58cm Trek owners- how tall are you?



teamgomez

New Member
Aug 23, 2005
120
0
0
I've always felt that my current 58cm roadbike might be a tad small...looking at a 58cm trek frameset and wonder how many 6' / 34" inseam guys (gals?) ride a 58cm frameset. Goods/bads/others appreciated. Thanks!
 

oldbobcat

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,233
194
48
70
teamgomez said:
I've always felt that my current 58cm roadbike might be a tad small...looking at a 58cm trek frameset and wonder how many 6' / 34" inseam guys (gals?) ride a 58cm frameset. Goods/bads/others appreciated. Thanks!
Sounds like you've got relatively long legs and a short torso, roughly the same size and proportions as me and Eddy Merckx (seriously). My local Trek dealer and I both agree that the top tube on a 60 cm Trek is too long. You could get the 60 and swap for a shorter stem, but you'd still be on a bike that's too long for your torso. For a Trek, the 58 is probably your best bet.

You could also look for a frame with a shorter top tube. I chose my ride, a steel Gios measuring 59.5 c-c, largely for its relatively short top tube. Interestingly, I recently read that Eddy's custom DeRosas were similarly proportioned.
 

darrenf

New Member
Jul 16, 2004
96
0
0
I'm 6ft and have a 35 in inseam so am even longer legged for my height.

I dont ride a trek but my new bike is a 58 c-c (about 62 c-t). The top tube is 57cm and coupled with a 90mm stem is just right length wise.

Although I could probably ride a frame a cm or 2 taller (ie 59 or 60), the additional length on the top tube would probably mean the bike would be too long.

In my opinion, my new frame is the best fit I can get from stock frames, the only other solution being custom.

If you are riding longer than a 90mm stem, you may be able to get away with going another frame size up with a shorter stem. However, if your'e happy with the overall fit of your current bike, it's not worth bothering imo.
 

dhk

New Member
Sep 1, 2003
2,259
0
0
74
teamgomez said:
I've always felt that my current 58cm roadbike might be a tad small...looking at a 58cm trek frameset and wonder how many 6' / 34" inseam guys (gals?) ride a 58cm frameset. Goods/bads/others appreciated. Thanks!
Check your seat post extension and drop from seat-to-bars. If you've got the seat post way up to get your proper leg extension, resulting in more drop to the handlebars than you like even with your stem shimmed up to the limit, then your frame could be too small. Otherwise, I'd guess it was OK.

I've got your same height/inseam, and ride a 58 cm frame with a 57.5 cm TT. My old bike is a 56 cm, and it was just on the limit of being too small, as I had the seatpost right at max extension. Result was a 10 cm drop to the bars....classic race position, but not the most comfortable for club and century rides.

Of course, you can easily lower the stem, and/or get a longer stem to adjust your reach and stretch over the bike. If your bike came with a 110 mm stem, you could go up to 130 or even 140 mm.
 

boudreaux

New Member
Oct 16, 2003
5,133
0
0
teamgomez said:
I've always felt that my current 58cm roadbike might be a tad small...looking at a 58cm trek frameset and wonder how many 6' / 34" inseam guys (gals?) ride a 58cm frameset. Goods/bads/others appreciated. Thanks!
Given that no one here can see you on the bike,anything you get from this 'internet fit mob' is just guess or BS. BFWIW, my Trek is a 58 and I'm 6' with a longer bike inseam. YMMV. Be aware that trek measures to the top of an extended seattube,and on their traditional frames some have trouble getting the bars high enough.
 

frenchyge

New Member
Apr 3, 2005
4,687
4
0
6'1", 33-34" inseam (34" pants), bought a 58cm Trek 1000 a few years back and moved to a 60cm last summer when I upgraded (Trek 5200). I've always been told that my torso is proportionally longer, and that was my primary reason for moving to a larger frame. I had moved to a 120mm stem on my 58cm, but still wasn't happy with it.

The only issue I've found with going to a larger frame is that, since I don't have as much seatpost showing, I'm not able to get a really aggressive drop from the seat to the bars for aero purposes. That may not bother some people at all.
 

cydewaze

New Member
Jun 17, 2004
883
0
0
57
I'm 5'11 and I usually ride a 57 or 58. On my OCLV I had to go with a 56 because the bike felt really stretched out.

It's never made much sense to me though. I have another road bike that's 57cm, with a 57.0 cm TT, and 73 parallel geometry. Trek lists the OCLV with a 56.2cm TT and a 73.5 deg seat angle, but the Trek feels way more stretched out than the other bike, and the seat angle feels a lot more slack (same stem length).

In fact if I drop a plumb bob down to the cranks, and measure the distance back to the nose of the saddle, the saddle on the Trek is a few inches farther back than the saddle on the other bike (same saddle, btw).

Everything's totally opposite of what you'd think it would be. :confused:
 

gubaguba

New Member
Aug 7, 2003
170
0
0
I'm 6'3 and ride a trek 58 with no issues inseam is 35" I also ride a Dacccordi 61 cm frame and have no problems with it either. The trek is a little more compact and I am a bit more upright. I tend to be a bit more laid out on the Daccordi and it feels to me as if its a faster position, better power transition maybe. Anyway when I stand the two bikes together they are amazingly similar position wise. I did not base one on another just adjusted each until comfortable. Some like a higher seatpost when climbing out of the saddle a larger distance from top tube. I enjoy both bikes and they ride differently the trek is carbon the Daccordi steel so you would expect it. If I were to err it would be on the slightly shorter side easier to raise the seat post.
 

JohnO

New Member
Jul 5, 2003
1,495
0
0
I'm 6'2", 35" inseam. Ride a 59cm Trek Y-Foil. It's really just a bit small for me, as I have the seat way out, and the handlebars as high as they will go.
 

teamgomez

New Member
Aug 23, 2005
120
0
0
Thanks all- I read a great piece on sizing which debunked some of the "knee over the peg" theory and focused on balance more than biometrics. Also a piece on sizing crank length at 18% of top of femur to deck length.

One puzzling question is that it seems to me we could all get a great fit merely by having an adjustable saddle and headset stem. Given my lack of experience on finely tuned machines, does the handling really suffer from moving the handlebars back a few cm to the point it would make the bike feel sketchy at speed?

I would think that a few cm on frameset could easily be adjusted out with saddle/stem adjustments. Comments? Thanks!
 

fix

New Member
Mar 1, 2004
93
0
0
I have a 58 cm Trek frame. I am 5'-10.5" with a 33" inseam.

I suspect that a slightly smaller frame would be better for me for the same reason another previously posted: I can't get the bars much lower than my seat.
 

frenchyge

New Member
Apr 3, 2005
4,687
4
0
teamgomez said:
I would think that a few cm on frameset could easily be adjusted out with saddle/stem adjustments. Comments? Thanks!
Depending on what you mean by 'a few' (ie, a couple) I would probably agree with that.

Height seems a lot easier to adjust than length, since the pedals are in a fixed position and you have to physically change the stem to get any adjustment there. For that reason, I looked at frame length more than height when I got my new bike. If you fit your torso, then you can probably adjust to fit your legs fairly easily unless you are very unusually proportioned. Just my two cents.
 

Alpha

New Member
Feb 7, 2005
116
0
0
I'm 6" with an inseam of 33 1/3". I ride a 56 cm 2003, trek 2000.

Feels like the perfect fit, whether I'm riding 30 km or 130 km.