|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've
begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for something faster. I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference, I'll try justifying the additional expense. I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora and 2300's. I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
I'm 6'6" and have ridden and raced a 62cm Madone comfortably for
years. The issue isn't with your height; it's with the length of your torso and legs. I'm fairly proportional and the top tube length combined with a 120mm stem feels great and my seat post is not two feet in the air. Someone shorter with longer legs might need a shorter top tube. brifters, I've got a Campy set with 30k on them. The diff between Campy and Shimano is that one can rebuild the shifting mech with a five dollar spring and it works as new. I seem to need one in the right shifter at about 10k. I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame in the Trek 1.5 bike. *I was wondering if anybody could let me know if the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. *I may not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long rides. *If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference, I'll try justifying the additional expense. I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora and 2300's. *I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
BeeCharmer wrote:
brifters, I've got a Campy set with 30k on them. *The diff between Campy and Shimano is that one can rebuild the shifting mech with a five dollar spring and it works as new. *I seem to need one in the right shifter at about 10k. The problem with that is that then you're wedded to Campy drivetrain parts, which have other shortcomings like untenable (for a big guy) wheel dish. Seeking out a less janky brifter seems like bending over backwards to avoid simpler solutions that have worked better for decades. Chalo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
Kyle Bramblesglarb wrote:
I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. I've begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for something faster. I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame in the Trek 1.5 bike. I was wondering if anybody could let me know if the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. I may not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long rides. If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference, I'll try justifying the additional expense. I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora and 2300's. I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell? You're already doomed with the choices you've presented. You should be getting something with a true 64 or 65 cm frame, i.e. like something based on the Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen frame. Alas, most of these large frame bicycles are going to cost you a fortune. With the curse of compact frames, a 64 cm frame is not really a 64 cm frame anymore. At least get a true 62 cm frame, like the Jamis Aurora. Also, in those large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with aluminum in bad places. Ironically, there are some true 64cm bikes from Bikes Direct, in steel or aluminum i.e. "http://bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_serpensIX.htm" "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/sprint_x.htm" "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_corvus.htm" Pretty damn sad when you have to go online to buy a new bicycle because so many manufacturers are in a race to the bottom in terms of frame sizes and geometry. These days, if you're not between 5'8" and 6'2" you're often S.O.L.. Whatever you do, don't buy a frame that's way too small then try to "fix it" with ridiculously long seat posts and steer-tube extenders. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
SMS wrote:
At least get a true 62 cm frame, like the Jamis Aurora. Also, in those large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with aluminum in bad places. That's not what people said, they said that particular dropout style than Cannondale used may or may not have reliability issues. The OP is 6'6", Chalo is 6'8", I'm 6'10", how tall are you? Aluminum is actually a pretty good frame material for big frames, it makes for a light stiff bike. It may crack, but so many anything else. Nothing lasts forever. So far, I've gotten better longevity from my Cannondale frame (hasn't failed) than my Raleigh's (2 failed), nor have either of my aluminum mountain bikes failed. Lots of miles, lots of rough service. Frame failure isn't worth obsessing about, cranks, seat posts, handlebars and stems worry me much more, and they're almost always aluminum. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
On Mar 10, 2:32*pm, SMS wrote:
Also, in those large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with aluminum in bad places. Dude, are you a Republican? Because you seem to love hammering on the bull**** and fear based talking points. One model of Cannondale had really stupid cantilevered dropouts--and you're going to use this "proof" to start pushing your talking points? Give it a ****ing rest, already. Modern metal frames, which aren't built heroically light, have a very good reliability record. The rare broken frame we see around here is usually older or an ultralight bike, often titanium. But I wouldn't go trashing the agriculturally durable frames from Habanero because some other framebuilder specced dumb tube thicknesses. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
landotter wrote:
On Mar 10, 2:32 pm, SMS wrote: Also, in those large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with aluminum in bad places. Dude, are you a Republican? Hey, no need for those kind of insults. We can disagree on stuff, but accusing someone of being a Republican is really hitting below the belt. Because you seem to love hammering on the bull**** and fear based talking points. Not "bull****" at all. The pros and cons of the different types of frame materials are well known and accepted. One model of Cannondale had really stupid cantilevered dropouts--and you're going to use this "proof" to start pushing your talking points? It's not just Cannondale, or that one model. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
On Mar 10, 12:32*pm, SMS wrote:
Kyle Bramblesglarb wrote: I'm a tall beginner rider preparing to buy my 1st road bike. *I've begun training for a century ride on my Trek 5400 MTB while I shop for something faster. I'm considering a Trek 1-series and for 2010 they offer a 64cm frame in the Trek 1.5 bike. *I was wondering if anybody could let me know if the 64cm would make a noticable difference over the 62cm frame. *I may not be able to justify the increased cost and may end up just getting a Trek 1.1, but I'm concerned about comfort and getting sore on long rides. *If starting with a larger frame would make a big difference, I'll try justifying the additional expense. I'm also wondering how much better the Tigara shifters are over Sora and 2300's. *I know veteran riders can tell the difference, but my last road bike was a Schwinn in 1989... would I be able to tell? You're already doomed with the choices you've presented. You should be getting something with a true 64 or 65 cm frame, i.e. like something based on the Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen frame. Alas, most of these large frame bicycles are going to cost you a fortune. With the curse of compact frames, a 64 cm frame is not really a 64 cm frame anymore. At least get a true 62 cm frame, like the Jamis Aurora. Augh! With a 72 degree seat tube and 59cm top tube the Jamis has 2.5cm less reach than the Trek. Additionally, the top of its head tube is fully 6cm lower! I don't understand why people fetishize the height of the seat cluster. Seeing as how the seat post extension has a wider range of adjustment than any other bicycle component, seat tube length is quite possibly the least relevant piece of information you can have about a bike frame. Its last relevance was in the days of level top tubes, when it happened to also determine the height of the top of the head tube. