's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

If YOU had these measurements which bike would YOU go with?(12 posts)

If YOU had these measurements which bike would YOU go with?jtferraro
Oct 28, 2002 5:56 AM
Sorry for reposting this - but I don't think I received many replies last time b/c I accidentally typed "nm" at the end of the subject line.

I hope to be taking it(maybe both of them) for a ride tomorrow. I had previously left the LBS w/an old set of mtb clipless pedals - Onza HO's - which I *thought* were SPD compatible. It turned out they weren't so I couldn't click my Ritchey SPD compatible cleat into them and thus wasn't able to test ride the bike yet. I've decided, instead of investing in real road shoes/pedals right now, I'll buy a cheap pair of SPD compatibles to use temporarily, w/my existing mtb SPD shoes. I found a cheap($20), lightweight pair @Nashbar which I'm having sent out overnight.

I have $100 down. Which size bike should I go with, or, are TREK OCLV's just not the right frame geometry(bike) for me?

My measurements:
1.) Inseam = 85cm
2.) Thigh = 40.5cm
3.) Foot Length = 46cm
4.) "Q" = .476(not sure what this is)
5.) Torso Length = 59cm
6.) Arm Length = 63.5cm
7.) U.B.M. = 122.5cm
8.) Shoulder = 48cm
9.) Hand = L(not sure what this is)

'01 58cm TREK OCLV120 frame geometry:
1.) Head Angle = 73.8 degrees
2.) Seat Angle = 73 degrees
3.) Eff Top Tube = 57.1
4.) Chain Stay = 41.2
5.) Bottom Bracket = 26.8
6.) Offset = 4.3
7.) Wheel Base = 99.6
8.) Trail = 5.4
9.) Stand Over = 80.7

'02 56cm TREK OCLV120 frame geometry:
1.) Head Angle = 73.8 degrees
2.) Seat Angle = 73.5 degrees
3.) Eff Top Tube = 56.1
4.) Chain Stay = 41
5.) Bottom Bracket = 26.8
6.) Offset = 4.1
7.) Wheel Base = 98.6
8.) Trail = 5.7
9.) Stand Over = 79.0

BTW, I'm a little over 5'9"(5'9.25") and have always been quite flexible(my body/stretching, etc.).

More food for thought: With 58cm frame I'd initially be using a 90mm stem and on the 56cm frame, a 100mm stem.


For comparison purposes...PsyDoc
Oct 28, 2002 6:55 AM
here are my measurements, because we are just about the same height.

Arm: inside of armpit to the webbing between thumb and finger (65.25cm)

Body Height: ground to sternal notch (144.15cm)

Shoulder Width: bony protrusions at the top of the shoulder (40cm front measurement)

Inseam: bare feet 6 inches apart (84.45cm)

Height: ground to top of head (174.65cm)

Torso: Crotch-to-Sternal Notch (59.70cm)

Femur: crotch to floor kneeling (40.32cm)

Forearm: elbow to middle of fist (35.80cm)

Outseam: bony protrusion at the top of the femur at the hip, through the knee to the ground (87.80cm)

Lower Leg: ground to top of knee cap (53.50cm)

My ride has a 73.5 degree seat tube angle and a 73.5 degree head tube angle, a 56.5 c-t-c top tube, and a 55.5 c-t-c seat tube. I am pretty flexible as well and ride with a 110mm stem and would have no trouble riding with a 120mm stem, but cannot justify buying a new stem right now.

None of this really means anything as you should not be comparing with me or others who have similar body measurements...what matters is which bike are you the most comfortable riding? If I were chosing one of the OCLV Trek's, then I would probably go with the 58, because I would end up with too much discrepancy between the seat and the top of the bars and would want to minimize the # of spacers. Although, I could always go with a riser stem...decisions, decisions, decisions.
Treks are meant to have low standover and a long toptube.elviento
Oct 28, 2002 7:19 AM
So if the frame height is right for you, the toptube is probably too long. ANd you should know that when you are on the bike, the toptube length actually affects the riding while seattube length doesn't. Spacers aren't a problem. Lance has almost 3cm. In fact if you flip the stem, that raises the bar by almost 4cm.
OK, so what you mean is...jtferraro
Oct 28, 2002 8:14 AM
by "low standover" you mean that TREK's are meant to have a considerable amount of standover(i.e. I'd have about 6cm's), right? Don't forget, though, I'd also have more seatpost exposed, which would bring me back further from the hbar.

Thanks for your response.

Well, it depends.elviento
Oct 28, 2002 9:09 AM
If your bar is raised to the right height, there will be more spacers exposed, and that means the bar will be a bit back to set off any effect caused by more exposed seatpost.

I believe standover height will be a non issue for both frames, so you really should focus on the toptube length. Ask yourself which toptube length is right for you.
56cm. nmMXL02
Oct 28, 2002 7:23 AM
You're referring to TREK 56cm(54cm c-t), right? Thanks. (nm)jtferraro
Oct 28, 2002 8:07 AM
yes nmMXL02
Oct 28, 2002 8:52 AM
the 58.....C-40
Oct 28, 2002 10:06 AM
IF your measurements are accurate, (inseam in bare feet). The 58 would provide more than 4cm of standover clearance (quite adequate) and a 2cm longer headtube that will help to reduce the steering tube spacers or stem rise required.

The acutal difference in the top tube length is only .4cm (not 1cm) due to the difference in seat tube angle. Only a 5mm shorter stem would be needed on the 58.

The 56 would provide an unnecessarily large 6cm of standover clearance and require and additional 2cm in spacers or stem rise to get the bars up to the same height.

For me, the deciding factor would be desired bar to saddle height difference. If the 58 would provide the desired height with no spacers, I'd go for it.

Unless you have a lot of riding experience and know your preferred KOP position, you can't really know what stem length you'll end up with. The saddle must be adjusted to the optimum fore/aft position through hundreds (maybe thousands) of miles of trial and error. Setting the knee directly over the pedal in the shop is not likely going to be your final saddle adjustment. Years ago I regularly used stems as short as 90mm, but gradually increased to 110mm as I became more experienced.
Thanks for your response and sharing your experience w/me...jtferraro
Oct 28, 2002 12:16 PM
I value your words and I really appreciate your time. You seem like you really know your stuff, as I've read other posts by you, including the recent one on Colagno's and TT length(from a day or two ago).

9cm stem ........... ughJohnG
Oct 29, 2002 8:26 AM
IMHO, you should try to find a frame with a shorter effective tt length. Short stems ===> fast/twitchy handling.

I temporarily setup one of my bikes with an 8cm stem (for a friend) and I was shocked at how twitchy the bike felt. Bad news.

You should strive for an 11-13cm stem length.

Yeah, I know...jtferraro
Oct 29, 2002 8:51 AM
I'm hoping I can use at least a 100mm stem. We'll see...