Weight Weenies

Disclaimer: I completely understand why _most_ people don't want tall headtubes. But there are some of us out there that would prefer not to have mountains of spacers under stems on short HT frames.

Polar opposite to the 'slam that stem' movement, but I'm looking for some advice on what frame makers to look at for geo's with taller headtubes and shorter reaches then the industry norm.

I currently ride a Trek Madone 5.9 (H2) in 60cm, its got a 21cm HT, and 58.6 TT (effective), with 100m stem. It fits well. I've tried going lower, but having long legs and relatively shorter arms means i get sore quickly. It looks like the reach of most "large" makes of 57-58cm works, but almost all have headtubes around the 18cm mark. Not what I'm after. Already have a couple of cm under my 21cm HT as it is.

So far I've got:

-Cervelo R3/5 58cm: 199mm HT, 581mm TT
-Ridley Noah L: 205mm HT, 585mm TT
-Parlee with 'Tall' option. Though, geez, they don't look great. Just tacking on some head tube above the headtube and TT junction looks a bit tacky for such a boutique company
-Trek 60cm (as already mentioned): 210mm HT, 586mm TT
-custom options.

Any others people know of, or other suggestions?

Thanks.

I'm in a similar situation with my desired frame geometries, due to having very long legs for my height, a short torso, and avg arms. Although my frame size target is different from yours, I too have noticed some trends among manufacturers.

Though I prefer to target stack & reach, sometimes HT and TT are decent approximations of what might be the resulting stack & reach.

Take a look at Neil Pryde's geometries and see what you think.
For example, for you:
Their LARGE on the Bura is 180mm HT, 575mm TT... stack & reach is 593/394
Compare to the Cervelo R5 stack & reach of 605/396 in the 58. Not too far off compared to the geos of other manufacturers/brands.

Also, Crumpton's Corsa Team lineup comes a little close, but may be drifting a bit away from the part of the range you are looking for specifically.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

That's true, look at stack and reach. I think Ridley have taller stack and shorter reach than most. Check out Stevens geo as well. And BMC has a second class of geos like the Trek H2 on some frames. They also have a short reach/tall stack (and forward 74deg) geo on that new Time Machine aero road bike. That thing is the ideal for aggro tRex riders.

Good luck.

BMC Gran Fondo, and the Impec in 'Endurance' geo.
Cannondale Synapse
Giant Defy (Advanced and Advanced SL for the nicer versions)
Look used to do the 585 Optimum (rare to find now, but they're out there), and now have the 586 and 675
Time Fluidity
Felt Z series

I'm sure there's more...

Trek Domane has a 57.9 cm TT / 22 cm HT in a size 60 (38.3 cm reach, 63.2 cm stack). Looks like it would fit you well with a 11 cm stem.

I have the same fit challenges as you so lately I have been going custom (aluminum and steel), but the Domane is the one stock carbon frame I have been looking at because of the relatively short and tall geometry. Plus I hear it rides very well.

I'm 186 cms tall with a 93 inside leg so I understand your plight. I think the Ridleys are worth looking at though the reach could be a little shorter. I recently bought a Merida Ride Carbon in size 59 with a head-tube of 240, a top-tube of 580, a stack of 635 and a reach of 386, I would say it's close to tradtional Italian geometry of the 80s and 90s. The next size down might do you as well. I didn't want the equipment on it so stripped it down and rebuilt with with my own gear. There is also an aluminium option that will bring the cost down.

If you haven't already, consider getting a professional bike fit. They will be able to give you more accurate information when they can see/measure you in the flesh. Looking at geometries online often means very little; for example, at 198cm (6ft6) I ride both a 62 and a 58 comfortably, and when compared side-to side they are very close to the same size, with a few different sized parts.

Sorry, some of these suggestions might be repeats of what others have suggested.

