# stack and reach for a size 56 roubaix?



## joscycle (Oct 25, 2010)

Hello
does anyone know or have the ability to measure the stack and reach of a size 56 roubaix?
preferably an s-works in the naked carbon finish - kidding.

and while we're at it the same for a size 56 tarmac for comparison.

anybody know why specialized doesn't list these in the geometry specs?

thanks 

joseph


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

Cannot help you, but I don't think these measurements are all that important. Of course, it depends what you understand as "reach".

I prefer to know effective TT and perhaps HT length.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

I'm curious to know why you're asking. If it's to make direct comparisons to other brands/ models, IMO you'd do better to calculate the ETT and estimate HT height, including headset stack height.


----------



## carlislegeorge (Mar 28, 2004)

like was said...the factors that affect stack and reach are all changeable and part of the fit process, no?


----------



## E-Man (Nov 30, 2008)

Specialized does list the head tube lengths and stem lengths for each size and model on their web site. Hopefully that helps you.


----------



## joscycle (Oct 25, 2010)

*stack and reach*

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...ears-resolutions-for-the-bike-industry_154565

the above article from velonews about stack and reach and why they are an effective tool for comparing frames. i agree with the article. however in this case i would prefer the measurement to the top of the head tube.

many other bike companies have got on board with stack and reach including other bikes i'm looking at: cannondale, cervelo, bmc.

thanks


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

In the context of recognizing the need for standards to determine frame sizing, I generally agree with Zinn. I also think Specialized and other manufacturers should include frame reach/ stack in their geo charts, _but_ the additional info isn't always going to clarify a riders fit requirements, so its usefulness is limited. 

For example, if a noob scans the geo charts of two or three brands/ models and sees that those numbers vary by a few mm's, what does that really tell them. Obviously, the lower number has a shorter reach or lower stack, but how does that translate to changes in fit parameters, and how does it affects f/r weight distribution. 

This is why I said I was curious to know why you were asking. I think if a rider has a level of knowledge of bike geo, their fit requirements and a baseline (their current bike), then yes, comparisons can be made using frame reach/ stack numbers. But the same can be accomplished if you know how to calculate reach and stack in general - and stack measurements (no matter the method) are somewhat 'ballpark', so again, those additions aren't lifesavers to most. I do think they'd be of some value to fitters that, based on a riders proportions, are looking for specific geo that might work well for them.

In regards to the article, I find it somewhat ironic that Zinn professes standardizing, then suggests including conical spacers in the HT measurement. That makes little sense, considering that bike (as well as headset) manufacturers offer options, including Specialized - and those options undermine the standard with results varying by as much as 17mm's.

As is the case with most information, it's the *why* (it's being used) and *how* that matters, so IMO/ E the inclusion of frame stack and reach can either assist, confuse or mislead.


----------



## joscycle (Oct 25, 2010)

pj352
thanks for your response. i agree with you that the additional numbers are meaningless without a baseline. i know the stack and reach of my current bike and how i have adjusted it to fit. would just like the stack and reach for the specialized models. 
regards

joseph


----------

