|Anyone stood eye to eye with LANCE?||briko51|
Sep 2, 2002 6:23 PM
|I recently test rode a 2001 Trek 5700 (58cm) ...Loved it. only had a 115 stem so it was a bit cramped, i would go for a 130mm stem if i got one...
i'm 184cm, 87cm inseam...
i'm sure maybe you guys have seen this?
i was suprised to see lance rides a 58 with 130mm stem...and honestly i think he looks quite cramped on the bike. am i going crazy? lol ...i thought he was only 5'10?
|Trek's 58cm is more like a 56cm btw||Lazywriter|
Sep 2, 2002 6:38 PM
|and it doesn't surprise me that he rides a 130mm stem considering his flexibility and need to be stretched out.|
|How is it more like a 56cm?||briko51|
Sep 2, 2002 6:50 PM
|just curious...because its measured c-t?
and honestly anytime i've seen lance in a pic he looks very cramped and not stretched out at all...
|How is it more like a 56cm?||Lazywriter|
Sep 2, 2002 6:59 PM
|Trek measures its OCLV bikes to top of seatpost collar. So you will always be on a "larger" bike than most other manufaturers. That is why Lance fits on a 58cm but in reality it is a 56cm.|
|TT length||Rusty Coggs|
Sep 2, 2002 7:06 PM
|The 58 has a 57cm toptube .Nothing 56 ish about that.C-C on a 58 is moe like 54.Buy em by TT length,and worry about geting the bars high enough if you need to without an excess washer stack or riser stem.|
|problem is, bikes are sized by seat tube||ET|
Sep 2, 2002 7:55 PM
|Not total nonsense, either, since knowing your approximate seat tube length and angle will put you on the proper size frame in terms of proper amount of seat post sticking out, being near center of rails, having appropriate vertical drop to the handlebars, proper control, etc. It is nonsense, though, in calling it one size when by everyone else's standards it really is another.
No one's denying top tube is important. But Trek's top tubes are very long for the given real (not fake) seat tube length. Many will find the bike ill-fitting even if the top tube length is right.
|That's funny.............||Rusty Coggs|
Sep 3, 2002 4:35 AM
|cause Trek is not the only one that does it that way.I bought my OCLV frame basd on TT length and seattube angle as compared to other stuff I ride and know firs. Works fine.Others have to make a big deal out of it I guess.|
|Not totally accurate.||Len J|
Sep 3, 2002 4:02 AM
|Trek's 58 has a 58cm center to center top tube, so in the direction the poster alluded to, Trek's 58 is in fact a 58. Where Trek's sizing varies from normat is in the seat tube dimensions. A 58 has a seat tube that is 58 center of BB to seatpost clamp, and 54cm C to C.
|Len's correct, but...||Chen2|
Sep 3, 2002 10:24 AM
|Trek measures from center BB to top of seat tube collar, not clamp.
|re: Anyone stood eye to eye with LANCE?||filtersweep|
Sep 2, 2002 6:49 PM
|And I bet that 44 bar is measured outside to outside.
BTW- I read somewhere else that he rides a 56, so who knows...
|LANCE bikes on eBay||tarwheel|
Sep 3, 2002 3:48 AM
|I have seen a number of "former" racing frames used by Lance for sale on eBay, and they were all size 56 center-center. I believe there is a Merckx frame for sale right now, and it's a 56. It has his name painted on the top tube.|
Sep 3, 2002 4:08 AM
|This frame is for sale on eBay right now. It's actually a 56.5 x 56.5, but all of the other frames of his I have seen for sale are size 56. FWIW, a 58 Trek fits like a 55 c-c frame with a reallllllly long top tube. That's why I don't even bother looking at Treks. To get the right top tube length, I would need to raise the seatpost to a ridiculous height and have an extreme drop to the handlebars. The Trek carbon frames are a great deal, it's just too bad they don't offer them in different geometries.|
|Note to self: Avoid Showdowns With Texans :-) nm||jose_Tex_mex|
Sep 2, 2002 7:25 PM
|re: Anyone stood eye to eye with LANCE?||aliensporebomb|
Sep 2, 2002 8:43 PM
|Weird. I use the same tires as Lance. Probably the only
thing we have in common except for the love of the bike I
|what? You are not a President Bush supporter?nm||Justride|
Sep 2, 2002 10:04 PM