|I am 5'8" 32inch inseam and was sold a 56cm trek 2200||noupi|
Oct 24, 2001 3:58 PM
|Now I look at all the bike sizing guides and my numbers
give a 53 cm frame ??
I was told at the shop that a 56 trek is like a 54cm in other brands.
With the seat adjusted in the middle I find myself streched
out when holding the shift/brake levers.
If i push the seat all the way forward it ok but will my
leg angle with the pedals be off ?
And the bike looks weird with the seat all the way forward...
|re: I am 5'8" 32inch inseam and was sold a 56cm trek 2200||ishmael|
Oct 24, 2001 4:08 PM
|im the same size as you in every way...ive got a 54 trek which is really a 52 center to center and it just fits..56 will be ok, dont adjust the seat to fit you though, instead get a shorter stem or shorter reach bars and you'll be fine|
|re: I am 5'8" 32inch inseam and was sold a 56cm trek 2200||540nova|
Oct 24, 2001 4:41 PM
|I agree with the first guy. In addition, when setting up your bike, first adjust leg extension, and knee placement over the pedal spindle. Then, purchase a stem which places you in a comfortable reach. Check out any of the good cycling books on the market for more details, but any good pro bike shop should help sort you out.|
|re: I am 5'8" 32inch inseam and was sold a 56cm trek 2200||PeugeotSuccess|
Oct 24, 2001 4:47 PM
|I'm 32.5 inches inseam. 5' 10". I have a 56 centimeter center to top measurement. According to all the formulas I too should be on a 54 cm road bike. Felt stretched out at first, handlebar was a little bit past the front hub when looking down. Kept wanting to get a shorter stem. 6 months later I finally tried a shorter stem. Finally my handlebar was spot on with the front hub. Hated it! Felt cramped. Went back to the original stem. Stick with a slightly stretched out position, better for you in the long run I think!|
|similar size here||JohnG|
Oct 24, 2001 7:12 PM
|Yup... you are probably on a too large frame. Not outrageously too large but certainly at the "edge".
I'm 5'8" with a 31.75" inseam and my bikes are 54-55cm CT with similar TT lengths. The Trek does size a little small so your bike is probably a little bigger than a 55.
**** You should NOT attempt fix the sizing by adjusting your saddle forward. The best solution to this bad situation would probably be a shorish stem. If you have an 11cm stem try a 9 or 10cm.
Oct 25, 2001 10:14 AM
|I'm 5'8", 32 in. inseam, and I ride a 56 cm Cannondale. It fits me fine, but I believe Cannondales tend to be shorter in the top tube than other makes. I'm not sure what the length is on mine.|
|trek measures funny||kenyee|
Oct 24, 2001 8:19 PM
|They are not C-C or C-T. They're C-top of seatpost collar.
That's how they label their frames.
To top it off, some of their frames like their Y-foils have a shorter than normal standover for the frame size number.
Oct 25, 2001 1:46 AM
|The 56cm Trek has a 56.4cm top tube. I defy you to get comfortable on the bike. At 5'8" with a 32" inseam your torso is short in comparison to your leg length. You would require something with a 52 - 53 cm top-tube (in Trek this wld be the 50/52cm frame). You got handled!! Was it the only one in stock?
Take it back and tell them to try again.
|I agree...take it back... that's why you pay lbs $$$... for the fit!!!||jagiger|
Oct 25, 2001 8:35 AM
|I wouldn't be so sure...||TJeanloz|
Oct 25, 2001 9:27 AM
|You don't have nearly enough information to declare that this is the wrong size. The torso of this individual is somewhat shorter than average for her (his) height. One key factor we're missing here is arm length. Typically people try to compare their own torso length to somebody else's, without adding arm length into the picture. This individual has relatively long legs, which often means correspondingly long arms, so the top tube length needs to be adjusted accordingly.
I would agree that with the stock stem (a 12cm, I believe), this bike is probably too long for this person. But I doubt that it is the wrong size. If you dropped them into a 54 (or even worse, a 50/52 as you recommend), the saddle would be perched very high above the handlebars- yielding a very aggressive position that most cycling enthusiasts find uncomfortable.
People always want to simplify sizing and turn it into a numbers game. This can be done, but everybody needs a better understanding of how the numbers relate to each other. In my opinion, the only way to get this understanding is by actually fitting hundreds of people.
|more bad advice....||C-40|
Oct 25, 2001 10:32 AM
|Another offbeat answer from “the true concerned citizen”?
At most, the top tube may be 1cm longer than ideal. The frame has adequate standover clearance, and won't require a lot of head tube spacers or a high rise stem to get a good vertical fit. A 5’-8” rider should have no problem with a 56.1cm TT length and a 100 or 110mm stem.
I'm an inch shorter (5’-7”), with slightly longer legs. I find that a 55cm (c-t) frame with a 73.5 STA and 55cm TT to fit perfectly with a 110 or 120mm stem. The 56.1cm top tube on the Trek would only require me to use a 10mm shorter stem for a good fit. The idea that this frame is way off-sized is nonsense.
Oct 25, 2001 10:37 AM
|Didn't convert properly,try again....
Another offbeat answer from "the true concerned citizen"?
At most, the top tube may be 1cm longer than ideal. The frame has adequate standover clearance, and won't require a lot of head tube spacers or a high rise stem to get a good vertical fit. A 5'-8" rider should have no problem with a 56.1cm TT length and a 100 or 110mm stem.
I'm an inch shorter (5'-7"), with slightly longer legs. I find that a 55cm (c-t) frame with a 73.5 STA and 55cm TT to fit perfectly with a 110 or 120mm stem. The 56.1cm top tube on the Trek would only require me to use a 10mm shorter stem for a good fit. The idea that this frame is way off-sized is nonsense.
Oct 25, 2001 8:59 AM
|The 56cm Trek is close in size, vertically, to most 54cm frames measured center to top. The top tube is about 1cm longer than a lot of other brands of this size. It's probably a better choice than a 54cm.
The top tube on the 54cm Trek frame is effectively 1cm shorter than the top tube on the 56cm frame. To get the same fit on the 56cm frame as the 54cm frame, all you have to do is use a 1cm (10mm) shorter stem and move the saddle forward by .6cm to place the knee in the same relationship to the bottom bracket (the seat tube angles are not the same).
The 56cm frame should not require much in the way of head tube spacers to get the bars up to a useable height. If you had a 54cm frame, you would need to raise the bars by 2cm, either with (ugly) spacers or an (ugly) high rise stem.
|re: I am 5'8" 32inch inseam and was sold a 56cm trek 2200||Quicksilver|
Oct 25, 2001 9:18 PM
|Try and find a LBS that makes use of BIO-RACER.
I'm also 5'8 and 32 inseam and before I bought my Trek I had myseld measured making use of BIO-RACER.
The recommended frame geometry was a mil or two outside the 56cm Trek Frame. I found that the 56cm frame with a 110mm stem was great.
I first tried a 58cm but find that I climb better on the 56cm and I can cover greater distances with any problem.
|re: I am 5'8" 32inch inseam and was sold a 56cm trek 2200||Miggy|
Nov 25, 2001 5:21 PM
|I have a '02 56cm Trek 2200 and I'm 5'7" with a 30 inseam. I haven't had any problems with it and I've had it for almost two months. Don't worry about it. If it feels good, do it.|| |