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because old bikes had level top tubes and were made in decent sizes, that a currently produced level top tube bike will be better than one with a sloping top tube. In this case it led to a recommendation of a bike that's 3 sizes too small instead of just 1. The most important parameters of bike frame size are (1) how high the top of the head tube is above the bottom bracket and (2) how far forward the head tube is in front of the bottom bracket. Taken together these two parameters determine where you can put the handlebars in relation to the feet. In days of yore we measured these parameters indirectly via the seat tube length and top tube length, and riders who prefer a particular fore-aft saddle position had to mentally adjust the top tube length when comparing two frames with differing seat tube angles (holding top tube length constant, a shallower seat angle robs the frame of reach, as you end up sliding the saddle forward to compensate.) Nowadays with varying top tube angles the seat tube can no longer masquerade as an indicator of head tube height, so the tables list some mishmash of "effective" tube lengths and you have to do a bunch of trigonometry to compare between brands. It might be better to just measure (1) and (2) directly -- this is called "stack" and "reach" and a few manufacturers list it, including Trek. Compact geometry ought to have been a boon for most riders, allowing a higher handlebar placement than traditional race fit. I think it does help shorter riders (who are a larger proportion of the underserved riding public than us tall guys.) However it also coincided with a development in racer fashion of riding with a very deep saddle-bar drop and using the "hoods" as primary hand position. So everyone now rides on frames that are a size or two too small, level top tube or no. Tall people who remember when bike frames were made large seem to misattribute the cause and blame sloping top tubes for their woes. Also, in those large frame sizes, you should think about steel, not aluminum. As others in this thread have stated, you start to have frame cracking issues with aluminum in bad places. Ironically, there are some true 64cm bikes from Bikes Direct, in steel or aluminum i.e. "http://bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_serpensIX.htm" "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/sprint_x.htm" "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_corvus.htm" These have a reasonable amount of reach, particularly the aluminum one. Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
Thanks for all the advice.
I'm a little discouraged that I can't just go into a store and put down $1,000 to get something brand new in the right size. I really didn't want to get into ordering stuff online and parting together a bike. There's a lot of things to take into consideration on this thread, so I'm thinking on it. I really don't want to buy a frame on eBay and peice stuff together. I don't know how to fix this stuff myself and I don't want keeping the bike operational to be a constantly ongoing effort. It's going to be hard enough for me to find time to ride, let alone hot-rod around with tweaking it. The benefit to buying a new bike from my local shop is that they'll fit and re-fit it for me and give it free lifetime tuneups. I'm using the bike this year to train and my end goal is to complete the Seagull Century in October. Even though I'm really large, does anybody here think a 62cm or 64cm compact will be "good enough" to not kill my back or knees? I'm not going to ride it across Europe or anything, just around Maryland. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
6'6" beginner rider wonders: 62cm or 64cm Trek frame?
Kyle Bramblesglarb wrote:
snip I'm using the bike this year to train and my end goal is to complete the Seagull Century in October. Even though I'm really large, does anybody here think a 62cm or 64cm compact will be "good enough" to not kill my back or knees? I'm not going to ride it across Europe or anything, just around Maryland. It's like that old Midas Muffler commercial where the customer is at a competitor and asks if they have a muffler that will fit his car. The response by the service writer is "Fit? We'll _MAKE_ it fit! They proceed to weld on a bunch of pipes and adapters and they end up with something that conceivably could work. You could certainly take a 62 cm or 64 cm compact frame and make enough changes to it to make it rideable. A shop that sells those would want you to take that route. You might need a very long S curve seatpost, and a couple of steer-tube extenders (or get an uncut, very long, fork), and a new stem with a longer reach. I think my first choice would be one of the 64 cm non-compact frames, i.e. "http://bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_serpensIX.htm". It's expensive, but it's a Reynolds 853 steel frame and it has very good wheels and good components. Second choice, and cheaper, would be "http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/mercier_corvus.htm" LBSes hate Bikes Direct with good reason, and for most people there's little reason to buy from them versus from a shop. In this case, your local bike shop would probably understand why you did what you did. You still might need to make some small modifications, but a lot fewer. A second option is to find an old 64cm or 66cm frame and build something up. A third option is to fly to Europe and get a Koga-Miyata 64cm road bike. It's all pretty crazy, but it's a result of where the bicycle industry has been taken in order to survive. People that are outliers in size have always had a hard time. Used to be very hard to buy bicycles for short people, now it's hard to buy them for tall people. It's just not profitable to make large frames since the sales level is so low. Depending on where you live, a custom frame may not cost you as much as you may think. My nephew lives near Minneapolis and was going to buy a Rivendell, but his shop told him that there were so many frame builders around that used to work at Trek in the olden days that he could get a custom frame built for less than a Rivendell. The problem is that you're then stuck buying all the other components at retail, which makes the complete bicycle very costly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Miyata 1000LT 24" Frame 62cm | Jim | Marketplace | 0 | September 30th 06 05:17 AM |
Frame size for 6'9" rider? | Alan Mazer | Techniques | 6 | January 16th 06 01:37 PM |
FS: 62cm Trek 5500 with 9 spd DuraAce | Lou Deeter | Marketplace | 1 | May 10th 05 02:13 PM |
WTB: 63cm-64cm (25") road/race bike frame or built up --- Seattle Area | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | March 10th 05 05:36 PM |
WTB: 64cm touring bike or frame & fork | Jim | Marketplace | 1 | July 2nd 03 11:46 AM |