Fifty Plus (50+) - Trek 412

Can anyone tell me about the sizing of a Trek 412. The frame size I am talking about is a 25.5. Looking at many of the major bike manufactures web sites, anything larger than about 23" seems to be rare.

At 51 I have just discovered biking this past June and am having a blast. I have been riding a 21" Rock Hopper Mountain bike 1990 vintage and like it fine, but have the urge to pursue a road bike too. All the sizing stuff is a bit overwhelming.

By the way, my stand over height is 33" when measured by the put the book between the legs method. Another FYI is that on my 21" Rock Hopper the seat post is as high as it should go to get my legs to extend properly. It is not unusual to read on here about someone of my 6"1" height and 33" inseam to be happy with a smaller frame than makes sense to me at least.

Thanks!

Have you visited vintage-trek.com?

BTW, I'm working on a 412 right now at the other extreme of the frame size (49). Nice bike, I wish it was my frame size, but I'm going to have to flip it cause it's just too small.

Have you visited vintage-trek.com?

Nope, great site, thanks for the link.

25.5" or 65cm is a very large frame for someone with an inseam of 33". While it can vary a little bit, a traditional geometry road bike of 60cm has a standover of right around 33".

Your 21" Rockhopper is measured differently than a road bike. However it does seem odd that you would have to extend the seat post a long way on that bike. Are you sure your inseam is 33"? That's a bit on the short side for someone who is 6'1". Yet your description of how you config your Rockhopper suggests that your legs are long.

Are you sure your inseam is 33"? That's a bit on the short side for someone who is 6'1". Yet your description of how you config your Rockhopper suggests that your legs are long.

I measured my inseam by standing back to a wall, bare feet, slid a book up between my legs until it was snug. For what it is worth the inseam on my pants are at about 31".

Well, then you do have shorter legs than usual for someone who is 6'1". Welcome to the club, there are several of us here.

That makes getting a good fit on a traditional geometry bike difficult. For a bike that is low enough to standover will generally have a top tube that is too short for your longer upper torso.

Various ways to address this include:

- Getting one that fits your proper standover height and then using longer stems and setback seat posts to lengthen the cockpit area.

- Getting a bike that is too tall and learning to deal with it.

- Buying a custom frame that is fitted to your measurements.

- Going with a larger, new bike with compact geometry, which due to the sloping top tube, better enables you to get a longer bike that still allows you to stand over it.

Can anyone tell me about the sizing of a Trek 412. The frame size I am talking about is a 25.5. Looking at many of the major bike manufactures web sites, anything larger than about 23" seems to be rare.

At 51 I have just discovered biking this past June and am having a blast. I have been riding a 21" Rock Hopper Mountain bike 1990 vintage and like it fine, but have the urge to pursue a road bike too. All the sizing stuff is a bit overwhelming.

By the way, my stand over height is 33" when measured by the put the book between the legs method. Another FYI is that on my 21" Rock Hopper the seat post is as high as it should go to get my legs to extend properly. It is not unusual to read on here about someone of my 6"1" height and 33" inseam to be happy with a smaller frame than makes sense to me at least.

Thanks!

A 21" MTB frame is quite large. My riding mate is 6'6" and he rides a 23" Giant----But all manufacturers measure and designate size on their frames differently. I ride an 18" trek- 16" Giant- 19" Kona and 15" Bianchi. It is the length of the top tube that sets these sizes so Manufacturers frame size means nothing to me. I sit on the bike and see if it feels right.

Then road frames.
Now a 25.5" frame size will go to a 65cm frame size. THAT IS BIG. Giant only go to a 63cm frame size and that will be for a 6'3" to 6'6" rider- But then there are those of us that have Ducks Disease and we require a shorter frame for our height but still need the longer top tube.

There is a type of frame that is called "Compact". You either like them or you don't so don't get hung up on it. Compact frames will cover a wider range of body sizes and all you have to decide on is the top tube length (Roughly- as stem length will come in to adapt aswell).

I think a 33" inseam at 6'1" is probably about right, but get to a bike shop and see what they say-----But choose the shop carefully. Find one that will talk to you- in fact preferably find two Local Biks Shops (LBS) and compare what they say.

The link below is to the Giant Comparison chart for compact frame sizing so you can compare To conventional frame sizes- but the only way to check out what fits is to sit on it.



http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-GB/technology/compactroad_new/15/

That is the size frame you probably would have been fitted for in 1981 or 1982 when that bike was new. See if you are comfortable on it. Remember, on a smaller frame you can raise the handlebar stem and seat post, but at 51 you may not like the seating position you wind up with. Now let's lay it on the table here, the 412 isn't something Lance Armstrong would have ridden in the Tour de France. He might, however, ride one to go touring France. Your riding comfort should then be a major concideration...IMO that is more important than "but you could cut the weight down by x ounces with a 58cm (23") frame". By the way, nice bike!

I'm still trying to reconcile the idea of someone with a 33" inseam needing a lot of seat post extended on a level top tube 21" MTB.

I'm still trying to reconcile the idea of someone with a 33" inseam needing a lot of seat post extended on a level top tube 21" MTB.

You've had 3 months to figure it out!!

First off, standover height is waaaayyyyy overstated. Read the Rivendell site, they are radical on some things (such as soft shoes and foot retention systems) but their thoughts on frame sizing match my experiences perfectly.

