Graphing geometric themes
Written by: Dan Empfield
Date: Wed Apr 28 2010
First, let's talk about what this graph means. An astute Slowtwitcher commented on previous iterations of graphs like this, that I ought to change the axis to read like this graph now does. If you can imagine looking at a bike in profile, from the drive side, the points on this graph are placed to more or less mimic what's going on geometrically.
When you look at a Scott Plasma 1, or a Blue Triad, in their largest sizes, you're looking at bikes that have head tubes that are very high above the bottom bracket. But if you look at a Kuota Kueen K, in its largest size, it's not very tall at all relative to the Scott and the Blue. But the Kueen K's head tube top is farther in front of the bottom bracket. The bike is longer (in terms of how it'll fit), and it's lower.
We've plotted size runs of seven sample bikes to give you an idea what we're talking about. The numbers are in centimeters (but the graph is not to scale). They refer to the distance the head tube top is in front of, and above, the bottom bracket. The image below demonstrates this graphically.
So as you'll note, the Cervelo P3 and P4, in size 54cm, feature head tubes that sit 50cm above the bottom bracket, and 42cm in front of the bottom bracket. Meanwhile, the Felt models in 60cm have head tube tops that sit 56cm above the bottom bracket, and about 46cm in front of the bottom bracket.
The metrics we favor using for this exercise are "reach" and "stack", which are X and Y measures respectively between the bottom bracket and the head tube top. The numbers listed on this chart refer to reach and stack.
The Blue, the Scott, and the Specialized are what we call "narrow/tall" bikes. This, because the head tube top does not sit very far in front of the bottom bracket, but it does sit quite high above the bottom bracket, relative to its length.
I'd like you to notice a few things. First, you can see that the Kueen K, the P3 and the Felt geometries are for the most part "long and low." But the Felt is less long/low than the other two. Conversely, the Transition, T14 and Plasmas are "narrow and tall."
But they are not all uniformly narrow/tall, or long/low. Further, some are not uniformly of a particular style throughout their size runs.
When you look at a Scott Plasma 1, or a Blue Triad, in their largest sizes, you're looking at bikes that have head tubes that are very high above the bottom bracket. But if you look at a Kuota Kueen K, in its largest size, it's not very tall at all relative to the Scott and the Blue. But the Kueen K's head tube top is farther in front of the bottom bracket. The bike is longer (in terms of how it'll fit), and it's lower.
We've plotted size runs of seven sample bikes to give you an idea what we're talking about. The numbers are in centimeters (but the graph is not to scale). They refer to the distance the head tube top is in front of, and above, the bottom bracket. The image below demonstrates this graphically.
So as you'll note, the Cervelo P3 and P4, in size 54cm, feature head tubes that sit 50cm above the bottom bracket, and 42cm in front of the bottom bracket. Meanwhile, the Felt models in 60cm have head tube tops that sit 56cm above the bottom bracket, and about 46cm in front of the bottom bracket.
The metrics we favor using for this exercise are "reach" and "stack", which are X and Y measures respectively between the bottom bracket and the head tube top. The numbers listed on this chart refer to reach and stack.
The Blue, the Scott, and the Specialized are what we call "narrow/tall" bikes. This, because the head tube top does not sit very far in front of the bottom bracket, but it does sit quite high above the bottom bracket, relative to its length.
I'd like you to notice a few things. First, you can see that the Kueen K, the P3 and the Felt geometries are for the most part "long and low." But the Felt is less long/low than the other two. Conversely, the Transition, T14 and Plasmas are "narrow and tall."
But they are not all uniformly narrow/tall, or long/low. Further, some are not uniformly of a particular style throughout their size runs.
For example, the Kueen K is in the main long and low, but, as the sizes get smaller this model trends away from long and low. Why is this? Mostly, because the bike doesn't offer 650c models in the small sizes. This causes the bike to resist remaining a "low" bike in the smaller sizes because the 700c front wheel can only allow the bike to be made so low, and no lower. In fact, the Kueen K in size XS is not any lower than the size S, because each cousin shares the same 95mm head tube length.
The Specialized Transition is a uniformly narrower/taller bike than Cervelo's P3. Until the tallest size. The Transition's head tube grows from 135mm in size XL to 150mm in size XXL, while its front/center grows by more than 30mm. The P3 also grows in head tube size by 15mm from it's 58cm to its 60cm, but, the front/center grows by only half that much.
