[Trek2.3]

Rant in progress. ?"*@@#& This really makes me mad.

You can't trust the manufacturers. Even within their own lines, their number simply aren't accurate.

Trek lists all Madone frames in one (old) chart. But the REAL bicycles do not conform to it. They vary by year with no indication of the variation. For example:

2007 Trek 5.2 in the 50cm frame has a 47 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar (at a point 4' in front of the seat post). It has a regular seat tube so you can use an aftermarket seatpost to get perfect saddle position if you can start over the 47cm mark.

2009 Trek 5.2 in the 50 cm frame has a 44.5 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar. [This is a good thing as MORE potential buyers can NOW stand over the bike.] But, the seatpost (mast?) is part of the frame and cannot be altered. The seatcap is also propriatary. For a shorter person (who else rides a 50cm frame???) perfect saddle position is hit or miss as there are no aftermarket parts and no way to lower the mast height although the cap can be moved in one direction (up).

That's an inch of difference. For some riders that inch is crucial. There is NO WAY to learn this important fact without measuring the bike (with a tape measure or your crotch). Even Trek dealers aren't aware of it. Some engineer is, somewhere at Trek, but he's holding the information as a trade secret. That engineer is, no doubt, 6'1" tall and oblivious to the problem.

 

[Rollo Tommassi]

well....

there are two different seat mast lengths available for the Madones with the integrated seattube/post frame. 160mm and 120mm. Any dealer should know this. It was a rare occasion that I'd have to swap a mast for a customer to make the fit, otherwise it's the wrong size frame.

Seat tube measurement as the sole arbiter of frame size does not account for stack and reach.

 

[Rollo Tommassi]

well....

there are two different seat mast lengths available for the Madones with the integrated seattube/post frame. 160mm and 120mm. Any dealer should know this. It was a rare occasion that I'd have to swap a mast for a customer to make the fit, otherwise it's the wrong size frame. At the smaller sizes, one could consider a WSD geometry for females.

Seat tube measurement as the sole arbiter of frame size does not account for stack and reach.

 

[sgroll]

Rant addressed...;-)

Bikes sizes are determined by the top tube measurement from the center of the seat tube to the center of the head tube...in most cases. The seat tube to bottom bracket measurement does not determine the official size of the frame.

Hope this eases the rant. Not Trek's fault at all.

 

[Trek2.3]

Please READ my original post, COMPREHEND what I am saying, then reply TO my points.

1. I know, post-2008, there is another seat mast cap to RAISE the seat. That's not the issue.

2. My beef has nothing to do with stack and reach.

3. "In most cases" - correct. THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD. In fact, THERE IS NO TREK STANDARD. Two Trek "50 cm" models of the "same" Madone 5.2 frame won't be the same. My point is that they changed the gemotery greatly (especially if your testricles clear the 44.5 top bar but not the 47.0 cm top bar) and told no one, not even their dealers.

4. No. Bicycles are not sized by the HORIZONTAL measurement you cite. I am talking about 2 bicycles that were marked by the manufacturer as "50 cm." However they measured it, the bikes are not the same size. THIS is how bike sizes, in general, are measured: "The most basic element of sizing a bike frame is commonly referred to as its height; what is usually meant by this measurement is the length of the frame from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the top tube." That is what I measured.

 

[sgroll]

Wow, you really are a ranter...

The size PRINTED ON THE FRAME generally refers to the top tube measurement. In days of lore and non-compact geometries (I ride a traditional geometry frame, by the way), seat tube length was indeed an important measurement. Hell, they used to just use stand-over height as a basis...which is wrong for many riders.

I did read your post clearly and still don't understand why you are ranting. Geometries do change from year to year in some cases. That is why we try before we buy. There is no substitute for a proper fitting and a test ride.

Yes, I agree it's confusing, but nothing to get too wound up about. The new compact frames throw everything out of whack as they generally default to the top tube measurement. The seat tube is even shorter than that.

 

[Rollo Tommassi]

what he said...

abide

The size PRINTED ON THE FRAME generally refers to the top tube measurement. In days of lore and non-compact geometries (I ride a traditional geometry frame, by the way), seat tube length was indeed an important measurement. Hell, they used to just use stand-over height as a basis...which is wrong for many riders.

I did read your post clearly and still don't understand why you are ranting. Geometries do change from year to year in some cases. That is why we try before we buy. There is no substitute for a proper fitting and a test ride.

Yes, I agree it's confusing, but nothing to get too wound up about. The new compact frames throw everything out of whack as they generally default to the top tube measurement. The seat tube is even shorter than that.

 

[sgroll]

 

[samh]

trek

The size PRINTED ON THE FRAME generally refers to the top tube measurement. In days of lore and non-compact geometries (I ride a traditional geometry frame, by the way), seat tube length was indeed an important measurement. Hell, they used to just use stand-over height as a basis...which is wrong for many riders.

