frame size!!?

The short answer, it will most likely fit.

The long answer, fit depends on many aspects of your body and height alone will not tell the frame size needed. Also all 54" frames are not the same. Goggle bike fit calculator and pick two. do all the measurements and compare the results with the frame in question.

In the past, Trek's frame size was center-to-top and without looking at their current sizing chart, I reckon that a 54cm Trek has approximately a 54cm top tube (real, or virtual) ... so, in the antiquated center-to-center parlance (on a traditional steel frame) that 54cm Trek would be a 52cm ...

While you could probably make that frame size work for you, a frame whose top tube is less than 55cm is probably going to feel a bit abbreviated for you-or-anyone-else-who-is-5'10" ...

To make THAT frame size work, you'll probably want a 130mm stem AND you'll want to be fairly flexible (neck and/or waist) because the handlebars will be lower (i.e, about 3/4 of an inch lower) than on a larger frame ...

• I know someone who is 6'0+" tall and he rides on a SMALL Giant frame because he wants the more (or, should I say "most"?) aerodynamic riding position when he is in the Drops ... the aggressive riding position is what he is used to because he was a CAT-something-or-other racer at one time.
  
• if YOU think you want a lot of distance between the top of the saddle & the top tube, then a 54cm Trek will be worth considering ...
  

In the long run, I think you will probably want a frame whose top tube is closer to 56cm.

At 5'10" you should try a 56 if you can comfortably straddle it. If you're long-legged, you might need the extra height, long-torsoed, the extra top tube length. The current Trek geometry is short-ish in the top tube, so they fit a bit smaller than, say, a comparably sized Felt F or Specialized.

He is right, you should follow his advice

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by oldbobcat [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

At 5'10" you should try a 56 if you can comfortably straddle it. If you're long-legged, you might need the extra height, long-torsoed, the extra top tube length. The current Trek geometry is short-ish in the top tube, so they fit a bit smaller than, say, a comparably sized Felt F or Specialized.

Be careful here. Not everyone at 5'10" takes the same frame size. That is my height. For 25 years I swapped bikes, bought longer/shorter bar stems and always had neck pain and back pain. I live in Los Angeles so there are lots of bike stores around. No matter what size I got, I always felt like a buffalo squeezed into a telephone booth. In 1994 I joined a bike club with its share of European guys. One or two of the Frenchmen said, "Gary, you don't look right on that bike."

Working for an airline, I decided to go to a frame builder in London. First, I asked about prices and such. The young man helping me said, "Let me measure you." What he told me knocked me over. He said I can't ride an off the shelf bike. My bones are too weird. My femur, he said, was as long as Miguel Indurain's (TDF winner from Spain who is 6'2"😉, But my tibula is quite short. And my torso is stocky. Oddly, your shoe size factors largely into bike sizing.

My 54cm bike from Charles Roberts cycles fit so well I couldn't believe the difference. I can easily ride no hands, and turn corners no hands. I often do 50+ mile rides to Malibu on the Pacific Coast Highway without a cramp or twinge. My advice--have an experienced bike person measure your size. You might have to pay for the service, but it info you can use for a lifetime.

Gary Curtis

I agree with the above poster. I am 5'9" so by standards I would fit a 54/56cm. However I have a 30" inseam and im riding on a Cannondale 52cm. The Wrench science suggested a 50cm for my measurements I gave.

So I recommend using Wrench Science's fit guide, it's very thorough and intensive and gives very accurate results.

cheers all for your help. Much appreciated. Some great advise! [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

PS - I`ve ended up with a specialized allez with a 56cm frame. After trying some bikes it was a much much better fit. Now all I have to do is get fit enough to ride it for a few centuries for a memorial ride in June.

Thanks again for the help. Id have probably just bought the smaller framed trek and been uncomfortable had it not been for the advise [IMG]/img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif[/IMG]

I'm 5'10" and ride a 55cm c-t (53cm Center to Center). Of course there is a lot more to fit calculations than just overall height and leg length. The biggest issue with going small is you often end up with an insufficiently long head tube which results in too much saddle to bar drop. You need to consider a lot of different things before you know if one particular frame will work for you.