In other words, the Transition grows "length" at a much faster rate than does the P3 between these two sizes, while it grows in height at the same rate as the P3. The Transition becomes a moderately long/low bike, sitting on the P3's geometry curve, in its tallest size. But in the other sizes, it's geometrically a different animal (albeit not by a huge amount).
The Blue T14 starts out, in its smallest size, as about the narrowest/tallest bike in the tri industry (for that size). And it ends up that way in its largest size. But in the middle sizes its geometric theme changes.
But the Blue Triad is not built that way. Yes, geometrically it is a narrow/tall bike, just like the T14, but the "grading" of the frame bespeaks a more uniform attachment to a particular geometric theme.
Note that the lowest bikes—those with the least stack—on this chart are the pair of 48cm bikes made by Cervelo and Felt. The reason is simple: These bikes are made with 650c wheels. If you're shorter than 5'6" and you have difficulty getting the front end of your bike low enough, you can see why this is. A stack below 50cm is almost unheard of on a bike built with 700c wheels, but Kestrel, Cervelo, Felt and QR offer bikes with a stack 4cm, 5cm, even 6cm lower than anything achievable on a bike built with a 700c front wheel.
Note that T-shirt sizing is imprecise, and that bike companies feel no compunction to normalize with each other. Or, in some cases, to normalize even among their own models. Scott's M and the Specialized in L are pretty similar bikes, geometrically. The Specialized in XL is no longer than the Blue T14 in L, but the T14 in L is taller. Meanwhile the Blue Triad in LG is almost identical to the Scott Plasma in XL.
It's no different in the numbered sizes. The Kuota Kueen K is a taller bike in 51cm than the P3, but close to the same length. But in 56cm, it's reversed. The Kueen K is longer than the P3 in the same size, but close to the same height. As noted, this is because the Kueen K is not uniformly one style of bike throughout its size run, while the P3 largely is.
None of this is good or bad, it just is. The lack of a bike's tendency to stay true to a geometric theme throughout its size run does not make it a bad bike. But it does make it a different bike, depending on its size. As long as you note the difference, you'll be okay.
This has been mentioned numerous times, but, like the Krebs Cycle, you can't learn it enough, right? So here goes:
Who needs a narrow/tall bike? In general, two types of folks: 1) Those who'll ride with a shallower seat angle, which usually (but not always) means the front of their bikes will be a little taller because of their choice of shallower seat angle; and 2) Those who are long-legged, and short in the torso.
There are other factors. For example, if you intend to ride with a very low profile aerobar (with armrests the tops of which sit perhaps 2cm or 3cm above the centerline of the pursuit bar), you'll need a marginally taller frame to take up that space usually taken up by the aerobar. Also, if you choose a stem with an extension that's parallel to the ground, you'll need to make up that elevation difference, either by spacers (bad idea) or frame height (good idea).
Who needs a long/low bike? Typically, those who'll ride a steeper seat angle, and whose steeper angle allows or causes them to ride with a lower front end. Also, short-leg, long-torso riders need a lower front end (to correspond to their shorter legs) and more "reach" (more horizontal distance between the crank and the head tube top). Also, riders who choose an aerobar with armrests that sit high above the pursuit bar (e.g., Profile T2, Syntace), may need a lower frame to make room for this tallish aerobar geometry.
The Specialized Transition is a uniformly narrower/taller bike than Cervelo's P3. Until the tallest size. The Transition's head tube grows from 135mm in size XL to 150mm in size XXL, while its front/center grows by more than 30mm. The P3 also grows in head tube size by 15mm from it's 58cm to its 60cm, but, the front/center grows by only half that much.
In other words, the Transition grows "length" at a much faster rate than does the P3 between these two sizes, while it grows in height at the same rate as the P3. The Transition becomes a moderately long/low bike, sitting on the P3's geometry curve, in its tallest size. But in the other sizes, it's geometrically a different animal (albeit not by a huge amount).
The Blue T14 starts out, in its smallest size, as about the narrowest/tallest bike in the tri industry (for that size). And it ends up that way in its largest size. But in the middle sizes its geometric theme changes.
