Help with trek 1.2 purchase, did i get wrong size?

I guess it is possible but you would have to get used to it and adapt your riding style, even if it is a pain to change the right size it would be worth it. Think of it this way; would you buy pants or a shirt that was too big or small for you? You would probably return it and get the correct size. I made that mistake with my last bike and I regretted it.

Thanks for the reply. I looked closely at the 50 and 54 frames (2010 Trek 1.2), and the main difference seems to be standover height. There is just a very slight difference in reach and wheelbase, like half a centimeter.

Problem #2 is the crank arm length... 172.5 which is also probably too long for me with a 29" inseam.

flgliderpilot said:

Thanks for the reply. I looked closely at the 50 and 54 frames (2010 Trek 1.2), and the main difference seems to be standover height. There is just a very slight difference in reach and wheelbase, like half a centimeter.

Problem #2 is the crank arm length... 172.5 which is also probably too long for me with a 29" inseam.

You might be able to get the shop to cut you a deal and trade your crankset with a shorter one such as an equivalent 165 when you are still buying the bike, I haven't tried it with crank sets but I have done it with stems and grips
Either way good luck

mtb1102 said:

I guess it is possible but you would have to get used to it and adapt your riding style, even if it is a pain to change the right size it would be worth it. Think of it this way; would you buy pants or a shirt that was too big or small for you? You would probably return it and get the correct size. I made that mistake with my last bike and I regretted it.

Ok I'm going to return the bike and be more careful next time. I think the seller probably measured the ACTUAL seat tube length and came up with 50" but this is a dropped top tube frame so that's not the right way to measure the frame size. Hopefully I can return it without issues.

flgliderpilot said:

Hi, I recently found an interest in cycling to lose weight. After a lot of searching and checking charts I found the right size for my 5'4" height would be a 50cm frame.

I purchased a Trek 1.2 2010, sold to me as a 50cm frame. When I got it, it seemed very tall... no room to spare at standover height although I can stand over it barely. It's a 30" standover height and my inseam is about 29" so I can just barely do it with shoes on. Seat is only 3" over clamp to get correct leg angle. I looked up some specs on the 2010 and the 50cm 1.2 should have had a seat tube length of 47.6cm. My seat tube is 50cm which equates to a 54cm frame according to the 2010 frame specs.

Sitting on the bike my arms and back are at 45 degrees and my nose is lined up with the bars.

So the geometry seems ok based on what I've learned, but the lack of standover height has me wondering if the frame is also too long etc.

I have an opportunity to return the bike but it's going to be a big hassle. Is it possible to fit a bike with a frame which is slightly too tall, or should I return it and save for better fit?

Thanks

YES & NO

The notion of being able to have multiple inches of clearance of clearance between a person's crotch and the top tube is a post-1980 notion ...

Based on MTB sizing ...

AND, the vogue has been to replicate how "real" racers set up their bikes (i.e., generally smaller frames for a given height).

If you look at how bikes were sized in advertisments from the 70s OR if you looked up how short Campagnolo seat posts (the seat post of choice for "racers" and wannabees) were rather short. In other words, you will see that your bike's current size is hardly out of the norm.

I'm 5'9" tall and my first "bike store" bike was a 60cm GITANE!!!!

The top tube was 57cm and the bike had a 90mm stem. I think it was a matter of chance OR I just got really used to that "cockpit" dimension, but I have continued to use that combined dimension as the starting point for all subsequent frames and/or stems that I have set up for myself ...

Okay, the Gitane had a slightly lower BB shell, so it was probably effectively like a 58cm RALEIGH of that vintage might have been.

Mostly for cosmetic reasons, my preferred frame size is currently 54cm.

Basically, as long as the bike's seat can be adjusted properly for YOU, then the KEY to riding a larger frame is to simply LEAN THE BIKE TO ONE SIDE when you come to a stop ... since a lot of my riding used to be urban where there were real curbs, I would dis-engage my right foot & put it on the curb when I stopped.

alfeng said:

YES & NO

The notion of being able to have multiple inches of clearance of clearance between a person's crotch and the top tube is a post-1980 notion ...

Thanks for this info. The seller kindly offered me an exceptional deal after the size issue, so I am keeping the bike for now. I'm going to replace the cranks with 160mm cranks. I may or may not need a different stem, I can't really tell until I get the new cranks (because my seat position will change sightly). Other than that the fit is not too far off and I can work with it while saving / searching for a better fit (to be determined).

Thanks for the advice I appreciate it.