I wouldn't assume the graphic on the Kona site indicates where standover is measured. It was created by the art department not the engineering department.

They use that same XC MTB silhouette for the roadbike geos, so the graphic really doesn't apply there.

If the manufacturer provides the graphic on their own website, then I "assume" nothing by taking it as it is drawn. It's Kona's responsibility to ensure that their specifications graphics are accurate.

It is YOU who assume when you interpret what you think it should be rather than as actually shown.

For a given wheel diameter, I just look at head tube lengths to zero in on frame sizes.

The OP makes a good point about nonstandard standover measurements. On the other hand, it's worth remembering that the availability of compact frames means that short-legged people as well as people with longer legs can now end up with bikes that fit well.

After all, bikes with horizontal top tubes became common only after bike companies introduced the use of lugs so that they could use semiskilled labor and still speed up their production lines. Horizontal top tubes just meant that the companies didn't need to stock too many different head tube lugs. If you were much shorter than the average male in those days, you'd have to buy a mixte or a ladie's frame or else be very careful about standing over the frame.

I don't really assume or interpret much about standover, personally. I know that I like 56-58cm ETT for MTBs, 53-55cm ETT for road bikes. I like 73-ish STA and HTA for road, and prefer fairly steep XC-style angles for MTBs, nothing less than 70 HTA, for sure. Don't give a damn about standover cuz I hardly ever straddle bikes, even on accident.

I have no idea where Kona measures standover but it would be pretty easy to figure out. I'd just go to Sellwood Cyclery or other Kona dealer with a tape measure then compare actual measurements to published figures.

It seems like it would be tougher to run into standover issues with sloping top tubes, since a bike with a 55cm horizontal top tube would often have a higher standover mid-span than a sloping design with the same ETT. Not always, but most of the time.

My point exactly. Thank you.

I was just checking out Salsa bikes. They're pretty specific about where they measure standover.

^ that's from the Vaya. Pretty close to where the Kona graphic shows.

Salsa's full suspension rigs are measured at the shock bracket.

Oh. An earlier post almost seemed to indicate that getting standover was more difficult on sloping top tube frames.

I am fairly certain that you are incorrect about "Reach". Rather it is defined as being the horizontal measurement from a point plumb above the center of the bottom bracket to the center of the head tube on level. Then setback is defined from the same point above the bottom bracket rearwards on horizontal to the center of the seat tube. That way, effective top tube length = reach + setback. Setback is especially helpful in deciding if the frame will let you move the saddle rearwards enough to get your knee in correct position over the pedal axle, while reach and/or effective top tube length are helpful in deciding if the cockpit is long enough with the right stem length for your upper torso.

A large majority of manufacturers will measure standover from the midpoint of a sloping top tube.

Ooops. Yep, fietsbob was way off on reach.

Stack and reach are both based off the bottom bracket axis.

http://trekroad.typepad.com/photos/u...k_and_reac.gif

Cervelo measures standover at the bottom bracket, at least for the S3:

The Columbia river flows past the Hanford Nuclear weapons Plant in WA and that part of the River is called The Hanford Reach.

My bad - I read your post not as "standover issues," but rather as "standover measurement issues," since that was the topic under discussion.

The problem that I've consistently had with compact frames is not standover per se. It's getting a decent fit and reach. Too low a standover means that the knee over pedal spindle at 3:00 is impossible because the frame is too small. A standover that fits at the seat / top tube junction may allow adequate KOPS fit, but has NO standover safety margin at all, since the top tube climbs steadily toward the steerer tube.

The various manufacturer measurements for compact frames don't help with these issues.

So to summarize - thrice burned = perpetually shy of compact frames. Your mileage may vary...

You can ignore standover when thinking about KOPS. Seattube angle, seatpost setback, crank length and cleat position (or toeclip size) are the specs to think about when looking at achieving KOPS.

Actually, you can pretty much ignore standover all the time unless you intend to straddle your bike a lot.

I have to standover my bike every time I mount and dismount. I also have to stand over every time I end up stopping abruptly during a ride. I don't always wear biking shorts, and can't always control where things will be. I want some standover clearance.

I notice that the frames you are considering are all designed for flat bars. Flat bar bikes have longer effective top tubes since flat bars don't have any reach. If you're buying road frames then trying to converting to flat bars, the top tube will invariably be too short, and you'll need too big a frame to get the desired reach.

Since you're concerned about standover and flat bars, you really want to be looking at 29'er MTB frames. Those will have significantly better standover, use 700c wheels, and have top tubes setup for flat bars.

29ers usually have pretty bad standover, IME. 100mm+ travel fork to fit a 29" wheel makes for some really fat stack even if they go with a super short headtube.

Mid-to-late 90s XC MTBs tend to excel in the long ETT, short standover realm.

Barracuda had some of the longest reaches with the lowest standovers I've ever seen. 13-14" mid 90s Gary Fishers and Treks were pretty low and long, too.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTE5N1gxNj...r-w~~60_35.JPG

Maybe consider something like:
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=425568

. . . or a custom frame may be cheaper than getting it wrong another three times in a row.

