Classic & Vintage - New photos of my '90 Trek 330 with racing saddle

I cleaned my Trek up a bit and took some pics of it with it's new Selle San Marco racing saddle I added to it.

What do y'all think

Looks like the saddle needs to be tilted up, and the bike is too small for you......

Looks like the saddle needs to be tilted up, and the bike is too small for you......

+1

We have remarkably similar bikes though. Selle Italia saddle, Continental tires...

http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz48/Jacob54901/My%20bikes/IMG_1088.jpg

Looks like the saddle needs to be tilted up, and the bike is too small for you......

The seat feels perfect at that angle and I'm 5'8". How do you figure it's too small for me?

The seat feels perfect at that angle and I'm 5'8". How do you figure it's too small for me?


I know it's too small cause the seat post is too far out. This is why you need to have the seat tilted down, or the nose of the saddle would (well you know)....

I'm not being a smart a$$ either... That bike looks to be around 49-50cm and at 5'8" you probably need a 54cm frame or better, but that depends on a lot of things.

U need a new frame man. U are at least 4 sizes off and be carefull the stem is almost off the steering tube, is not even straight that means is just hangin' out the wedge. Nice bike tho.

Take care.




The seat feels perfect at that angle and I'm 5'8". How do you figure it's too small for me?

I know it's too small cause the seat post is too far out. This is why you need to have the seat tilted down, or the nose of the saddle would (well you know)....

I'm not being a smart a$$ either... That bike looks to be around 49-50cm and at 5'8" you probably need a 54cm frame or better, but that depends on a lot of things.

Well, when I stand over the bike, the top tube has about 1/2-1/4 inch between it and my crotch.

So I guess this needs to go into the This Frame Doesn't Fit thread?

WTF.

You could post it in this thread..

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/770095-The-look-of-taller-frames-vs.-smaller-frames

Well, when I stand over the bike, the top tube has about 1/2-1/4 inch between it and my crotch.

If that were true, it seems unlikely you could reach the pedal at the bottom of the stroke from where the saddle is, unless you have enormous feet.

nice bike! i was looking through the old trek catalogs and noticed at some point around 1990 they made everything with the modern (unicrown?) fork, but looks like you got one of the last of the cool ones before the switch.

You can tell by my handle I have some experience with Trek 330s.Absolutely adored mine.I'm also 5'8" and mine was a 56cm.Tad big for me.Great riding bike!!

If that were true, it seems unlikely you could reach the pedal at the bottom of the stroke from where the saddle is, unless you have enormous feet.

Nope, fits perfect.

Look folks, here's the deal. I'm 5'8", but not everyone thats my height is built the same, hell, no two people are built the same! Ever think about that? I have short legs and a long torso, so the bike not only fits me but it's set up for me. It's comfy and I love and I don't care what anyone thinks.

I'll quote something from one of my earlier post......

"You can have your saddle at whatever angle makes you happy."

"Your handlebars can be lower than your saddle, even with your saddle, or higher than your saddle. Whichever way you like it is right."


"If you think your bike looks good, it does."
http://surlybikes.com/blog/post/some_answers_to_just_about_any_bike_forum_post_ive_ever_read

Angle the saddle however you like but the poster who mentioned the stem is right. Unless that's a freakishly long stem like a Nitto Technomic you're probably above the minimum insert line, which is bad bad bad.

You should carefully examine the stem and find the minimum insert line...and respect it.

This frame size thing is largely a matter of both individual physique and personal preference, but it's certain that you're quite a way off the top of the bell curve with that bike. I'm off the other direction - 5'-10" with 32 pants inseam, and I have several 63 cm (CtT) bikes. I don't care about standing over with both feet on the ground and bike upright; if I can clear when stopped with the bike tilted a little toward my curb-side leg (on the ground), and rest my butt cheek on the top tube, I'm happy. I do still have a decent amount of seat post showing, and I think that's because I like my leg more straightened, and toes more down, than most people do when pedaling. Also, I hardly ever stand and crank, while I see a lot of people with smaller frames who spend a large proportion of time out of the saddle.

Angle the saddle however you like but the poster who mentioned the stem is right. Unless that's a freakishly long stem like a Nitto Technomic you're probably above the minimum insert line, which is bad bad bad.

You should carefully examine the stem and find the minimum insert line...and respect it.

Yes your right, I am a tad above it. So should I get a longer stem or a bigger bike?

Nope, fits perfect.

"You can have your saddle at whatever angle makes you happy."


Yeah, if you're happy with numb hands from having to much weight leaning forward.

Yes your right, I am a tad above it. So should I get a longer stem or a bigger bike?

First, lower the stem to the minimum insertion point. Then see how comfortable your saddle angle/bike feels on a long ride. 30-40 miles, something like that. Long rides will point out the places the bike doesn't fit you.

