Trek 8000: proper size...
Peter R Russo
in this
newsgroup, but I could still use a little advice :)
I just ordered a 19.5" Trek 8000 today, but am a little concerned that
maybe I should have gotten a 17.5" instead. The fact that my LBS didn't
have any 8000's in stock complicated the matter....
So I test rode some 6700's, which have very similar (but not quite the
same) geometries. On the 19.5", I had about 2" of standover
clearance (although the bike seemed a bit tall), and a good 6" or so of
seatpost was showing for proper leg extension. On the 17.5", I had a
healthier amount of standover clearance, but I had to hike up the
seatpost
close to the max, and it really seemed like the bike was way under me -
this may actually be proper, but it was certainly lower than I'm used
to.
Some info: I'm ~5'11", and my inseam is 31-32. My sizing priority is
for
moderately technical XC riding (that is, not hardcore racing, and not
pavement-
only). The guys at the shop initially thought that I would need the
17.5" frame,
but after taking a look at my leg extension on the 6700 and the 8000
geometry
specs, they said that the 19.5" would be better. Another bike shop
recommended
the 17.5", although both shops said that it was borderline.
Now the main differences between the 6700 and 8000 are that the 8000
has a 1" longer top tube, and the standover height is about .5" better.
This
means that if I stay with the 19.5", I will most likely need a short
80mm
stem. In terms of comfort, I think I could get used to anything, so at
this
point I'm a bit more worried about the "proper" fit....
Does anyone have any opinions on the right size? If there are any other
8000 (or similar) owners out there that could share their
height/inseam/bike size,
that would be very helpful...
thanks!
Peter
medwardn
Mark Hickey
>So I test rode some 6700's, which have very similar (but not quite the
>same) geometries. On the 19.5", I had about 2" of standover
>clearance (although the bike seemed a bit tall), and a good 6" or so of
>seatpost was showing for proper leg extension. On the 17.5", I had a
>healthier amount of standover clearance, but I had to hike up the
>seatpost
>close to the max, and it really seemed like the bike was way under me -
>this may actually be proper, but it was certainly lower than I'm used
>to.
>
>Some info: I'm ~5'11", and my inseam is 31-32. My sizing priority is
>for
>moderately technical XC riding (that is, not hardcore racing, and not
>pavement-<snip>
>Does anyone have any opinions on the right size? If there are any other
>8000 (or similar) owners out there that could share their
>height/inseam/bike size,
>that would be very helpful...
I would have put you on the smaller bike, without a doubt. Your
mission statement includes "moderately technical XC riding" - 2" is
not a lot of standover clearance.
For example, I'm 5'10", with a 33" "cycling inseam". I fit perfectly
on a 17" (Habanero). I could also fit on a 18.5", but wouldn't gain a
thing riding the larger frame - just weight and lack of standover
clearance.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Peter R Russo
Mark Hickey wrote:
> I would have put you on the smaller bike, without a doubt. Your
> mission statement includes "moderately technical XC riding" - 2" is
> not a lot of standover clearance.
>
> For example, I'm 5'10", with a 33" "cycling inseam". I fit perfectly
> on a 17" (Habanero). I could also fit on a 18.5", but wouldn't gain a
> thing riding the larger frame - just weight and lack of standover
> clearance.
Thanks... that actually helps quite a bit. It also looks like the 17"
Habanero and the 17.5" Trek 8000 geometries are close, so it's a pretty
fair comparison, at least in terms of these particular specs:
Hab 17" Trek 8000 17.5"
Top Tube 22.8 23.1
Stand over 29.8 29.2
Just out of curiosity, how high is your seatpost?
Also, are there any opinions on stem length? Some bikes have deliberately
short stems, such as the Fisher Genesis geom. bikes, whereas the stock
stems on many of the Treks are longer at 120mm. Am I better off getting
a bike with a longer top tube and a shorter stem, or vice versa? Or does
it even matter?
Peter
Pete Jones
wittered:
>I just ordered a 19.5" Trek 8000 today
Crushed into a small cube of aluminium is about right.
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> I would have put you on the smaller bike, without a doubt. Your
>> mission statement includes "moderately technical XC riding" - 2" is
>> not a lot of standover clearance.
>>
>> For example, I'm 5'10", with a 33" "cycling inseam". I fit perfectly
>> on a 17" (Habanero). I could also fit on a 18.5", but wouldn't gain a
>> thing riding the larger frame - just weight and lack of standover
>> clearance.
>
>Thanks... that actually helps quite a bit. It also looks like the 17"
>Habanero and the 17.5" Trek 8000 geometries are close, so it's a pretty
>fair comparison, at least in terms of these particular specs:
>
> Hab 17" Trek 8000 17.5"
>Top Tube 22.8 23.1
>Stand over 29.8 29.2
>
>Just out of curiosity, how high is your seatpost?
9.3" (23.6cm) to the rails, 10.5" ((26.7cm) to the top of the saddle
(from the top of the seat tube).
>Also, are there any opinions on stem length? Some bikes have deliberately
>short stems, such as the Fisher Genesis geom. bikes, whereas the stock
>stems on many of the Treks are longer at 120mm. Am I better off getting
>a bike with a longer top tube and a shorter stem, or vice versa? Or does
>it even matter?
There are advantages to both approaches. But I find that the standard
"NORBA geometry" to be the best compromise for the entire range of MTB
riding. Lengthening the front end and shortening the stem takes more
weight off the front wheel than I like for XC handling.
I run a 120mm stem on my bike, FWIW.
Jersey Devil
I'm 6'0" about 32" inseam. I test rode 17.5" and 19.5" Treks when I was
looking for a bike. The 17.5 was too small, the 19.5" too big. I got a
perfect fit with an 18" GT. If forced to choose the Trek, I would've taken
the 17.5". The 19.5" would be great for road riding, but lacked enough room
for any offroad maneuverability.
Brian
Bob Grabowski
If I were you, I'd contact them and express my concerns. Since you
ordered the 8000 in the frame size w/o trying it out, I would expect
them to be cooperative if you wanted to check the size when the bike
arrived. If you are happy with it, fine. If not, you could ask them to
order it in the smaller size. The 19.5 " frame size is popular and
the Trek 8000 is very popular so I doubt if they would have any
trouble selling it to someone if you decide to go with the smaller
size.
Bob
martina
I ride a 17.5" Trek 7000 and that fits me like a glove i'm of similar
proportions to yourself.
Martin.
medwardn <fastba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qb2a7.30814$MC1.8...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com...