I suspect Craw's actual objection to size-specific chainstay lengths is due to the fact that "size specific chainstay lengths", 9 times out of 10, means "fucking long chainstays in XL" these days. As a tall guy (although notably less tall than Craw), I prefer chainstays on the "normal" side rather than long in most cases. Yet whenever a bike that comes out with something like 435 stays across the board, people on various corners of the internet get up in arms and essentially insist that _all_ bikes ought to have size specific aka fucking long in XL chainstays.
Personally I like how there's a variation across the industry as it provides consumer choice which is ultimately a win for us. I'd support size specific chainstays in everything if it meant that there were some bikes where the XL rear is like 430 - just give the smaller sizes less so they can have the same proportionate fun we're having, ha!
STA is tricky because in addition to how various brands publish the number, it also changes where they measure ESTA for each size. Painting with a broad brush, a lot of manufacturers historically published an STA number that did not correspond with reality in XL bikes, because once the tall kings had their saddle at proper leg extension height, it was way back over the BB. It seems like some brands sought to correct this by either consciously publishing that they didn't change anything as they move up in sizes (aside from the point they measure saddle height from per size), or actively changing each frame to make the actual STA steeper in larger sizes, knowing the big boys would have proportionately more post exposed than their smaller contempraries.
April 17, 2025, 2:31 p.m. - Jotegir
I suspect Craw's actual objection to size-specific chainstay lengths is due to the fact that "size specific chainstay lengths", 9 times out of 10, means "fucking long chainstays in XL" these days. As a tall guy (although notably less tall than Craw), I prefer chainstays on the "normal" side rather than long in most cases. Yet whenever a bike that comes out with something like 435 stays across the board, people on various corners of the internet get up in arms and essentially insist that _all_ bikes ought to have size specific aka fucking long in XL chainstays. Personally I like how there's a variation across the industry as it provides consumer choice which is ultimately a win for us. I'd support size specific chainstays in everything if it meant that there were some bikes where the XL rear is like 430 - just give the smaller sizes less so they can have the same proportionate fun we're having, ha! STA is tricky because in addition to how various brands publish the number, it also changes where they measure ESTA for each size. Painting with a broad brush, a lot of manufacturers historically published an STA number that did not correspond with reality in XL bikes, because once the tall kings had their saddle at proper leg extension height, it was way back over the BB. It seems like some brands sought to correct this by either consciously publishing that they didn't change anything as they move up in sizes (aside from the point they measure saddle height from per size), or actively changing each frame to make the actual STA steeper in larger sizes, knowing the big boys would have proportionately more post exposed than their smaller contempraries.