Hi, I’m in the process of getting a new bike.
I have narrowed down my list below.
My current bike is the one with the red arrow.
I’m leaning towards 1st and 2nd option. Will there be a big difference from my current bike e.g. handling? or which one should I get from this list based of geometry alone?
I’m mostly doing crits & gran fondos.
*hid the bb type so no brand bias *
I pulled your current bike and dropped it between the 1st two, for easier comparison:
Other than listing some events, you don’t mention if you like your current bike and aim to change from that or keep it more “similar”.
A. This bike has similar Head Tube Angle, Wheelbase and Front Center with lower BB Drop but is “longer” as a blanket summary. It will corner and transition a bit “slower” in relation to your current bike.
B. This bike is more of the same as “A” above with even slacker Head Tube Angle, longer Wheelbase and such. It will handle even “slower” than option A and your current bike.
If I had to guess and summarize:
- Current bike = Race bike
- A = Endurance bike
- B = Gravel or “Extra” Endurance bike
All the above assumes you attain the same functional fit between saddle and bars. If you choose to alter that for any reason some of the info above my or may not apply.
Not sure that’s helpful, but without more specific goals or feedback related to your current bike, it’s hard to offer much more.
Oops. Yes. You are right. My current bike is a race bike and I really love how it corners and bombs descent. Very nimble. The only reason im replacing it is due to a crack seat stay.
Im strongly considering option A and B just for the reason it has a taller stack . As im still running 15mm spacer on my current bike.
But kidding aside, of all my list which one is the closest to my current and will address my 15mm spacer dilemma.
So your goal = same geo & ride performance minus a few spacers for a “slammed stem” look while having the at the same functional fit?
If so, the 3rd or 4th options (not the ones in my pic above) nearly match your current bike, while being just a bit taller in both cases and allow you to dump half the height in spacers (all else being equal).
Each has some differences from your current bike with a few mm’s off one direction or the other, but the 3/4 options are closer than 1/2 options, which are more endurance style geo’s.
For your own quick reference, press the radio button in GeoGeeks, right where your red arrow is. You will see very minor deltas to the 3/4 options with your current bike as the “base”.
Based solely on stack and reach as the main ‘components’ of frame geometry, option 4 would be my choice just off the numbers. As they are the closest to your existing numbers.
A frame’s stack and reach cannot be changed. However, adjusting other components to ‘fit’ can be altered to give you the correct bike fit ie saddle setback, spacers, stem length etc.
As a rule for me, I would try get as close as possible to the stack and reach that I am currently using and content with. That is also if you are wanting the same riding position for the new bike, and ideally, the new bike is going to be used in the same fashion as the existing bike. As riding geometry matters. Being upright for adventure touring is better than being stretched and low as in road racing.
Edit: found this article that I had read a long while back
I may be wrong but my amateur impression is that main reason for stack and reach comparison it it lets you see if you can get close to replicating a position from bike to bike and/or if a certain bike can give you a better position (ie lower more aero).
But, its headtube angle, fork rake and wheel base that have the major effect on handling and specifically on whether a bike feels more or less nimble/twitchy. A shorter wheel base and less rake is going to change direction quicker and that’s what gives those race frames that twitchy racy feel.
Thank you all for your inputs. Yes, I would like to replicate the fit and ride performance of my current to possibly my new bike.
Is my understanding correct 10mm higher stack is 10mm less spacer given everything else is same? reach, head tube length, angle?
ETA: I will add, when we talk about the final rider fit… that there are a few more factors that go beyond the frame geo’s. Stuff like the Handlebar Reach value, as well as the brake/shift hoods can all impact the final, functional fit.
Comparing the current handlebar to ones on the bikes of interest is fairly easy. They don’t always list the detailed bars specs on the main bike page, but search for the bar model separately to find those specs.
The hoods are more tricky, since there aren’t hard specs. It’s worse since even not all the hoods within a single brand match. Stuff like changes between electronic to mechanical, as well as brand can alter the place you really land on the hoods, relative to the saddle.
It’s all a bit more complicated than just the frame, but it is the part that is the most difficult to swap, so you have the right start at least.
I taken this into consideration. I will be using the same components and will not even bother to remove the levers and handlebar from the stem.
Since im only planning to get the frameset only option.
Only thing to consider now is the seatpost setback. My current have a 15mm setback. Need to retrofit this as well.
They’re all pretty dang close. I don’t notice much of a difference on my road and gravel bike on the same wheels/tires. I can adjust the chainstay length 15mm and that’s noticeable, but barely.
The exact frame design will matter more than the geo when it’s this close. The only thing that stood out is that seat tube was 20mm higher and the trailer head tube. I suspect they won’t ride as nice and will just feel different because of the taller head tube. The wheels/tires/fit drive most of the bike’s character though. You probably won’t notice going to these bikes, but after you spend some time on them, you’d notice the difference for a few min if you went back