Urbanmonk

I just rode a Trek 520 at my LBS. They only had a 21 inch, but said they would gladly order a 19 if preferred. I am not really used to the stretched-out riding position of the tourer, since I ride a cyclocross right now. Tell me, is there a noticeable difference between these sizes? Will I be more comfortable with one over the other? (I am 5'10, about 180 lbs.) I just hate to order the smaller frame and it be too small. The LBS said they would also swap-out stems, exchange the saddle for a Brooks, and give me 10% off. It's probably since I spend a lot of my time and money in their store. So that will bring the total to $900. Thanks for the tips to come.

Cheers,

Urbanmonk

Michel Gagnon

What is your inseam ?
I measure 5' 11", with pubic bone height of 34,5", and use a 25" frame. I might even use a 26 or 26.5" frame, except it doesn't exist.

Anyway, all you would gain by going short is a 1" shorter top tube. Likewise, if you go to 23", you will get a 1" longer top tube -- only. And the larger the frame, the higher will be the top of the head tube, so the higher you will be able to place your handlebar.

If you plan on doing loaded touring, I would suggest you get as large a frame as you can handle, as the rear rack is more steady on a larger frame (shorter stays) and you'll have less seatpost exposed. Then get the shortest stem possible. BTW, if you are looking for a really short stem, Terry Bicycles have some T-stems, where the handlebar sits litterally on the fork.

And if you order, make sure they don't cut the fork. Place spacers below and above the stems and ride until fully satistifed with your position, then cut the stem if way too long.

Regards,

bradw

I'm 5'8" and ride a 21" framed 520. I have about an inch or so of standover clearance when wearing my cycling shoes. Using the standard stem I did not feel too stretched out.

If you were getting a racing bike you would go for the smaller of two options. In a touring bike, you would go for the larger. The taller frame allows you to have the stem and therefore the handlebars up higher relative to the seat. By selecting the appropriately angled stem you can create a more upright riding position, which is generally what you want for touring versus the more crouched position of racing. I think you can find a discussion of proper bike fit for touring cyclists on www.rivendell.com.

In fact, depending on your proportions (leg length verus torso and arm length) the 21" could be a little small. When you get the bike be sure to set the saddle at your preferred height and see if you can get the handlebars where you want them and that you are stretched out as far as you want. There are lots of options in length and angle of stems to choose from.

tom cotter

First, it sounds like you're getting a good deal. As for the 520, it's all about top tube length. The 520 has a shorter top tube than most road bikes of the same frame size. For this reason it usually means the rider will have to go to a larger frame size to get the top tube right. Inseam is only one consideration. Body proportion and flexibility are also prime factors in getting a correct fit. Yet, it's all subjective. If you're more comfortable with a shorter top tube then that's the bike you should buy. Make sure you really are more comfortable with that size. You don't want to find out 30 miles and $900 too late that you bought the wrong size. Lastly, if you do err on size usually bigger is better.

Krispy

Amen to all of the above! Everyone is different and will have differences in how they will fit on a bike. I too am 5'8 (barefooted) but the 23" frame fit me much better than the 21". When we tried to make the 21" fit they had to put another seat post on the bike that had a very radical setback to it in order to get my tibia over the pedal spindle. When they did that it caused them to have to use an ultra short stem to get my reach correct but that in turn caused the bike feel funny steering it.

When I got on the 23" the bike fit using the stock seat post and the stock stem. My tibia is centered over the pedal spindle correctly and the bike feels very comfortable. Even with the 700x38 tires I still have 1" of standover height.

Keep in mind that Trek measures from the center of the bottom bracket to the TOP of the seat post which is 1" above the top of the top tube! When I compared the frame to my Litespeed (a size 55 cm frame)which fits me comfortably the frame size is only .5 Cm difference and within the range that all of the Fit Kits have recommended.

I have a friend who is also 5'8" that cannot ride my bike. His inseam is drastically shorter than mine. He rides a 52 Cm frame bike. One of the things I learned while being fitted was that my femurs were longer than the average person of my height. Had my femurs been average for my height and inseam length the 21" would have fit me without the modifications.

If the Trek dealer doesn't make and effort to fit you properly go find a shop that knows their stuff in the area of fitting people and bikes. Pay them their small fee for a fitting and then take the measurements and your tape measure back to the Trek dealer and see how the different frames compare to what your ideal fit should be.

Good luck!

MichaelW

There is no reason to ride the Trek 520 longer than your current CX setup. Most tourers ride in a shorter position than racers. If you like your setup, the measure the points of contact, and ensure that you can replicate them on the new bike.
The advice to go for a combination of long TT and short stem is not quite right. They should be balanced, or the steering can become twitchy. For a medium bike, 8-12 cm is within acceptable range, so there is plenty of scope for change.
For rack-stability, the only factor that makes a big difference is if the seatstay mounts are below the level of the rack. This destroys the triangulation of the mounting. It is only a problem of small-framed, or compact bikes.