Looking for a little help. I completed a GURU fitting prior to buying a new tri bike. I liked the Speed Concept and since the TREK shop did the fitting I figured they would get the size right. I bought a XL. My fit measurements showed my bar vertical to be about 10 mm higher than my seat vertical. That implies to me the elbow pads will be approx same height as the seat. This lines up like my old tri bike. But, now that I have the bike, the bars are about 1.5 inches lower than the seat mount. I already bought a 45 mm spacer and it's 1.5 inches low. The store is saying that with a swap out of the stem the bars will be at the right height. Based on the stem size of 35 mm I doubt this will happen. What are the questions I need to ask? I'm afraid they are not looking at the numbers of the fit and the actual bike positions. And yes I'm an Engineer and love numbers.

If the fit session spit out a set of #s that include the armpad position relative to the BB, vertical and horizontal, those are the #s you need. Bar position and saddle height are secondary measures...used for sanity checks. Armpad coordinates plug directly into the SC fit chart which then tells you/your LBS exactly what combination of frame size, stem size, and monospacer height you need to achieve that pad position. In Project One you can spec the bike that way directly...stock bikes you need to compare the chart output to the stock spec and see what you might need to swap/purchase/trade in order to get where you need to be. That's all there is to it.

So...it's possible that a stem change will get you where you need to be vs where you are now...the only way it can't is if you are on a 2014 7.5 or 9-series and already have one of the "high" stems, in which case there's no way to move any higher.

---

Carl Matson

Carl, thanks for the reply. The fit data does not give a direct number for the arm pad position. It gives bar and seat positions. And yes I'm on a 2014 7.5 series. I believe the stock bike has a low stem and the shop ordered a high stem. My concern is that my rough measurments and calcs indicate the bars won't get high enough and I'm spending time and $ for someting that may not work out. I have some back and neck issues so I ride in a pretty "high" front end position. And since the shop did the fit I was ok with them confiming a SC would actually fit me ok. Now I'm beginning to wonder if they are really looking at the numbers. I went to pick up the bike after it was "set up". It was then they thought a spacer was needed. If you have numbers why wouldn't this be obvious during the set up? Then I go to get it again and now I need a new stem? Add another 1+ inch to the stack. Again, what is missing? I'm going back this weekend to pick it up. Other than taking my fit sheet and having them set up the laser lights for an overall measurement I'm not sure what else to do. I realize I'll tweak some placement of the seat and bars as I ride some miles but I think I'm more than 1.5 inches out.

Are there any other spacers / shims that can be placed between the cross bar and the riser to raise the bar and pads?
Are there any spacers to go under the pads themselves?

Thanks,
Caymanskier

OK, now that we've got the model established, there's a little more to go on...

Stock 7.5 in the three larger sizes comes with a "medium" height stem (medium-far to be exact) and the 25mm monospacer. There's still a lot of pad reach range, but any given stem & monospacer will result in a single, fixed pad stack height above the BB. Going from the medium height stem to one of the "high" stems will indeed move your entire cockpit up 35mm. That, in addition to the 45mm monospacer and the 5mm pad wing spacer, is going to result in the highest possible pad position on this bike (using the integrated cockpit hardware). On an XL, that max pad stack is 740mm with the high-near stem, and 730mm with the high-far.

When you pick up the bike you might want to try this simple check: as vertically as you can, run a tape measure or bubble stick up from the BB spindle 730-740mm and see where that puts you compared to a) where the pads are, and b) where you think the pads need to be.

Should your current situation have been "obvious" from looking at "the numbers"? Yes...if and only if you're looking at the right numbers to begin with. If their fit process output is really only saddle and basebar positions in space, then no it wasn't going to be obvious. Unless of course your plan all along was to drop your old cockpit onto the SC (which can be done in most cases via the steer-stub accessory).

The right numbers are your armpad coordinates. Armed with those, it takes maybe 30sec to determine what size frame, stem and spacer stack you need (or whether the integrated SC cockpit hardware can even hit your coordinates to begin with). We constructed the fit chart to be that easy.

---

Carl Matson

Carl, the numbers I have are from a GURU fit output. It shows a 765 mm saddle vertical (which I understand is center of seat clamp) and a 771 mm handlebar vertical (which I understand is the elbow pad) from the BB. So to ball park it the bars (pads) should be higher than the seat clamp. So based on your assessment the XL size will get me a max of 730/740 mm to the elbow pads. That still leaves me 30/40 mm short of thier fit numbers. That appears to be close to my assessment. So why does a TREK store not see this? Having a 30/40 mm difference seems to be too much to miss.

Do you have any experience with the GURU fit numbers?


Thanks

OK...so now the "bar" number is actually pads? That's good, because at least now we've got a number that means something. It's bad, because as you surmise, can't get there from where you are.

I can dream up any number of scenarios under which someone might've missed this...so I'll go with the simplest possibility: whoever was working with your fit#s didn't compare your pad stack # to the 2014 SC fit chart. We do offer Fit Services training for our dealers where we cover the SC and how to use the tools (like the fit chart) we've provided for them.

ETA: I should be clear: I'm not saying any particular thing happened/didn't happen...just throwing out the most "obvious" scenario.

---

Carl Matson

Hi Carl,

Apologies, I was a bit ambiguous. I've had the cover off and observed the following. I was hoping to avoid a full strip down but looks like that's what's needed. I've got the 2014 bike.

There is a bit of play in the brake lever which suggests that the cable is not being tensioned by the wedge getting pulled into place when the return spring tensions. I don't think the cable is too short as it was fine previously and I can adjust the brake calipers correctly by hand. The spring tension seems sufficient. Therefore I think the resistance to returning the brake blocks to the brake off position is being caused by the joints / pivots on the calipers, the drive side in particular. Unless you mention any known niggles with the new system I'll go for a strip down and clean. I've only had the bike since June so am surprised if it's gathered that much grime so fast but maybe that's the case.