I haven't followed all of your threads, but my impression is that you are having some rather odd fit issues, maybe compounded by selecting bikes unsuited for the desired fit. The pictures of your Kona bike, the one you are getting rid of, showed some really unusual modifications in the search for fit. Also I get the feeling that you are reading all sorts of stuff and may be applying it incorrectly or out of context.

I suggest you might want to start a thread that, in a fairly complete manner, states your relevant dimensions, what sort of bike you are looking for, what fit issues you are encountering, and maybe the results of plugging your dimensions into a fit calculator like the one at Competitive Cycle. A photo of you on the bike, that illustrates the fit issues, would be very helpful.

Where are pics of the Kona that didn't work?

I truly don't get you (don't apologize, I'm not blaming you, just saying I don't get you).

From your original post here

But with the advent of "compact frame geometry" (curse it to the hell where it so richly deserves to be)....

No matter how you slice it, a compact frame, which you apparently have some objection to, will give you more standover height than a classic frame with equal fit. Vastly more. So much so that it can be said categorically that if standover height is an issue with a compact frame, the frame is too big. (not counting issues of step through for those with physical limitations).

So you say you want standover clearance, but hate compact frames. Sorry, but it just doesn't equate.

Here

http://www.bikeforums.net/fitting-yo...-small-me.html

I wonder if OP has unusual body dimensions that need to be taken into account. I, for example, have unusually short legs so some traditional fit practices don't work for me; maybe something like that is going on with OP.

I also wonder if OP is trying to apply old school race bike fit "rules" to a different kind of bike. "KOPS", for example, is a supposed rule, of questionable validity, that only applies, if at all, to traditional drop bar road bikes. Trying to apply KOPS to a bike like OP's Electra Townie, or to the Kona shown in the linked thread, is an exercise in futility.

OP, most bike fit websites you find on the internet are meant for drop bar road bikes, usually ridden fast or long. If you are looking for a comfort bike (like the Electra Townie) or a mountain bike (like the Kona Unit) then many of those so-called rules don't apply.

You may be exactly right, @jyi - What I "thought" I knew may well no longer apply. i can say with certainty that no matter what I did with the Kona Unit (stock configuration - lay-back seat post - raised bars) nothing made it a comfortable ride and never was it a "good handling" bike in my opinion.

I can say that the Electra Townie is a comfortable ride, but only if you want to sit bolt upright and pedal with your legs forward. I can do it for only six or seven miles before I have to get off and walk for awhile.

I'm trying to put together (or buy) a bike that allows me a more forward position than bolt upright, but without putting pressure on my arms & wrists. I had such a bike at one time, but foolishly sold it. It had been custom made for a team racer, and just happened to fit me perfectly.

Yes, my legs are VERY short in proportion to my torso & arms. The bike shop boys don't seem to get it. They look at my height and start trying to sell me XL size frames. Maybe I've not been going to the right shops?

In any case, I'm willing to throw preconceptions out the window at this point and just go ride bikes until I find one that is comfortable. Anything reasonably priced (which, in today's market, seems to be anything under $4K) is game.

Fortunately, there are a variety of brands represented in the local market. Unfortunately, the dealers seem to stock few models within the brands, and in an even smaller selection of sizes.

I'm open to suggestions.

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a.../FB2-Small.jpg

Oh my. Trying to get an XC geo MTB to fit like a crank-forward cruiser. I can't think of a way to get that kind of setup on any XC, TR or AM rig. Maybe some DH, but that wouldn't work out well either. If you want the seat that far back you need longer chainstays.

KOPS only works if the ball of your foot is over the pedal spindle. I'm going to guess full leg extension is not being achieved and you are pedaling with the arches of your feet over the spindle.

If looking for a lighter alternative to the Electra, I'd probably go custom.

How much does the Electra weigh? Have you looked into the Marin Stinson? Get one of those, replace fork with a rigid one, get a light, fixed stem, throw on some lighter tires you could probably get one of those down to 25-26 lbs.

Unfortunately, sitting upright is the only way to keep weight off the hands. There may be an achievable happy medium somewhere, though.

Do you have any pics of the old bike that worked? Remember the make/model of the frame?

Seems strange that stubby legs would put knee ahead of spindle. Maybe really long femur + really short tibia?

Those saddles usually work better tilted back just a tad. Tilted down in front like that can put more stress on hands, as you're trying to push yourself back up onto the saddle the whole time.

No shots of the vunderbike - sorry. No make or model either - it was an aluminum bike, custom made for the previous owner, who raced with a team.

I could ride that bike with my hands an inch above the brake levers and be comfortable. I could ride with my hands on the tops and be comfortable. I could ride with my hands on the drops and be comfortable. I could ride with no hands and be comfortable. It just fit.

Hmmm, even when people say a bike is custom, doesn't always mean the frame was custom made. Lotta people race for teams on off-the-rack frames, but may call their bike custom because it was built frame-up with parts they liked.

So you don't talk to the racer any more? They'd probably remember the make/model.

Do you know the approximate years they were racing?

And it was a road bike? Or CX?