Thanks - do you know which stem comes with the Medium?

Medium far

---

Carl Matson

Just in ... SC P1 7.5 ... pic doesn't do it justice.... Carrera Blue is absolutely gorgeous .... wish it wasn't 11 degrees outside, so for now, the trainer will have to do.

One of my favorite base colors. Nice!

---

Carl Matson

Hi Carl,
I have a question regarding the frame size for my new to come SC 9.9
I've done a Retul fitting and i end up with a 616x440 stack and reach.
I was lookin in the SC fit guide and i am a little bit confused.
Also in the bottom of the chart there is a table with the base bar stack and reach. My Retul measurements were handlebar stack 555 and reach 468.
Can you give me some clues to find out the frame/stem combination?

Thank you,
Andrei

Hi Andrei

The pad coordinates and basebar stack point towards a Small frame with medium-far stem and the 35mm monospacer plus 5mm pad wing spacer. Your basebar reach number doesn't fit that setup, but that's because it would put your brake levers at about the same reach as your armpads...which isn't common. I wonder if it is referencing the center of the basebar rather than the ends of the bullhorns?

---

Carl Matson

Hi Carl,
Actually, because the Retul system uses the measurements to the back of the arm pad the reach is 405, but the fitter rounded up to 440 mm because trek system uses the center of the pad.
Can you tell me in what part of the table i should look? (mid pad, pad range or full range)
Because if the measurements to the center of the pad are 440 than i should look in the mid pad table, right? And is so than a medium frame with low near will fit.
You are right about the handlebar reach: 468 refers to the distance between the bb and the center of the bar.
Sorry for asking so many questions, but i want to know exactly how to use the graphs.

Thank you,
Andrei

I also have the same problem. I currently have the original SC and i am ordering the new SC this week with the plug and play mono extension. I have my arm pads 1cm apart and I am unsure if I can recreate this set up on the new SC. I currently have my clamps in front of the actual extension clamp rather than behind and have the arm pads as far in as the adjustments holes allow. I have also cut off the excess metal from the arm pad holders as it was just sticking out causing that little big extra drag. Note my clamps are outwards rather than inward. Hoping I will be able to use my current sawn off clamps and arm pads on the plug and play mono either using the excess bar or infront of the mono with the arm pads set right back.

Hi Carl

4 years ago I sent you a private message and you kindly advised the set up I would need for the original SC frameset. You got it spot on and the bike has been immense and I am ready to purchase the new version. I have a few questions regarding the new version if ok. Size wise I am currently on a small with a low far stem with the optional 35 mm seat clamp which I have set in the forward position as I have an aggressive low time trial position. Would I be looking at the same again but with the 50 mm seat post as the size chart gave me a 2cm positive reading.

Is it possible to get lower on the new SC compared to the original ? I currently have no spacers between the base bar and aero bars , just the lower and upper clamping parts with an upward tilt. Would this be something I can recreate on the new version with the plug and play extension or would I need a spacer in place to have any sort of tilt.

I will be going for one of the five select series frameset colour schemes available and my understanding is that paint can add around 100 grams or so. Would I be right in saying the matt black/ gloss black would be slightly lighter than the other four choices as they seem to be all gloss paint from the photo's.

Sorry to be a pain with all the questions , just £4500 is a lot of money and want to make sure I get it right. Thanks for your time and being available to answer all the questions you get sent everyday.

Cheers Paul

the pad ranges have nothing (directly) to do with where on the pad your measurement was taken...here's my primer on how to use that portion of the chart.

in your case, I came up with the small + medium-far combo. yes, the medium and low-near combo would fit your pad coordinates, but that stem is more of a "problem solver" (intended to deal with really odd fits, or very specific basebar positioning requirements), so I tend to avoid recommending it until and unless some other bit of information comes to light which warrants its use. what did you have for saddle height?

finally, BB to center of bar isn't a very useful number unless you plan to use the exact same handlebar and standard stem which gave you that coordinate to begin with. what you want (need) to know is where your brake levers are in space, and that's what the basebar reach # helps determine on our chart.

---

Carl Matson

if you're slammed on a small with low-far now, you'll likely need that again. the seatpost offset question is a little tougher...the stock 15mm offset flipped forward can achieve a 2cm saddle set-forward position, but it'll likely require the saddle to be slammed all the way forward on the rails. similarly, the 50mm offset can get there but now with the saddle slammed nearly all the way back...you'll have to decide which look is most appealing/least appalling.

the new bike, size for size, will get about 10mm lower than the old one when using the "-far" stems. the low far with shortest monospacer (15mm) will actually be slightly lower than where you're at now and yes you'll have tilt ability without having to add anything.

unless you're going with the vapor-coat scheme, I'd say the minimum amount of additional weight you're going to see with paint is 125-150g and it could be well over 200g. aero bikes have a lot of surface area. as to whether the matte finish is appreciably lighter, I have no idea. the matte-like vaporcoat definitely is.

---

Carl Matson

since you're running the plug'n'play, which has the same center-center width as the old bike, you should be able to run your existing clamps and achieve the same width. do you plan to use the old ergo-bend extensions as well or do you use something else?

