Trek 5900 62CM ?????

[Sundog]

I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20 years. I am
6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds.

When the bike was built I was 6' 4''. Due to some back trouble I am now 6'3''. I think I am going to
drop down to a 62 CM frame. The selection of stock frams at 62 CM is slim.

Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share their experiences? How do
they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in Utah a lot I was
wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH) descents?

 

[Jim Beam]

i think you can safely get away with 60cm. i'm 6'5": my full custom steel frame is 62 but my cheapie
aluminum is 60 - easy to dial in the extra adjustment with today's longer seat posts & riser stems.

sundog wrote:
> I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20 years. I am
> 6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds.
>
> When the bike was built I was 6' 4''. Due to some back trouble I am now 6'3''. I think I am going
> to drop down to a 62 CM frame. The selection of stock frams at 62 CM is slim.
>
> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share their experiences? How do
> they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in Utah a lot I was
> wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH) descents?
>

 

[David Mackintos]

"sundog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20 years. I am
> 6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds.
>
> When the bike was built I was 6' 4''. Due to some back trouble I am now 6'3''. I think I am going
> to drop down to a 62 CM frame. The selection of stock frams at 62 CM is slim.

I would think if your spine got shorter, you might want a shorter top tube, but not necessarily a
smaller frame size. Also, if you have back trouble you may want to keep a fairly upright position.
Your old bike would have a quill stem, with the new threadless steerers and clamp-on stems you
might end up with even more drop to the bars. The important dimensions are the head tube and top
tube lengths.

> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share their experiences? How do
> they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in Utah a lot I was
> wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH) descents?

There's a 62cm 5900 at an almost local shop (Portland) that they offered to let me take out, but I
didn't want to fall in love with it because of the cost.

I'm 6'3" with extremely long legs and am having an oversized steel (True Temper S3 and OX Platinum)
custom frame built for under $1000. Try the 5900 if you get a chance, but unless it's the right fit
(especially if you potentially have continuing back problems), I'd recommend a custom frame that
might be half the price and only a pound or so heavier. The 5900 is really expensive for a stock
frame. If you've got to have a light carbon frame, also consider a custom Calfee. If you've been
riding a heavier bike for a long time, I don't think you'll care whether your new bike is 4 pounds
lighter, or only
2.

Also, almost all large stock frames have 74 deg head angles. I'm having mine built with a 73 deg
head angle, which I hope will be more stable on high speed (50-60mph) descents. I wouldn't take
anyone else's word for whether a bike is stable or not, there seem to be a lot of personal
variables.

If you haven't considered longer cranks, I'd recommend at least 180's (Dura Ace or Record Aluminum).
Get the shop to trade the cranks out while they're still new (I'd ask them to do it for free with a
bike as expensive as the 5900), and work out the crank length, saddle height and setback, and reach
and rise to the bars while talking to your fitter or custom builder before you take the plunge.

Have fun!

-David

 

[Mark]

Don't quote me on this, but I think the Trek's are measured C-T. I rode one at the demo days and the
62cm had about the same standover as my 59cm Paramount.

Mark

jim beam wrote:

> i think you can safely get away with 60cm. i'm 6'5": my full custom steel frame is 62 but my
> cheapie aluminum is 60 - easy to dial in the extra adjustment with today's longer seat posts &
> riser stems.
>
> sundog wrote:
>> I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20 years. I am
>> 6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds.
>>
>> When the bike was built I was 6' 4''. Due to some back trouble I am now 6'3''. I think I am going
>> to drop down to a 62 CM frame. The selection of stock frams at 62 CM is slim.
>>
>> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share their experiences? How do
>> they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in Utah a lot I was
>> wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH) descents?
>>
>

 

[Andrew Price]

"sundog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share
their
> experiences? How do they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus?
>

I ride a Trek 5900 62cm frame and am currently 202lbs and 6ft2".

Love the bike.

It is however my second trek oclv frame - the first cracked at the bb after 5 years and 44,000km and
it was then my only frame so it did everything, training racing touring and I was a lot heavier at
the start of those km with poorer skills. The current frame was replaced under warranty.

Durability is always going to suffer in such a light frame (in my club just about every heavy rider
has over time had a warranty replacement of an OCLV frame) - but if they do that for the whole of
your life so what ?

Agree with the previous poster about getting reliable (32 or 36 spoked, strong rim) wheels and good
quality bars, stem and seat post.

