Does this bike fit me?

Moominman2

Hello folks,

My girlfriend's Dad knew I wanted to buy a new bike in Feb next year, and has offered me to buy his 2010 Trek 2.1 Alpha bike. This is my first 'serious' bike as until this, I have been riding a 1990 Raleigh. Which is still going strong! Got 40mph out of it today.

Anyway...

My current bike I believe has a 59cm frame. Its large for me, but I have become used to it. It comes up too high when standing over it...If you know what I mean!

With this new bike I'm being offered, the frame is much smaller compared. It is a medium frame, but am not exactly sure of the size. It felt much smaller obviously, but when raising the seat, made a good difference, but wasn't on it long enough to be 100%. When I stand over the frame, feet on floor, it is roughly 1 to 2 inches below my crotch.

I am 5 foot 9 inches, the frame is a medium...Is this a good fit for me? I'm talking mesurement-wise. I know it is also up to me to decide too.

So, any comments, please share!

Thanks
Luke

ben@31

Do you have the frame size in cm?

I'm the same height as you and have a 56cm Specialized frame.

Many things are adjustable to tweak the fit. Such as the stem height, reach and angle and the seat can slide back and forwards in the horizontal plane. Some people even change the length of the pedal cranks.

One option is to go to a shop and try different sizes of Trek frames.

Moominman2

Don't have the specific size of the frame, yet. I'll go round with a tape measure!

I'm hoping it's a 56cm, but have a feeling it could be a 54cm. Hope not though!

And I didn't realise you could adjust so much haha. Perhaps it just needs some adjusting.

I have a lbs that deal with trek bikes, so may take your advice and check some out.

Cheers mate,

Luke

Bozman

At 5' 9" you shouldn't need anything bigger than a 54 top tube

snoopsmydogg

According to Trek FAQ then for 5'9" they recommend a 52-56 frame

http://www.trekbikes.com/faq/questions. ... stionid=63

Best thing to do is go ride it and see how it feels, what is right for you can be completely wrong for someone the same height as there will be many other differences (inside leg, torso, reach etc.)

Moominman2

Thanks all.

Yeah I saw that 54-56cm was a good choice, which I believe it is a 54cm.

I just would have prefered a slightly larger 56cm frame one as I'm used to a 59cm!

I'll have another try of it and see how it goes again.

Thanks for clearing it up, it did feel a lot different to what I'm used to!

Luke

snoopsmydogg

It will feel different as it will be a lot shorter but then you wont be stretching as much to reach the bars. If the frame is right then it is very easy to extend the reach by changing the handlebar stem.

personally given a choice between 2 frames I would go for a shorter frame and longer stem over a long frame and short stem but it is all down to personal preference (i'm 5'11 and ride a 56 frame with 120 stem at present).

Moominman2

I think you're right. Thinking about it, taking in this advice, and looking at some cycling pictures, the bike actually fitted very well. I've think I've just been riding an oversized bike all along.

Thanks for the advice. It's helped clear things up!

Luke

Omar Little

I'm not quite sure how these things are calculated but the 1990 Raleigh will have traditional geometry compared to the 2010 Trek which will have compact geometry. The sizing is different between the two types of frame.

Basically you wouldnt be a 59 cm on both a traditional and a compact as they are sized differently - so your 59cm is the equivalent of a 54cm (or maybe a 56cm) on a compact frame. IMO the 54cm frame will fit you without having to change seatpost or stem so if he is offering it at a good price i'd recommend you go for it.

Moominman2

Really?

What's the difference between traditional and compact then?? Like, I've come accross it, but never learned the difference?

Thanks

Monty Dog

A 59cm traditional-size frame is waay to big for someone of your size (better suited to 6ft) and 54-56cm is far more realistic. The key dimension is 'reach' i.e. the horizontal dimension between the centreline of the top of the headtube and the centreline of the seatpost. There are plenty of online bike fit calculators where you can bash in your dimensions and it'll give you some recommendations - it also varies due to factors like your flexibility etc, so don't treat them as 'gospel'

fungus_the_muffin_man

A medium trek will be fine for you I'm the same size as you and I have one

Moominman2

Woo thanks everyone.

Looks like I'm going for it then!

Now I just have to wait for my girlfriend's Dad to buy a replacement for himself

Luke

dw300

I'm 5' 10.5" / 178cm and ride a 54cm Specialized, which is considered a medium. I'm recommended to ride a 56, but I have short legs and prefer the smaller frame.

The medium should be fine for you.

edewer

my 2010 Trek Alpha has the frame size written just below the seat post facing forwards......

99thmonkey

If I read the guides Im supposed to be a 58 but I always ride 56! Just get on one and see how it feels those guides are...well just a guide!

styxd

. I'm recommended to ride a 56, but I have short legs and prefer the smaller frame.

I would have thought you'd be better off on the 56 if you have short legs. Or do you just use a very long stem?

fungus_the_muffin_man

I have a trek size 56 which feels ok. But when I had a proper bike fit found it was actually to big a frame.for me. The O.P. is 5' 9" the same size as me. A 54 would.be much better or even a 53 as I found out.

trek_dan

I'm a smidgin under 5'10" and run a 56cm Trek, but have to use an 80mm stem to make it comfortable. I'd guess a 54cm with a longer stem would be perfect.

twist83

I have had a Trek 1.7 (Same or similar frame I believe) and it is a 54cm. I am 5' 10" and its perfectly. With a slightly smaller frame you can always change Stem lengths etc to fit 100%