Thanks
Phil

Carl, thanks for the replys and insights to fitting for the SC. It looks like I'll be having a long talk with the bike shop owner. ;-(

Bill

if there's any slack in the brake cable when the wedge is in it's "home" position that needs to be taken out...a simple matter of dialling out the barrel adjuster at the brake (if you have those levers) or moving the wedge up the cable slightly.

after that, this is not what I'd call a "known niggle", but you might try releasing the wedge from between the arms and note whether it twists away from being in line with the arms...as though the cable was unwinding itself. if so, you can try loosening the cable clamp and - without moving the wedge up or down on the cable - rotate it on the cable opposite the direction it twisted...then clamp it down again. try brakes again and see if that fixes things. basically, a wedge that's trying to pull up sideways will put pressure on the arms in a way that wasn't intended and things may bind a little.

and of course, a good cleaning doesn't hurt.

good luck!

---

Carl Matson

Hello from Spain Folks!

I am in the way of buying a SC 7.5 in a few days, and not sure about the size of the frame. The dealer of my town do not now nothing about fitting and fell alone with the decision. Any help will be appreciate.

In the past I was riding a BH aero concept(MD size) with the next setting:
Tall- 178
Pad reach 490
Pad stack 680, but can be shorter 20 mm
Base Bar 690
Base stack 620 but can be shorter in 20 mm as the PS

This configuration seems to be comfortable now that I am not as strong as in the past, i can ride a bit more aggressive ;-)

I have been checking the fittguide and suppose the size is L.

Other question. Which is the stem that is release with this size of frame?

Thanks for your inputs!
Pelox

Hi Pelox-

Stock stem on the 7.5 is the medium-far, and it also comes stock with the 25mm monospacer. That would be a pad stack of 650mm and basebar stack of 595mm right out of the box. If that's a little too low at the pads for you, the 35mm monospacer is part# w326502.

---

Carl Matson

Thanks Carl

Size L will be correct?

Pelox.

based on the #s you posted, the Large would be the best match.

---

Carl Matson

Does anyone have experience or knowledge as to which time trial events disqualify the non-UCI legal frame from competing. There is another thread going as to the very recent USA Cycling Masters Time Trials in Ogden and the onerous bike measurements (and misinformed officials). I have the new SC tri frame and want to enter TT competitions but don't want to travel and hear that my bike is not "legal." BTW -I would be in a geezer age group.
Also, the way I read some of the rules, the "speed fin" may be an issue sometimes. Can it be removed easily and the bike run reasonably safely without it (I understand that it has some function as a "brake booster" but I'm not sure what that means).

there is three parts that you need to swap to make your SC UCI legal:

1. fork
2. base bar
3. rear brake cover

and dont forget that your saddle need to be X cm behind the bottom bracket

Thank you but UCI legal wasn't the crux of my question- is the bike measuring by officials an issue other than national USA Cycling events? UCI legal is more onerous than many other events it seems. Though, your response goes back to my question about the speed fin (you referred to it as "rear brake cover") -how hard is that to remove and does it compromise brake function?

There are three bolts which hold the rear brake cover on...easy to remove...do NOT run your Speed Concept without the brake covers, front and rear, as doing so will compromise brake function...there is a UCI-legal rear brake cover, PN w327327

---

Carl Matson

If you check the US Master's web site I think they listed out what they would be enforcing w/r to bike frames. The one item that stood out to me was they were not enforcing the 3:1 rule. So fork, seatpost, basebar on the SC doesn't appear to be an issue for that event. Not sure on the speed fin or brake cover. The main issue for most seemed to be fit position limitations with saddle setback and aero extension length.

Hi Carl,

on the base bar of my 20122 SC 9.5, the spacers that are attached to the base bar are cracked. Can these spacers be replaced, or would I have to replace the entire base bar? I noticed the crack just today, may well have been riding with it for some time. Are there any safety concerns if these spacers are cracked, considering they appear bonded to the base bar (so would not just fall away).

Thanks,

- Stephan

Thanks much. I will follow up there.

Hi Stephan-

I would suggest your Trek dealer remove the bolts holding the extension spacer stack together and then remove & replace the damaged spacer(s) after inspecting for any other damage (e.g. on the basebar, etc). Depending on how many spacers you're already using, you may have a replacement "left over" from initial assembly or later fit changes...the bikes shipped with 2x5mm, 2x10mm, 1x25mm for each side*, otherwise, a replacement spacer kit with the same contents is 420552 from your Trek dealer.

*some early production models (2010-2011) did have a 5mm spacer bonded to the bar permanently, but there was a running change to the design to make this unnecessary and I believe it was in place before the 2012 model year.

---

Carl Matson

Thanks Carl.

I am referring to the spacer that is bonded to the base bar, not the spacers used to set the height of the aero bars over the base bar. So it must be an early 2011 model.

Is that (bonded) spacer removeable, can it be replaced, or do I need an entire new base bar?

Thx, S

PS. My base bar looks like in figure 2 of the 2011 Trek Speed Concept Owners Manual on page 8http://www.trekbikes.com/...t_Service_Manual.pdf

OK, then you've got an early bike. Basebar should be replaced in that case. PN 423514.

---

Carl Matson

Looks like I might be able to get a pre-owned base bar that does NOT have the spacer bonded to it. Will I be able to swap that in for the base bar that DOES have the spacers bonded to it? If I read your earlier response correctly, long as I have spacers from the original base bar, I can swap the newer base bar in?

Thxanks, and have a great day!

- Stephan