RoadBikeReview.com'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 )


Trek 5x00 60 or 62 cm ???(11 posts)

Trek 5x00 60 or 62 cm ???AndrewL
Feb 5, 2003 4:21 PM
I would like some comments on a decision I am facing.
I'm 6'1" with a 35" inseam. I like to have a 2" drop from my saddle top to bar top. Overall reach should be 69 cm. Seat height is 80 cm from center of the BB to top of the saddle. (Seat might be a little low actually)

So here's the dilemma, with a 62 cm Trek 5x00, the above set-up would give me a 95 mm stem. The top of the handle bars would be 12 cm above the seatpost clamp. Is the seat post clamp at the same height as the top of the steering tube? (I am assuming that the 62 cm frame size is the measurement from the BB center to the top of the seat collar.)

With a 60 cm frame, the stem would be 105 mm and the bars would be 14 cm above the seat post collar.

So there it is, do I go with the 60, a stack of spacers and a 105 mm stem, OR, 62 cm, less spacers and a 95 mm stem? Of course saddle for/aft position is not being factored in, but without more time in the said saddle, I think it is safer to assume that it is the same for both frames?

I rode a 60cm for a bit today, but it had a 120mm stem on it and I had too much weight on the bars.

Any input would be appreciated. I have looked at previous threads but am still undecided.
Andrew
In my experience, bigger is better.cory
Feb 5, 2003 4:58 PM
Tradition (and probably several other posters) will say to get the smaller frame for stiffness, lightness and whatever the other reasons are. Personally, though, most fit charts say I should ride a 64 or 65cm frame--but because a lot of bikes don't come in those sizes or shops don't stock them, I've let myself be talked into some 62s ("We'll put on a longer seat post"). When I bought my Atlantis, I followed the chart and got a 64 (they didn't have a 65 then), and it's made a big difference in comfort.
I can't really explain it, because when I compare various measurements in the cockpits of the bikes, the differences are very small. There's no question, though, that the big frame (and a 25-inch Trek I converted to singlespeed) are much more comfortable than either of my 62s. I'm thinking about getting a Rivendell Redwood this spring, and it will be a 65.
You are a 60 for Trek (nm)deHonc
Feb 5, 2003 5:24 PM
re: Trek 5x00 60 or 62 cm ???upandcomer
Feb 5, 2003 7:19 PM
I'm between 6'1" and 6'2" and ride a 60 cm 2001 5200. I always wished I had bought the 62cm. The spacers I have on my bike are a little ugly and I use a 135mm stem. I do like a long and low position though. However, if you by a 60cm, its probably easier to make a small bike fit rather than trying to make big one fit.
My advice would be to buy the 62cm, there doesn't seem to be a good reason not to.
re: Trek 5x00 60 or 62 cm ???AndrewL
Feb 6, 2003 6:45 AM
Thanks for your comments everyone.
I am leaning towards a 62cm after a nights more thought. I am thinking that since I can fit the 62 cm with a reasonable stem size and seat post length, it would be the way to go, since it will offer more fitting flexibility.

My next step will be to spend some time with the stores fit specialist and see what he thinks.

thanks again
Andrew
Get a 62 if you must, but you ARE a 60!!!!deHonc
Feb 6, 2003 2:37 PM
Andrew,

I think you need to look into this more - I'm quite sure that any decent fitting scheme will result in you being sized to a 60cm Trek frame. Look, these frames will last a lifetime - don't get one too big. A 62cm is too big for you.

Dan
Get a 62 if you must, but you ARE a 60!!!!AndrewL
Feb 6, 2003 2:56 PM
Thanks Dan,
I appreciate your input and I have not ruled anything out yet. I am going to go and be properly fitted. I will post how it goes. As long as the drop from the saddle to the bars is not too great, I think I could fit a 60 cm, as long as I do not run out of steerer tube to clamp the stem to at the right height. Stem length should be right in the ball park on the 60cm. The other thing I must not forget yet is the saddle for/aft position. I think I should get that right first, then see where the bars need to be.

Andrew
re: Trek 5x00 60 or 62 cm ???mja
Feb 6, 2003 6:46 AM
I am 73.5 in. in height and have a 34.5 in. inseam. I too am looking at Treks, and have convinced myself that the 60 cm is the right size. I estimate that only 12 mm of spacers will be required under a 120 mm stem. (Currently my seat height comes in at 733 mm.) I ride in a stretched out position, and favor Treks and Cannondales for their relatively longer top tubes.

You might want to consider -- if you are not absolutely committed to the Trek -- another manufacturer. Your anticipated stem lengths are on the short side. Calfee makes great carbon frames, for example.
re: Trek 5x00 60 or 62 cm ???KeeponTrekkin
Feb 6, 2003 6:47 AM
I ride a 60 cm Trek 5x00. I am 1" shorter than you and have a 1" shorter inseam; it sounds like our height difference is entirely in the leg. You didn't mention sleeve length, but mine is long at 35". I use an "average" length stem (120 mm Thompson, but with 5 degree rise - e.g. 95 degree) with 1 spacer ~1/4".

I found the slight rise of the stem worked well. It shortened the overall reach (higher bars with the same stem length are closer) and got the bars to the height that was comfortable for me.

The bike came to me (used) with a 135mm/90degree stem. The small change (only 1.5 cm) made a world of difference to my comfort.

My advice is to be cautious about the larger frame size with the very short stem and to consider the 60 cm frame and a stem with some rise. Although others on this board disagree, I believe the longer stem gives better handling.

KoT
I would squeeze into the 60 rather get stretched on the 62Maartin
Feb 6, 2003 11:12 AM
I am the same size 6'1.5", 34 inseam and 34 sleeve with a 2000 Trek 60 cm 5200. I tried to get fitted with a 62 but it was too big per the lbs shops. I am on the high side with the seat up high and back but it was better than the next size up. Next time I am buying another brand as we both fall between the Trek 60-62 sizes. They are great bikes but fit is a bit tight at our size.
One suggestion from a former 5500 owner.Len J
Feb 6, 2003 3:08 PM
Trek's are sized very short in the (c c) seattube for a given top tube length. As a result, for someone who is normally sized, there is usually either a large drop to the bars or many spacers/riser stem in order to get the right bar position relative to the seat. Many riders of this frame either appear to have too small a frame or have a hugh drop to the bars.

If I were you, I would find a shop with both sizes, have them set up with the bar drop and reach you want and both test ride and look at the aestetics to see if you will be happy after you spend $3,000 or so.

If you are unhappy with either the fit or the look, find another geometry that fits what you want better. For this amount of moiney, you deserve to be happy.

Len