# Stack and Reach



## ls1togo (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm thinking about looking for a 585 or 595...probably in a M size..Can anyone point me to geo chatrs that reflect stack and reach numbers?
Thank


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

https://www.lookcycle.com/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/08/GEOMETRY-BIKES-2018.pdf


----------



## ls1togo (Aug 14, 2009)

Thanks for the quick response, however, I'm specifically looking for stack and reach for 585/595 models, probably 2007 to 2010 or so...
Thanks for your effort


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

ls1togo said:


> Thanks for the quick response, however, I'm specifically looking for stack and reach for 585/595 models, probably 2007 to 2010 or so...
> Thanks for your effort


I doubt stack and reach were used back then. I would suggest adjusting for seat tube angle (1cm = 1 degree), and comparing TT and HT lengths. That is a perfectly legitimate and often more sensible approach to comparing fit geometry.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

How did we ever manage to find the right frame before these essential measurements were known ? 

Sarcasm aside, reach is available on the older charts. Although it requires than one number is subtracted from another.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

bikerjulio said:


> How did we ever manage to find the right frame before these essential measurements were known ?
> 
> Sarcasm aside, reach is available on the older charts. Although it requires than one number is subtracted from another.
> 
> View attachment 321383


That won't give you true "reach", since it doesn't go to the top of the head tube and was measured from an arbitrary spot on the seat tube. The correct number will be shorter by anywhere from 3mm to much more, depending on the thickness and slope of the top tube.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

Kontact said:


> That won't give you true "reach", since it doesn't go to the top of the head tube and was measured from an arbitrary spot on the seat tube. The correct number will be shorter by anywhere from 3mm to much more, depending on the thickness and slope of the top tube.


Wrong. OMG 3 mm.  Like a whole one eighth of an inch? There's nothing arbitrary about it. And what does slope have to do with it. Look again. ETT minus E gets one pretty close if not the same as reach.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

bikerjulio said:


> Wrong. OMG 3 mm.  Like a whole one eighth of an inch? There's nothing arbitrary about it. And what does slope have to do with it. Look again. ETT minus E gets one pretty close if not the same as reach.


The more the tube is sloped, the shorter E is, despite the same horizontal TT measure. If sloped tube connects to the seat tube 10cm below where a level TT would, then E is going to be 3cm shorter than it would be on a level tube. Subtract E-30mm from the horizontal top tube length and you'll have a much greater difference than E on a level tube. 

The minimum error is if you have an actual level top tube and only a small amount of head tube exposed above it, and that is when you'll only get something like 3mm. But the more difference you have between the point of measure and the horizontal line, the worse it gets. 73° head and seat tubes have a 3:10 ratio of run to rise.

Junk numbers.


----------

