Why, Trek, Why???
 

Why would they do this to me? I spend forever and a day figuring out which companies make the biggest bikes, and come down to Cannondale and Trek at 63 cm center to center. I buy a Trek. I ride it, it feels good. When the honeymoon ends, it feels too small. Woe is me! I bought a huge bike and it's still too small! I must go custom! No bike will ever fit me! But wait...

Today I measured my Trek as I continued to toy with the idea of a custom frame, and guess what? The seat tube is less than 60 cm center to center! WHAT!? Maybe that explains something about my discomfort.

Lesson learned: I will always take my own measurements before buying a bike.

Published specs = hogwash? Or did I miss an asterisk somewhere?

The more I learn the more I realize I don't know anything.

Don't worry about the length of the seat tube. It's the top tube that matters. What length stem are you running?

Why do you say it's too small?

Also which Trek? Perhaps the 63cm is a virtual measurement on a frame with a somewhat sloping TT.

63cm? Are you 10 feet tall?

i think thy measure the top tube, not the seat tube. it doesn't make sense to measure the seat tube.

Trek measures their bikes center-to-top.

And like Merlin said, if your bike has a sloping top tube, that could gum up the measurements, too.

seat post with set back and longer stem

Actually, Trek measures to the top of the seat tube, which is about 1cm bigger than center-to-top of the top tube.

I'm guessing compact geometry, like merlin said. The 63cm is a virtual measurement, from the center of the BB to the point where an imaginary line parallel to the ground from the top tube - head tube joint would intersect the seat tube/post.

You are closer to Pcad Cycling Zen and Wisdom than any weenie here (besides me of course).

I would be pissed at your mom, not Trek. It isn't their fault she ****ed a giraffe.

I am 6'3 and take a 63cm frame. I have a 62cm with longer seat tube to compensate. It works well for me.

Beware of the "inequity factor". The inequity factor is the experience of discontment with something that you were formerly very happy with because you discovered something better available.

News flash.

There will always be something better coming along.

(in the words of the old song)

"Some people have everything
that other people don't.

But everything don't mean a thing
if it ain't the thing you want."

Express yourself!

The top tube is also 60 cm, and there is even a label on the seat tube that says "63cm." I do not know about this compact geometry stuff. Is that supposed to mean that it rides as if it were 63cm? Do you need to only be virtually 6'5" to fit? Too much time over in the C & V forum I suppose. I'll keep messing with the stem I guess. Thanks for the responses,

Tommy (Rookie)

Frame size is a slippery concept and can only be used to directly compare different sizes of the same make, model and year. Not understanding this is, I suspect, the biggest reason for bicycle fit problems.

Compact geometry means the top tube slopes downward toward the back instead of being paralell to the ground. This gives you more standover clearance and shortens the seat tube a bit, while all the rest of the geometry of the frame stays almost exactly the same.

This means a 63cm traditional frame and a 63cm compact frame should feel exactly the same to ride, even though the seat tube length on the traditional frame is 63cm, and is significantly less on the compact frame.

Felt used to make 63cm frames. (not long ago, I was looking at an 04) I almost bought one this week, but ended up with a deal on a 61 soloist team I could not pass up.

Check them out maybe?

Okay, I understand now. But I'm pretty sure my bike's top tube i sparallel to the ground. I certainly can't see a slope either way. The only thing I can think of is that they measure to the top of the seat tube. I could've sworn that the specs said center to center. Does anybody know where I can find the geometry for this bike? They take them off of the Trek's website each year.

Are you serious?!?!?!? I'm 6'5" and ride a 60 cm Trek, no problem.

Actually, it's not just Trek, Cannondale measures center to top also, the geometry charts usually note how they measure. I feel for you though, it is inconsistent from company to company. Luckily, I caught this inconsistency when I was looking for bikes, some companies measure center to center, some measure center to top. Try some different stem lengths, angles, seat fore/aft, etc., hopefully you can tweak it to make it work for you.

I'm 6'3" and have had 2 Treks, the old 1000 and the 2100 that I upgraded to. Both were 60cm, and both fit just fine. My dad's 6'4" and rides a 62cm Felt F75 that seems to fit him well. Have we found out specifically what Trek it is we're talking about here?

My brother-in-law is 6' 3" and recently bought a 60 cm Trek 1000 and was made to fit quite well

I'm 6'4" and enjoy my 62cm frames... but I think my femurs might be longish.

+1

Take it to the shop, tell 'em you feel like it's too small and you don't want to get a custom frame, and get them to fix you up.

get an european bike. thats all i can say.

I'm 6'6" and ride a 63cm Cannondale...

Lets see you have a Trek and are not sure of the size. Which Trek do you have? A Madone (07 or 08), Pilot or other? If you are 6'-3" it still depends on how long are your arms and leg. Go get fitted properly.