Put differently, you’re saying that if I were to add the height of an EC headset, then it’d make things look a bit less low? (Still long for me…my road bike (custom) is 382 reach and I can comfortably use a 100mm stem, stack is at 559 (because I wanted as slammed as I could without a bunch of spacers))
Hm still longer
Yeah, but does bikeinsights account for that already?
1 Like
It’s long and low. But it’s on par with the Canyon Aeroad in a small. I get ~544 stack and 389 reach with the mandatory King Chris upper bearing bowl added. Your numbers seem like it’d fit you fine with 10-15mm spacers.
2 Likes
Bikeinsights doesn’t do anything intelligent with numbers, so you’re at the mercy of whoever made the geo chart it’s quoting.
For Mash, on their steel fixed frame, they calculated stack and reach without the lower headset, which is pointless, and got the values wrong anyway. Always verify stack and reach.
This is how i removed one recently. Spritz of rubbing alcohol and it came off easily after minor wrestling to move the alcohol around
I’m not following entirely. Can you clarify?
The stack/reach you calculated sound… good. So you added the Chris King and because of that the reach decreased yea? Got a geometry chart or something so I can see a visual?
1 Like
i’m sorry, what?
he’s a kiwi
2 Likes
I just have a spreadsheet that I collect geo in and it spits out all the numbers I want to see. I haven’t gotten it to draw yet, but bikegeo.net is roughly the same. The numbers are more honest, anyway.
So for the Mash, here’s what I did:
- I played with the lower headset’s stack/height until I could reproduce their posted frame stack + reach numbers from their geo, since lower headset is the only unlisted piece of data we need. I can see they assumed 11mm of lower headset stack.
- I know they love CK, and CK lowers are stack of ~12.8mm, so I sub that number in for the 11, to get a more realistic number. This ever so slightly bumps the stack and lowers the reach.
- Then, I calculate s+r to the upper headset by adding an additional ~15mm stack (again CK stack height).
Going up in stack will always decrease reach.
2 Likes
Liquid of dubious origins.
1 Like
Spent last night building my first wheel in 20 years I reckon. I had to dismantle 2 wheels to do it, one for the rim, one for the spokes. Rebuilt it with my new (to me) wireless Powertap hub, the old school 2.4+ that will actually talk to the second hand Garmin 510 that I recently got. There is a good reason why I stopped building wheels but I was on a hiding to nothing anyway as the original build, my old Wired Powertap hub wheel, was always a shit build. I didn’t want to waste anymore money than I already had so just reused the spokes. If I find myself actually using this wheel I will redo it properly with correctly sized spokes. It’s got a minor vertical hop in it but I’m not sure I can be arsed with tweaking it. Everything is connecting, which was always a risk.
6 Likes
Ok so what’s up with fork leg mounted bags and bottle cages?
specifically, i’m picturing having cages or bags on a Spork, crashing a little bit, and having the bolts rip out of the fork leg, thus totally ending the fork and whatever ride I’m on.
Is this actually a problem, or am I overthinking? It just seems like a spot where one might not want to have a lot of leverage easily applied to a bolt
Don’t crash
7 Likes
7 Likes
Looks good! My only very pedantic feedback is to include the lower headset in head tube length since it is subject to head tube’s angle and not the fork legs’.
Ah, OK, so I think I simply added 16 to the spacers (16+20mm = 36mm)
This seem more correct then?
Stack/Reach (spacers) seem more right then?
I added 16 to the spacers measurement, and added 11 to the headtube
