Originally Posted by
ColinL
C4L yet again demonstrates that his homegrown "knowledge" is more correct to him than industry standard terminology.
Regarding his rant on page 2 about Cervelo's definition of stack and reach-- those are industry terms. They are right, you are wrong C4L. See here for one example-- many others exist (it's a standard term, after all
):
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/...tically_216035
There's a glaringly obvious problem with Campag4Life's insistence on using the STA and saddle as a component of reach:
you *DON'T* adjust the saddle or seatpost setback for reach! Duh. You set seatpost setback and saddle position based on your knee position, and I'm not even getting into a KOPS debate here, I will just say that a given person's knee positioning is more critical and more inflexible than their reach.
Why? You can sit more or less upright based on reach. In fact this is normal, riding a time trial bike vs road bike vs XC race MTB vs downhill MTB vs beach cruiser.
No you don't...in bold. Duh as you say and no doubt a popular word in your vocabulary...lol.
However...reach is increased if increasing setback...Duh...in your parlance. This is why two size frames of the same model with different STA sometimes have the same net reach even though their top tubes are different length if setting the rider up in the same position relative to the BB.
No doubt this will go right over your head because you don't have a clue what is being discussed here.