Skip to Content

Stack & Reach Primer: Chapter Three

Written by: Dan Empfield
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003

There are a couple of ways to remake sizing nomenclature so that it means something. What I'm presenting here is "stack" and "reach." Another way to get to the goal is via a method constructed by Enduro Sport in Toronto, a shop that is further down the road in tri bike fit than most in North America.
Enduro Sport has catalogued all the tri-geometry bikes it offers in terms of head tube length and top tube. But they've gone one step further. They've "normalized" all the seat angles at 78 degrees. In other words, let's say one bike has a 76-degree seat angle and a 58cm top tube in its 58cm size, and another bike that size has a 80-degree seat angle and a 55.5cm top tube in that size. Let's further say that both bikes have 13cm head tubes. In Enduro Sport's nomenclature, both these bikes might be the same for purposes of fit. Both might have 56.75cm top tube lengths when "normalized" to 78-degrees. Here's another way to look at reach: it's the bike's top tube length with the seat angle normalized at 90 degrees.
Back to Enduro Sports' sizing nomenclature: you might object with, "These bikes aren't the same, they have different top tube lengths." But they really don't. What is fixed in stone is whatever your proper position is relative to the BB. You can't be led by the geometry of the bike. You have to determine where you need to be "in space" and then find the right bike to place underneath you. Let's say your correct seat angle happens to be 78 degrees. If you buy the 76-degree frame you'll move the saddle forward on the rails, and/or change out the set-back seat post to a zero-offset post. In so doing you've effectively shortened the top tube length. Likewise, you'd have to move the saddle back on the rails of a set-back post on the 80-degree bike to get to 78 degrees, and you artificially lengthened the top tube. Therefore, in both cases you've really come up with the same bike, from the point of view of fit.
That's the elegance of Enduro Sport's approach, and the approach of any process that reduces the measures of any and all bikes to a sort of "Esperanto" that allows the entire industry to speak one meaningful language. Stack and reach is precisely that.
Why not simply use Enduro Sports' sizing scheme? This nomenclature would work fine for me, but for a couple of things. First, if you are just considering head tube length you are omitting two parameters, bottom bracket height and wheel size. You must know the wheel size before you can use the head tube dimension properly. Another way to view it is that you must also, perhaps, "normalize" the head tube to 700c (or to 650c if you prefer).
So, by using stack and reach you don't need to normalize anything. The information about the bike's size you need and don't have with stack and reach is whether the headset is integrated. If it is not, you must account for the head parts that stick up above the head tube top.


Articles related to this one
Stack & Reach Primer: Chapter One
Earlier in the decade I wrote an article on how bikes are sized, and the gist was that we ought to be looking at bikes from the point of view of head tubes and top tubes, and that's it. -- no more seat tube sizing. 2.19.03
Stack & Reach Primer: Chapter Two
Our primer on stack & reach continues with the second chapter in the series. We examine how stack and reach enable you to understand how a given bike will, or will not, fit you. 2.19.03
Finding the right bike from the bars back
There are some very sexy integrated aero bars on the market right now. Profile Design's Carbon X. 3T's Ventus. Visiontech's Trimax. All these feature integrated stems. How does one divine what frame fits these bars? 3.26.08
Frame sizing problems, Part I: Beware of T-shirt nomenclature
Thinking about getting a Scott Plasma? How about a Specialized Transition S Works? What size bike is your best fit? Would it surprise you to know that one in size M fits precisely the same size as the other in size L? 1.27.08
Frame sizing problems, Part II: Let's look at the numbers
Are numerical sizing schemes more accurate than T-shirt sizes? Yes, but only marginally. 2.04.08
Stack & Reach Primer: Chapter One
Earlier in the decade I wrote an article on how bikes are sized, and the gist was that we ought to be looking at bikes from the point of view of head tubes and top tubes, and that's it. -- no more seat tube sizing. 2.19.03


Stack and Reach 5 out of 5 stars

Reviewed by: Howard, Oct 10 2009 10:49PM

This 'normalization' really makes it simple to compare bike-to-bike measurements. I struggled with the different geometries versus claimed 'sizes' and this way of looking at a bike makes that inconsistency disappear. Normalization is indeed the right term. I now have a template against which I can compare any future bikes.

Good article - still valid 6 years later 5 out of 5 stars

Reviewed by: Bill, Apr 13 2009 8:19PM

I agree with many points, and to this day a 54 is a 52 is a 57.5 is a large. One thing I would add to the two basic measurements of stack and reach, is seatpost angle. at a point it becomes important because to adjust your "in the air" saddle position upwards, you also increase your reach, which, from manufacturer to manufacturer, can prove impossible to balance correctly with stack height.