Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-22-06, 10:32 PM   #1
scrambledwonder
To ride is to live.
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SF Bay Area
Bikes: 2005 LeMond Sarthe, 1992 Bridgestone MB-4
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Trek 520 Sizing

Hello There,

Looking for opinions about the Trek 520. I ride a 57cm LeMond and I have an 87cm inseam . . . would I ride a L (23) or XL (25) frame? I'm not sure if touring bikes are supposed to be sized differently.

Cheers,

Dustin
scrambledwonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-06, 11:20 PM   #2
wagathon
Banned
 
wagathon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The difference in the way these two bikes are sized is about 2c. A 61c Lemond would be equal to a 63c Trek, which is closest to the largest size Trek 520 at 25 inches. So, a 57 Lemond should be like a 59c Trek which would be about 23 1/4 inches. My guess is, you'd have to feel comfortable on a 59c Lemond to think about a 25" 520 (which probably would put you around 6').

Last edited by wagathon; 09-22-06 at 11:26 PM.
wagathon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-06, 03:03 PM   #3
cyclintom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 2,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrambledwonder
Hello There,

Looking for opinions about the Trek 520. I ride a 57cm LeMond and I have an 87cm inseam . . . would I ride a L (23) or XL (25) frame? I'm not sure if touring bikes are supposed to be sized differently.
I would assume that you're looking for a bike with a 33" standover (83-84 cm). That makes the 23" closer than the 25" which probably is a 34" standover.
cyclintom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-06, 03:23 AM   #4
hoogie
aspiring wannabe
 
hoogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: timaru/oamaru, new zealand
Bikes: trek 520, thorn nomad, giant yukon, avanti aggressor, bauer racing bike, couple of other projects ...
Posts: 288
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrambledwonder
Hello There,

Looking for opinions about the Trek 520. I ride a 57cm LeMond and I have an 87cm inseam . . . would I ride a L (23) or XL (25) frame? I'm not sure if touring bikes are supposed to be sized differently.

Cheers,

Dustin
bear in mind that for some reason trek size the 520 centre to top of seat collar, not c-c or c-top like normal folks ...
hoogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-06, 08:16 PM   #5
Michel Gagnon
Year-round cyclist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Montréal (Québec)
Bikes:
Posts: 3,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 1.82 m tall and have a 89 cm inseam (5' 11" and 35" for the challenged folks), and ride a 25" Trek 520. Both my seatpost and handlebars are raised by 110 mm and stem reach is 95 mm measured horizontally.

So I guess the question is how long are your torso and arms. But since the top tube of the 520 is not overly long, you'll probably fit better on the 25" frame.
Michel Gagnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 PM.