Trek startet to use a term called “Rise” instead of stack for all of the bikes.
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/triathlon/speed_concept_7_series/speed_concept_7_8/#
If you look at the picture, the messurement for reach is different to the common method.
Canyon keeps on usuning stack, but has confusing picture, too:
http://www.canyon.com/_en/triathlonbikes/bike.html?b=3069#tab-reiter2
Any ideas?
Actually, Treks way of measuring stack and reach is correct. Canyon appears to be measuring stack to the top of pads as indicated by the picture. Which would be incorrect - at least in the context of looking at frame stack and reach.
Dont know why Trek refers to stack as rise, but its the same data point and is measured and detailed appropriately on their site.
yep, trek looks like it is doing it right, other than using new nomenclature which is a dick move =)
canyon is doing it super wrong, especially considering that bike has a normal front end. some sort of pad stack chart is appropriate for integrated front ends though sometimes.
Pad stack is what matters, but of course you need to use a specific bar and pads. To a single consumer buying direct from canyon pad stack gives them the final answer.
It would be nice if everyone measured the same but thats not going to happen. At least this is better than 16 different bb standard some with no reasonable need for existance other than not wanting to using something another company adopted first.
The problem is, that the reach is applied to the middle of the stem by trek.
Usually stack and reach are messured at the top of the headset(where the stem is placed on). So the “new trek reach” has a slightly smaller reach (about 6mm if you think about a half hight of the stem clamping hight of 20mm).
No, it actually isnt. Treks stack and reach numbers are measured to the center/top of the headset.
I would wager the diagram is just inaccurate,and it is shown that way because otherwise it would be on top of the top tube line.
which, really should not exist. top tube length is a troll metric.
The problem is, that the reach is applied to the middle of the stem by trek.
Usually stack and reach are messured at the top of the headset(where the stem is placed on). So the “new trek reach” has a slightly smaller reach (about 6mm if you think about a half hight of the stem clamping hight of 20mm).
Pad stack is what matters, but of course you need to use a specific bar and pads. To a single consumer buying direct from canyon pad stack gives them the final answer.
It would be nice if everyone measured the same but thats not going to happen. At least this is better than 16 different bb standard some with no reasonable need for existance other than not wanting to using something another company adopted first.
The problem with this is, that the information for frame only gets lost. This is important for people that build trair bike on their own.
And: the fairly common and exact “reach ans stack” frame characterization gets corrupted by such wrong usage.
That is right. The Numbers of the SC are the old ones, so the “rise” is the old stack. But people who want to figure out what the reach is, are misleaded by the graphic. If you look closely, the shown reach “M” is shorter than the (ment?) reach.
All in one this is some kind of unnecessary and inconsistent.
Ugh…don’t know what/when/why, but
“I’m making inquiries…”
.
Ugh…don’t know what/when/why, but
“I’m making inquiries…”
awww yeah!
Trek’s doing right.
You know how you know Trek’s doing it right?
Because the person who largely created the idea of stack and reach, Dan Empfield, is praising Trek’s use of stack and reach. And the idea is even being adopted by Roadies, like Zinn.
Carl, its been stated as “rise” for some time. Months at least.
I dont ever pay much attention to the diagram so not sure about that. But like jackmott said, it’d be hard to show top tube length and reach appropriately on such a small diagram without overlapping each other.
If people want to show “difficult” things precisely they should use the suitable way.
Engineers get that right with technical drawing. Eventuelly you can leave out stack and reach in the drawing, as trek did in the past, istead of making a misleading drawing in combination with a new not defined term.
Trek was doing right, that is sure. 
And does it with its Speed Concept technicaly.
I got my Equnox TTX size M right to the millimeter, because it was clear that stack and reach was stack and reach. The two coordinates indicate exactly where the stem is placed in respect of the BB, as everybody knows.
Now the term Stack is gone with no explanation and the reach is not shown properly, why is it? This are minor issues, but i think trek can and should be a good example in such things and have a very clear and complete geometry documentation.
Canyon has a nice looking technical drawing style, but can’t even get the steering tube length right in the picture, so trek is not that bad in this issue.
Somebody from a german forum found this:
http://www.trekbikes.com.ua/...ek/geometry_2012.pdf
This indicates, that rise is really just stack. I still have no idea what it’s all about to use new terms. And I have no idea how to get to the linked document over the US or german trek-site.
One other inconsestency can be seen when comaring the linked PDF and the pictures on the website:
The effective toptube length “E” is shown in the pdf at the top of the stem, but on the website at the top of the headset(as it commonly messured). Technicaly it is not exactly the same, if the steering tube angle and the seat tube angle are different.
So, two years later…
The terms are ok now, the drawing is still BS.
C’mon Trek, as the world market leader you can manage to make an engineering drawing. Or at least a drawing that is nice looking AND accurate.
canyon is doing it super wrong, especially considering that bike has a normal front end. some sort of pad stack chart is appropriate for integrated front ends though sometimes.
From the text at the Canyon site, it appears they’re doing it right but the diagram is wrong. “From BB centre to top of head tube” sounds like regular S/R to me.
But, as it’s an integrated bike, they also have a super-detailed chart (buried deep within their Support section) for pad s/r for each of the gazillion stem, bar and spacer combos. I can hit my coordinates on S, M and L frames depending on the combination, and I’m 6"2! From ultra-low to sit-up-and-beg high, seems like a pretty flexible bike.
That was a really old post, they may have changed it. I don’t remember
canyon is doing it super wrong, especially considering that bike has a normal front end. some sort of pad stack chart is appropriate for integrated front ends though sometimes.
From the text at the Canyon site, it appears they’re doing it right but the diagram is wrong. “From BB centre to top of head tube” sounds like regular S/R to me.
But, as it’s an integrated bike, they also have a super-detailed chart (buried deep within their Support section) for pad s/r for each of the gazillion stem, bar and spacer combos. I can hit my coordinates on S, M and L frames depending on the combination, and I’m 6"2! From ultra-low to sit-up-and-beg high, seems like a pretty flexible bike.
Oops. Note to self: Double-check post dates, even if someone else bumped the post to the front page. Should’ve suspected it when you said “normal front end”.