Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
6'1", 33 in inseam pretty long arms. I road both the 60 and 62. 60 felt a tad small, but i could max it out (more spacers and swept back post). 62 felt a tad large, but also had a lot of spacers on the bike i tested. pros/cons of a larger/smaller ride? not racing... thanks.
 

·
gastarbeiter
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
smaller is better if the 62 felt large. what kind of shop is this? they can't give any advice?

have you tried other brands, to find a bike that actually fits?


teleguy03 said:
6'1", 33 in inseam pretty long arms. I road both the 60 and 62. 60 felt a tad small, but i could max it out (more spacers and swept back post). 62 felt a tad large, but also had a lot of spacers on the bike i tested. pros/cons of a larger/smaller ride? not racing... thanks.
 

·
Home Brew User!
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
teleguy03 said:
6'1", 33 in inseam pretty long arms. I road both the 60 and 62. 60 felt a tad small, but i could max it out (more spacers and swept back post). 62 felt a tad large, but also had a lot of spacers on the bike i tested. pros/cons of a larger/smaller ride? not racing... thanks.
There have been a litany of similar threads of late. Most likely yours will either produce a flame war or be ignored. Either way you most likely will gain very little useful information from it.

I will try to sum it up in terms that are so broad that few will disagree.

An internet forum is not the best place to get fit advice. Especially with as little useful information as you have provided.

Flyte cycles and Colorado cyclist (I think) both offer online fit calculators that will familiarize you with what measurements you need and how to correctly measure them. If you do want to depend on yourself (vs. the LBS) for you basic fit needs you need to go through one or both of these as a minimum. I'm sure there are other programs available if you did a google search.

You should also spend a few minutes getting familiar with the basics of bike frame geo. You will find that it can be pretty confusing and some companies (like Trek) measure a little differently than others.

All this said, if you are really only looking to be a rec rider who wants to be reasonably comfortable and have bike handling that will allow you to ride safely than most likely you could make a Trek 58, 60 or 62 work for you.

Picking the "wrong" size will result in some handling differences and maybe some stem selections that will cause the bike to look "funky". If you got the 62 and ended up putting a short upward pointing stem on it I would not recommend posting a pic on the boards unless you have thick skin. The stem police would come out in force. However, it would ride just fine for most rec purposes.

If you are looking for some useful help here than come back with cycling specific body measurements and more specific regarding you flexibility and your planned riding style.

Good Luck
 

·
SoCal--S Beach to the Dam
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Lifelover said:
There have been a litany of similar threads of late. Most likely yours will either produce a flame war or be ignored. Either way you most likely will gain very little useful information from it.

I will try to sum it up in terms that are so broad that few will disagree.

An internet forum is not the best place to get fit advice. Especially with as little useful information as you have provided.

Flyte cycles and Colorado cyclist (I think) both offer online fit calculators that will familiarize you with what measurements you need and how to correctly measure them. If you do want to depend on yourself (vs. the LBS) for you basic fit needs you need to go through one or both of these as a minimum. I'm sure there are other programs available if you did a google search.

You should also spend a few minutes getting familiar with the basics of bike frame geo. You will find that it can be pretty confusing and some companies (like Trek) measure a little differently than others.

All this said, if you are really only looking to be a rec rider who wants to be reasonably comfortable and have bike handling that will allow you to ride safely than most likely you could make a Trek 58, 60 or 62 work for you.

Picking the "wrong" size will result in some handling differences and maybe some stem selections that will cause the bike to look "funky". If you got the 62 and ended up putting a short upward pointing stem on it I would not recommend posting a pic on the boards unless you have thick skin. The stem police would come out in force. However, it would ride just fine for most rec purposes.

If you are looking for some useful help here than come back with cycling specific body measurements and more specific regarding you flexibility and your planned riding style.

Good Luck
If we told him to get a 54 and it was wrong,is it our fault?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,160 Posts
33 inch inseam??

That would be some pretty short legs for a guy who's 6'-1" tall. We must be talking pants inseam, which is not relevant to cycling. Measure your cyling inseam or your saddle height, from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the saddle, along the seat tube.

As a rough guideline, the proper center to top frame size would be 28-30cm less than your cycling inseam, or 17-19cm less than your saddle height. Trek measures their frames in an odd-ball fashion, so they are really 1-2cm smaller (center to top) than the advertised size.

If you wear 33 inch inseam pants, I suspect that you cycling inseam will be around 91cm or 36 inches. When measuring inseam, you want saddle like crotch pressure. See the site linked below.

www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit

If your cycling inseam is 91cm, then the 62cm would be the best choice and even it might be vertically on the small side.

http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1464000&f=1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
C-40 and the others are right that height and pants inseam -- indeed, even detailed measurements -- won't tell you whether you'll fit on a bike or not. A good metric is your current saddle height, if you have it set at a preferred place, since most inseam-type measurements are simply a proxy for this. Lots of other things can affect saddle height -- for example, my saddle is higher than the formulas would suggest because I have relatively large feet. Personally, I'm 6'1" with a 35" cycling inseam (33" pants inseam), have my saddle set at 80 cm, and I fit best on a 60 Trek.