Second. When you talk about a 25" frame, how is this measured?
My Trek520 is a 23" frame, measured from the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube ... which just happens to stick about a mile above the top tube. It's really a 21" frame (bb to top tube) with the shortness of reach that that entails. This has made getting the handlebars in the right spot damned near impossible.

Third. You can NOT simply raise the bars on modern bikes. If the 412 (which I dont' know) has a quill, you're laughing. If it's got that damned stupid threadless set up, raising the bars is expensive and difficult. You'll need to buy necks and possibly a neck extender - that's right, the 'engineering solution' is to keep bolting bits together to replace a single one piece unit (end rant of threadlesss - it works when you want the bars at the top of the head stem, it becomes rapidly less sensible as you go higher). This last has actually been the killer on my 520 which is a frame size too small for me.

Forget standover - as long as the top tube isn't pressing into your groin, you're right. I've got two bikes that touch the groin and neither give me dramas.

My Jamis is the highest (a 62cm frame) - it presses against my groin when I stand over it. I need a 35 degree stem to get the bars high enough but at those angles, you can't adjust height without stuffing up reach so getting both reach and height right is a matter of luck.

The important things are handle bar height and reach, not standover. You need to be able to mount those bars where YOU want them. You need to be looking at the length of the top tube and, if it's a threadless headset (as opposed to a quill), you need to be looking at headset height as well.

Richard

You've had 3 months to figure it out!!

But it still doesn't make sense. :p

Second. When you talk about a 25" frame, how is this measured?
My Trek520 is a 23" frame, measured from the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube ... which just happens to stick about a mile above the top tube. It's really a 21" frame (bb to top tube) with the shortness of reach that that entails. This has made getting the handlebars in the right spot damned near impossible.


Richard

Well, the construction has changed quite a bit from the era of the 412. I have a 1981 Trek 412 and a 1983 Trek 520. Both are 22 1/2 inch frames, measured from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube. As you can see in my two pictures, the seat tube does not extend past the top tube. Also, my 22 1/2 inch frame 412 has a standover of 32 1/2 inches.

I sold a 1983 Trek 620 last week, with a 24 inch frame size. The standover was over 34 inches. I can't imagine if the OP has a 33 inch bike inseam that he could fit a 25 1/2 inch frame.

The 412 was last made in 1982. As all bikes of that era, it had a quill stem.

The blue bike is the 520.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3419/3177868979_e47e79021e_o.jpg

And here is the 412.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3325/3178704756_a6d3b0031d_o.jpg

I'm still trying to reconcile the idea of someone with a 33" inseam needing a lot of seat post extended on a level top tube 21" MTB.

Well, since this got dug up--------I went and remeasured and 34" is more like it. Sound better?

Well, the construction has changed quite a bit from the era of the 412. I have a 1981 Trek 412 and a 1983 Trek 520. Both are 22 1/2 inch frames, measured from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube. As you can see in my two pictures, the seat tube does not extend past the top tube. Also, my 22 1/2 inch frame 412 has a standover of 32 1/2 inches.

I sold a 1983 Trek 620 last week, with a 24 inch frame size. The standover was over 34 inches. I can't imagine if the OP has a 33 inch bike inseam that he could fit a 25 1/2 inch frame.

The 412 was last made in 1982. As all bikes of that era, it had a quill stem.

The blue bike is the 520.

Quill is good! Seriously. Threadless has its points (all of which I acknowlege) but unless you want the bars just above headstem height, it offers all sorts of compromises and inabilities - for example, once you start using 35 degree stems like I do, any change in length changes reach and height, too bad if you only want to change one not the other, and the choices of stem are limited. But the OP's 412 has a quill.

As for Trek and it's bikes. My 520 is the 2007 model, the last that had Ultegra shifters (bar end shifters offered as an alternative) and the like. Really, it feels like a bike made by a company that doesn't really care but keeps churning them out because they've got a good name based on past glories and some of the daft things they've done make you wonder if Trek themselves ever tried to use one. Then there was Trek's lack of interest in actually selling me the stupid thing. Sheesh.

But enough grumbling.

With the 412 coming with a quill, the OP's only concern is the reach - he can opt for a lot of standover or not very much depending on taste. Even reach is relatively easy to deal with though that involves buying new quills. Cripes, reach can even be affected by the handlebars that are fitted ... or the position of the brake levers if using drop bars ... but again, they're easy to change.

Realistically, sizing a frame can only be done by riding the bike in question. Buying based on numbers is so fraught with drama and potential for disaster that it should only be attempted by those (like me apparently) who love getting it wrong. Part of this is the love of manufacturers to change things and marketing men to offer all sorts of weird measuring systems in the interests of confusion and bling, but a large part of it is how our bodies operate. For example, I recently spoke about having to change my seat height dramatically - part of that was a change in hardware but associated with it seems to be a change in the way I ride, not appreciated until I tried to work out what was going on. You might have long legs but ride with your heel low demanding a lower seat height to someone who rides pointing their toes. You might be quite happy with low handlebars but you might be like me who needs them high. Your torso might be longer proportional to your body than the norm (like me again) thus enabling you to get away with a longer reach. And the forgotten point, as you get fitter or your body wears out, your fit changes.

But I'm just offering random thoughts and grumps because I'm supposed to be working and would rather be talking about bikes.

Bah humbug.
Where's my coffee?
Richard