Proper fit really has little to do with your clearance over the top tube, especially with a touring bike like the 520. The length of the top tube and the length of the seat tube are the most important factors. The following link for bike fitting is easy to follow and works well for me, but there are hundreds of other useful fit links as well. Do a search and click to your heart's content. Your local bike shop should also be able to determine your correct frame size, but it's usually nice to then purchase a bike from them in return for their time and hospitality.ea1958 said:I can stand flat-footed over a 23-incher barely touching the top-bar, or a 21-incher with 1.6 inches to spare. Is there a consensus as to which is the better way to go? Thx.
Eric (newbie)
Do not disregard the top tube length! Make sure your upper body is not cramped on the 21" frame. Stem length and saddle fore/aft position can only shrink or stretch the cockpit so much.ea1958 said:OK. Thanks for the link. They say .67 * Inseam for the C-T (Trek 520 sizing). That makes it the 21" frame for me
The best thing to do is to ride a couple of sizes if you can. There are probably as many sizing philosophies out ther as riders, but I think they break down into 3 main catagoriesea1958 said:OK, I'll try and be cognizant of it when testing bikes. At 5-11, I am a little short in the legs and a little long in the torso/arms. I hope that the stock frame fits, as I carry my wallet near my legs (i.e. it's short!). Thx.
Eric
I agree that the 23 might be better. At 5'11 with a long torso it will probably be a better fit in the top tube. Also you'll have a good chance of getting the saddle and bars level. If you carn't do this with the stock stem tou can always switch it out for a longer one.scituatejohn said:The Trek 520 has a rather low handlebar height, so I would go with the 23 if you are more comfortable with it.
It seems that you are in-between sizes, and since Trek doesn't offer a 22, then the Trek 520 might not be the best bike for you.
I don't like the low handlebar aspect of the Trek 520. You might ask your bike shop if they can build you up a 54 or 56 cm Surley Long Haul Trucker for a similar price. The LHT has more sizing options (every 2cm instead of every 2 inches), and it has a longer head tube and an uncut fork that will allow a much higher handlebar position.
What's wrong with 26" wheels? I would think that they would be preferable because they are stronger, and there are more rim and tire options.ea1958 said:(the 54cm Surly takes 26" wheels, which I don't want).
I agree with your sizing ideas and the Surly Long Haul Trucker (LHT) may even have other attributes that are better than Trek 520 such as gearing choices that are more realistic to loaded touring. Surly LHT has reasonably long chain stays for heal/pannier clerance and they even make good quality racks for loaded touring.scituatejohn said:The Trek 520 has a rather low handlebar height, so I would go with the 23 if you are more comfortable with it.
It seems that you are in-between sizes, and since Trek doesn't offer a 22, then the Trek 520 might not be the best bike for you.
I don't like the low handlebar aspect of the Trek 520. You might ask your bike shop if they can build you up a 54 or 56 cm Surley Long Haul Trucker for a similar price. The LHT has more sizing options (every 2cm instead of every 2 inches), and it has a longer head tube and an uncut fork that will allow a much higher handlebar position.
http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-sizing.htmlea1958 said:I can stand flat-footed over a 23-incher barely touching the top-bar, or a 21-incher with 1.6 inches to spare. Is there a consensus as to which is the better way to go? Thx.
Eric (newbie)
Well, I do see that the 700 is millimeters (tire diameter). I was thrown off by the 'c' designation that often follows it, which I take now to be a tire type. Any input on the general performance differences between 26" and 700mm appreciated. I am back to considering the 54cm LHT as well.ea1958 said:I already have a plane ticket to London for late April 2006 (with a 2 month return). I've traveled a good bit by bus, boat, and train and I am hoping the biking will be both more economical and better for seeing the in-between spots.
I don't know why I am under the impression that the 700 wheels (and I'm now confused about what the 700 units are?... what they measure?) are more efficient for getting down the road. I'm very much on a budget, but I live in the north central Florida part of the world (Ocala National Forest).
General Performance differences between 26" MTB tires and 700C tires is difficult to say without having contolled rim width, inflation pressure, aerodynamic considerations, specific pavement conditions, rider+load weight, tire specifiactions. Since 700C tires are usually found on road (racing) bicycles, it is thought that they provide lower rolling resistance. The shape of the contact patch can very slightly favor 700C. However, that detail is usually lost in the differences of the other variables.ea1958 said:Well, I do see that the 700 is millimeters (tire diameter). I was thrown off by the 'c' designation that often follows it, which I take now to be a tire type. Any input on the general performance differences between 26" and 700mm appreciated. I am back to considering the 54cm LHT as well.
Eric
Finding good quality touring tires is often a challenge in any part of the world if you are just "riding in".ea1958 said:OK, I'm starting to get a feel for it. Thank you.
Now makes me wonder what is more available in the backcountry of Western Europe, 700mm or 26inch? Also, Mexico & Soutn/Central America?
Eric
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.