I’m 5’10" with a ~32" inseam and fit great on my medium Stiggy V3. Maybe 20mm of spacers under my 90mm stem, but I have the bike setup to be comfy in the drops for the better handling/braking.
It’s super common for some folks to size way down when trying to minimize stack. It’s certainly been a thing in road racing as long as I can remember. That doesn’t mean that a small Stigmata is the “correct” sized frame for the average 5’10" rider. Many people can reasonably fit on 2 different frame sizes, often 3 with the exact same position/measurements on the bike. You certainly get some handling differences at the extremes on frame sizes and when getting into crazy long stems, etc., but folks make it work. Stack is typically the limiting factor. You can always add spacers to increase it, but it can be tough to reduce it (particularly when you get into integrated/proprietary cockpits). I kind of liked the way Specialized sized the Shiv back in the day. All the frame sizes had the same stack and you’d just choose your frame size based on reach. Folks that wanted higher stack just added spacers. Obviously that’s not a concept that caught on, most roadies are too vain to be rolling around with spacers under their stems, but the tradeoff is that many of them are rolling around with long stems and potential handling compromises from shorter wheelbase, etc…
2 Likes
Yeah, that was for the original Shiv (later called the Shiv TT). I have one of the original ones with the nosecone. The stack was 495 across the board, IIRC.
I could fit in either a Med or Lg and opted for the L and it fits me like a glove….I need a “Long and Low” geometry and it was perfect for me, even though I am 5’9”.
Also, if you want the Stiggy v3 geo with a lower stack, check out the Aspero.
1 Like
Bikes released to consumers are rarely designed “for” pros……and in this case, it is clear that Keegan adapted his v.4 to his needs as it clearly almost erases the design intentions of the bike.
He is using a long, negative rise stem instead of the “designed” 70mm stem and taking advantage of the longer frame reach.
Pros tend to be unicorns and their geometry needs are often at odds with what the market needs.
2 Likes
@mcneese.chad @barrows continuing the discussion on slack front ends, looks like the Argonaut GR3 is following the trend with a 68.5 degree head tube angle. This is significantly more slack than the GR2.
https://argonautcycles.com/bikes/gr3-custom-gravel-bike/
Compare: 2021 Argonaut GR2 Base 55R vs 2022 Argonaut GR3 Base 560 - Bike Insights,
EDIT: Prices are stupid expensive, though. More for conversation sake about more bikes going slack up front.
1 Like
Yeah, that sure is a shift in ideology and functional geo. I understand it and know it will work for may riders, but it’s well into the MTB-like spectrum that I don’t prefer. It indeed parallels the Stig transition to agro-gravel.
Ben Delaney raced the GR3 at Gravel Nationals. Some interesting perspectives on how it handled, both during his test ride when it launched and compared to his experience at Nats (mostly starting at 27:15). Despite his comments, I still am not sold on a slack front end and agree with @mcneese.chad comments above on the Stigmata 4 geometry, which is similar to the GR3.
2 Likes
His comments about the GR3 seemed “measured”
2 Likes
Agreed. I watched that section closely, twice… and think there’s more under the surface.
I’d really like to have good chat over drinks with Ben and others on this whole topic. I’d like to hear a contrast on the GR3 vs the Stig and others in the new geo world, as well as his thoughts on the Stig fall specifically.
Some cool stuff happening in this space, but I think some better info and education on the how’s & why’s behind it all could help riders make better choices.
5 Likes
@mcneese.chad well said
1 Like