bill mcmillin

My wife is looking for a new bike. Last week we went to 2 fairly large bike stores. She was looking at the Trek 7300 and the Trek FX7.2 and 7.3. She has been riding a 19 inch Schwinn. The owner of the first bike store insisted that a 19 was too big for her. He said a 16 or 17 would be about right. My wife is 5"7 1/2" tall with 32 inch inseam. The second store said a 17" or possibly even a 20" would be the right fit. My wife seems more comfortable on the larger bikes so I think that is the direction we will go. Is the geometry different on the 7300vs the 7.2 that would require her to go to a different size bike? I was surprised at the different opionions of the bike store owners. Any thoughts?

JonathanGennick 

Given your wife's height, I would also think about 16" or 17" as a beginning point. Then go up or down as needed, depending upon preference and body proportions, and ultimately upon comfort.

I've a difficult time believing 20" is right. It may be. Just be sure to squeeze in some extra test rides to make double-sure about that size, because it is far out of line with your wife's height.

You ask about geometry. It is possible that it might be different between the two bikes. You'd need to read the frame geometry specs on trekbikes.com to find out. I did take a quick look, and my first impression is the folllowing:

Trek 7300 -- high handlebars designed to give an upright ride. Suspension fork for comfort. Bike is designed for "toodling" around on a bike path.

Trek 7.2fx -- lower bars, longer stem, more stretched out position, and no suspension. Bike is designed for someone who wants to get out on pavement and ride fast to burn calories and get in a cardio workout.

Edit: Almost forgot to add that what's most important in the end is comfort, and also the feeling that one has bought a bike that they like and want to ride. Your wife should buy the bike she ends up liking the best.

Scooby214

My wife is also 5'7". She tried out different sizes when shopping for a Giant Cypress or Sedona. For her, a 17" Sedona seemed to be the best fit. She could have almost gone to the next size up to accommodate her long legs, though she needed to be sure enough seatpost would be showing to accommodate our daughter's tandem tag-a-long attachment.

Of course, the overall geometry of the different bicycles can make quite a difference. While the 19" Schwinn may fit her well, the two Trek bikes may fit better in smaller sizes. Either way, I would hesitate to purchase a 20" frame for her unless she has unusual proportions.

bill mcmillin

Thanks for the response. She definitely felt more comfortable on the larger bikes. She felt a bit cramped on the 16 inch. It may be partially because she is used to a 19"bike. The test rides were quite short. We know another dealer who is right on a bike path and has told us we can go for a longer ride.
That is the next step.

bill mcmillin

Thanks for the advice. Another LBS is right on a bike trail. They said to come by and they will fit her and she can take a longer ride. I agree with your assessments of the bikes. She likes the way the FX bike responds compared to the 7300. She doesn't think she needs the comfort or the extra weight of the 7300.

alanknm

20" ? Sounds wayyy too big. I'm 5'5 1/2 and my hybrid is a 15". My road bike frame is a 52cm. Bike sizing can be tricky. Get a proper fitting done.

Dunbar

I'm a 5'9" male with the same inseam as your wife and I rode a 19.5" Jamis Coda and a 17.5" Trek Navigator before that. The problem with the smaller frames is the seat-to-bar drop when you set the saddle at the right height. Since the 7000 series is more upright I would think she could comfortably fit either size. But a 20" 7.3FX would seemingly have too much reach to the bars for her. Here's a picture showing the saddle height I ran on my old Navigator.