Say it ain't so Trek!
 

I was just looking at the 2009 model of the Trek 520 and I'm a little disturbed by the available sizes listed for this year.
According to the geometry listed, the largest size is now 60cm, where previous years were 25 inches (63.5cm).

I have been planning on buying a Trek 520 for some time now, but now I fear the new models will be too small for my 6'5" height, unless I'm missing something.

I currently ride a Trek 7.3 FX which is 25" (63.5cm), and it fits me perfectly, and the next size down is far too small to be comfortable. I also don't like to have 9" of seat tube out to accommodate the smaller frame.

Oh well, the LHT still comes in 62cm I believe.

Might perhaps be a good time to find a shop with last years model in your size at a reduced price...

You may find that even the 25" 520 is too small for your 6'5" frame. I'm 5'9 and ride the 23" comfortably. Also, the Treks are renowned for their short headtubes, so unless you intend to ride with your handlebars much lower than your seat (assuming that your inseam is proportional to your upper body) you may be better off looking for a bike better suited to your height. LHT's have a little longer head tube and longish top tubes. That geometry might help you get into the more upright position typically adopted by touring cyclists. Obviously the most important aspect is which one you feel the most comfortable on over several hours in the saddle. Best of luck!

or time to shop for a c'dale?
i've had so much bad luck with their b'wheels
and customer service in waterloo
probably won't go back.

was thinking about buying one of there FX bikes earlier in the year
but found a cannondale quick and am quite happy with it.