I did read your post clearly and still don't understand why you are ranting. Geometries do change from year to year in some cases. That is why we try before we buy. There is no substitute for a proper fitting and a test ride.

Yes, I agree it's confusing, but nothing to get too wound up about. The new compact frames throw everything out of whack as they generally default to the top tube measurement. The seat tube is even shorter than that.

I assure you, if I (we) were to go a meeting at Trek and quiz people working there, they will have less knowledge than any of us here. I just read a review of (trek produced) Lemond where the guy let his bike rest, the carbon was severely damaged, and Trek would not honor their "lifetime warranty"& would not look at it. Also:

Weaknesses:
After riding the bike for 6-1/2 years, and riding almost 15,000 miles, the aluminum steering tube snapped 3" from the top, right under the handlebar stem, leaving me holding onto the handlebars but having no steering control or upper body weight support. I'm still recovering from the crash. W_A_R_N_I_N_G: IF YOU RIDE AN OLDER BIKE WITH ALUMINUM COMPONENTS, CHECK THOSE PARTS PERIODICALLY FOR CRACKS B4 THEY CATASTROPHICALLY FAIL DURING A RIDE""

 

[tbb001]

I assure you, if I (we) were to go a meeting at Trek and quiz people working there, they will have less knowledge than any of us here.

 

[early one]

OP is telling Trek (if they want to listen) that Trek does not have enough adjustable range in their 50 cm frames.
Trek customers are expected to buy a high end bike often without even sitting on it. Trek makes so many models, colors, WSD, sizes that the local shop can not stock them all. If you are lucky they may have what you want or they may have a different model in your size that you can test ride. Yet every one agrees that bike fit is the most important element in selecting a bike. No other business is run this way.

 

[zac]

Rant in progress. ?"*@@#& This really makes me mad.

You can't trust the manufacturers. Even within their own lines, their number simply aren't accurate.

Trek lists all Madone frames in one (old) chart. But the REAL bicycles do not conform to it. They vary by year with no indication of the variation. For example:

2007 Trek 5.2 in the 50cm frame has a 47 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar (at a point 4' in front of the seat post). It has a regular seat tube so you can use an aftermarket seatpost to get perfect saddle position if you can start over the 47cm mark.

2009 Trek 5.2 in the 50 cm frame has a 44.5 cm measurement from center of crank to the top bar. [This is a good thing as MORE potential buyers can NOW stand over the bike.] But, the seatpost (mast?) is part of the frame and cannot be altered. The seatcap is also propriatary. For a shorter person (who else rides a 50cm frame???) perfect saddle position is hit or miss as there are no aftermarket parts and no way to lower the mast height although the cap can be moved in one direction (up).

That's an inch of difference. For some riders that inch is crucial. There is NO WAY to learn this important fact without measuring the bike (with a tape measure or your crotch). Even Trek dealers aren't aware of it. Some engineer is, somewhere at Trek, but he's holding the information as a trade secret. That engineer is, no doubt, 6'1" tall and oblivious to the problem.

I am looking at the geometry charts for 2007 Madones and 2009 Madones and they are within a fraction of a cm the same across the entire size line. So not really sure what your issue is.

On the 2008+ Madones with a seat mast and cap, there is a small marker on the mast labeled "v" that is the measurement marker to the center of the BB shell that Trek uses to label "size."
On other Madones with a seat post, the size is measured from the center of the BB shell to the seat post binder bolt, or the top of the Seat Tube.

If you are concerned that you cannot get the saddle low enough, then I would suggest that the 50cm Trek was/is the wrong size, or that Trek is the wrong model for you.

Just because a person can "stand over" a 50cm compact frame, does not necessarily mean it is the correct size....that has already been pointed out to you.

 

[zac]

Please READ my original post, COMPREHEND what I am saying, then reply TO my points.

1. I know, post-2008, there is another seat mast cap to RAISE the seat. That's not the issue.

2. My beef has nothing to do with stack and reach.

3. "In most cases" - correct. THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD. In fact, THERE IS NO TREK STANDARD. Two Trek "50 cm" models of the "same" Madone 5.2 frame won't be the same. My point is that they changed the gemotery greatly (especially if your testricles clear the 44.5 top bar but not the 47.0 cm top bar) and told no one, not even their dealers.

4. No. Bicycles are not sized by the HORIZONTAL measurement you cite. I am talking about 2 bicycles that were marked by the manufacturer as "50 cm." However they measured it, the bikes are not the same size. THIS is how bike sizes, in general, are measured: "The most basic element of sizing a bike frame is commonly referred to as its height; what is usually meant by this measurement is the length of the frame from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the top tube." That is what I measured.

This is were you are incorrect. Indeed when the compact 2008 Madones were designed, Trek took great pains to maintain the same geometries with prior model year Madones.

 

[Trek2.3]

I am looking at the geometry charts for 2007 Madones and 2009 Madones and they are within a fraction of a cm the same across the entire size line.

