# 30" Inseams what size do you need on Trek Madone



## shaochieh (Apr 19, 2002)

I was in the states for my mothers funeral and decided to get a new bike. I had a 56CM 5200 and I thought it was too big. So I had my LBS to help out and they said you should have a 56CM on the new bike also. It just didn't feel right they put a 90MM stem on my 56CM bike. 

I push my seat all the way up already so my knees can be on top my my pedals(from help through the local German bike shop). The German bike shop says there isn't a whole lot they can do other than change stems out. It really pisses me off that the American LBS can't even measure me up corrrectly for a 3000 bike. 

Any ideas if the bike is the right size or not?


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*not enough info...*

An accurate saddle height would tell more about the appropriate frame size than an "inseam" that's often mesured incorrectly. Your height would help also.

A "56cm" Trek is really only a 54cm measured center to top and about 52.5cm measured c-c.

The problem that can occur with Trek frames is that they have longer top tubes than just about any brand on the market. I wouldn't buy one just for that reason. I have long legs and a short torso and I won't use a 90mm stem. If you have similar proportions, the shop that sold you the bike my have size you properly based on your inseam and saddle height.

The next size smaller Trek would only allow you to use a 10mm longer stem, but it would be 2cm shorter in head tube height, which could cause problems in producing the desired handelbar height.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Fit information*

Measure your inseam: stand against a wall with your feet 6 inches/15 cm apart. Push the spine of a 1 inch/2-3 cm thick book into your crotch with significant pressure, and measure the distance from the book spine to the floor. Your saddle top to pedal axle should be 108-110% of the inseam measurement.

Here are several frame fit calculators.

http://www.bsn.com/cycling/ergobike.html
http://www.coloradocyclist.com/BikeFit/index.cfm
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harart-frames.html
http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/frameinfo/Frame_Sizing.htm
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

For adjusting the fit of the bike, there are roughly five starting points: 1. Seat height (top of saddle to center of pedal axle) at 108-110% of inseam. 
2. Saddle parallel to ground. 
3. Saddle fore/aft adjusted so that a plumb bob from the bony protrusion just below the kneecap passes through the pedal axle when the cranks are horizontal. This is known as KOPS (Knee Over Pedal Spindle) 
4. Front hub axle obscured by the handlebars when riding in your "regular" position (drops, hoods, or tops). 
5. Top of handlebars 1 to 4.5+ inches below the top of the saddle depending on your flexibility and size. 
These are all starting points for "average" proportioned people, and many folks like to move away from these starting points as they learn what makes them more comfortable, powerful, or efficient. For example, the KOPS position range is typically +1 to -2 cm, depending both on your personal physiology (long femurs tend to push the saddle back) and pedaling style (spinners move the saddle forward, pushers move the saddle back). You want to get the fit of the frame as close as you can, then do minor adjustments with the stem, seat post, saddle position, etc.

A lot of this is personal comfort, and we all tend to adapt to a given position over time. For example, a given stem length may be right for you, but it may feel long at first. I use the "handle bar obscures the front hub" rule for my fit, but others claim better position (for them) with the hub in front of or behind the bar. Plus, if you look down without moving your head, you get a very different view than if you tilt your head to look at the front hub. I'm 6' tall and ride with 11.5 cm drop from saddle to bar, probably more than most people would like but fine for me. Some are suggesting zero drop from saddle to bars - it's about comfort, efficiency, and aerodynamics. No calculator is infallible, so look at the different results you get to see where there is consensus among them. I would suggest riding some miles (over 100 total, and over 500 would be better) and see if you adapt to a given position. There are no hard and fast rules, just general guidelines, when it comes to these things.

Just as important as your size is your flexibility. If you have a stiff lower back, you may not be able to lean over and stretch out as much. If you are very flexible, you may get away with a longer top tube, with the stem in a lower position. Over time on the bike, too, you may become more limber, or at least become accustomed to being lower and stretched out. So, your first 'real' bike may not be anything like what you will want 5 years from now.


----------



## shaochieh (Apr 19, 2002)

*my height*

BTW I am 5 feet 9.5 inches. I am Asian so most of us have short legs.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

I'm 5'8", with a 32 inseam and I ride a 56 trek.

I'm not Asian, but sure got those stumpy legs.

I have a 90mm stem these days, although would use a 110mm if I was in tip top racing condition.


----------



## jakerson (Jun 15, 2004)

I'm 5' 9 1/2"
My inseam is 30 inches.
I prefer to think of myself as "long trunked" rather than "stubby legged" 
But I have a madone 5.2, it is a 56. It fits as nicely as any bike I've ever had.
Good luck with yours.


----------



## Drifter (May 17, 2005)

I am 5'10" w/ 31 inseam. I had a 56cm 5500 in 2002, but now have a 58cm Madone 5.9 SL. You really need to at least standover the bike or better yet ride one.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*speaking of standover...*

The listed standover height of a 58cm is 1cm more than your inseam. You have either posted a pants inseam that irrelevant to cycling or only the thickness of your shoes is keeping you off the TT. A frame with an standover height that's not even 2cm less than cycling inseam is too large, IMO.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

Why is standover height so important? 
Does that mean a compact frame is better than a horizontal frame?
Why does a barefoot measurement have any impact; he rides with bike shoes on after all.

Careful C; your prejudices are showing....


----------



## Drifter (May 17, 2005)

C-40 said:


> The listed standover height of a 58cm is 1cm more than your inseam. You have either posted a pants inseam that irrelevant to cycling or only the thickness of your shoes is keeping you off the TT. A frame with an standover height that's not even 2cm less than cycling inseam is too large, IMO.


