Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Trek 520 sizing for me, 60cm or 63?

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Trek 520 sizing for me, 60cm or 63?

Old 12-28-20, 07:28 AM
  #1  
jpjuggler 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Trek 520 sizing for me, 60cm or 63?

Hi,

Because of the bike shortage, I can't try in advance a trek 520, just have to order it and hope it fits. On top of that I've been told the trek 63cm is a special order anyway.


In talking to my LBS they are trying to steer me to a trek 520 at 60cm which I fear might be smaller than I want or I am used to.

They are going off my height of 6'2. btw, my pubic bone height is 91.5cm


But my current bike, a vintage steve bauer chinook is indeed a 63cm seat tube, and it fits me great, although when I'm on the drops, my arms are extended a bit at an angle. but on the top of the handlebars, my arms are very comfortable.


Steve Bauer 63cm Stack 654mm Reach 438mm Effective top tube length 610

Trek 63cm Stack 655 Reach 400mm Effective top tube length 601 from trek, for riders from 6' 2.8" to 6' 5.8"

Trek 60cm Stack 625 Reach 392mm Effective top tube length 583mm from trek for riders from 6' 0.8" to 6' 2.8"


A few questions if I might.

-first, am I splitting hairs between the trek 63cm and trek 60cm? as in either one would probably be fine?

-Does anyone else prefer to ride a bigger bike than what one has been told is the right size for them?

- Am I wrong thinking the trek 63cm would be good for me? perhaps because the modern bike geometry is different from the vintage model i'm riding.


Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,

JP
jpjuggler is offline  
Old 12-28-20, 10:35 AM
  #2  
mstateglfr 
Sunshine
 
mstateglfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 14,269

Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7728 Post(s)
Liked 4,718 Times in 2,722 Posts
Your Chinook has a massive reach. Like really long compared to basically anything currently available. The largest sizes of drop bar bikes typically have reach numbers in the 390-420mm range now. This is for any styles- road, gravel, endurance road, and touring.
How long is your current stem?...if you want to replicate the fit of your current bike, you are going to need a comically long stem and long reach handlebars for the Trek.
Based only on stack and reach, you clearly need the 63cm Trek as the stack is the same as your Chinook and even then you will feel cramped in the cockpit compared to the Chinook. Again though, this is only based on stack and reach and if you want to directly compare it to what you currently ride.


In general, I would think someone 6'2 would fit either of the bikes and it would just be a matter of preference- if they like a more upright or more stretched out ride, and even then the difference in reach is only 8mm so its small.
But you clearly are an outlier and dont fall into the general sizing since your bike has 654mm of reach.
mstateglfr is online now  
Old 12-28-20, 11:55 AM
  #3  
robow
Senior Member
 
robow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,682
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 498 Post(s)
Liked 188 Times in 127 Posts
If your Bauer's specs are correct, (best to double check them) then go with the 63. Realize that when companies make recommendations as to what size needed due to solely one's height, this can be very misleading because two individuals of the same height can have very different body proportions. One can be built like an ape, longer arms and upper torso with shorter legs or someone like myself, who has longer legs vs. shorter upper torso length. That effective top tube is extremely important.
robow is online now  
Old 12-28-20, 01:09 PM
  #4  
escii_35
deleteme
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PNW lifer
Posts: 587

Bikes: deleteme

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
63/25 in. I'm your size with long femurs. (A pox on swa when they did the latest seat redesigns.) Legs bashing into handle bars when out of the saddle is a big problem for me.

Unless you are doing a lot of extreme off road riding the 63cm will be much more comfortable on those 10hr days.
escii_35 is offline  
Old 01-03-21, 12:16 AM
  #5  
GamblerGORD53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 1,930

Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 887 Post(s)
Liked 146 Times in 117 Posts
There is ZERO chance you could ride a mini 60cm. You are still 50+ mm over the TT on the 63 size. The biggest frames tend to have stems of 110 or 120, bloody hell IMO. The WB is still only 1086, barely adequate. Bike companies all laughably over estimate TT clearance needed.
I'm 5'8" and could almost ride the 826 standover of the 60. I've had 4 bikes with 58 cm.
They fit me perfect. My custom has 611 eff TT. I use comfort bars with 70d sweep and long grips.

