# 56cm or 58cm '07 5.2 SL?



## tmb (Feb 1, 2003)

Alright, it's time to retire the '97 5200. It's been a great bike and is still in good shape but the EP pricing on the '07's is just to much to pass up. My only question is, 56 or 58?

I'm just a touch under 6' w/ a 32" inseam. My 5200 is a 56cm and fits pretty good but I've found that I'm leaning towards larger frames and shorter stems with my mtn bikes(my SS is a 19"), should I continue the tend with the new roadie?

I don't race and my average rides are in the 30-50 mile range with some longer stuff thrown in every now and then, all on southern Michigan's rolling terrain.

My shop doesn't have any 58's in stock to try. I'm gonna try to hit a shop out of town tomorrow, to see if I can throw a leg over a 58 of their's. I won't have time to ride it, but hopefully I can get some sort of idea.

Thanks for any help.


Todd


----------



## lamazion (Sep 11, 2004)

I'm 6' 1/2", during my recent bike fitting I was told I should be on a 58cm Trek. BTW, I currently ride a 60cm Trek.


----------



## mtbdcd (Jul 7, 2002)

I'm 6' with a 34inch pants inseam. I ride a 60cm, but would probably a fit a 58cm better, except i like to have a level stem, so that results in a lot of spacers.

In your case, we are the same height, but your inseam is much less, hence you have a longer upper body. I would think a 58cm would fit you perfectly. It seems like a 56cm madone is too small for you.(my opinon) You must have to use a 130mm or longer stem.


----------



## tmb (Feb 1, 2003)

I'm running a 110 stem, don't really feel all that cramped. Maybe I just don't know any better. I'm thinking about a basic fit session, need to make a few call and get some info.

Threw a leg over an '06 58cm 5.2, tt clearance was a bit tight on da boys(wearing street shoes). Hmmmm.... what to do?? 

56 or 58, either only comes in Disco paint. I'm a fan of the team, past and current. The shop I work at carries the line, my Disco jersey gets heavy rotation. That being said, do I really want a bike painted that way too? Anyone have an '07 5.2 SL in team colors, how's it look up close ?

Must control new bike lust....

Also saw an '08 5.5. Overall good looking bike, frickin' huge bb area. 

Thanks for the advice guys.

T


----------



## ridebikes (Jun 7, 2005)

I'm 6' with a 32" Inseam and have a '04 58cm 5200 and and '07 58cm 5.5 SL. I have a 110cm stem and the guys that fit me got me on a zero setback seatpost. I've never been concerned about the stand over clearance. I do race the 5200 once in a while and afraid to race the new bike. Even though I'm roughly the same dimensions as you everyone bends a little differently so you have the right idea - get on the thing and take it for a test ride. 

Maybe if you are going to have this bike for the next 10 years go somewhere and pay $100 to get a fit. Don't tell them what you are looking for and see what they come up with. 

The Pilot has a taller head tube if you don't like bending over so much.


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

*Buy the Smaller Frame*

If you can ride the smaller one with the seat post all the way up without getting a longer seatpost buy the smaller one. This is because the Madonnes have a slightly longer top tube that most bikes. You will like this a lot *IF* you get the correct (smallest) size. If you get a frame that it too big you will be riding a bike that is too long and you will have to get a short stem.

The formula for sizing a bike frame is here:

http://www.coloradocyclist.com/bikefit/

This is the standard way to get the correct frame size and it will result in you getting the smallest frame you can ride - which is what you want especially on the Madonne.

I'm 6' 1 1/2" an have a 60cm. 5.9 SL which fits me perfectly.

Every time the subject of frame size is posted on the Trek forum a whole bunch of "experts" on frame fit will post a bunch of weird messages advocating their bizarre theories of frame fit, based on top tube length, head tube length, etc. Ignore them.

Also I should mention that the Madonnes are measured center to top of the seat tube.


