Old 08-20-11 | 04:50 PM
  #10  
djb
Senior Member
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,911
Likes: 1,242
From: Montreal Canada
Originally Posted by hybridbkrdr
lol, I went to a Cannondale dealer in Chicoutimi (Saguenay), Quebec, Canada and asked to see the Trek 520. The guy's expression was pretty funny. They did not sell Trek bicycles. Anyway, I ended up at the Ultraviolet store in the same area and they measured my leg height if you know what I mean. I'm 83.5cm (at 5'8") and they opened a book showing I could use either the Trek 520 in 51cm or 54cm. I sat on the 51cm and the feeling was amazing. It looked like the perfect smallest frame I could use for better maneuvrability. I'm used to flat bars but got a little feel for what it would be like to ride with drop bars. They're different than in the 1970's and 80's because you can now rest your hands just above the brake levers. I still prefer flat bars though.

This means I'm safe to buy a smaller frame.

I'd also like to note that some sizing calculators or charts had me at 56cm. I guess 51cm or rather 52cm is two sizes down. So, I can't completely agree with the charts/calculators.
salut, I am 5'10"-11' and I fit great on a 54cm Tricross, so at 5'8" I could see a 51 or 52 working well. I also find I dont agree with charts/calculators.
djb is online now  
Reply