But the Blue Triad is not built that way. Yes, geometrically it is a narrow/tall bike, just like the T14, but the "grading" of the frame bespeaks a more uniform attachment to a particular geometric theme.
Note that the lowest bikes—those with the least stack—on this chart are the pair of 48cm bikes made by Cervelo and Felt. The reason is simple: These bikes are made with 650c wheels. If you're shorter than 5'6" and you have difficulty getting the front end of your bike low enough, you can see why this is. A stack below 50cm is almost unheard of on a bike built with 700c wheels, but Kestrel, Cervelo, Felt and QR offer bikes with a stack 4cm, 5cm, even 6cm lower than anything achievable on a bike built with a 700c front wheel.
Note that T-shirt sizing is imprecise, and that bike companies feel no compunction to normalize with each other. Or, in some cases, to normalize even among their own models. Scott's M and the Specialized in L are pretty similar bikes, geometrically. The Specialized in XL is no longer than the Blue T14 in L, but the T14 in L is taller. Meanwhile the Blue Triad in LG is almost identical to the Scott Plasma in XL.
It's no different in the numbered sizes. The Kuota Kueen K is a taller bike in 51cm than the P3, but close to the same length. But in 56cm, it's reversed. The Kueen K is longer than the P3 in the same size, but close to the same height. As noted, this is because the Kueen K is not uniformly one style of bike throughout its size run, while the P3 largely is.
None of this is good or bad, it just is. The lack of a bike's tendency to stay true to a geometric theme throughout its size run does not make it a bad bike. But it does make it a different bike, depending on its size. As long as you note the difference, you'll be okay.
This has been mentioned numerous times, but, like the Krebs Cycle, you can't learn it enough, right? So here goes:
Who needs a narrow/tall bike? In general, two types of folks: 1) Those who'll ride with a shallower seat angle, which usually (but not always) means the front of their bikes will be a little taller because of their choice of shallower seat angle; and 2) Those who are long-legged, and short in the torso.
There are other factors. For example, if you intend to ride with a very low profile aerobar (with armrests the tops of which sit perhaps 2cm or 3cm above the centerline of the pursuit bar), you'll need a marginally taller frame to take up that space usually taken up by the aerobar. Also, if you choose a stem with an extension that's parallel to the ground, you'll need to make up that elevation difference, either by spacers (bad idea) or frame height (good idea).
Who needs a long/low bike? Typically, those who'll ride a steeper seat angle, and whose steeper angle allows or causes them to ride with a lower front end. Also, short-leg, long-torso riders need a lower front end (to correspond to their shorter legs) and more "reach" (more horizontal distance between the crank and the head tube top). Also, riders who choose an aerobar with armrests that sit high above the pursuit bar (e.g., Profile T2, Syntace), may need a lower frame to make room for this tallish aerobar geometry.
Articles related to this one
Inputs and Outputs: Volume 1
In about a month, I'll have two bikes in my garage: a P3 and a Slice. The P3 was an output, that is, it was the result of a process. The Slice was an input: It commenced a process. Confused? Let me explain. 4.27.10
In about a month, I'll have two bikes in my garage: a P3 and a Slice. The P3 was an output, that is, it was the result of a process. The Slice was an input: It commenced a process. Confused? Let me explain. 4.27.10
Tour de Bike Fit
Read this first, if "tri bike fit" is new to you. It's a guide to the dozens of articles in the bike fit section. The articles are grouped, and we offer our advice about the order in which they should be read. 12.30.08
Read this first, if "tri bike fit" is new to you. It's a guide to the dozens of articles in the bike fit section. The articles are grouped, and we offer our advice about the order in which they should be read. 12.30.08
Comments
graph help for colorblind people
Reviewed by: Mike Mullins, May 3 2010 1:17PM
Hi Dan, loved the article but I am terribly colorblind and cannot tell which bike is which on the graph. Any chance you could use symbols in addition to colors to mark the points? Thanks!
Bike Geometry Graphs
Reviewed by: TriDork, Apr 29 2010 5:49PM
Sadly, bike geometries are becoming of more and more interest to me. The graphs make interesting reading.
