# Any 6'4" guys out there riding Treks?



## Dave V. (Jan 23, 2006)

Hi _Tall Riders_  

I am *6'3.75"* with an inseam of *92cm* and currently and (_I believe_ ) comfortably ride a Trek Madone SL in 62cm frame size.

Any other tall guys comfortably riding that frame size?

Is it really necessary to get a CUSTOM FIT bike when your only 6'3.75", or is that just the custom bike builders trying to drum up business?

I ask because I have ordered a new 62cm Madone 6.9 PRO which I believe will be perfect. But just some last minute nervous checks... :blush2: 

Any opinions would be appreciated...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## acckids (Jan 2, 2003)

Dave, 

I'm no expert but based on your height and inseam it seems your body is proportionate(no extremes in the lower vs upper torso) which means to me that you are a stock bike fit. I'm a little over 6'2" but I have a 93cm inseam which means I have long legs and a short torso. I'm a perferct example of needing a custom frame. Just because it is custom doesn't mean it will fit you any better than a stock bike(trust me because I bought a custom frame and it was only good on paper and not real life). 

What's the difference between a 60cm top tube and a 60.5 custom top tube? To me, it is not worth the extra cash for the .5 difference. 

The downside to custom is that you can't justify to your wife in 3 years that you need a new bike because you told her the custom was a "bike of a lifetime."

Put the money you saved by not going custom into a nice wheelset or IRA.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

I think acckids has summed things up pretty well here and, the 62cm frame is the perfect frame for you. Custom doesn't guarantee anything except maybe a paint job of your choice. I am 6'2" with a 91cm inseam and, I ride the 62cm frame even though I could also ride the 60. I am sort of right on the border of these two frames - though I have a slight preference for the 62 frame for whatever reason.


----------



## Dave V. (Jan 23, 2006)

*Thanks...*

Thanks for both of your replies. :thumbsup: 

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

Hincapie's 6'3'' fwiw and sure he might have a longer or shorter inseam than you do, but I think he rides a 62 if i'm not wrong.

Since you're comfy with your current bike, maybe use a shorter stem? Have you considered getting a fitting? Relax, you'll be fine.


----------



## Dave V. (Jan 23, 2006)

uzziefly said:


> Hincapie's 6'3'' fwiw and sure he might have a longer or shorter inseam than you do, but I think he rides a 62 if i'm not wrong.
> 
> Since you're comfy with your current bike, maybe use a shorter stem? Have you considered getting a fitting? Relax, you'll be fine.



My current Madone was fit by my local Trek Dealer. Like I said, just some last minute nerves...

I am starting to relax a little more now about my _62cm decision _though... 

Thanks *uzziefly*


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

I am 6-4, and I ride a 62. Never more comfortable on a bike.

Enjoy it.


----------



## Dave V. (Jan 23, 2006)

Trek_envy said:


> I am 6-4, and I ride a 62. Never more comfortable on a bike.
> 
> Enjoy it.


Cheers *Trek_envy*. I really appreciate the comments.

Dave


----------



## kobrakai (Dec 15, 2007)

this is exactly what i wanted to hear. i'm 6'3 with a 92cm inseam and am looking at a madone. looks like 62 is definately what i'm looking for. what size stem comes on a 62?

anyone have pics of their bike? does the madone look good this big?


----------



## uzziefly (Jul 15, 2006)

kobrakai, the stem you get is changeable with the LBS for sure.

Get a proper fit done to determine the reach you're comfortable with and etc etc. That would ensure you'll be comfortable on the bike.


----------



## smw (Mar 7, 2006)

Im 6'3" and I have a 62cm Madone for sale. Relax, its an 06 and I believe the geometry has changed a bit. I have tried alot of bikes. When I got on a 61 Tarmac I bought not one but 2 of them, one for racing. It fit me sooo much better. Sometimes the mistake folks make is not trying enough bikes to find what fits best. I was guilty of that. All of our body's are different so what works for me may not work for you. I have alot of miles on my madone, I always liked it. But the changes some of the company's are making with a taller head tube is way over due. Trek and Specialized both did it, and I believe Cannondale also, but not quite as tall. 

Enjoy your new bike, its a great one. Its worth the money to get a pro fitting done too.


----------



## Twrx8 (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm 6'4.5" and ride a 62cm madone, fit's me perfectly. i also ride a "large" equinox 11, which i thought might be too small, but it fits me great. 
as long as you get professionally fitted, you've got little to worry about. 
(horray for fellow freakishly tall riders)


----------



## 99trek5200 (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm 6'-3" and of normal proportions. I ride a 60 cm Trek 5900. I just had a proper fit yesterday and the Serrotta certified fitter said it was perfect. What was funny is that he took no measurements with me off the bike. The fitting was done by how my posture looked on the bike and pedalling in a trainer. He did measure my leg angle at the bottom of the pedal stroke and did check KOP position. Everything else was done by eye. I could notice an immediate better feel.

WAY to much attention is paid to rule of thumb measurements and not enough to just getting you in the right position. Sure, he said he could fit me to a 62 cm frame, but it would have required a shorter stem. (I have a 110 cm stem now).

With a proper fitting I am sure the 62 will work fine for someone nearly 6'-4" (normal proportions)


----------



## artnshel (Jun 29, 2004)

I believe the max seat height you can achieve on the 62cm is 835mm from center of bb to top of seat. Does that work for you?


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

Hey guys...I am 6'5' with a 36" pants inseam and considering a 64cm 5.5....any thoughts?


----------



## fishrising (Jun 21, 2006)

6'7", 34" pants inseam, riding a 2100 63cm.


