Chris,
I'm coming to a similar conclusion.
Hugh
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 4:49 PM Chris L wrote:
> A very basic understanding of Stack and Reach has been very helpful for
> me. I know a bike with a Reach in the 300's will be too short for me and
> that a stack of about 600 is the minimum for my
A very basic understanding of Stack and Reach has been very helpful for
me. I know a bike with a Reach in the 300's will be too short for me and
that a stack of about 600 is the minimum for my preferred bar height.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 5:20:36 PM UTC-6, Jason Fuller wrote:
>
>
Jason,
That Geo website really helps especially in comparisons. I too am
challenged by those two Geo numbers and agree they should be prominent
right up with standover I'm attempting to rectify my deficiency.
Hugh
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 3:20 PM Jason Fuller wrote:
> Very much agree that stack
Very much agree that stack and reach should be the most prominent geometry
numbers on any geo chart - but unfortunately, not too many people have a
feel for them, myself included to be honest!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch"
Hugh,
Happy new year. Been busy but good. Would love to get out there for a ride.
It's been a while. Free time has been dedicated to other projects of late.
Picked up playing music again after almost a 20 year hiatus. It would be great
to blow the dust of the old Rivs and get out there again.
Hi Richard,
Happy new year! Hope all is good with you and yours, doing good over here.
Thanks for that easy math addition. 62 cm stack is up there for sure. Very
few bike frames outside of maybe a Fargo get that kind of stack height sure
there some others tho. Definitely and upside for