You are right, TREK lists the stand over as 31.8 inches. I have approximately 2 fingers of clearance with SpeedPlay Zero cleats. It works for me. There can be a great deal of variance in measuring an inseam. Stand over is a bit subjective too. This is why I suggested that the bike be ridden for best sizing.
M 58cm 80.7/31.8


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*why be careful???*

A too-large bike is a too-large bike. It's wierd to buy a top notch racing frame and set it up like an old guy's touring bike, with a real low saddle and (probably) a stubby stem.


----------



## cdmc (Feb 3, 2004)

C-40 said:


> A too-large bike is a too-large bike. It's wierd to buy a top notch racing frame and set it up like an old guy's touring bike, with a real low saddle and (probably) a stubby stem.


Hey, I resent that comment, some of us like our bikes set up like an old guy's touring bike. Well at least the bars that high.


----------



## Drifter (May 17, 2005)

Lance and I are the same height. The similarity ends there, although I like Sheryl Crow and custom motorcycles too. He rides a 58'. He does pretty well with it I think. A bike that does not fit well is inefficient. Formulas are good guides, but ride it to know for sure.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*two fingers clearance???*

You either have seriously underestimated your "inseam" or you ride with the saddle very high. The saddle height looks like it would provide much more than a couple of centimeters of clearance.

A real test of standover clearance (and cycling inseam) is to block up the wheels equally, until you get saddle-like crotch contact when standing over the frame in bare feet. Then measure from the floor to the top of the top tube. This your cycling inseam.

If I wanted the bars that high. I'd use a 96 degree stem, one size longer and ditch most of the spacers. Another option is to try a lower but shorter stem for a similar torso angle.

Better yet, stretching and midsection exercises for comfort with the bars lower.


----------



## cdmc (Feb 3, 2004)

Drifter said:


> Lance and I are the same height. The similarity ends there, although I like Sheryl Crow and custom motorcycles too. He rides a 58'. He does pretty well with it I think. A bike that does not fit well is inefficient. Formulas are good guides, but ride it to know for sure.


Lance rides a 58 foot frame, I never thought he looked that tall.   Seriously though, have you played with saddle tilt? That nose looks pointed way down.


----------



## olr1 (Apr 2, 2005)

If your legs are short in comparison with your torso, then the only way to get a decent length top tube on a bike is to buy a larger frame and forget stand over height. (Other than go custom)

The idea that all 'top notch' racing bikes are set up with high saddles and low bars is more than a little elitist. Given the almost religious references to bike fit one finds here, the idea that one 'should' do something because of the style of bike seems to go against all sensible advice.

How about we let riders decide what they are comfortable with?


----------



## Drifter (May 17, 2005)

cdmc said:


> Lance rides a 58 foot frame, I never thought he looked that tall.   Seriously though, have you played with saddle tilt? That nose looks pointed way down.



 he is from Texas where everything is bigger and yes I have leveled the saddle and raised it 2mm since that photo was taken.


----------



## Thommy (Sep 23, 2003)

*Out of curiosity*



Drifter said:


> Lance and I are the same height. The similarity ends there, although I like Sheryl Crow and custom motorcycles too. He rides a 58'. He does pretty well with it I think. A bike that does not fit well is inefficient. Formulas are good guides, but ride it to know for sure.


which part of this bike is 58cm? Are we talking center of bottom bracket to center of top tube? Center of seat tube to center of steer tube? I really love this bike but I'm not too familiar witth Trek's sizing? I stand 6 foot tall and can barely ride a 58 cm top tube bike with respect to the aforementioned measuring method, yet Lance Armstrong is shorter than me and he rides a 58. This dosen't make sense to me. Can you clear this up for me? I currently can ride a 56 thru 57.5 cm comfortably.


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*trek sizing...*

The 58cm is to the top of the seat tube, so the c-t size is only about a 56cm and the c-c would be more like 54.5cm.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Spot on, C-40.*



C-40 said:


> The 58cm is to the top of the seat tube, so the c-t size is only about a 56cm and the c-c would be more like 54.5cm.


Here's a 58cm Madone 5.2. Zero cm at ctr of BB, perhaps 1mm off.


----------



## midlife_xs's (Jun 18, 2004)

C-40 said:


> You either have seriously underestimated your "inseam" or you ride with the saddle very high. The saddle height looks like it would provide much more than a couple of centimeters of clearance.
> 
> A real test of standover clearance (and cycling inseam) is to block up the wheels equally, until you get saddle-like crotch contact when standing over the frame in bare feet. Then measure from the floor to the top of the top tube. This your cycling inseam.]
> 
> ...


----------



## bikeshopguy (Oct 27, 2003)

*you need a 54cm*

I think in this bike a 54cm is the best fit
unless you are way tall

but your shop should know how to fit you


----------



## Thommy (Sep 23, 2003)

*Just to mix it up*



C-40 said:


> A too-large bike is a too-large bike. It's wierd to buy a top notch racing frame and set it up like an old guy's touring bike, with a real low saddle and (probably) a stubby stem.


Are we talking R I V E N DE L L ? Ridiculously bigger than you need, if you listen to them.


----------



## The Flash (May 6, 2002)

I have a 30" inseam, 5'11" and have short arms...I ride the 54cm. The short arms make the greatest problems as I have to keep the bar close to the seat height to not kill my back....

Either way....ride the thing first....

Scott


----------



## bwana (Feb 4, 2005)

olr1 said:


> If your legs are short in comparison with your torso, then the only way to get a decent length top tube on a bike is to buy a larger frame and forget stand over height. (Other than go custom)



Or, go with a bike with a sloping top tube. I'm not a big fan of the look of compact geometries, but they do allow for more standover height for the same effective top tube length.


----------