To accommodate my particular measurements, they didn't simply adjust tube length. They had to seriously adjust angles. So that my hip axis would have the proper incline with respect to the crank and pedal axis.

Settling on a proper saddle height is relatively simple and can be done at home. But getting proper geometry between the body, seat, pedals is something that must be designed into the frame. When it works correctly, the rider knows it in a flash. On my old bikes, no amount of fiddling with bar stem, seat height, seat position was remotely comfortable. Some human bodies are simply outside the range of more standard sized and angled frames.

Gary

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by 74extiger [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

To accommodate my particular measurements, they didn't simply adjust tube length. They had to seriously adjust angles. So that my hip axis would have the proper incline with respect to the crank and pedal axis.

Settling on a proper saddle height is relatively simple and can be done at home. But getting proper geometry between the body, seat, pedals is something that must be designed into the frame. When it works correctly, the rider knows it in a flash. On my old bikes, no amount of fiddling with bar stem, seat height, seat position was remotely comfortable. Some human bodies are simply outside the range of more standard sized and angled frames.

Because I don't understand how you came to your conclusion AND because I'm an inquiring mind ...

What are ALL of the dimensions of your frame?

What is the stem length?

What is the seatpost's setback?

What is the crankarm length?

What is the distance between the BB spindle and the top of the saddle (as measured along the line created by the seat tube)?

When you have the opportunity, post a picture of your bike which taken from the crank side from about 10 (?) feet away which shows the frame in a flat (with minimum distortion) perspective.

I don't know those measurements. I emailed the frame builder in
England to get all of that. I see here on this Forum that there is a computer app where you enter your body sizes and it gives you tube length and angles.

Seeing as my body veers from the norm (thus a custom frame), two of the angles were a tad bizarre. I returned from England alone and the completed bike was shipped to me via FedEx. Since the day a few years back when i pulled it out of the shipping box, I never had to adjust anything. Not the seat height, nor the seat position.

The frame builder knew it all. With some things in life, I've learned it's best to leave it up to an expert!

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by 74extiger [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I don't know those measurements. I emailed the frame builder in
England to get all of that. I see here on this Forum that there is a computer app where you enter your body sizes and it gives you tube length and angles.

Seeing as my body veers from the norm (thus a custom frame), two of the angles were a tad bizarre. I returned from England alone and the completed bike was shipped to me via FedEx. Since the day a few years back when i pulled it out of the shipping box, I never had to adjust anything. Not the seat height, nor the seat position.

The frame builder knew it all. With some things in life, I've learned it's best to leave it up to an expert!

Not for nothin', but if you don't own a tape measure OR know how to use one then how do you know that your custom frame is significanty different from an off-the-peg frame?

Unless you are taller than 6'4" or shorter than 4'11" then the odds are high that an off-the-peg bicycle frame can be configured whereby the crank, saddle & handlebar position will mimic the position of those three components on your custom framed bike.

How tall are you?

What size wheels does the bike have?

Post a picture of your bike which presents a meaningful two-dimensional depiction.

I'll see if I can find a metric tape. Just in looking at it, I can see that the seat tube is much more on the vertical than other bikes. Since it was done overseas, there wasn't a lot of communication with the builder. He just told me at the time he measured me that I have:
a) very long femur for someone 5'10"
b) relatively short tibula
c) long feet (I knew that)
d) relatively stocky torso (the girls in high school probably laughed at that)

Bike is five years old so if I did know the numbers I probably forgot them. Don't have a digital camera, sorry. Do a Google search for Charles Roberts Cycles, London and look at their race frames. unusual paint in that is a baked enable color coat with a clear lacquer on top. Europeans paint their cars in the same fashion.

I see custom frames as a luxury item. They're fine if you've got the bread, but definitely not necessary for the overwhelming majority.

