# 595 Fit & Ride questions



## BenH (Dec 28, 2001)

I'm 5'10+ and typically ride a 57cm frame. I'm a bit long in the legs for me height so with my older Trek 5900 (56cm I think) I ended up with the seat post way up and a short stem which was never comfortable. I only raced briefly but likely won't again so this bike is for any time of riding I choose to do. 1st, is the Look going to be a good fit style for me (unlike the Trek). I know it's a vague question but I couldn't quite get a read on their sizing. Their size L has a 56cm top tube, so far so good, but a 55cm equiv seat tube if I'm reading it right which sounds more S-M range. The XL has 57cm on both which sounds ok but I'm not really an XL sized guy so it left me wondering If I'd missed something.

I was also wondering if any of you non-racers out there ride a 595 around. I'm not looking for a grandpa style bike with an exaggerated head tube but my 56.5 Roubaix fits well and rides comfortably (if not exactly fast). Is the riding position in general somewhere inbetween upside down and grandpa ?

I was also considering the Cervelo R3/RS & Parlee Z4. Any of you ridden both ? I've seen enough people gushing about the 595 that my interest is more than just piqued.

Lastly, anyone know of a good deal on one ? I saw a few on sale here and there.

Thanks

Ben


----------



## C-40 (Feb 4, 2004)

*info...*

The frame reach is defined by both the TT length and the seat tube angle. If your old Trek was only a 56cm, then no wonder it was vertically small, it's only about 52cm, measured c-c. If it was a 58, then it may have neded one size shorter stem.

What really defines the vertical size of the bike is the head tube length, with the headset. Your old Trek should have been around 150mm. A size L (55cm) 595 will have a total head tube length, with the headset of about 172mm. The reach on the 595 would be nearly identical to the 56cm Trek.

You need to figure out why the Trek wasn't comfortable. If the stem was too low, you should have changed to a higher rise stem. If you flip an 80-84 degree stem is will raise the bars 2.0-3.5cm higher and the stem will be one size shorter, horizontally, when it's flipped.


----------



## AZ Cruiser (Apr 20, 2006)

It sounds like you would need a Large 595. I ride a XL 595 Ultra and I'm about 6'2". I used to own a Cervelo R3. I really like dit a lot. The 595 Ultra is so much better. The 595 Ultra is a lot stiiffer at the bottom bracket, the lateral stiffness is way better and the fork is way stiff and smoother. The R3 may have been a little smoother in the rear of the bike but not much. On a scale of 1-10 I would give the 595 Ultra a 10 and the Cervelo R3 an 8.


----------



## kretzel (Aug 1, 2007)

*595*

I might suggest you consider the 586 vice the 595. I've ridden 595 and it is all business - awesome bike if you are a racer but the 586 will give you more comfort, and it is lighter. Both have same ISP/E-Post design. 

Cheers,


----------



## BenH (Dec 28, 2001)

Thanks, I was concerned that the 595 may put the bars a bit too low. Looking at the 586, it still looks like it has a short head-tube. Is the 586 supposed to sit you a bit more upright ?


----------



## kretzel (Aug 1, 2007)

*595 vs 586*



BenH said:


> Thanks, I was concerned that the 595 may put the bars a bit too low. Looking at the 586, it still looks like it has a short head-tube. Is the 586 supposed to sit you a bit more upright ?


In general fit is not the real distinguisher between those 2 frames, it is more about the ride. 586 is engineered to be a more comfortable & lighter but still has a very stiff front end laterally for out of saddle climbing. If I were to paint with a broad brush, 586 is for climbing fanatics and 595 for sprinters. 586 also has the unique Head Fit HS design which will sit the front end up a couple mm higher than the 595 with the standard FSA HS design. 

If you really need a more upright design check out the 585 Optimum geometry.


----------

