I'm not answering you. You're a complete dick. Leave me alone you creepy Canadian.

agreed... pick up the pace.

I wasn't trying to, actually was agreeing with him. I think I worded it poorly. Don't want to piss that guy off, apparently he has lot's of time to post nasty messages. :)

You are all ridiculous! I have a physics degree and a math degree. To make a [I]perfectly[/I] accurate measurment, the "frame" needs to be measured when assembled, fork and all. Although, the same measurement could be made if they included the headtube angle, which they do. A simple reduction equation could be used to alter the ratio to exactly what it would be if it were assembled. But... I have gone over this equation several times with different forks, frames, headtube angles, etc. and to my amazement(because I thought this was bullshit too) , the original reach/stack measurement is quite accurate, keep in mind I factored in the headtube angle. Just using the given example of the picture in this article, it is hard to tell where to measure from. I won't explain completely but, I would suggest using a base to start from, like the headtube and then branching off from there. This would give a true standard, that no one could argue with. Concluding... I think this measurement is helpful if you are new at bikes and just need a ballpark, but if you are experienced in choosing a bike it can be kind of a hokie measurement. I do not believe this should be a standardized measurement. I think things like thread counts, headtube diameters, hub spacing, etc. should be standardized.