day is the stack height which takes into account the BB height and fork length - although the BB height does affect the overall balance (and perhaps crank length choice). In my opinion, the BB height is the critical factor as stack and reach are all referenced from there. It therefore affects the overall rider CG and balance. Fork length, head tube height, spacer thickness and stem height combine to give the final rider stack figure relative to the BB height.
Technical designers like Markus take everything into account when designing his frames - especially the fork, the seat post (the Ultracomfort 185 in particular) and wheels. He has often stressed in his talks that he cannot design the frame in isolation but the frame is part of an integral working whole. That is perhaps why he is a proponent of integration (crank, brakes, seat post etc). I am sure it works for some and doesn't for others but that is ok. The same can be said of any permutation of geometries (and "matching" components).
I am definitely not as technically knowledgeable as Markus or even you (I have been a long time reader of PezTech and you have my respect) so don't flame me. I am just sharing my personal experience without imposing a view. I have been gravitating to Storck because the geometry fits me better than the other brands that I have tried in the past (all posted on ww before). Others may have a different experience.
fdegrove wrote:Glad to hear it worked out so well for you but I just can't help but wonder who on earth buys a frame (no matter how deep the discount) to then see if it would fit them.
I'm sure you can follow the reasoning.....
I'm 5'5" with a short torso and short arms... like T-Rex arms.
Let me also mention that I like a low position with plenty of drop, just clearly I can't take a lot of reach.
Of course the 51 was simply ridiculous with a 55 top tube, so it had to be the 47. Why then, why oh why does the smaller frame have a taller head tube? I'm short enough as it is, I don't want to be up on an ape hanger! a 12.5cm head tube along with the world's tallest fork just gave me an intolerable amount of stack. I couldn't handle the top tube either - I used a 75mm stem. So for starters, I just didn't fit - that's my fault really, I should have looked at the geometry and been immediately put off, but hey we all have to learn the hard way.
Easily the most off-putting thing though was the handling. It was just such hard work to get it going in a straight line. Cornering wasn't any fun at all. The insane fork length, minute fork rake, tall head tube, along with the short stem was just a recipe for disaster. I just couldn't stand it.
All these things made me almost cry on my first ride on it. I understand new bikes can feel a little odd at first, but this felt SO wrong. I rode it for a few months more and it never got any better. Totally put me off cycling in fact. I still like Storcks, as long as I don't have to ride them. I'm sad that I can't ride them, but fit is so important.
In summary - don't buy a Storck if you're really short, with short arms/torso. Under any circumstances.
So I'm back on my old Trek 1500. No it's not 'the best frame in the world' by a long shot, but it works for me. I think my fit on it some people may find strange, but it really works for me. Interestingly though the original forks for it are very tall, just like the Storck's. I've never ridden it with those forks, I run shorter ones with 45mm rake and it seems to handle great. I also run a short stem (80mm), but it handles great and doesn't look dumb because the head tube is so short. I guess I should be riding a shorter frame with a longer stem, but if it ain't broke don't fix it.
In summary: Don't buy a Storck if you're really short, with t-rex arms. Under any circumstances.
- Similar Topics
- Last post