|   IS the top tube length all that matters with a bikes fit? | bruno
Dec 20, 2002 1:49 AM | | Hi,
I have a Giant SE1 hardtail with a 590 mm (horizontal) top tube length. With that is a 120 mm 0 rise stem. I am planning on upgrading my bike and replacing it with a 2003 Trek Elite 9.8. I am really happy with my Giants fit and handling.
I'm 182 cm (6 feet) tall. I'm considering getting the medium (17.5 inch) Trek. It has a 588 mm top tube length. With a 120 mm 0 rise stem, the handling should almost be identical to my Giant (angles are the same, wheelbase is almost the same). However some of my riding mates reckon I'd be better suited to a large Trek frame with a 625 mm top tube and a shorter stem (say 100mm). Will this be too long for my body?? I realise that the handling will be slightly different due to a longer wheelbase. The reason I'm asking this forum is because I'm in Australia and the Australian Trek distributer has to make a special order from the US to get one too me. I'd prefer to get the size right the first time, and to save buying a frame size and find it is too long/short for me.
Thanks for you future help. |
| re: ain't no expert but | rpironcladracer
Dec 20, 2002 7:46 AM | | I've ridden a lot of bikes. To me, wheelbase, bottom bracket height and headtube angle are key. You can't change those- you have to live with what you've got. So I figure what works for me with those measurements and adjust everything else on a bike to make it fit. (I like long wheelbases and low BBs compared to most riders. Everything else feels too sketchy to me)
If the seatpost angle is off I can adjust my saddle back or forward. If the top tube is too short or long I can change the stem. if the headtube is too tall I can flip the stem over or get a zero rise stem, if too short, use a riser stem.
I don't see a big "tiller effect" etc with longer stems- the norm for racing used to be 135 mm flat stems back in the day- but maybe I will see the light on that some day. |
| I would get the medium | shiggy
Dec 20, 2002 8:43 AM | | But I would check the headtube length first. If the medium Trek's headtube is shorter than your Giant's the bars will be lower and you either get use to it, get a longer stem with more rise (both are need because as the angle of rise increases the effective reach decreases), or a riser bar. All of these will affect the handling. |
| my Trek's fit | Radar MCM #35
Dec 20, 2002 9:17 AM | | I just sold my Trek yesterday and I'll be racing only on my Cannondale now. Anyways, I'm 5'11" without bike shoes and have about a 32" inseam without shoes. My Trek was the medium size and I had good standover (around 4" or so) and I had quite a bit of seatpost showing. I had a stem that was 110mm I think. However, I felt good on the bike and never felt like it was too small. My buddy that I sold the bike to is almost exactly my height and he has a good fit on the medium. You'll definetly have alot of seatpost showing...but if you went to the large, the top tube might be too long if you're used to the handling of a 120mm stem. My experience is that Treks handle slightly "dead" anyway (not a bad thing for everyone) so a frame that is slightly big might accentuate this and make it hard to point through twisty stuff. Hope it works out for ya!
Radar MCM #35 |
| Go Big | Kleinadian
Dec 20, 2002 9:35 AM | | I'm 5'9 1/2, 31" inseam and ride a large. My previous bike was a large Mantra Race and current bike is a large Fuel. I feel too cramped on a smaller mtb for racing. Can't breath properly etc. It is fine in the trails too, although I wouldn't mind a medium trail only bike with a higher bb. Keep in mind though I ride very technical stuff.
On the other hand, my brother is the same size and would prefer the medium. |
| |