---

Carl Matson

Hi Carl

Thank you for the quick response , that's what I call great customer service. Yes I plan to use the Bontrager ski type extensions I have on my original SC. Not sure if I have the option of opting out of the new stock aero bars and just having the plug and play instead. Ordering the new frame set with my local project one dealer on Tuesday.

Thanks again for answering my questions

Paul

Thanks Carl - I bought the 2014 medium 9 series frameset, and it is on its way. I am in the process of purchasing all of the di2 components, and I have a question regarding di2 wire lengths. Reading through as much as I can of this thread, I have seen some post suggesting 300, 2x700 and 1200 for a Medium. Do you happen to know what the actual lengths are that Trek ships out, and if so which if any of the wires it might be helpful to get a bit longer or shorter for any reason (e.g., maybe a bit longer for the battery for access purposes, etc.). I know it is safer to go longer, but my concern is going WAY too long and having to shove a lot of cable into the frame (not the end of the world, but neat and efficient is a good thing too!)

I am thinking 300 (JuncB to FD), 650 (JuncB to RD), 750 (JuncB to Batt), 1200 (JuncA to JuncB) -- any thoughts?

Also, are you aware of any good write-ups that have ideas for good wire placement/hiding tips - seems simple enough, but I did not readily see any write ups / pics (of course, it could be buried in one of the 200+ pages of this thread , LOL). If not, perhaps I will snap a few pics when I am doing this and post one.

Thanks again, and in advance for your help.

Chris

LOVE that color. Nice job- looks amazing

Can the fun under the frame be put on older model SC's? For instance a 2013 7.8

The saddle height is 725 mm.
My local store has a sc 9.9 medium size on stock and that is why i was asking about the medium size frame possibilities and also i wanted that the frame and stem to be in the same line (i wanted a frame that will use the low stem).
But for sure i will follow your advise regarding the frame size that will best fit my measurements.
I have attached a photo with the final Retul report.

Thank you,
Andrei

the 1st-gen SC ergo extensions have a reverse curvature which limits how far back you can run them in the plug'n'play. if the distance from the leading edge of your pad clamps to the end of the extensions (i.e. where the shifter begins) is at least 230mm or so, you should be OK.

---

Carl Matson

I try to stay away from personal preference questions when it comes to wire lengths. The bike ships with lengths that will work for any fit scenario (on that size frame)...and that'll mean some amount of excess for everyone. the wires weigh almost nothing (compared to mechanical) and are almost 100% hidden in the cockpit region...the only portion that shows is the bit where they come out from the front of the stem cover to go into the 5-port control box.

---

Carl Matson

nope, not backward compatible, sorry.

---

Carl Matson

you're definitely in between sizes. just looking at the recommended frame stack and reach from your fit session, the stack matches a small SC and the reach is pretty close to a medium. if that fit is based on a real bike (i.e. what you're riding right now) then the medium SC might be a closer match to the handling you're already used to. my main concern would be whether or not your position evolves to something significantly more aggressive...at ~10cm of pad drop you're certainly not sitting up, but if you started heading for the 14-15cm range you're going to run out of room on the medium with a low stem and your next move is a small (or a steerstub and standard stem with lots of negative rise).

---

Carl Matson

Soooo complicated.

Right now i am using a small sc 7.5 2011, but the retul session was done on a retul bike, not a normal tt bike.
I understood what you are saying about the "more aggressive position" and i think is unlikely for me to go with a such big difference between the actual pad drop (10 cm) to 14-15.

So if i am thinking that i will keep this fitting for long time, then medium frame with low far stem, otherwise i should go for the small frame with medium far stem, right?
Thank you,
Andrei

medium with low-near, I think you mean...but otherwise, yes, I think that's a logical way to approach the question.

curious though...if you're already on a small SC, what exactly is it about a medium that appeals to you other than the fact you might be able to get it quicker (in stock)? there are no geometry changes from the 1st generation to 2nd generation bikes, so a new small would handle just like the old one (for the same fit coordinates).

---

Carl Matson

Good question!!!

SInce i saw the new sc i wanted that bike due to the low stem that looks incredible.
And 2nd is the fact that i cant get the medium with a significant discount (-1500 $).
But first of all i want to feel very good on my new bike and if you consider the small frame the best choice i will take the small.


Thank you,
Andrei

I'm trying to help you make the choice based on what's important to you...which in the end is something you know much better than I. Hopefully I'm asking the kid of questions which will help you ask similar kinds of questions of yourself...of what matters and why. It's becoming clear (to me anyway) that the visual aspect of an in-line stem has captured your imagination...and that you're price-conscious...but my personal tendencies trend towards the "don't fix what's not broken", and if the ride qualities you enjoy on your current SC are lost because the larger bike doesn't corner the same, or feels bulky/heavy by comparison, or whatever, then does it really matter how cool it looks? Or how much less you paid for it? It's a risk you take. But only you know how important that is to you...or if you're the kind of person who has never been able to pick out subtle differences in bike geometry, so the size thing may be a non-issue.

---

Carl Matson