My Trek 1.5T

Rodders30
Rodders30 Posts: 314
edited February 2014 in Your road bikes
Cant remember when I bought it, 2009/2010 I think.

Mixture of Sora/Tiagra groupset and some Bontrager stuff. Rear tyre is different as its an old one I use on the Turbo.

Since having it I've changed to a Specialised saddle, new seat post as the old carbon one started cracking around the clamp. The bottle cages. Stem & pedals due to bike fit. Wheels to fulcrum 5's as the original ones wore out. Jagwire cables. Just rewrapped the bars with white Prologo double touch tape, still need to fit the bar plugs. The ones that came with them don't seem very good, so bought some Hope plugs. Just fitted some new brake blocks too (little OCD with the colour match)

I used to use it just for commuting (6.2 miles each way) but 2013 I started getting the miles in and lost 3 stone of weight in the process. Looking forward to 2014 :D
Trek 1.5 Road
Haro MTB

Comments

  • RideOnTime
    RideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    like it...
  • dwanes
    dwanes Posts: 954
    I really like it.

    Shows you don't need to spend much to get a good looking bike.
  • sloppyschleckonds
    sloppyschleckonds Posts: 8,019
    Not too bad looking, whats with the massive amount of seatpost showing and the quantity of stem spacers?
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • Rodders30
    Rodders30 Posts: 314
    Cheap bike, cost me £500 when I bought it.

    Frame is 58cm, im 6'4", hence the saddle stem showing. Suppose ideally a 60cm+ frame would be better.
    Trek 1.5 Road
    Haro MTB
  • Dezza
    Dezza Posts: 155
    Rodders30 wrote:
    Cheap bike, cost me £500 when I bought it.

    Frame is 58cm, im 6'4", hence the saddle stem showing. Suppose ideally a 60cm+ frame would be better.

    Not necessarily.

    I'm the same height and recently had a full cyclefit session. After buying two 60+cm frames in the past, I found out that I should be on a 58cm like you because I have long legs in relation to a shorter body. I'm picking up my new 58 trek tomorrow.

    I suppose it shows that height alone doesn't tell the full story.
  • Rodders30
    Rodders30 Posts: 314
    Me and my brother are roughly the same height and our legs and torso lengths are completely different.

    So as you said above
    Trek 1.5 Road
    Haro MTB
  • kajjal
    kajjal Posts: 3,380
    Dezza wrote:
    Rodders30 wrote:
    Cheap bike, cost me £500 when I bought it.

    Frame is 58cm, im 6'4", hence the saddle stem showing. Suppose ideally a 60cm+ frame would be better.

    Not necessarily.

    I'm the same height and recently had a full cyclefit session. After buying two 60+cm frames in the past, I found out that I should be on a 58cm like you because I have long legs in relation to a shorter body. I'm picking up my new 58 trek tomorrow.

    I suppose it shows that height alone doesn't tell the full story.

    This is very true, ,my legs are shorter in relation to my body and that's why at 6ft7 I ride a 62cm Trek. Logically I should be on 64cm going by height alone but I prefer a smaller frame and only have an inch of drop.

Categories