hey guys, this is kyle from transition. just to clarify a few things... 1) we're not trying to re-invent the wheel here. the point of this is to have all manufacturers standardize the way they disclose bike/frame geometry. the point is to level the playing field a bit to make it ultimately easier for the consumer/bike shop employee/etc. to know the geometry of bikes and be able to compare across different sizes of between different models/manufacturers. 2) Don't worry, we're not saying we want to "replace" any other way of measuring bikes/frames. we're only stating that traditional methods don't always tell the entire story. most manufacturers report their geo numbers in different ways. this is just one step closer to having all manufacturers report in the same way for apples-to-apples comparing. our only real goal here with this is to get other manufacturers to list reach and stack along with all the other measurements currently being given. we're not replacing anything, just adding more info for those that can benefit from it. 3) of course you need other measurements in order to make reach and stack meaningful. fork height being of ultimate importance. i guess one way we could have made this "press release" better would be to have listed that fork height is really what determines the reach/stack measurements. every frame/bike was designed around an axle-to-crown measurement so obviously this plays a huge part in determining reach/stack. you simply can't have one without the other. our bad for not including the a-to-c in the drawing above. 4) the point of getting all manufacturers to report the numbers the same way is to aid in comparing "same use" bikes against each other. for example, if you're in the market for a slopestyle bike you really would want to look at all the bikes in the market for that use and compare the sizing. reach and stack help in determining what the actual size is (meaning, the relationship of BB to the handlebar position given the a-to-c and fork angle). Obviously you could misuse this information by comparing dis-similar bikes (ie: a DH bike with a DJ bike) which would make for utterly meaningless comparative info. 5) in all honesty this is not a "standard" so much as it is just a call to other manufacturers to start listing this information. we're not claiming we've come up with this new way of measureing (as noted in the press release, this measuring system is commonly used in other cycling disciplines). our point is to help drive adoption as we believe (as does Dave Turner) that it will ultimately help the consumer in understanding how a bike will fit them. The more info the better! Hopefully this helps clarify the intent of this press release. To all the other manufacturers reading, hopefully you understand our intent here and don't feel daunted by the task of spending a few minutes and opening your drawing files, taking the measurements, and posting to your respective websites. i would think that disclaiming bike geometry to its fullest would be equally important for everybody in the business of selling bicycles.