Cheers,
Ari
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
60cm

I am the same height as you. I used the standard system that other posters mentioned that is on Colorado Cyclist. I bought a 60cm 5.9sl. I have the seat post set at less than 1 cm below the maximum height which is what I wanted. This frame has a long top tube so the length is great for me. I love this bike. It is light, stiff and has a great ride.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
okay okay... i should have provided more info. i road a kelly for 6 years that was a 59 cm top tube, similar to the 62 cm. was stolen. the 62 trek felt large that i road basically b/c it had a full stack of risers. but it did feel good with a 120 stem. if i rode the 60, i would defiantely need a set back seat post and *maybe* a 130. like was said by the poster who is my height and has the 60, it would be maxed out.

riding: 40-60m on wknds, maybe shorter rides during wk, occasional group rides.

i should have asked "advantages of smaller or larger bikes?" i will run through previous searches, probably in there times over as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
Seat Tube Length == Size

Get one that has the right seat tube length. For most riders this will be the smallest one that has enough seat height with the seat as high as it will go. When you get one (or ride a new one at the shop?) it has a long steering tube, lots of spacers and the stem flipped up. Yes, this will feel funny because the bars are way too high. You will want to flip the stem immediately. Then you will move some spacers from below to above the stem until you get the right bar height. When you have what you want you will want to shorten the brake and cable housings because the factory cuts them for the high bar position. Remember that you have to tighten the seatpost bolt and the bolts on the stem with a torque wrench on a carbon bike. Also don't clamp the frame tubes in a work stand. Once you have the fit you want you will probably decide to cut the steering tube down to get rid of the spacers above the stem. I wouldn't go right out and buy a longer stem until you have ridden a long ways and done the above fitting because this frame is long. My 5.9sl came with very light racing tires that were fun to ride on but got a lot of flats so I have Michelin Carbon tires on it now. I put a Flight Deck computer on it because I like the integration with the shifters which allow me to see what gear I'm in and get cadence without a sensor. I put carbon bottle cages on mine since I was spending $$$ anyway. This is a remarkable bike and I think you will reall like it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
Get one that has the right seat tube length. For most riders this will be the smallest one that has enough seat height with the seat as high as it will go.
What? The seat tube/inseam relationship is misleading as most people aren't perfectly proportioned. The top tube length is far more important as if it is overly long/short you can't adjust it as easily without compromising handling. Far better to have a few extra spacers than a stumpy/tillerlike stem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,160 Posts
I'll disagree...

ultimobici said:
What? The seat tube/inseam relationship is misleading as most people aren't perfectly proportioned. The top tube length is far more important as if it is overly long/short you can't adjust it as easily without compromising handling. Far better to have a few extra spacers than a stumpy/tillerlike stem.

What's really important is the head tube length, with the headset included, and the TT length. Spacers are usually limited to 3cm with carbon steerers. It's stupid to make a 2-4cm mistake in the vertical size of the bike to correct a 1-2cm difference in TT length. TT length most often changes 1/2 as much as the head tube length and sometimes even less. Some brands have a 2cm seat tube and head tube difference with only a .5cm difference in reach. The 60 and 62cm Treks are a perfect example. The 62cm only has about a .5cm longer reach than the 60, so it's vertically a lot larger with little difference in reach or front-center.

Treks have relatively long TT lengths for a given head tube length. Those with long legs and short torsos should look at another brand.

Stem length is not the issue as much as weight balance. A bike with a long TT requiring a short stem will most likely be lighter in the front due to the long front-center. This may affect cornering when the bike is pushed to the limit.

My last comment is that most brands will vary 1cm or less in TT length for a given size, so it's really pretty hard to get a TT length that's way off the mark, with the correct choice of frame size. Those with really long or short torsos will want to find the exceptions that have the TT length in this narrow range that best favors their proportions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
i'm 6'3 and ride a 60 cm 5.2 sl. so probably a 60 would be best for you...and you wouldn't be "maxing it out". i doubt you'd need a setback seat-post. probably the 120 or 130 mm stem would do it for you. and btw, most people need spacers on treks, it kinda comes with the territory for that brand of bikes.
beyond sizing calculations, inseams and all that jazz, it's all about personal preference at a certain point. i could ride a 62, or even a 63, and it wouldn't be 'too big' but i like the feel of a smaller frame better. plus, the way the 5.2 sl's fit, you won't need to show a lot of post on a 60. trust me. they have that 'classic' fit, with not a ton of room for showing too much post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
and i have to disagree with c-40's statement that those with long legs and short torsos should look at a brand besides trek. do i have to remind you that ever rider on that disco team rides a stock size frame? from 5'6 Hammond to 6'3 Hincapie, everyone seems to be able to pull off the trek geometry just fine. there are some unconventional sizing properties with treks, and the likelihood of spacers is one of those, but i believe they're among the most versatile frames as far as geometry and fit goes.
i definitely agreed with the rest of your post though, you've got some great knowledge there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,160 Posts
well...

All I can say is that you haven't studied a great many geometry charts. Treks are nearly always longer in the TT than most other brands. Compared to a LOOK for example, my 51cm c-c frame is most like a 54cm Trek (which measures about 50.5cm c-c). The TT is 1.5cm longer, so instead of a 110mm stem I'd be using a 90 or 100mm. While this fit would be tolerable, it's certainly not optimum for a short torsoed rider. You can do better with another brand.

The next size smaller frame is no better. It's 2cm shorter in head tube length, but the reach is a measly 4mm less because they increased the seat tube angle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Hard to tell what might fit you right, but one consideration on the smaller frame is the height difference between your saddle height and handlebars. Seems you are not a racer so there is no need to have your saddle some 8" above handlebars like the pros who are young and flexible. As you get older most people like the bars to be closer to the saddle height..just a thought
 

·
SoCal--S Beach to the Dam
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
As you can see,you'll never get the right fit on a bike forum.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top