Would you say Dan, that one would expect each frame designer to have a particular geometry in mind, for whatever reason they might have and that one would expect that company to have arguably a straight line on the graph? I would suspect that. Therefore, the curves of some companies begs the question why? One answer is the adherence to 700C even in small sizes and the minimum realistically possible head tube size would cause extra stack in the small sizes,
The other possible reason could be to accommodate changing human body proportions as the overall size changes. ie, do short people tend to have proportionally shorter legs compared to taller people (or vice versa?)
Is there any information to support a changing body proportion dependent on size (or height)? Is there data out there highlighting average proportions in different height people. I imagine there would be as XL t-shirts are larger around, than S t-shirts, they aren't just taller. Have bike designers taken this information on board when designing bikes of different sizes? Also, are the consciously choosing to pursue different parts of the cross section of peoples proportions (ie, are they targeting long leg riders or the other way round) or do they just have a different idea as to what the average rider actually looks like, or worse still, do they just sketch up cool looking bikes and just get whatever geometry they get. The graphs are great to see, and really illuminate the differences in various bikes, bike companies and there resulting designs. For me at least however,the graph really makes me asks a lot more questions (that I just asked above) :-)
Thanks for the continued information and knowledge transfer through the great article posted here on ST.
Regards
TriDork
Would you say Dan, that one would expect each frame designer to have a particular geometry in mind, for whatever reason they might have and that one would expect that company to have arguably a straight line on the graph? I would suspect that. Therefore, the curves of some companies begs the question why? One answer is the adherence to 700C even in small sizes and the minimum realistically possible head tube size would cause extra stack in the small sizes,
The other possible reason could be to accommodate changing human body proportions as the overall size changes. ie, do short people tend to have proportionally shorter legs compared to taller people (or vice versa?)
Is there any information to support a changing body proportion dependent on size (or height)? Is there data out there highlighting average proportions in different height people. I imagine there would be as XL t-shirts are larger around, than S t-shirts, they aren't just taller. Have bike designers taken this information on board when designing bikes of different sizes? Also, are the consciously choosing to pursue different parts of the cross section of peoples proportions (ie, are they targeting long leg riders or the other way round) or do they just have a different idea as to what the average rider actually looks like, or worse still, do they just sketch up cool looking bikes and just get whatever geometry they get. The graphs are great to see, and really illuminate the differences in various bikes, bike companies and there resulting designs. For me at least however,the graph really makes me asks a lot more questions (that I just asked above) :-)
Thanks for the continued information and knowledge transfer through the great article posted here on ST.
Regards
TriDork
Correction to Transition vs. Felt
Reviewed by: Kyle Hilgendorf, Apr 29 2010 11:10AM
Dan,
In the following paragraph, I believe you meant to compare the Transition to a P3/4, rather than the Felt. According to the charts, the Felt (red line) is, always, uniformly longer and lower than the Specialized (blue line), with the XXL Specialized falling on the Cervelo curve (green) between 58 and 61 cm sizings.
"The Specialized Transition is a uniformly narrower/taller bike than Felt's tri bikes. Until the tallest size. The Transition's head tube grows from 135mm in size XL to 150mm in size XXL, while its front/center grows by more than 30mm. The Felt bikes also grow in head tube size by 15mm from it's 58cm to its 60cm, but, the front/center grows by only half that much." [Editor's note: yes, you're right, good catch.]
In the following paragraph, I believe you meant to compare the Transition to a P3/4, rather than the Felt. According to the charts, the Felt (red line) is, always, uniformly longer and lower than the Specialized (blue line), with the XXL Specialized falling on the Cervelo curve (green) between 58 and 61 cm sizings.
"The Specialized Transition is a uniformly narrower/taller bike than Felt's tri bikes. Until the tallest size. The Transition's head tube grows from 135mm in size XL to 150mm in size XXL, while its front/center grows by more than 30mm. The Felt bikes also grow in head tube size by 15mm from it's 58cm to its 60cm, but, the front/center grows by only half that much." [Editor's note: yes, you're right, good catch.]
Reach and Stack
Reviewed by: James, Apr 29 2010 12:46AM
Dan, you seem to be the only one in the world including manufacturers who emphasises reach and stack and know what they are talking about. This is a great presentation demonstrating graphically the effect reach and stack have on fit. Without understanding this article buying a bike is pot luck.