Your Current Bike
Stack (ST)=615, Reach (RE)=395, Top Tube (TT)=586, Head Tube (HT)=210

Possibilities:
Time VRS Fluidity, XL (ST**=615, RE**=392, TT=580, HT=219)
Parlee Z5, XL Tall (ST=624, RE=389, TT=585, HT=221)
Specialized Roubaix, 58 (ST=622, RE=392, TT=582, HT=225)
Bianchi Infinito, 61 (ST**=622, RE**=389, TT=585, HT=225)
Jamis Endura, 58 (ST=618, RE=391, TT=580, HT=210)
Colnago Ace, 56S/58S (too much missing info to get an accurate stack/reach estimate)
Merckx EMX-3, 54 (ST=610, RE=388, TT=583, HT=216)
Trek Domane, 60 (ST=632, RE=383, TT=579, HT=220)

After looking at the geometry charts, I don't think that a Ridley, Franco Kanan, Scott CR1, Cervelo R-Series, Felt Z-Series, Cannondale Synapse or BMC Granfondo will offer you what you're looking for. They have sizes with stacks greater than or equal to your Trek, but the reach is longer, which completely goes against your desire for shorter reach. You could go down one size, which would potentially solve the reach issue, but then the stack is shorter than your Trek and you said that you don't want to go any lower either. The Look 566 won't work because their largest size (XL=57) won't give you the stack that your Trek has.

All the bikes under "Possibilities" have stacks greater than or equal to your Trek (with the exception of the Merckx EMX-3) but the reach is at least a few mm shorter. It looks as if the Trek Domane series is the most extreme in terms of having a tall head tube paired with a short top tube.

** Stack & reach numbers are estimates

Excellent post, savechief!

Also new Colnago CX Zero

I'd like to comment briefly on using stack and reach: While everyone would like there to be one be all and end all to comparing frame sizes between manufacturers, the fact is, there are still reconciliations to be made even with stack and reach. While stack and reach measurements do take the seat tube angle out of the equation and resulting differences in top tube length for the same reach, they do not account for differences in bottom bracket drop or differences in headset covers. For example, lets look at an extreme case of a Cannondale Supersix (2011 I believe) which comes with a whopping 3cm cone of a headset cover before the spacers even start. Where are you going to make the measuring point for stack and reach? I would argue that the stack measurement should be made at the highest point where either spacers under the stem would start, or if you are "slamming" the stem, where the stem sits on the headset cover. Going back to the Cannondale example, there are actually two headset covers that it comes with... the really tall 3cm one which I described above, or a shorter one that you can use which sits underneath it. Prior to 2013, Colnago C59 headsets (and others) also came like this. Basically they give you a choice of two headset top covers you can use, a tall one or a short one, depending on your needs.

So, unless you're going to completely ignore the headset top covers that come with the particular frames you are trying to compare, then stack and reach are only comparable across framesets from different manufacturers if you intend to slam your stem on top of the frame with no top cover on the headset. Hardly likely... so when I measure stack and reach, I like to modify it a bit and measure to the point where all headset hardware required is in place and ready for either added spacers or the stem.

Point is, when comparing different frame geometries, you always have to try to get as close to apples to apples comparisons as possible. Stack and reach is a good starting point, but as I've just explained, there's still a couple of things you should watch out for and consider.

^^ Very true.

Most frame BB drops compared to my three custom frames mean at least an extra 5mm of spacers, and often 10mm or more to match the reach and drop.

True, stack and reach are not perfect when comparing bikes across multiple manufacturers, but it's better than relying solely on top tube length and head tube length.

As for the Colnago CX Zero, I don't know if it would be a viable candidate. The 56 has a stack of 609, which is less than the OP's Trek, and the 58, while it has a stack of 627 (12mm higher than the OP's Trek), also has a 1mm longer reach. To obtain less total reach, the OP would have to likely switch to a 90mm stem. If he's OK with that, then the size 58 CX Zero might work.

I find this spreadsheet handy for getting a general idea for what a different bike might do to my positioning. It takes into account other things mentioned, like headset top caps and spacers:

http://bb2stem.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a comparison of your size 60 Madone to a size 60 Domane. I had to make a few assumptions in my inputs (21mm = stem stack divided by 2, 10mm of spacers under stem, 17mm tall headset top cap, 84/6 stem, had to make the Madone fork 370mm and the Domane fork 382mm to get the stack/reach numbers to match those published by Trek):

You could run the same 100mm stem without any spacers, and you would end up with the handlebars about 12mm higher and just under 12mm closer to you.

BikeTart wrote:^^ Very true.

Most frame BB drops compared to my three custom frames mean at least an extra 5mm of spacers, and often 10mm or more to match the reach and drop.

A stack measurement would take different BB drops into account since it is the vertical distance from the center of the BB to the top of the head tube.

Wow! Thank you, thank you, thank you! So much amazing info posted, appreciate your info especially savechief.

Thanks for the insights on HT & TT vs. reach & stack too. Feeling a lot more confident in picking a new frame now. More research to do for sure.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com