Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Maybe a step further is that someone at Trek could shade areas of that graph to tell people what frame size and what stem option they should get. Certainly that is assuming the PS and PR are the only 2 deciding variables.
What do you guys think?
But I think a pure graph (X and Y) coordinates will allow people to visualize it clearer? Like a huge graph with shaded circles for each frame and stem option?
Since you're here, I'd like to ask! Saddle height 735mm, PS 660mm and PR 469mm, which frame size and stem option should I go to?
I went for a small and am awaiting the arrival of a 100/45 stem. My current #'s on the SC are meaning less because I'm pretty jammed in the front end; although once I get the longer stem I'll be ~500 reach + ~595-610 stack @ the pads. And between 725 and 740 cm saddle height depending on where you want to measure (closer to 725 @ where I sit, but closer to 740 following the seattube). FWIW - I came from a 56cm Cervelo Dual. My choice was driven by long term options of getting a more agressive fit, and the fact that I find a lot of seatpost exposed visually pleasing.
Looking at your numbers I'd say the only way a small would work for you is with the 110/75 stem. The nice thing about the small (and is why I made the choice to go that route) - is that you could drop to the 100/45 stem (and eventually the 100/10) and get lower while maintaining the same reach. You could do a medium and pretty much use any of the 45/75 stems, but you give up some long term options. Carl has a bit more perspective/grasp of the implications, but given your fit numbers a Medium may be best and it would still give you ample opportunity to get lower given your starting point.
That's my input, but I'd wait for Carl to respond before purchasing ;)
*The one thing I do feel is missing on their sizing chart is adjustment range of the aerobar extensions - it's the major thing that I'm "unhappy" with and why I'm eagerly awating the 100/45 stem, the other being basebar reach. I could live with the basebar reach of the 60/45, but even at max length the aerobar extensions are just too damn short - especially since I flipped the seatpost the other day - which did help other aspects of the fit that didn't feel right.
The graph shows PS plotted against PR, with the corresponding data above the graph with stem recommendations. The upper blue line shows the boundary between M and L, while the lower S and M. This divides the graph into 3 portions, S(lowest), M(middle) and L(top most).
As we traverse through each "band" or "portion", going diagonally up gives a "tall and narrow" fit while diagonally down gives a "long and low" fit.
It is also perhaps helpful to say that the Trek sizing chart has for each of its 5 sizes, 6 stem options and thus 6 rectangles (I know I'm repeating what has been discussed before):
50/10: Narrow and low
100/10: Long and low
60/45: Narrow and medium
100/45: Long and medium
80/75: Narrow and tall
110/75: Long and tall
But when you know your PS and you draw a horizontal line through the chart at your PS, you find out how many spacers you need at each stem option! I just realized this! (Yes, I am that slow!) The more space you have under your drawn line at that stem option indicates more spacers needed, and vice versa. This will be perhaps useful for noobs like myself :)
Anyone care to see if my thought process is right on track, or entirely wrong? This fit diagram assumes that PS and PR are the only 2 deciding variables in your fit and frame selection.
The question mark represents my PS and PR, am I right to say I'm a frame size M then?
Team Endurance Nation
I placed an order for a P1 SC 9.9 XL two days after it was announced. My lbs said delivery by the 15th of July which has come and gone. Trek has no idea when it will be finished. Given so many others have taken delivery of theirs already, what's holding mine up?
Green would have been my last choice of paint scheme but it is a stunning bike regardless and I'd choose speed over colour any day. Talking of speed, first ride and I did a route which I regularly do several times a week and includes a "sporting" 10 mile time trial course in the middle. Over what is certainly not a fast 10 mile course (I'd expect it to be better, relatively, on a fast course), I was 80 seconds faster on a fairly windy day than I've ever managed AND very importantly I felt fresher afterwards.
It's not a 100% fair comparison. I didn't have a bottle on the bike and the wheels+tires are at least a little better than my regular training pair. But I did have my usual parachute saddle bag attached, it wasn't the clearest run I've ever had, the wind was definately higher than average and it was only my first ride. So I'm sure there is more to come.
Now it's time to get my Di2 goodies on there.
I have a couple of questions for you other SC owners.
How do you mount the computer, without ruining the aerodynamic – what is your solution?
What about hydration – will a Speed Fill ruin the effect of the kammtail?
@Carl did you test any bottle mounts on the bike in the wind tunnel?
As for effects on the Kamm tail benefits, we've not done any targeted testing along those lines either, but Rappstar's thoughts related to the draftbox certainly provide something to think about.
The bike did not ship with the standard steerer stub because Trek is running low on stock. One is now on the way, however, so I will be able to put UCI legal bars on the bike.
However, I was surprised when I realized that the Speed Concept seatpost does not meet the UCI 3:1 rule. It is 20mm wide and over 70mm deep. After a little digging I found a picture of Levi's bike at the tour. He appears to have used a TTX post in his SC with some sort of a shim at the back to fill in the area taken up by the Kamm tail on the standard SC post. Here is the link:
Has anyone else run into or commented on this problem?
I sure hope that Trek can provide me with one of those shims or some other way to make the seatpost UCI legal.
Visit The Chipotle Calorie Calculator
One way you might achieve UCI compliance with the stock post is by attaching additional material to the sides of the exposed post in a manner similar to that used by teams in the immediate aftermath of the 3:1 clarification memo.