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 )


Norco road bikes - anybody ridden them? Frame size questions too. Trek 54 cm too big for 5'7".(6 posts)

Norco road bikes - anybody ridden them? Frame size questions too. Trek 54 cm too big for 5'7".Eug
Apr 15, 2003 6:47 AM
Has anyone ridden Norco road bikes?

Norco RD Two (Traditional frame - all Ultegra) CAD$2000 (CAD$1375)
http://www.norco.com/bikes/2003bikes/rdtwo.htm

Norco CRR One (Compact frame - Shimano 105) CAD$1600 (US$1100)
http://www.norco.com/bikes/2003bikes/crrone.htm

For the RD Two, I'd probably get something like a 52 cm, and for the CRR One I'd probably get a small.

I'm 5'7" with about a 30.5" inseam. I have a Trek 2000 54 cm (C-T) which is a tad big. I have enough of standover, but I always feel like I'm stretching for the handle bars, and my stem is already pretty short. I can move the seat up maybe 1.5 cm, but then it's at the extreme end.

By the way, I'm hoping the sell the Trek 2000 for CAD$1350 (US$930) in Toronto, including a few months of warranty left over. Barely ridden - maybe a dozen rides.

I am a novice road biker. Just want to get in shape - coming off mountain biking.
What is your torso measurement?TrekFurthur
Apr 15, 2003 10:42 AM
and is that inseam measurement a "true" number or just your pants measurement? How short is your stem? I'm about your height, though a half inch longer in the leg, but fitting is more than the leg length (and I realize you can't do more than guesstimate over the internet); it also includes several other body lengths, etc., and flexibility, intended riding purpose. Is it possible you're on too small a bike? Certainly, but we'd need to no more.

Sorry, no info on Norco bikes.
What is your torso measurement?Eug
Apr 15, 2003 11:12 AM
To be quite honest, I don't have all the measurements. I usually get 30 length pants, but I think my true measurement (book wedgie and measuring tape) is 30.5" or perhaps slightly longer. Purpose is recreational/training.

If I'm wearing my mountain bike shoes, I get about 1" of clearance of the wheels off the ground with the top tube crammed into my crotch.

My stem is 85 mm.

If my friend is not interested in buying my 54 cm (C-T) Trek, I may just get a 60 mm stem from SuperGo and push my seat up.

I definitely am not on too small a bike. For instance, I barely have 2" of seatpost showing. I think I have too big a bike.
Without torso and assumingTrekFurthur
Apr 16, 2003 5:05 AM
the crotch measurement of 30.5 to be the least bit accurate, I'd put you on something like a 50cm Trek, maybe a 52 (always narrow to two sizes). The larger size would give you a slightly longer top-tube, but your bar/saddle height would be closer to equal, which should be a concern for a more recreational rider.
Maybe 30.75" inseam. Also top tube length of 50 & 52 similar.Eug
Apr 16, 2003 8:31 AM
I did another bare foot book-ultra-crammed-into-crotch measurement and it might be closer to 30.75", which would be closer to the pant inseam + 1" guideline. I get about 1" of clearance over the top tube of my 54 cm (C-T, standover 30.4") when I have my mountain bike shoes on.

The 50 cm bike I tried seemed too small, but they didn't have a 52 cm at the time. Weirdly enough, the 50 and 52 cm have a similar effective top tube length (within 1/5") but the 54 cm is about 3/4" longer than the 52.

I'm thinking the 52 would have been perfect for me. 50 cm too small, and the 54 slightly too big.
Tricky basing size without torso, but 52cm looking better-nmTrekFurthur
Apr 16, 2003 10:30 AM