----------



## 99trek5200 (Jan 26, 2007)

Tlaloc said:


> This is the standard way to get the correct frame size and it will result in you getting the smallest frame you can ride
> 
> 
> > I take excepton with idea that by simply multiplying your inseam by .67 you have the correct frame size. It does not account for differences in frame geometry or if someone has propotionally long legs for his/her height then you will end up with a frame that has too long of a top tube.
> ...


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

99trek5200 said:


> I take excepton with idea that by simply multiplying your inseam by .67 you have the correct frame size. It does not account for differences in frame geometry or if someone has propotionally long legs for his/her height then you will end up with a frame that has too long of a top tube.


See, I told you so.

A person with unusual proportions will still get the right frame size by using the formula because the size of a bike is the length of the seat tube so it will be the right size for his legs. He can then adjust the fit for his upper body with a different stem, bar height, etc.


----------



## 99trek5200 (Jan 26, 2007)

Tlaloc said:


> See, I told you so.
> 
> A person with unusual proportions will still get the right frame size by using the formula because the size of a bike is the length of the seat tube so it will be the right size for his legs. He can then adjust the fit for his upper body with a different stem, bar height, etc.


One of our club members has a 32" inseam = 81.28 cm which x.67 would indicate a 54.5cm frame. He is 6'-1" tall. He rides a 60cm Madone and recently had a thourough fitting which showed he needs 130mm stem. Lets see, the top tube on a 54 is 36mm shorter than a 60. He would need roughly a 165mm stem. Hmmm.


----------



## tmb (Feb 1, 2003)

Good news and bad news.

I got a chance to spend a few minutes on a buddy's 56cm '07 5000 TCT. I think my 5200 is a 58 after all. The 56 5000 felt small.

So, with the sizing figured out, I called our Trek rep. The 5.2SL's were gone. ****. He did have a 5.0(Pearl carbon color) in 56 & 58. Which is the model that I started looking at originally. I guess this solves my team color dilemma too. She should be here in the next few days.

My brother is buying my 5200. I can't wait to get him out and roll some miles.

Thanks for all the tips and advice guys.

T


----------



## Tlaloc (May 12, 2005)

99trek5200 said:


> One of our club members has a 32" inseam = 81.28 cm which x.67 would indicate a 54.5cm frame. He is 6'-1" tall. He rides a 60cm Madone and recently had a thourough fitting which showed he needs 130mm stem. Lets see, the top tube on a 54 is 36mm shorter than a 60. He would need roughly a 165mm stem. Hmmm.


*IF* you had actually read the fitting instructions that I linked to, you would realize that the inseam that you use for fitting a bike is from your crotch to the ground *NOT* the inseam you use for buying a pair of pants. If your friend had a 32" cycling inseam and was 6'-1" tall he would be a really major freak. Your friend has the correct frame size. I posted that I am the same height as your friend and ride the same frame size. It's always a good idea to read what people post and link to carefully before posting. Otherwise you will post messages that make you sound like a dope.


----------



## 99trek5200 (Jan 26, 2007)

I am well aware what a cycling inseam is and that it is not the same as for a pair of pants. I once thought, like you, that the appropriate size bicycle was determined by one's inseam (in those days we called it "stand over") It worked fine for my 1978 Raleigh Grand Prix. With the differences in modern frame geometry from company to company and the way different companies measure frames it would be foolish to say that any frame, by any manufacturer, will fit any person based on the person's inseam alone.

I will agree with you that one must be careful of the information they get from the internet as there is "a whole bunch of 'experts"'on frame fit will post a bunch of weird messages advocating their bizarre theories of frame fit".

Tmb, it sounds like you did the right thing by getting the frame that felt best for you. Good job and enjoy the bike.


----------



## tmb (Feb 1, 2003)

Got about 80 miles on the 5.0. Wow, what a smooth ride. I did a shakedown run with the stock set-up, then swapped out the 110mm stem for a 90mm that was in the parts bin. I think a 100mm is where I'm headed. That boat anchor of a saddle has got to go too.