Last edited by GamblerGORD53; 01-03-21 at 12:21 AM.
GamblerGORD53 is offline  
Old 01-03-21, 03:47 AM
  #6  
Germany_chris
Im a little Surly
 
Germany_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 1,771

Bikes: Two Cross Checks and a Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 419 Post(s)
Liked 732 Times in 370 Posts
Yet another person my height whose built exactly the opposite, Im 62 with a 79cm PBH.

When I doubt I always go bigger to get the longer head tube.
Germany_chris is offline  
Old 01-03-21, 06:37 AM
  #7  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 9,257

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2653 Post(s)
Liked 830 Times in 677 Posts
A decade ago I quit looking at bike sizes that are based on seat tube (or effective seat tube) lengths, and started looking mostly at effective top tube length. My point is that I want to be able to replicate my reach setting from my other bikes with a reasonable stem length.

Then a double check on stand over height as that is also important but that has never deleted a frame from my consideration list. This in part might be due to the prevalance of sloping top tube frames, only one of my recent purchases has had a horizontal top tube.

Some companies have very little difference in top tube length in the larger frame sizes you are looking at, in that case stand over height could be the deciding factor.

My road bike had a very low steerer tube being a road bike with more aggressive configuration, I needed a 35 degree stem to get the bars up where I wanted them.

If you had an unusually long torso for your leg length, my system of sizing might not work for you.

For a touring bike, you should add some contingency to stand over height, there will be times you are standing on uneven ground instead of on smooth pavement on a touring bike,
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Likes For Tourist in MSN:
Old 01-03-21, 08:34 PM
  #8  
jpjuggler 
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 64 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by GamblerGORD53 View Post
There is ZERO chance you could ride a mini 60cm. You are still 50+ mm over the TT on the 63 size. The biggest frames tend to have stems of 110 or 120, bloody hell IMO. The WB is still only 1086, barely adequate. Bike companies all laughably over estimate TT clearance needed.
I'm 5'8" and could almost ride the 826 standover of the 60. I've had 4 bikes with 58 cm.
They fit me perfect. My custom has 611 eff TT. I use comfort bars with 70d sweep and long grips.
hi gambler gord,
thanks for your input.
as a novice, can i ask you...
what is WB?
what is the significance of stems 110 120? is that very low?
what is "mini" in the mini 60cm?
Sorry I"m not more up to speed on the terms.
I really appreciate you taking the time to give your input. thanks. JP
jpjuggler is offline  
Old 01-03-21, 09:15 PM
  #9  
GamblerGORD53
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 1,930

Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 887 Post(s)
Liked 146 Times in 117 Posts
Sorry I'm confusing. Mini, was just me mocking the frame size in relation to you.
WB = wheelbase. It's not too bad I guess, near 43". I see far too many guys get TT too long phobia and get a size or even two, too small.
The stem is actually 110 mm on this Trek 520 63 cm. Standard stems are 100 mm on mid-size frames. I tend to think even that is too long. The idea is for them to make frames shorter and more compact. Frames tend to not be longer than 620 mm TT, to fit bigger than that, the stem is made longer. So I'm inferring that you could shorten the 110 if needed.

Last edited by GamblerGORD53; 01-03-21 at 09:22 PM.
GamblerGORD53 is offline  
Old 01-04-21, 04:40 AM
  #10  
imi
aka Timi
 
imi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 3,095

Bikes: Bianchi Lupo (touring) Bianchi Volpe (commuter), Miyata On Off Road Runner

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 58 Posts
Seatpost setback and brifters on a modern (as opposed to vintage) bike may need to be considered when comparing effective toptube lengths, as they will stretch you out a bit more.
imi is offline  
Old 01-04-21, 06:02 AM
  #11  
Germany_chris
Im a little Surly
 
Germany_chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Southern Germany
Posts: 1,771

Bikes: Two Cross Checks and a Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 419 Post(s)
Liked 732 Times in 370 Posts
Originally Posted by imi View Post
Seatpost setback and brifters on a modern (as opposed to vintage) bike may need to be considered when comparing effective toptube lengths, as they will stretch you out a bit more.
But modern bars tend to have less reach and flatter ramps which bring you back in and up.
Germany_chris is offline  

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.