Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

1987 Trek 520 geometry

Search
Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

1987 Trek 520 geometry

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-26-16 | 08:50 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
Full Member
 
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 396
Likes: 70
From: Oceanside, CA

Bikes: 2017 Lynskey Sportive Disc, 2021 Lynskey Pro29, 1977 Schwinn Super LeTour 12.2

1987 Trek 520 geometry

Thinking of buying a 1987 Trek 520 frame. It's a 19 inch frame, and as near as I can tell, that's only a 47.5mm seat tube. I'm 5'9 and a half, but I have very short legs. I usually ride a 53cm frame with very little seatpost showing so I can have enough length. The top tube of the Trek is over 54cm, so it's plenty long, but it seems like it might be really small. Any thoughts on whether an extra 2 inches or so of seapost and bar height will make things uncomfortable?
cormacf is offline  
Reply
Old 09-26-16 | 09:38 PM
  #2  
Occam's Rotor
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Likes: 2,334
I don't know if this helps, but I bought one of these in 1989, and am also 5'9 with proportionally shorter legs. A 19" would have been too small for me. It was a good fit for me because of the long top tube, but I was most comfortable on a frame that was technically very slightly too large in terms of standover. In other words, I was more comfortable sizing up rather than down, unlike most other bikes I have owned.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Reply
Old 09-26-16 | 10:31 PM
  #3  
oddjob2's Avatar
Still learning
10 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 11,529
Likes: 88
From: North of Canada, Adirondacks

Bikes: Still a garage full

I am 5'9" and when I have a 19" to refurbish, I don't even want to road test them.
oddjob2 is offline  
Reply
Old 09-26-16 | 10:50 PM
  #4  
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,480
Likes: 450
Originally Posted by cormacf
Thinking of buying a 1987 Trek 520 frame. It's a 19 inch frame, and as near as I can tell, that's only a 47.5mm seat tube. I'm 5'9 and a half, but I have very short legs. I usually ride a 53cm frame with very little seatpost showing so I can have enough length. The top tube of the Trek is over 54cm, so it's plenty long, but it seems like it might be really small. Any thoughts on whether an extra 2 inches or so of seapost and bar height will make things uncomfortable?
I have the exact same year and model. There's considerable differences and changes through the years of the 520, so do keep that in mind. 5' 11" on a 21" with a 115mm stem. I'm now planning to change it to a 80 or 90mm length. Also have plenty of seat post showing.

From your description, I think you'd be fine. You might consider having a few stems on hand to swap out. Trial and find whats ideal.

About the '87 (Cirrus). Stock they came with 27" rubber. I built my bike and right from the start went to a taller profile tire but in 700c. Yet I do think it still lowered the overall height. That may make a difference for you as well.

If I recall the chainstays length were all the same across the board. No worry of heel kicking panniers.

Last edited by crank_addict; 09-26-16 at 11:03 PM.
crank_addict is offline  
Reply
Old 09-26-16 | 11:38 PM
  #5  
Thread Starter
Full Member
 
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 396
Likes: 70
From: Oceanside, CA

Bikes: 2017 Lynskey Sportive Disc, 2021 Lynskey Pro29, 1977 Schwinn Super LeTour 12.2

Thanks!

I was on the fence about wheels, since I'd be going ground-up. Depending on clearance, it might be great to go with a smaller wheel and pretty fat tires, though I'll definitely need fenders, as I'm moving to Seattle. Or I could just go with 27s and keep the whole thing period-correct and have the newest, cheapest bike in Eroica.




Originally Posted by crank_addict
I have the exact same year and model. There's considerable differences and changes through the years of the 520, so do keep that in mind. 5' 11" on a 21" with a 115mm stem. I'm now planning to change it to a 80 or 90mm length. Also have plenty of seat post showing.

From your description, I think you'd be fine. You might consider having a few stems on hand to swap out. Trial and find whats ideal.

About the '87 (Cirrus). Stock they came with 27" rubber. I built my bike and right from the start went to a taller profile tire but in 700c. Yet I do think it still lowered the overall height. That may make a difference for you as well.

If I recall the chainstays length were all the same across the board. No worry of heel kicking panniers.
cormacf is offline  
Reply
Old 09-27-16 | 10:54 AM
  #6  
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,480
Likes: 450
If acquiring just as a frameset, I wouldn't waste the effort going with 27". Mine is sort of a mash-up of stuff on hand to scrounge for build. Most of it older than 1987 components but also some later. On 700 x 35c with very tight fitting Axiom Paceline DLX mudguards. The reflective center is superb. Took lots of fitting to make it work but I love this rig. Have yet to final the bar wrap, change bars and stem.

[IMG]DSC_1037 by carrera247, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]DSC_1044 by carrera247, on Flickr[/IMG]
crank_addict is offline  
Reply
Old 09-27-16 | 12:27 PM
  #7  
due ruote's Avatar
Senior Member
Titanium Club Membership
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,474
Likes: 559
I on the other hand am 5'8" and have the 22-1/2" frame. Go figure. Not much post showing but very comfortable with an 80mm stem.
due ruote is offline  
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
avzay66
Classic & Vintage
29
07-17-14 08:19 AM
LuckySailor
Fitting Your Bike
3
08-23-13 02:51 PM
Fynn
Bicycle Mechanics
24
01-10-13 10:28 AM
Trek_geek
Bicycle Mechanics
12
05-19-12 06:01 AM
portland376
Road Cycling
1
12-09-09 11:33 AM

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.