Although you don't trust any of us that the bike is way too small for you, a long ride will prove it one way or the other. There's a reason you don't see anyone who puts on lots of miles with a saddle angle/fit like that.

Totally agree on the stem. Also, in regards to standover height, I think it is more important to judge how the bike fits when you are moving. Of course it can't be so tall that you can't keep it upright when stopped at lights, etc., but the suggestion that you should have 1-1/2" to 2" of standover clearance is hogwash. If that were true, none of my bikes would "fit", but they actually fit perfectly.

BTW, when a saddle is tilted forward, there is no way you can rest enough weight on your sit bones. That puts a lot of pressure on your arms and hands. Saddles as a rule should be either level or slightly nose up as is the case with some Brooks models.

Nope, fits perfect.

I'm not arguing fit, I just don't see the numbers where you can barely clear the top tube yet have that much seat post showing. Foot extension adds some to the distance, but that much?

Maybe the small size of the bike is making me think there is more seat post than there actually is.

Holy stem & seatpost, Batman!

http://www.toplessrobot.com/batman-and-robin-tv.jpg

if you're 5'8 you should probably be riding around a 53-54 cm frame, that bike looks like a 47 cm frame, it looks tiny.

You don't feel tight on that bike? have you ridden 53-54 cm bikes? you'll probably be more comfortable..... we're just trying to give you advice so don't take anything offensive...

i'm 5'11, 6'0 after i've had my wheaties.... i feel really comfy on a 56-57 frame. I know not all people are alike, but i'd say people around my height that i know are within the same range, maybe a 58 frame or so, but the differences are +/- a cm or 2, your bike on the other hand is tiny for your height... just my opinion....

the reason everyone is telling you this is because of your seat angle, seat post height and stem height...

you don't want to look like a bear on a tricycle.....

http://www.jennykeithhughes.com/Paintings/Large/m_Tricycle%20Bear.jpg

Very nice bike, I'm definitely a fan of those early Treks =). I think there has been really good advice given, especially fixing the stem and leveling the saddle for safety, but if you're happy just continue riding! Just note that our bodies can cram and flex to fit many setups but it may not necessarily be ideal. So how about when the opportunity presents itself (nice vintage Trek on CL or something) try it out and see how you like it.

What do y'all think


It's comfy and I love and I don't care what anyone thinks.

Why'd you ask what us "What do y'all think" if you didn't care what we thought?

I didn't start this to be a jerk as you might think, I did because the way you have your bike set up makes it unsafe, and uncomfortable. Take a look at this chart to get a better idea. I would have use Rivendell but the site is down till tonight for maintenance.

http://bicycling.about.com/od/howtoride/a/bike_sizing.htm

Practically everyone thinks everyone else should ride a bike that conforms to their old school/modern concept of riding, with the seat canted this way or that, bars here or there. They make these recommendations out of a heartfelt belief that it would be better/safer/more fun for you.

I used to think that way too.
Now I think everyone should scrap the charts and just ride it the way it best suits them - recognizing that we all fall somewhere on a Bell's curve for every bit of our anatomy, and some of us truly are better off with something different.

BTW, I really like steel Treks and your 330, but would prefer it with black hoods and white tape. But that's just me.;)

Well everyone, after a lot of consideration and sleeping on it, i realize that all of you are right. The bike is too small for me. I'm going to give it to my son and find me something larger. The bike does feel cramped so I've made adjustments thinking I was doing right when actually i was over compensating. So does anyone need a small Trek?

I do appriciate the input fella's, honestly.

Well, when I stand over the bike, the top tube has about 1/2-1/4 inch between it and my crotch. Glad you're getting a larger frame. (I'm 5'7" with a 31.5" inseam – all legs, no torso – and I ride a 54cm.)

Your standover height is probably more than you think. Straddle the top tube and grab it with both hands (one hand in front of your body; the other behind) and then lift the bike as far as you can, i.e. until you hit bone. I wouldn't be surprised if it's somewhere between 1 and 2 inches.

Well everyone, after a lot of consideration and sleeping on it, i realize that all of you are right. The bike is too small for me. I'm going to give it to my son and find me something larger. The bike does feel cramped so I've made adjustments thinking I was doing right when actually i was over compensating. So does anyone need a small Trek?

I do appriciate the input fella's, honestly.

Um, didn't you just suggest that your son needs one?

Anyway, I'm about your size and ride a 54 - 56. If you have friends with bikes in that range I'd try to borrow one and do a decent ride. I think the point with your Trek is you made it fit well enough that you could ride it, but compared to what? Once you get on something that actually fits the way it should I'm confident you'll be able to tell the difference.

I was joking, this ones going to my son who's 21 and 5'4 and probably done growing. So it should fit him well.

I sent you a private message about the 330, however after looking at it some more, it looks like it is a little too small. I need to stick in the 53 or 54 cm range.