|Frame Size 55 Lemond 56 Trek??||riderbob|
Mar 17, 2002 2:31 PM
|I wondered if anyone could answer a bike size question. I was fitted for a Lemond and was told a 55 was the correct size by two different bike shops. I was looking a Trek bike and wondered if a 56 would be the corresponding size. Thanks for you adive.
|re: Frame Size 55 Lemond 56 Trek??||Chen2|
Mar 17, 2002 3:02 PM
|I've heard that the Lemond bikes are measured c-c, if so, the 56cm trek would be much smaller than a 55cm Lemond. The Trek OCLV's are measured c-top of seat tube. My 56cm Trek 5500 measures 52cm c-c. Don't believe what anyone tells you, take a metric tape with you to the bike shop.
|re: Frame Size 55 Lemond 56 Trek??||firstrax|
Mar 17, 2002 5:37 PM
|I a going to be out of town. I hope my girlfriend can figure out the VCR.|
Mar 17, 2002 8:17 PM
|they have different geometries (not to mention frame materials), so you'll likely want to ride both to see what suits you. These are both bikes that tend to be stocked completely built-up, so a test ride shouldn't be a problem. And since they're under the same corporate umbrella--and tend to be dealt together--back-to-back test rides shouldn't be a problem.
Also, I'm not sure whether all Treks are measured the same, but the OCLV frames measure from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube collar. I just sold a "56" cm Trek 5200, that measured approximately 54 cm by the usual center-to-top standard (center of the bottom bracket to the top of the top tube). On the other hand, it had a 56 cm top tube, so you wouldn't really call it a mislabled 54 either.
|re: Frame Size 55 Lemond 56 Trek??||S-U-B|
Mar 17, 2002 10:53 PM
|I had the same question just a month ago. Local shops only have treks and lemonds. That is basically correct, though the geometries are different, if you needed a 55 lemond, you almost certainly would need a 56 trek. you definately would not need a 54, and a 58 Trek would be to big. go to both websites and pull up the geometry, it is easy to compare that way. good luck
Mar 18, 2002 6:13 AM
|a 55 lemond has a 56.5 top tube, which is roughly equivalent to a 58cm trek. a 58 trek has a 56 top tube. the difence can be made up with the correct stem and seat position. dno't worry so much about the vertical measurement, worry about the top tube measurement. it's much more important!|
|no to your no||ET|
Mar 18, 2002 8:04 AM
|The 56 Trek OCLV has a 56.1 TT, and once you factor in that the Trek has a 73.5 STA compared to Lemond's 73, the effective TT (i.e. after your tush ends up in the same place with respect to the BB after seat adjustment) the two will be very close. A 58 OCLV has a 57.1 TT (check Trek's site if you please), but again with a steeper STA (73) than the 57 c-c's Lemond (72.5 STA and 57.5 TT), making the effective TTs close again. So based on TTs, the 56 OCLV is more comparable to the 55 Lemond. The thing is, because the 56 Trek is really a 54 c-t and the 55 Lemond is more like a 56.3 c-t, there will be a much greater drop to the handlebars on the 56 Trek than on the 55 Lemond. Some may like that, some may not. It is a possibility that neither bike will fit well too. Just things to consider before buying.|
|Exactly right.||Len J|
Mar 18, 2002 8:16 AM
|I have a 55 lemond Buenos Aires & a 56 Trek 5500. You are exactly right in the differences in fit. I test rode both a 56 & a 58 OCLV before I bought the 56. It just felt like it had better balance for me. That being said, by most current definitions one would look at both my bikes & say the the Lemond (Quill stem) is the right size frame & the Trek is too small, (5 inches of seatpost showing & too many spacers, while still haveing a 2-3 inch drop to the bars). However I like the feel of the bike (Trek) it's comfort & it's handling as well as I've liked any bike. I'm sure if I posted a PIC I would get blasted for the spacers but who cares.