Page 1 of 3

Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:02 pm
by Boshk
Emonda bike
Me=172cm, 5'7"

https://www.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/bike ... =red_white

I know its only a 'ball park' figure but according to that, I should be size 54.
Looking at the geometry, a 54 Emonda has:
Reach 381, Stack 555, Seat tube 506, Top Tube 543

My current bike is C60 size 48S, got bike fitted, 90mm stem, other minor adjustments, and its comfortable now.
Reach 384 Stack 528, Seat Tube 480, Top Tube 530

Comparing those number, its huge!
The reach of 3mm isn't much but Stack difference 27mm, and 13mm difference in Top Tube....

thoughts?

I can't test ride one until I visit SFO again, found a Trek store and they said they have emonda demos

Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:02 pm
by Weenie

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:29 pm
by zefs
I guess you don't use any spacers on the C60? If so, you could go for the 52 and/or use a -17 stem to get the same position on the Emonda.
Use reach instead of top tube measurement as the latter has more to do with the tube slopping.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:46 pm
by alanyu
Using reach and stack +1
TT (effective TT) is convloved with seat tube angle. Your relative saddle position is the same or similar from one bike to another bike, which means x and y from seating point to BB. Thus reach is a more useful imformation.

The H1.5 Emonda has a much more relaxing geometry than C60. I remembar that 52 emonda is: R 379 and S 54X? It should be also fine for you.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:56 pm
by Geoff
Ignoring the issue with the automated fitting tool recommendation for a moment, that is an issue with monocoque bikes generally, in my experience. As compared to tube-to-tube construction where the cost of moulds for lugsets is lower than complete framesets, there is less 'room' for variability in frame sizes. If you want to replicate the effect of a lower headtube (which is the same problem that I have with fits on monocoques), Trek has historically made an 'H1' variant of the Emonda with a shorter headtube, which you may still be able to find. The new H1.5 headtube is longer than the old H1. If you are riding a 127mm headtube Colnago, the H1 or H1.5-variants of the 54 Emonda should work for you just fine.

With respect to the sizing tools, if you know bikes, ignore them entirely. You know what works for you. With a review of the geometry chart, you will be able to figure-out exactly what you need.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:38 pm
by AJS914
Trek puts me on a 58cm but I'm pretty sure I'd buy a 56.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:38 pm
by Karvalo
Boshk wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:02 pm
thoughts?
How many spacers do you have on the Colnago?

You're asking people to evaluate the effect of changing stack on your fit, but you haven't actually told us how high your handlebars are... :wink:

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:52 pm
by Lewn777
Stupidity removed. You wanted mote moderation, here it is.
Neff.


I rented an Emonda in February, but honestly it didn't feel much bigger than anything else in 54, it had about 3-4cm of stack and 100m stem though. I would slam an Emonda with about 120cm -17 stem in 54, but then again I like smaller frames. (183cm)

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:05 pm
by zefs
Lewn777 wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:52 pm

Stupidity removed.

I rented an Emonda in February, but honestly it didn't feel much bigger than anything else in 54, it had about 3-4cm of stack and 100m stem though. I would slam an Emonda with about 120cm -17 stem in 54, but then again I like smaller frames. (183cm)
If the joke is aimed at me because of mentioning it's a mistake to go down 2 sizes I wasn't referring to you personally but to someone who is starting out or as far as fit guidelines go for current bike sizes.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:18 pm
by Boshk
Karvalo wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:38 pm
Boshk wrote:
Mon Jun 10, 2019 1:02 pm
thoughts?
How many spacers do you have on the Colnago?

You're asking people to evaluate the effect of changing stack on your fit, but you haven't actually told us how high your handlebars are... :wink:
At the moment, 2 spacers, so 20mm. If I transfer that over to Emonda, how much difference would it make though unless the headtube and seatpost angles are radically different. (I have to admit though, I didn't compare the angles)

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:44 pm
by mattr
They want me on a 56.

My current bike slots neatly in as slightly smaller than a 52. But is very much made to measure,.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:45 pm
by cajer
Use stack and reach numbers to compare, not anything else

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:46 pm
by mattr
That's what i used.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:48 pm
by mattr
Though to be fair, most of the geometry calculators put me on frames in the 54/55/56 range, which are uniformly too big. Think Canyon was the closest.

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:38 pm
by dim
I'm 5'7 and have a 52cm Trek Emonda Sl6 (2016 version) .... fits me like a glove

top tube length is what I always look at

My Miyata 1000 touring bike is a 50cm with a similar top tube length to the Trek

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:24 pm
by cajer
What do you mean by they want you on a 56?

Re: Trek sizing...a bit big?

Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:24 pm
by Weenie