The charts are incorrect. I have both a pre-2008 5.2 frame and a post-2008 5.2 frame. The ACTUAL measurements are NOT THE SAME as those "made up" for the chart. Indeed, the 2011 5.2 MADONE chart "shows" a non-existent 43 cm frame. An "accurate" description of something that doesn't exist.

Let me be real clear, Trek's charts lie. They have little relationship to the actual product they sell. You are correct that the charts do not change. My point is that the bicycles DO change.

 

[zac]

The charts are incorrect. I have both a pre-2008 5.2 frame and a post-2008 5.2 frame. The ACTUAL measurements are NOT THE SAME as those "made up" for the chart. Indeed, the 2011 MADONE chart "shows" a non-existent 43 cm frame. An "accurate" description of something that doesn't exist.

Let me be real clear, Trek's charts lie. They have little relationship to the actual product they sell. You are correct that the charts do not change. My point is that the bicycles DO change.

I do too, in 56cm and the measurements are dead on. Not only that, but the frames all are set up identical for me almost to the mm.

There are no 43cm frames listed on the Madone geometry charts, so I have no idea what you are looking at.

 

[Trek2.3]

Wrong. Trek's web page doesn't let you see the URL of every separate page but it's there (at least at this moment). So I can't just post the definitive URL. Nor can I save a page view because Trek won't allow it for the geometry page; only for the main 5.2 page. That's wierd. You'd think they would want customers to be able to save/share all the data.

At this moment, you can get to it this way: Trek web page; Road; Madone; Madone 5.2; Geometry.
Or, click <geometry> from this page http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone52/.
It is the same old table that Trek has been posting for years. Any match to an actual bicycle is happenstance.

BTW, the Trek web page can be entered through at least 2 different initial pages. Don't get lost.

P.S. Maybe I can't save the geometry chart but I just succeeded in printing it out. Trek has the worst printer program I've encountered to date from a major manufacturer. I have to print 8 pages of html junk in order to get the 1 page of chart. But I got it.

 

[eyezlee]

I'm not clear what the problem is here but I can screenshot anything HTH:

 

[tbb001]

At this moment, you can get to it this way: Trek web page; Road; Madone; Madone 5.2; Geometry.
Or, click <geometry> from this page http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone52/.
It is the same old table that Trek has been posting for years. Any match to an actual bicycle is happenstance.

Trek does make a Madone in the 43cm size. The Madone 4.7 WSD model is available in a 43cm-58cm range.

And it's not the same old chart. The Seat Height Minimum and Seat Height Maximum were added to allow consumers to better size their bikes since the Madone's moved to the sloping top tube style of frame.

Of course the actual measurements from the center of BB to top tube changed from 2007 to 2009...the Madone switched from a standard road frame to a sloping top tube road frame during that time. The seat tube measurement is still taken from the center of BB to the "effective" top tube, as it was before. If you're measuring off of the actual top tube on the new style Madone, that number will be different...naturally. The rest of the geometry, including the much more important effective top tube length, have remained almost exactly the same.

The addition of the SHMin and SHMax to the chart have made it so you can calculate your frame size + your seatmast length and figure out which size frame would work out best for you.

 

[zac]

Wrong. Trek's web page doesn't let you see the URL of every separate page but it's there (at least at this moment). So I can't just post the definitive URL. Nor can I save a page view because Trek won't allow it for the geometry page; only for the main 5.2 page. That's wierd. You'd think they would want customers to be able to save/share all the data.

At this moment, you can get to it this way: Trek web page; Road; Madone; Madone 5.2; Geometry.
Or, click <geometry> from this page http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/madone/madone52/.
It is the same old table that Trek has been posting for years. Any match to an actual bicycle is happenstance.

BTW, the Trek web page can be entered through at least 2 different initial pages. Don't get lost.

P.S. Maybe I can't save the geometry chart but I just succeeded in printing it out. Trek has the worst printer program I've encountered to date from a major manufacturer. I have to print 8 pages of html junk in order to get the 1 page of chart. But I got it.

Well that is all interesting and everything, but it is: one, irrelevant; and two, you who are not reading the charts correctly. That is a chart for the 2011 model year, and as far as I am aware, the WSD is made in 43cm.

Your original post deals with 5.2 Madones for the 2007 and 2009 model years. On the geometry charts for those respective years there are no 43cm sized frame listed for OCLV Madones. I cannot speak for Trek's other bikes, as we are not talking about them.

I fail to see what a reference to a 2011 43cm sized WSD Madone has anything to do with your OP.

If you care to explain and stick to the topic I am sure you will receive some quality help, but you seem bent to state a groundless rant, then change the topic to something else when called on it.

As a side note, the 2008+ Madones list both a Pro and a Performance fit frame. It is the Pro fit frames that are similar in geometry to the prior years of Madones. The Performance fit frames have 30mm taller Head Tube which change its geometry from the Pro fit/pre-08 Madones.

Good luck, I'm done here.
zac

 

[Trek2.3]

Good luck, I'm done here, and with you.

Really?