fitting a trek 5200

The idea that you could "ruin" a bike's geometry by changing it so that it fits you is ludicrous. There are way too many people out there who are too concerend with looks. If it makes you feel better on the bike and allows you to do what you want with it then its fine.
My case is similar. I am about 5'8.5" and 73kg so I am of fairly average height. However my proportions don't seem to fit current common geometry. I have long legs which require a long seat tube (idealy 56-57cm) and a short torso which requires a shorter top tube (ideally 52-54cm). This is of course opposite to the way most frames are proportioned these days. So I went for a 54cm frame which means I have more seatpost than is the "norm", less stem than is the "norm" and much more stack height than the norm too. From an aesthetic point of view this is a bit ugly, but I got the frame quite cheaply and I actually feel comfortable on it.

Tafi
Thanks for the reply. Others are quite adamant that if the bike needs so much adjustment it 'obviously' is a poor choice. They are suggesting something like the Specialized Roubaix Comp which starts out as a higher head tube.
At some point I feel like I need to trust the bike salesman. He went out on a ride with me and thought I looked 'good' (comfortable).
What bike do you have?

fredf said:

At some point I feel like I need to trust the bike salesman. He went out on a ride with me and thought I looked 'good' (comfortable).
What bike do you have?

LOL...What did you think a salesperson is going to say.

fredf said:

Tafi
Thanks for the reply. Others are quite adamant that if the bike needs so much adjustment it 'obviously' is a poor choice. They are suggesting something like the Specialized Roubaix Comp which starts out as a higher head tube.

They were right, but it's also your right to keep trolling for an answer you like,even if the source is suspect.

I belive that whilst it is nice to be able to get a fit with no compromises (and that is what I will be aming at when my current bike wears out), at some point you have to draw the line based on money and availability. Being a student, money is something which is not in very good supply which is why I went with a 5500 frame at a significant discount. The 54cm trek frame is the trek frame which fits me the best (though not necessarilty very well).

If you look at a lot of frames these days they seem to posses longer and longer top tubes and shorter seat tubes. The "traditional" european square geometry (which would suit me much better) has almost completely disappeared from the market in favour of very low slung frames for riders with longer torsos. This means that to get the right length (particularly on an american bike) I have to have a very low bar height or an ugly amount of stack to match the extra seatpost which I leave exposed. ( I currently use a seatpost meant for MTB to get the right length).

To further complicate things, my long legs (and my riding style) require more seat setback than average which makes the reach even longer without a shorter stem (which is 100mm curently)

I deally I would have a 56cm seat tube (c-c) and a 53cm top tube with a 120mm stem
This of course can only really be acheived with a custom designed frame.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks to have to alter a bike this way, but it's better to feel good than look good.

I agree it's better to feel good than look good. The problem is, of course, that the typical LBS test ride is short. The Trek 5200 did feel good. But, while I tried to test the handling who can be sure unless you live with it a while. They obviously make spacers and differently angled stems at different lengths for a reason...people need them to get a proper fit.
Boudreaux suggests I'm trolling for the answer I want (that the Trek is right for me) to justify my leading choice. He may be right. Do I want the Trek because it's cool or because it feels good. I think the latter in which case it's the right choice.
However to make it feel good, we had to keep the factory spacers and put in a riser stem. Honestly, to me it doesn't look nerdy at all...ie: it doesn't seem out of place. However one reads in forums like this all kinds of ideas about geometry.
I just tested a Litespeed Veneto today at another shop and the bars were too high! To make it comfortable it seems to me I would have to manipulate it just as much in the opposite direction.
I also tested a SPecialized Roubaix Comp today (it's hard trying to earn a living while indulging in an obsession). It felt pretty good...less 'aggressively' upright than the Veneto.
If one goes to Rivendale to see about sizing they suggest the longest seattube as the first priority. I fit the 56cm Specialized and a 58cm Trek. What does that say? Rivendale would, I think, point to the SPecialized.
By the way, before fitting the Trek I did the Competitve Cyclist fit measurements for the LBS.
I also decided today that I prefer carbon fibre to Ti.
So, my final decision comes down to Trek 5200 and SPecialized Roubaix Comp. Luckilly the LBS I feel best about carries both so hopefully that won't confuse the situation.
I know I rambled but now I'm finally down to 2 great bikes. I would feel fine on the Trek but for the negative feedback I've received here.

tafi said:

I deally I would have a 56cm seat tube (c-c) and a 53cm top tube with a 120mm stem
This of course can only really be acheived with a custom designed frame.

Considered a 55 TT and 100 stem? Might be a bit more dooable.

Thats what I have already but I would prefer to have a stem a bit longer for a little less twitchy steering. It's not imperative but small things like this can add up to an excellent bike instead of a nice one. I'll be looking into something to suit me more much much later.