Yes, there are some misconceptions. Kona measures standover at the seat / top tube junction: KONA BIKES | 2015 BIKES | TRAIL 29" HT | UNIT

Raleigh doesn't say how they measure theirs - they only give a rider height to recommended size chart (ignoring limb length): Raleigh Bicycles - Revenio 2

Trek gives a measurement to somewhere closer to the seat than the steerer tube, but doesn't quantify where: Madone 7.9 - Trek Bicycle

Giant gives a stand over height, but doesn't say where it's measured: Avail Advanced SL 0 (2015) | Giant Bicycles | United States

Specialized gives a stand over height, but doesn't say where it's measured: Specialized Bicycle Components

Felt gives a stand over height, but doesn't say where it's measured: Z2 - Felt Bicycles

Bianchi doesn't even specify a stand over height: Cortina | Bianchi USA

These are the first I looked at and they were at random. NOW do you want to tell me how consistently standover height is measured? Not a SINGLE manufacturer specified any such thing as "from the midpoint" of the top tube.

chasing rainbows.

Surly and Soma use the midpoint of the top tube, and Trek's measuring point is close enough to it if you ask me.
ECR | Bikes | Surly Bikes
Soma Fab Double Cross


Kona seems to expect that if you're going to stand over the frame, it'll be right in front of the saddle. I think that's fair. Perhaps the other companies on your list would share more about their standover measurements if you asked them.

Looks like I was wrong about how consistent manufacturers were in measuring standover, but I'd stand by a second pass answer of "somewhere between the top tube midpoint and in front of the saddle, where you are likely to stand over the frame" -- if that isn't enough to go by after adding the traditional inch or two, it's a good sign that you should be trying out bikes in person and insisting on what makes you most comfortable before handing over your money.

You're right, sir. I agree completely.

A few comments.

If one is frustrated by how bike manufactures label their geometries then either measure all their bikes yourself and make your own charts or create your own brand and label the geometries the way you think is right. This issue is really one for those who shop without trying. I don't accept the excuse of "at the last shop I had fit me I ended up on a bike I couldn't stand over". Bad fitting session/communication, not bad geometry information. This is why the LBS is the best source for information about how a bike feels. That's the only place you can touch, stand over, ride BEFORE buying. This should be worth a lot, but is discounted frequently because in the interweb age we are all experts...

Manufactures measure their geometries differently because they can, like tire size labels. It makes exactly what the OP is complaining about happen, the on paper info isn't completely transferable between brands. The brands that sell through (the listed Raleigh, Trek, Giant and most others) the LBS chain really want their potential customers to go to their dealers. For better or worse this is the distribution model they have invested in.

Stand over can be measured at the front top point of the top tube. This is a more realistic location for human parts to be located near then the middle of the TT. Remember that the seat takes up some of the TT length then there's one's butt and body before the front equipment is going to touch a TT. Lastly when dismounting it's common to lean slightly forward, further bringing the human parts close the front of the TT. Now not all brands do this measurement this way, just saying some do for a reason.

While stack and reach (the new/current dimensions) do describe a better set of fit aspects they don't speak to the seat/pedal relationship at all. If one has a good grasp on the classic geometry data these two new ones don't add more info. If one doesn't have a good grasp of classic geometry data then these two alone aren't going to insure a good fit.

Not directly mentioned yet (but alluded to indirectly) is BB drop. A large drop (or low height) VS a shallow drop makes a big difference in how "big" the bike fits.

One of the advantages that was trumpeted when the current wave of sloping TT bikes came about (and I say current because any student of bike history knows that sloping TTs have been around for 100+ years and were the standard a century ago) was the increased frame stiffness. Maybe an issue for the taller sized bikes (and I even question the stiffer is better claims) but for the sizes that I ride stiffness isn't the issue. Fitting a second water bottle, or rack, or seat bag is. Andy.

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.

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.

Maybe consider something like:


. . . 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?