Overall, I'm very happy. The bike rides & looks great. I didn't really save much weight over my old 5200. But at 175-180lbs, I'd be a bit nervous having a daily-use bike under the 18lb mark anyways.


Come on Disco, bring the yellow home! 

T


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I think it is a very bad idea to use leg lenth to determine frame size. You are simply measuring how tall the frame should be and if you clear the top tube. If you do clear the top tube then you're done worrying about the numeric frame size. The hard numbers of frame geometry are the seat angle and top tube. If seat tube length were important then sloping top tube frames would not exist. Concentrate on finding the correct saddle position (setback) relative to the BB and then worry about reach to the handlebars. 

If you are happy with the fit of your 97' bike (you must be, you kept it this long) then you can measure the hard points on it and duplicate them. Things like saddle setback, saddle nose to handlebar, handlebar drop from saddle height. For what it's worth, the Trek bikes have had remarkable consistency in terms of frame fit over the years. If you're on a 58 then you will fit a 58 in Trek's current line.

I have to be devil's advocate here- Why not look at an 08' bike? I know the deals on 07's must be stellar right now but if you kept your last one for 10 years will you really notice the cost difference over the course of a decade? You should treat yourself. ;-)


----------



## tmb (Feb 1, 2003)

All good points, Davidka. 
I put in another 50 miles today and think that I'm pretty close to getting it dailed in. I've got the seat to hb the same as the 5200 but purposely raised the bars to help alieveate some motorcycle crash-related neck issues.

I thought about the '08 Madones, a couple of things steered me away. First production year teething issues, being a single father of 2 teenaged daughter(read budget) and the employee purchase on the '07's is pretty killer(hmmm.. budget again).

T


----------



## 99trek5200 (Jan 26, 2007)

Well put Davidka.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

That .67 formula seems a little off. I'm just under 5'10", 85 cm inseam (33.5 inches) and that formula would give me a 57cm seat tube. A 56 trek might be fine for me but I ride a 55cm look kg381 and would do a little better on a 54. If you're going to spend that much on a bike, why not get a proper fit with a test ride? My excuse is that I have an ebay bike.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Lookrider, you are a good example of why we should be careful not to size a frame to inseam length. At 5'10" you have a longer than average inseam length for a person of your height (in my experience anyway). If you use an inseam measurement to find a frame size 4 out of 5 times you will be on a frame with a toptube that is too long. The more common issue I saw in the shop was guys with short inseams for their heights. You could put them on a frame that had their "boys" firmly on the top tube and they would still need a really long stem. It was coumpounded by their short femurs since they had to have their saddles farther forward. Those are the guys that were saved by the advend of compact geometry.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

davidka said:


> Lookrider, you are a good example of why we should be careful not to size a frame to inseam length. At 5'10" you have a longer than average inseam length for a person of your height (in my experience anyway). If you use an inseam measurement to find a frame size 4 out of 5 times you will be on a frame with a toptube that is too long. The more common issue I saw in the shop was guys with short inseams for their heights. You could put them on a frame that had their "boys" firmly on the top tube and they would still need a really long stem. It was coumpounded by their short femurs since they had to have their saddles farther forward. Those are the guys that were saved by the advend of compact geometry.


Yes, you're right. I'm using a 90mm stem, feels better than the 110 I was using. I'm working on my flexibility so I may be able to use the 110 for a more aero position in the future but the 54 cm look frame would have been ideal.


----------



## gradosu (May 17, 2007)

I ride a 58 cm 5500. I am 6' 0.5" and have a cycling inseam of 34". I have a 12 cm stem on the bike and as my flexibility has increased I flipped it so the handlebars are lower than before. I feel that the 58 cm has enough room to play with without having to jump up to the 60. I also have longer arms than average and I think the 120 mm stem I have on the bike puts me at a perfect position, somewhere between a very aggressive and passively aggressive position.


----------

