Does the 2002 Trek 5200 have a long top tube length? My brochure says it is 59.2 cm (frame size is 62). I ask this because it comes with a 130 stem that is too long for me. I just put on a 100 and I am getting ready to order a stem. I still think the 100 is too long as the handlebars still stick out beyond my wheel axle about 1 cm when I look down when riding on the hoods. Is it ok to go all the way to a 90 or should I stick with the 100? I feel pretty good on the 100 but still feel that I am slightly stretched. Jumping from 130 to 90 just seems to be a big jump, but if it is no big deal, then I will do it to make the bike fit right. The frame height (62) fits me pretty good and the seat is set at the proper position. I went on the www.wrenchscience site and it calculated me to be on a 62 frame with about a 67cm reach. That would put me at a 80mm stem. I don't think that is far fetched. I am just shy of 6 foot 1 inch in height. I do have pretty long legs when compared to my torso.

The Treks do not have particularly long toptubes. Something is wrong here. Could your seat be too far back? 90cm is fairly short for a 62cm frame. I would be worried that steering and stability would get funky but if it feels right to you there's no harm done.

Sound like another person that went to big rather then a little small. Getting a stem that short doesn't sound right for that big a frame. I would look to sell and find something that fit both vertically and horizontally (most important IMO).

Although in my case it was for fitting a touring bike that I ride on the drops, I am more or less in the same situation.
5' 11", but with 34.5" PBH (i.e. long legs), and standard-length arms, means I use a 63 cm frame with seatpost extended by 100-120 mm... and a stem with an effective reach of about 60 mm.

Now before you order anything, does your bike shop have anything stock? Mine has a few old ****ty-looking stems that you wouldn't want to have permanently on your bike, but that are good for trial runs. If you could borrow, get one on loan...you could try your setup and then order what actually works. Another option would be a stem swap with another of your bikes (if you have more than one, that is).

If you are 6'-1" with long legs then that top tube may be a little on the long side for you. As far as stem length goes, don't worry about the rule of thumb about seeing the front hub while riding in the drops. You should be more concerned with how it feels. My bar is about 2cm out in front of my hub. (when viewing form the drops)

Are you new to road biking? Maybe you feel stretched out because you are not used to the position yet?

The shop lets me use the smallest they have which is a 100. The bike seems to ride fine with this size stem. If anything, the steering is slightly more relaxed. I have had a 120 on it for the past year.

Indolent58, I have changed my seat postion many times but finally settled into where it is now. I put it on a trainer yesterday and made sure the seat position was at the recommended reference position. My pedal axle to knee position is correct. Interestingly, my seat postion requires a slight setback post. I really like the bike and have 4900 miles on it. It is not uncomfortable. Just when I reach for the hoods, I am more comfortable holding on the bar at the base of the hoods than on top of the hoods themself. The hoods are at a standard position on the bars and the bars are in a pretty neutral rotation at the stem.

Michel, I can relate. I have not ridden a bunch of different sized bikes. But I ride with a friend that is my height and he rides a 58cm Cannondale. That size bike is way too short for my legs but the top tube length seemed pretty good. A 60 cm Trek 5200 may have been possible, but its top tube is only 11 mm shorter. That doesn't make that big of a difference. I think I am going to purchase a 100mm stem.

Tree, thanks. I have always looked at sizing as a reference for a place to start. I think a 90 stem would put the bar over the axle. I'll play around with the 100 and 120 more and see where to go.

Nothing wrong with a 90 if that's what it takes. Although the frame could be a bit big. I'm 6' and ride a 5200 with a 120,but everyone is different.

Just rode switching the 120 and 100 sizes. I am not sure if I am just used to riding with a larger frame and a bit stretched. I am going to split this down the middle and think I'll try a 110 first. 90 just sounds like it would be too small (I can't be that distorted of a body habitus! My arms aren't short.). Steering seems less aggressive with the shorter stem. Lastly, I have ridden 130 miles with the 100mm on and it made my back a bit sore. I haven't had a sore back riding in a long time.

I have gotten picky about the fit because I am going to start racing. I was so impressed seeing Lance Armstrong on his bikes. They seem to fit him like a glove!

I have gotten picky about the fit because I am going to start racing. I was so impressed seeing Lance Armstrong on his bikes. They seem to fit him like a glove![/QUOTE]


Well that's probably because Trek designed the bike for him. The rest of us are just tagging aloong