I have tried a Trek 4300 in a 22.5 ($350)and 4500 in a 24" ($480). Trek doesn't make a 24" 4300. Both feel good. But I'm in a money crunch and the 4500 is more than I really want to spend. I do mostly commuting to work and pulling the kids around in a Burley D-lite trailer. I also take trails, but not much on jumping or racing. Can I get away with 22.5 frame? The seat easily adjust to give my legs the proper extension they need, unlike the Target piece-o-ohh I don't want to go there again. I'm 28, six foot seven, weigh 250lbs and I immensely enjoy biking. That's why I'm taking the plunge and moving up from my $160 4 year old knee buster. Do I need to suck it up and throw down the hard cash and pick up the 4500, so I can get a 24" frame? My bike shop is really no help to me. I really do want to stick with a Trek though, because, well just because. I'm not really a big fan of buying a used bike, so I feel 4300 is a good value, but maybe I need to spend more to get what I really need.
Please help me with any thoughts you folks have!
:beer:
alanbikehouston
02-07-05, 09:03 PM
You might want to visit two or three good bike shops to get a variety of opinions. And, your leg length may be a bigger factor in "fit" than your height. When I get a bike set up for optimal "comfort", the saddle is high enough that my leg is almost (but not quite) straight when the pedal is at the 5 o'clock position. And, I like the stem to be as high as the top of the saddle. And that requires a fairly "tall" frame.
So, on a traditional road bike, I prefer a size 58 to size 60, which is about 23 1/2 inches. And, I am 5'10 and wear dress slacks with a 32 inch inseam. That suggests to me that someone your size might ride a "traditional" road bike that is around a size 28...yikes.
Given how long I suspect your legs are, after you get your saddle up where it ought to be, it is likely to be several inches higher than the stem. To get the bars up higher, relative to the saddle, you are likely to need a "high riser" style stem.
Getting a bike that "fits like a glove" is a good investment. A bike that does not fit well is a waste of your money.
wahoonc
02-08-05, 03:33 AM
Phoneman,
Pay special attention to the wheels! My son is near your height and weight, and wheels have always been the weak point on his bikes. I used to buy a mid priced bike for him and upgrade the wheels. He is currently riding a Haro (don't recall what model) with stock wheels. It was the XL frame which IIRC is about a 24" frame. Been riding it for 2 years, so far so good. His Haro was in the mid $400 range.
Aaron :)
reich17
02-08-05, 07:12 AM
My 4300 is celebrating it's 1 year anniversary with me. I'm 6'4" and about 220lb. I had some problems with it in the first several months. The chain would skip for unknown reasons (several trips to the LBS), there was a defect in one of the stock rims and the rivets came loose on my chainrings. The skipping chain finally went away after Trek replaced the rims/wheels and the chainrings. Since then she's been running great. Trek and my LBS were pretty good about the warranty replacements. Anyway, I'd be inclined to say, at your height, you really may want to consider the 24" frame, if you want the seat height and stem height to be close.
Edit:
By the way, Trek shows a 24" frame for the 4300 on their website.
Rivendell made a one off prototype bike for large people and handed it over to another manufacturer to produce. You might be interested to read about it.The article is in Rivendell Reader # 34 ,they are working with co motion.
Michel Gagnon
02-08-05, 12:15 PM
How long are your legs? and arms?
I'm 1.82 m tall (that's only 5' 11", a far cry from your 6' 7"), and I am comfortable with a 63,5 cm - 25" touring frame (centre to top). At your height, I would suggest a 68-cm, which, alas, very few makers manufacture. Rivendell currently makes a 68-cm frame; Cannondale and Trek both make 25" frames in their touring series, and if you look hard, Cannondale used to make a 27" frame sometime in the 1980s or early 1990s.
A 22" frame would look like a mountain bike and the top tube will be very low. You could always get away with that by using an ultra-long seatpost, but it means you might get a bicycle that behaves like a noodle. Another problem with a low bike is that the top tube won't be long enough, so you will need a stem with extra-long reach, raised extra high, which means $$ and your head way forward of the front wheel.
Phone Man
02-08-05, 05:09 PM
Funny thing happened today, I stopped in on my LBS for the 4th time. They must really wonder about me anymore. I got into a chat with the bike repair man who worked on my other bike. He was adamant about me getting nothing less than a Trek 4500 in a 24" or a Gary Fischer 24" that is even more. He said that with my size, weight, and how the front suspension was on my old bike, I need a much beefier front suspension than what's on the 4300. He says the 4500 front forks/shocks can be torn open and upgraded. The 4500 comes with (RockShox Judy TT w/preload adjust, 80mm) and he says that's what I need. I have a 36" inseam and my arms are 28" from armpit to mid palm. So I may need to fork out the extra $130 to get the bike that will fit me. I guess that's not bad in the end. Thanks for your input!!
Noah Scape
02-09-05, 08:01 AM
Based upon the usage you describe, why not look for a decent used road frame that fits you. I'm 6'6" and I've been struggling with finding bikes that fit for years. (The freakishly tall are not a huge market for the producers of bikes!) In a road frame you will likely need a minimum of a 65cm frame (25-1/2"), but could probably go bigger. There were a fair number of taller bikes produced in the 70s and 80s that with a tune up would suit your needs well. Check around locally for a used larger bike (used bike places, Craig’s list, etc.). If that is unproductive, there are often large bikes on eBay that go for far less than $350. It will take more time than walking into the bike shop and purchasing a new bike off the floor, but it will be cheaper and good learning experience. Believe me, finding a bike that fits is important... riding a too small bike is uncomfortable and will eventually turn you off from cycling.
Here is an eBay example of what I'm talking about:
I think this is probably overpriced @ $199 but it is an example. And if you're handy and can do the clean up and repair yourself, you'd have a very solid bike.
AndrewP
02-09-05, 01:44 PM
Since you are not into jumping you dont want to waste money on a front suspension. When looking for a bike that size on e-bay, you will not be in competition against hundreds of other bidders.
Noah Scape
02-09-05, 02:12 PM
Since you are not into jumping you dont want to waste money on a front suspension. When looking for a bike that size on e-bay, you will not be in competition against hundreds of other bidders.
What you say is true. But on behalf of the freakishly tall... I can tell you that the product is rare, and consequently, the market, while small, is more desperate. ;) Case in point... check out this NBA size bike. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=7298&item=7131504037&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
If this frame were 58cm I don't think it would have garnered the same price... but maybe.
Phone Man
02-10-05, 10:17 PM
That's a good point about picking up a frame and building it up, but I'm afraid that is way over my head. Basically the most jumping I do is off some 10 inch curbs. I'll take it on some rougher trails once in awhile so I figured front suspension wouldn't be a complete waste. It's amazing how much $$ you can sink away before you know it. Which I'm sure, you folks know all about. I'm also into Jeeps which the forum guys there always say........."Just Each and Every Penny"
my58vw
02-10-05, 11:31 PM
I AM 6'6" and really need a 65 cm frame. Unfortunitly most people only make a 63 cm and smaller. For MTB the 21 inch jekyll is a little small and a 23 - 24 would fit better. It is all about fit...
james Haury
02-11-05, 05:12 AM
My 58vw. IF you have the money Rivendell will build you a proper frame. It will not be cheap though.