Think of it like this. There are 4 major items to bike fitment. Three of them are closely related, the fourth is generally not, but can be in some circumstances. I'll work backwards. The fourth item is crank length, and is affected by the length of your leg bones. The other three are hand placement, butt placement and center of the crank. It's three points, which, if connected by straight lines, form a triangle. However, no bike connects those points with straight lines. So there's a frame that determines where the center of the crank is, then the stem and seat (which either by adjustment or replacement) can be adjusted up or down, forwards or backwards to set the other two points (hands and butt). Got a short torso and long legs? You'll probably need a short stem and have the seat slid forward on it's rails with the seat post somewhat raised. So, if you can stand over your top tube, you can probably find some combination of seat post, seat and stem that allow you to comfortably ride the bike.

Granted, this is a simplified look at it, nor does it address bike geometries related to performance (long wheelbase might be more comfortable, but less maneuverable, or a sloped head tube might make steering sluggish like a "chopper" bike), which, in turn, also affect fitment.

Jason

Alfeng, here's some numbers on my English Frame:

Seat - 54 cm
Top - 57 cm
Down - 62.5cm
Cram - 172.5 mm
BB center to Sadle Top 72.5 cm
Seat stay - 51cm
Chain stay - 41cm (from center of seat tube
Bar Stem - 105mm
About 4 1/4 inches of seat post exposed.

A guy at a bike shop today remarked that my angles resemble a track bike. The tire has about 1/3" clearance from the Seat Tube.

Sorry, I don't have a way to measure angles. But I'm sure someone in my club has an angle finder.

Again, I'm not rich, so I didn't head in this direction because of years of drooling over bike catalogues. My body was telling me something was wrong no matter what I tried. And I know how to adjust seats, including the 'pendulum drop from the knee through the pedal axis.'

Gary

74extiger, the dimensions on your bike sure look like you need a custom frame, and it sounds like Mr. Roberts did a fine job analyzing your needs.

In the '70s I rode two off-the-rack frames built by Charles Roberts, Chas' father. His frames were excellent and outrageously reasonably priced. The one that fit me better, the larger one, was also outrageously light, considering how stiff it was--I'd built it up to 20.5 lbs using a Brooks Pro saddle and 36-spoke Arc-En-Ciel tubulars on Record hubs. I don't know what he put in that thing (the sticker said Reynolds 531), but I could sprint it like hell.

Modern stock frames are designed to optimally fit people of average proportions. Those on the edge of average, like myself, can still get very comfortable on most any properly sized stock frame with the right stem and handlebar, but you outliers are the guys who drive bike salesmen nuts.

Stock bike dimensions also follow fashion. For example, in the late 70s top tubes on stock Italian road bikes were getting pretty short, as if they were taking their cue from the Eddie Merckx's custom De Rosas. Then in the 80s and 90s, the top tubes were going the other way, probably because Greg LeMond was telling everyone they should get long and low, and aggressive baby-boomers, and later, Gen-X'ers, wanted to be like Greg. Trek's geometry for its first generation of OCLV frames, the ones Lance rode when he was winning, is a good example. This was all fine for Greg and Lance, standing around 5'10" and some change, with average proportions and above-average flexibility.

These days, with the top tubes getting shorter and the head tubes longer, it seems like most manufacturers are trying to serve two demographics, aging boomers and Gen-X'ers who now have flexibility issues, and a younger group that wants performance bikes but with the disclaimer, "But I'm not a racer." Which leaves guys (and some gals) who are just built closer to the ground without a stock frame that fits them. So now that Lance is almost 40 and can't get rid of the hump his his back, a new Madone with H2 geometry is right up his alley.

Here's a few more items of interest about my Roberts frame. They compared a Cinelli BB shell and Fork Crown to ones they prefer. These were made by an elderly machinist/foundry guy in Italy, weighed much less and had a significantly higher crush rate when subjected to destructive testing.

In particular, the BB is one of the stiffest I see on club rides (up to 100 people). But the hallmark of Charles Roberts bike has always been that they ride 'soft'. Because of the lugless frame. At my age I need that and was considering a Litespeed for that reason. Neveretheless, when I climb some of the canyons around here, and am out of the seat, the bike just darts forward.

Roberts regretted that the Italian machinist retired and that his shop only had less than a few hundred bottom brackets and fork crowns in stock. No more. Thanks for your comments. With my untrained and old eyes I can see that my frame is different. But I don't understand the distinctions.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by 74extiger [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Here's a few more items of interest about my Roberts frame. They compared a Cinelli BB shell and Fork Crown to ones they prefer. These were made by an elderly machinist/foundry guy in Italy, weighed much less and had a significantly higher crush rate when subjected to destructive testing.