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

The "pants inseam" is not the inseam measurement that has value in sizing a bike. Its the pubic bone height which, is sometimes referred to as "inseam". Stand barefooted with feet about 10" apart and, measure from the floor to the pubic bone. Take a relatively thin book (spline of book) and, hold it absolutely horizontal while moving it up until it firmly hits bone. Run the book end along to wall to ensure the spline stays horizontal. Measure from the spline of the book to the floor and, this is the sizing "inseam".

Anyway, I would guess the 64 is about right. Still, measure your actual inseam. Here is a good primer - though it probably best applies to the Rivendell bikes. 

http://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_fit/fit_sizing_position


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

Yep...my measured inseam is 38", which would push me on to the 64cm, even it may not be the best size, but it would be better than my 61cm I have now. Can't do anything until I find a way to ride a 64cm....probably in the fall.


----------



## velomonkey (Jul 8, 2003)

One note - and I know this is late in this post - Trek measures Center to top - not center to center like most companies. This is a radical change and therefore means you can not compare measurements from, say, Cannondale to Trek without taking into account the change in measurement.

As for being over 6' tall. I am just over 6'3" and I had a 62cm Trek 5500 in 2002 and it was too small. I showed a ton of post and I had a 140cm stem and it had to be angled up.

I now have my third Cannondale in 63cm and I use a 120mm stem turned level and I show an acceptable amount of seat post. I would suggest that everyone over 6' try different bikes, a 62cm Trek is more like a 61cm Cannondale, for instance, and a 63cm Cannondale is a different size Trek doesn't make. 

I am far more comfortable on my Cannondale and I went from the Aluminum CAAD 8, to a six 13 to a system six all with DA and Ksyrium wheels - just like my Trek.


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

Not sure it makes much of a difference, but Trek is not making some 64cm frames. To complicate things, on their new Madones, Trek measures from center of BB to a 'dot' on the seat mast which is about 20mm above the top of the top tube...confusing!!! Bike sizes now really don't mean anything...they might as well put S, M, L, XL, XXL on the frames as the numbers are meaning less and less each year.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

MCF, I understand your pain. But, if it helps, the '08 Madone Pro geometries are the exact same as prior year geometries. I went from an '05 @ 56cm to an '08 56cm and could not feel any difference in fit. Same old comfortable feel. The only thing that has changed for me is where to mark up the frame for measurements. 

zac


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

Well, this is interesting...after taking all the measurements (double checking) the following is what competitive cyclist has spit out...I don't see anything odd, oh wait, except that according to them, my current bike is too big!

The Competitive Fit The Eddy Fit The French Fit 
Seat tube range c-c 61.7 - 62.2 62.9 - 63.4 64.6 - 65.1 
Seat tube range c-t 63.6 - 64.1 64.8 - 65.3 66.5 - 67.0 
Top tube length 57.9 - 58.3 57.9 - 58.3 59.1 - 59.5 
Stem Length 12.2 - 12.8 11.1 - 11.7 11.3 - 11.9 
BB-Saddle Position 90.7 - 92.7 89.9 - 91.9 88.2 - 90.2 
Saddle-Handlebar 57.9 - 58.5 58.7 - 59.3 60.4 - 61.0 
Saddle Setback 6.8 - 7.2 8.0 - 8.4 7.5 - 7.9 
Seatpost Type NON-SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK 

I really don't see anything in these numbers that would suggest that I have to go custom. the only thing that may seem high is the seat tube length, but what does it matter if you are showing 6" of post or 7" of post as long as the drop is not outrageous...any thoughts??


----------



## teffisk (Mar 24, 2006)

What about me, 6'4" with a 38.7in/98.2cm inseam. Right now I have a 60cm toptube. It is not the saddle height that seems to be the problem. It is my obessive setback and I still feel like I cant get long enough. And I dont know if this is common or not but when I stand up there doesnt feel like there is enough room between the BB and the handlebars. By knees always hit the bars. What is my chance of fitting on a 64cm Madone?


----------



## NealH (May 2, 2004)

Hmmm, I'd say that 64 with the included set back post will be just about right. Stock, it appears to offer about 3 or 4 cm more reach than you have now, assuming the stems are the same.


----------



## teffisk (Mar 24, 2006)

yeah, i have a 120mm stem on now. I think a 130 or 140 will help alot too. I thought that a lot of setback was bad?


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

*Wow...you have a longer inseam than me...*



teffisk said:


> What about me, 6'4" with a 38.7in/98.2cm inseam. Right now I have a 60cm toptube. It is not the saddle height that seems to be the problem. It is my obessive setback and I still feel like I cant get long enough. And I dont know if this is common or not but when I stand up there doesnt feel like there is enough room between the BB and the handlebars. By knees always hit the bars. What is my chance of fitting on a 64cm Madone?


I am also 6'4" with a 38" inseam. What is your reach (tip of saddle to center of bars)? I have mine at 59cm and it feels fine to me. I have about 1.5" drop from top of saddle to top of bar with no problem. I am riding a 61cm Lemond Alp De Huez with a 60.6cm top tube and a 120x10 stem and don't have many problems. After looking at a 64cm 2.1 (same geometry as a 64cm Trek) I believe it would be the best fitting stock bike for me.....but the only way to know is to test ride one....unfortunately, the only Madone available in 64 is the 5.4 (~$4000) and can't get your hands on one right now to save your life.


----------



## Treker (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm 6'5.5" with a 36.5" inseam riding a 63cm 2006 Trek 2100. I have had this bike for about 6 weeks and have put 200+ miles on it. So far I'm loving it!

Jay B.


----------

