Originally Posted by williamp .
I am thinking about buying a used Trek Madone 5.2 2008 with 56 frame, but im not sure if the size fits me. I'm 176 cm high and I think my inseam is about 77 cm.
Does this bike fits me or should I get a smaller bike instead?
Im buying the bike for participation in a long distance bike run (560km) in mid summer 2011 in Norway. My team has a goal of finishing the race in under 18 hrs so it's important that the bike feels comfortable in such long distances.
I would say that you may be
on-the-cusp as far as frame size ...
Provisionally, the 56cm Trek frame will work for you ...
TREK frames are generally measured C-T, so a 56cm Trek is comparable to a 54cm steel frame which is measured C-C.
I'm 5'9" (175.25cm), and my frames vary in size ...
- adjustments are made by using different length stems -- I use a shorter stem on the older, larger frames which I have ... the more recent frames have longer stems, but the combined distance of top tube + stem length is essentially the same now as it was decades ago BUT instead of riding with my hands in the Drops (because the stem was almost the same level as the top of the saddle), I now ride with my hand on the Hoods most of the time.
AFTER you determine how flexible you are ([COLOR= #808080]i.e., the riding positions you are-and-are-not comfortable in[/COLOR]), to some extent, the size of the frame is COSMETIC where the amount of the exposed seatpost & difference between the handlebar & saddle are based on what you think looks good to you.
For your reference, here is my 53cm (c-c) OLMO (~54cm top tube):
The cranks are 175mm. The stem is 110mm. The top of the saddle is ~28.25" (71.75cm) from the center of the BB spindle.
- on another frame which has a similar length top tube but which has more spacers stacked between the stem & the headset I have a 120mm stem so the [COLOR= #0000ff]effective reach[/COLOR] is the approximately the same,
BTW. Here's a vintage frame with drastically different dimensions which I set up so that I would be in a comparable riding position:
I don't have the frame, now, but my recollection is that the top tube was the
typical-for-the-era 57cm.
The cranks are 170mm ...
The slacker seat tube angle meant that I could use a zero setback seatpost which was languishing in my
tool box ...
The stem is a 9cm long ...
The deep drop of the
Cinelli 66 handlebars placed the Drops at approximately the same height relative to the top of the saddle as on the Olmo and thereby provide continuity regardless of the bike I choose to ride.
FWIW. Because you are only marginally taller than I am, even though I know that I can make a larger frame work for me ([COLOR= #808080]so, you can make a larger frame work for you, too[/COLOR]), if I were you AND based on
my aesthetic preferences ([COLOR= #808080]which may, of course, be drastically different than your preferences[/COLOR]), I think that you should probably choose a smaller frame.
Some things to ask yourself:
- what are the dimensions of your current bike's frame, etc. AND how do they compare to the 56cm Trek's dimensions?
- do you want slightly more exposed seatpost and a slightly longer stem, or less?
- do you want the stem-and-handlebar to be closer to the level of the top of the saddle?
That's a long way of saying that a great deal of your choice can-or-should be based on your current aesthetic sensibilities.