In particular, the BB is one of the stiffest I see on club rides (up to 100 people). But the hallmark of Charles Roberts bike has always been that they ride 'soft'. Because of the lugless frame. At my age I need that and was considering a Litespeed for that reason. Neveretheless, when I climb some of the canyons around here, and am out of the seat, the bike just darts forward.

Roberts regretted that the Italian machinist retired and that his shop only had less than a few hundred bottom brackets and fork crowns in stock. No more. Thanks for your comments. With my untrained and old eyes I can see that my frame is different. But I don't understand the distinctions.

Thanks for taking the time to post the dimensions of your Roberts frame.

Darn ...

I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with oldbobcat with regard to whether or not you actually needed a custom frameset ... and, YOU can subsequently disagree with me OR possibly you will agree with me!?!

Basically, I am in agreement with jpr95 ...

I will elaborate so that you realize that if you ever opt-for-or-need a new bike that you can probably configure an off-the-peg bike to suit YOU and it is not my intention to suggest that there is anything wrong with your Roberts.

FWIW. A 57cm top tube was more-common-than-not 30+ years ago on more than .

The 1970 vintage GITANE which I randomly chose had a 57cm top tube + 9cm stem ... the bike had a 60cm seat tube (!) and the shop apparently did not think it was too large for me. I'm 5'9" tall.

• I didn't think it was too large, either ... I could more-or-less grab the exposed seatpost ...
  

Serendipitously, THAT was (IMO) the right size ... and, decades later, the combined top tube length + stem is essentially the same -- in my case, 66cm +/- 0.5cm.

When I decided to get another frame because I wanted slightly sportier angles, I chose a FUJI S12-S LTD frame (c1981) with a 57cm top tube & 73º head-and-seat tube angles.

For COSMETIC REASONS, I now generally ride a smaller frame with a longer stem; but, the top tube + stem length remains at 66cm +/-.

Among my dust collecting bikes is a 40 year old, 21" (53.34cm) Raleigh Grand Prix whose top tube (c-c) is 57cm long, too -- three different size frames with the same 57cm top tube ...

As pictured, the stem is 105mm ... the cranks are 175mm ... the distance from the center of the BB to the top of the saddle is ~28.25" ...

[IMG]cyclingforums.com500Open ↗[/IMG]

The pictured Raleigh is set up where what jpr95 refers to as the contact points are essentially the same as on my bikes whose main triangle geometry is dimensionally different -- the crank is the principle determinant ... the saddle is situated accordingly and will vary slightly with different length crankams ... the handlebar reach then determines the additional stem length beyond the fixed-length of the top tube.

The handlebar width is also a factor in how 'I' match the fit with my other bikes.

The chainstays on the Raleigh are are longer (45cm!) because the bike originally had 27" wheels.

The Raleigh's head tube & seat tube angles are 72º ..

If your local Wrench is accurate in suggesting that your bike more closely approximates a Track bike then one would suppose that it possibly has a 74º head tube angle ... and, a wheelbase that is less than 1 meter.

I measured the Raleigh's downtube as being ~61cm (?) ... I presume the slighgtly longer downtube on the Roberts is because the BB is a bit further back due to a 74º seat tube AND/OR the head tube angle could be 73º and thereby resulting in a stacker head tube to seat tube angle to name one possibility ... OR, it could simply be that the BB drop is slightly greater on the Roberts frame ... OR, you-or-I mismeasurd the respective length.

Regardless, different seatposts have different setbacks AND sliding the saddle forward-or-aftward can vary the position of the saddle from bike to bike which may require a different length stem.

Presuming you have your old bike (or, any other bike which is close to your size), you could see how feasible it would be to mimic the relative position of the contact points ...

I think you will find that it won't be too difficult.

So, the next time you might choose to buy a custom bike it will because you want to rather than because you feel you need to ... and, you won't need to buy a vintage frame to find one which has a 57cm top tube, BTW.