I'd go for the new riv-nut.

---

Carl Matson

Thanks for the quick reply

Sorry it was a bit short, I'm tramping through the woods at the moment :-)

---

Carl Matson

Hello Carl.
I need your help please..i'm going to order a new speed concept. I have some troubles with the choice of the right size, i've just sold a Plasma 5 L that was too long for me. I checked on the site the stack and reach chart and my size should be a M with a med-near stem. The problem is that i have very long legs (83 cm saddle height) and short trunk (the Plasma's 47.5 cm reach is at least 5 cm too long and there is no way to make it shorter). Ad i told you my size should be M with med-near stem but the geometry chart says that the max saddle rail height is 77.2. Is it really the max or with the longer seatpost i could get higher? Thanks a lot!!!

Hi Maxjunior

That's pretty much the highest you can get (to the rails) on a medium frame with the longest post. Going to a large frame gets you up to 796mm max BB-to-rails and doesn't seem like and issue as far as standover goes (with that saddle height). More to the point, you can still get the armpad centers as far back as 358mm from the BB (that's almost 70mm behind the steering axis) with a medium near stem or 368mm (60mm behind) with a low-near on that size frame.

---

Carl Matson

Thanks a lot Carl!!

Hi Carl, sorry, i made a mistake during the saddle height measure. It's actually 77,2-77,3 cm (rail) at the moment. So my question is: should i stay on a M at the saddle heigth limit but a lot to play with in arm pad reach, or a L with right saddle height but less reach adjustments? I've read what you wrote but don't you think that the pads so much behind the steering axis would cause issues driving the bike?

I only brought up the extreme range capability of the large to illustrate that there shouldn't be any issue hitting your pad reach if you had to get that frame size for your saddle height. Those two sizes differ by roughly 20mm in reach...so it's not like upsizing to the large on the grounds of saddle height would suddenly move you radically behind the steerer...if your pad reach puts you at or behind the steerer on a large you'd be in nearly the same place on a medium.

FWIW, pads at or behind the steering axis describes roughly 10% of the data I've got on Slowtwitchers. I'm not going to say that's an optimal position, but it's what 1 in 10 of the people here are reporting, so make of it what you will. We're not riding downtown crits, for the most part.

I think the decision hinges on whether or not you want to be right at the max on saddle height or not. The pad reach range isn't a factor unless your pad position on a medium is maxed out to the rear.

---

Carl Matson

Thanks a lot Carl. You are very kind!
Cheers from Italy 🇮🇹

Hello again Carl and thumbs up for your consistent job here @ ST forum!

I have a 2014, 7.5 SC that I've used for triathlon but due to a running injury I'm planning on doing som TT instead this summer.
I know I have to change the fork and the "base bar"/ handlebar but do I have to change my seat post as well and if so does bike size matter when or/ if I order the UCI legal kit?

Would be very happy if you also could give me the Bontrager item no. for these products.

Thanks!

//Franz, Sweden.

Hi Franz!

Seatpost is UCI-legal as-is, and with the recent rule change regarding 3:1 ratio not applying to frameset anymore, the fork is fine as-is as well. That just leaves the basebar W326797 and you'll have to change out the SpeedFin (rear brake cover) for the UCI legal version W327327. Bike size doesn't matter for either of those.

---

Carl Matson

Thank you once more Carl, you are awesome!
May I invent a TREK SC app with you and all your knowledge? :)
Ha det bäst!

//Franz

Hej Franz!

Just write a script that pulls all of my posts in this and other SC threads? :-)

Ha det!

---

Carl Matson

Hi Carl,


Can i cut the part of the steerer tube which exceeds from the stem of a 7.0 2 gen SC, with out problems?

Thanks.

yes. follow all the normal procedures you would on any other steerer to ensure a clean and level cut, and don't cut it any lower than flush with the top of your stem.

---

Carl Matson

Perfect! thanks again.

Hi Carl,
I have two sets of gen 2 rear brakes and although the first part of the code is the same 325747, one says 20F and another says 32H, is there a reason for the difference?

I have a similar issue on the front brakes, if i can also ask whether 440454 31H is compatible with a Gen 2 SC?

Many thanks from the UK

Howdy-

Both of the 6-digit part#s are supplier #s for the respective brakes, and the extra 3 digits are either date codes or batch codes. 440454 is a gen2 front brake.

Cheers!

---

Carl Matson

Carl, now I've invested in the base bar and the UCI rear break cover but I have concerns about "the recent rule change regarding 3:1 ratio not applying to frameset anymore, the fork is fine as-is as well". Can you please help me out on this one, where can I find info about this? Ive looked at the UCI homepage but only found this http://www.uci.org/...andForks_English.pdf and according to that it looks like I have to use the TT fork? I don't won't to go all in for some time trial this summer and get stoped at the start line hearing that my fork isn't legal. Sorry for inconvenience.

//Franz

it's in here: http://www.uci.ch/...1.01-ENG_English.pdf

the relevant section begins at article 1.3.021 on page 19, and in particular page 39 where you find (emphasis mine):

FUSELAGE “A fuselage form shall be defined as an extension or streamlining of a section. This shall be tolerated as long as the ratio between the length L and the diameter D does not exceed 3. This rule does not apply to frame and fork of the bicycle.”

so, 3:1 no longer in effect for frame and fork, which must still meet the regulations regarding 8cm max depth and either 1cm min width (fork blades, seatstays and chainstays) or 2.5cm min width (all other frame tubes).

the previously non-UCI SC fork is now UCI legal.

---

Carl Matson

I wonder if we'll see Trek-Segafredo running the "non-UCI" fork this year then.

I guess there's really no need to produce or sell the 3:1 fork at all anymore, but it's probably not worth Trek changing their product structures to phase it out.

Carl, you are such a professional representative for TREK. Thank you once more, this is exactly what I want'd to hear.
Have a nice weekend.
//Franz

Hi Carl

I'm having issues with my mono link extensions not attaching securely to the base bar. I had the mono link/aerobar come loose @ ironman cozumel over the last 15 miles and had to sit up. I retightened the bolts to spec after the race and had the same issue yesterday, except the bolt broke off completely and I soft pedaled home. My aerobars are not at an extreme angle (this link shows the exact issue I'm experiencing) to cause extra stress on the bolts.

My trek dealer cant get their hands on a replacement bolt and T nut (437027) because its out of stock. Any help or insight? Im desperate as I have challenge wanaka in 3 weeks and I'm unable to ride my SC at the moment...

---

Toro Performance

Howdy-

Sorry to hear about the broken bolt. Judging from the pictures at the link you provided, I wonder if the same underlying issue was at play...that the setscrew on the tilt cradle was not properly in contact with the monospacer. Even at maximum upward angle, where the rear of the cradle itself will come into contact with the monospacer, that setscrew has to be driven down until it makes contact with the monospacer. This helps ensure the load is spread evenly between the two tilt bolts as noted by the Trek response on that same page. The applicable procedure is on page 20 of the service manual.

PM your shipping address and I can get something on the way today.

---

Carl Matson

You're a legend, Carl. Thank you

---

Toro Performance