View Single Post
Old 01-12-18, 04:11 PM
  #13  
DanBell
Senior Member
 
DanBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: On the road...
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Liked 16 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by McBTC
At 6' I think you're probably just a few inches short of making either bike's largest frame size easily work for you (both probably will require futzing around a lot with stem length and saddle positions-- you're probably looking at what size equates to a 'virtual' seat tube length (i.e., no C-C) of not more than ~25" (63.5 cm). For the LHS, for example that looks like the 62 not the 64. For the 520 I think you're stuck with making the largest size work--the 63... perhaps just a tad big but the next size down may be a bit too confining. With the headtube size of Trek's 63 you'd have no problems with more upright seating and you can always spend more time in the drops in headwind situations.
I'm not sure how you've done your math here but it doesn't seem right to me. I'm also 6'0" and rode the 56cm Disc Trucker for years. It was the perfect size for me and I can't imagine riding the 62 or 64.
DanBell is offline