No connection with trek but I do like their oclv's.

best Andrew

 

[Simon Brooke]

"sundog" <[email protected]> writes:

> I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20 years. I am
> 6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds.
>
> When the bike was built I was 6' 4''. Due to some back trouble I am now 6'3''. I think I am going
> to drop down to a 62 CM frame. The selection of stock frams at 62 CM is slim.
>
> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share their experiences? How do
> they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in Utah a lot I was
> wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH) descents?

FWIW I've just (entirely innocently) stirred up a hornets nest of controversy on uk.rec.cycling on
just this point...

I used to be 6'3"; since a car crash in which I destroyed one of my vertebrae, I'm now 6'2"; I have
a 32.75" inside leg, so I still have, proportionately, a slightly long back. I also have feet which
are considerably smaller than average for my size. I ride a 25.5" (65cm) road bike (the one that
Jobst thinks has the overtightened head bearing), and mentioned that I prefer a 26.5" (67cm) frame.
This caused a remarkable degree of incredulity... Yes, I know it's a big bike, but it suits me.

The critical issue is what's comfortable for you. Your leg length obviously hasn't changed, so the
pedal to saddle length hasn't changed. Your reach probably has changed but only by a very small
amount. I suspect (if you are used to and comfortable with your existing bike) you would be better
off sticking with your 64cm frame and using a slightly shorter stem.

Of course the modern fashion is for smaller frames with longer seatposts. There may be some good
technical reasons for this but I believe it's mainly to make stockholding cheaper for the
manufacturers (fewer stock sizes) and at least partly just fashion. Unless someone can persuade you
different I see no reason to change a size which you are already comfortable with.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

 

[Qui Si Parla Ca]

sundog-<< I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20
years. I am 6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds. >><BR><BR> << I think I am going to drop down to a 62 CM
frame. The selection of stock frams at 62 CM is slim. >><BR><BR>

Remember that the 'size' of framesets doesn't mean really anything. One maker's '62cm' is probably
way different than another '62'. Top tube LENGTH and seat tube ANGLE and the two important factors.
If these are correct, standover or seat tube length, takes care of itself.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share
their
> experiences? How do they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in
> Utah a lot I was wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH)
> descents?

There are *many* guys your height, and quite a few who out-weigh you be a fair amount, riding 5900s.
The OCLV technology scales to larger sizes very nicely, as the fittings (essentially carbon-fiber
lugs) are built differently for each size frame, so they don't become flexy-flyers in large sizes,
or outrageously stiff in smaller ones.

As for availability, 62s are just beginning to come down the line. I'm not at the shop right now so
don't know if we actually have them in stock, but if not, we will very shortly. Your local shop
should be able to snag one soon.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"sundog" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I am in the market for a new bike. I have been riding a 64 CM custom for the last 20 years. I am
> 6'3'' and ride at 210 pounds.
>
> When the bike was built I was 6' 4''. Due to some back trouble I am now 6'3''. I think I am going
> to drop down to a 62 CM frame. The selection
of
> stock frams at 62 CM is slim.
>
> Are there any big riders on trek 5900 frames out there who could share
their
> experiences? How do they hold up to big riders around 200 pounds plus? Since I ride the canyons in
> Utah a lot I was wondering about the stability of the larger frames during high speed (50MPH)
> descents?
>

 

[Tuschinski]

When I hear your story the name " Cannondale" comes to mind.

They are stiff and Light. My brother in Law who is about your size just bought a R400 (great deal with lbs) to see if he likes racing. The bike seems to cope easily.

Carbon is supposed to give the smoother ride, but wheels + tires are more important.

But... I am not 6.5

Btw: the bigger the frame, the higher the stiffness (contrary to popular believe).

 

[Mike Jacoubowsk]

> Btw: the bigger the frame, the higher the stiffness (contrary to popular believe).

You mean the larger the tube, the great the stiffness? Larger frames with identical tubing are most
certainly more flexy than smaller frames, particularly in the front end.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"Tuschinski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When I hear your story the name " Cannondale" comes to mind.
>
> They are stiff and Light. My brother in Law who is about your size just bought a R400 (great deal
> with lbs) to see if he likes racing. The bike seems to cope easily.
>
> Carbon is supposed to give the smoother ride, but wheels + tires are more important.
>
> But... I am not 6.5
>
> Btw: the bigger the frame, the higher the stiffness (contrary to popular believe).
>
>
>
> --