I recently had a Retul fit to see what tri bikes are an option for me. I am 4"11" woman and my choices are very few (besides building custom). The fitter was at a retail store that doesn’t carry Trek bikes although he said the xs Speed Concept might be my only option beside a QR Lucero frame they had in stock (2009 46 cm Ti–I really want a carbon bike). His only reservation was the height of the head tube/aerobars on the Trek SC. He had never seen a SC in person and was concerned I wouldn’t be able to get low enough. Here are my fit numbers that he gave me:
Saddle Height: 57.0
Setback: 4.0
Cockpit:70.0
Aerobar:32.0
Armrest drop (no pads): 1 cm
Saddle/Armrest: 43.0
Armrest width:22 cm
Frame stack:45.0
Frame Reach:36.0
Crankarm length: 165
650 wheels
Can anyone give me any guidance? Is there a lot of adjustability on height of the headtube/aerobar placement on the SC. I went into a local Trek dealer and the salesman didn’t seem real knowledgeable on my particular dilemma. And, since no one would ever have a XS in stock there is no way to get on one to “try out” before I buy. I am looking at probably a project one (9.5 WSD) build since the WSD 7.0 is a step down from my current road bike component-wise plus don’t want the color pink on my bike. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. It is hard feel like you are getting a impartial opinion when the LBS is also trying to sell you a bike. (Which is why I went to be fit first) Thank you for your help.
Have your retul dealer go to retul.com and download the latest software from the members area. The latest software gives you stack and reach to the arm pad.
I think your dimensions are so small that no stock bike will work properly.
You need a custom bike- a 650 with a really short headtube.
If you want an aero bike- have Dave Tiemeyer make you a custom aluminum bike- I have seen him use headtubes as small as 6cm.
A steel or ti bike would work great and be more comfortable than aluminum. Bike is going to be so small- I am not sure how much an aero frame would matter. Just get some good aero bars and fork (with good aero qualities).
If I’m properly interpreting the fit guide to your numbers, I think the SC might fit if your saddle (from rail to top of saddle) isn’t too tall. The minimum saddle height is 564 mm, your saddle height is 570 mm, very close. Not sure what saddle Trek used for the saddle height measurement. Arm pad stack is adjustable from 540mm to 585 with a 50/10 (or 100/10 stem) stem in increments of 5, 10, or 25mm. I believe your arm pad stack is 560mm (1 cm drop from saddle height, I presume) so there shouldn’t be a problem. I would think you would use the 50/10 stem for proper reach which should be the stock stem for the WSD. Taking into account your saddle set back, your arm pad reach is 390mm (BB to center of pad). The 50/10 stem arm pad reach they show on the table 400mm, but the pad can be moved back.
My only criticism of the SC 9 is that there is way too much adjustability with the aerobars, I would prefer a much simpler set up.
Several years ago Guru made a carbon frame for me in my size. My frame is small with 650c wheels. It really ended years of struggling with bikes that didn’t fit. FWIW, stock frames can be made to fit. However, they don’t always handle well. Comfort may be compromised. I would strongly recommend Guru. They are great to work with. You can spec it out any way you want. The cost can be in the same range as a Trek SC. And you can always update your frame. Right now my frame is at Guru for a retro fit for Di2 and new paint. Their cost is very reasonable. After 3 years I’ll have a “new” bike again. No worries about whether or not it will fit!
Translating your Retul-based coordinates into pad stack and reach inputs for our 9-series fit chart, I’m getting 545-550 and either 420 or 500, respectively…depending on whether your 4cm setback is considered positive behind or in front of the saddle.
Bottom line, the front end of the XS SC9 will get that low, with either the 50/10 or 100/10 stems. If your setback is behind the BB you’re right in between the two stems for reach purposes and could pick either…though I might default to the 50/10 to keep the brake levers from getting too far away from you. If you’re actually 4cm in front of the BB you’d have to go with the 100/10 and you’d still be a tad short of your desired pad reach unless you normally ride with pads at mid-forearm vs near the elbows.
Depending on your location and timeframe, you might get lucky and score a demo ride on an XS SC…click on your region here or here and you can contact the demo crew person for that region via the “contact us” link to see what they’ve got on the trailer.
Thank you Carl and everyone for your help. Going back and looking at my paperwork (in the light of day) it looks like the setback is -4.0 and the setback is measured from the front of the saddle to the center of the crank. Can that be correct? Anyway, I can verify that with my bike fitter. Hopefully it still will work. Good news too, I am close enough to go to either the Ocala demo on Jan. 2 or the Suncoast Demo on Jan. 8 in Florida. I have emailed the demo folks to make sure they will have a SC size XS before I make the trip. My fitter did mention that my torso isn’t the issue with my fit it is, unfortunately, my leg length. But these short legs do have some power. I am currently riding a Trek 2300 43cm road bike with an ISM saddle. I am aware that I might need to find a saddle that isn’t as high to make this SC fit. Thanks again for any feedback.
The primary limiter on seatpost insertion (in your case) is leaving enough space to get your wrench in there to tighten/loosen the seatpost clamping wedge. With the relatively short (and open) nose on an Adamo you might be able to drop further into the frame and still have access to that bolt.
In the event the demo guys only have an SC7 in that size, you can at least get a feel for handling qualities because it’s the same geometry as the SC9. Might be faster for them to reconfigure the SC7 to your coordinates too.
I just heard back from Tom Jenkins at Trek for the demo. They only have a small SC at the demo no Xsmall. Bummer. Anyway, thank you for the good information. It helps to know that “by the numbers” it should be a fit.
I was afraid you might have an ISM saddle. That kept me from getting a Ridley Dean because the funky seatmast could not be cut down far enough to accommodate my saddle height with an ISM. The new Ridley Dean has a more conventional seatpost (probably because of fit issues for many, I’m guessing), but too late I have a SC. I did ask the reps at the Adamo booth at one of my races if the new saddles had a lower height, but he said they were the same.
Best of luck, I hope you can make everything work out, the SC is a sweet bike.
I wanted to jump onto this thread because I have a very similar question. I recently had a FIST fit as I am looking at buying a new bike in the near future. My stack is 59 and my reach is 46. I am having trouble converting those numbers into the pad stack and pad reach numbers found in the speed concept fit guide. Specifically I would like to know which stem you would recommend on a 9 series. I am 6’4 and 190 lbs so I will obviously need to be on an extra large.
My numbers from my FIST fit are as follows:
seat angle- 79 degrees
cockpit (tip of seat to tip of aerobars)- 96 cm
aerobar-38 cm
arm rest drop- 15 cm
saddle height- 85 cm
saddle nose plumb line- -3 cm
stack-59
reach- 46
I also ride an adamo saddle.
Any guidance on sizing and stem choice on a 9 series would be much appreciated.
That’s a really long cockpit # there…I wonder sometimes if Slowman’s ~1:1 on saddle height to cockpit length convention starts to fall apart at all up in the tall trees. Anywho, lets assume for the moment your fitter is spot-on:
Definitely an XL frame, and I get pad stack and pad reach of 680 and ~580 respectively. Either of the 100/10 or 100/45 stems will get you the first # with no trouble…but only the 100/10 gets you anywhere near the pad reach and even then only by using up all the adjustment range and it’s still a couple cm short.
So now I’m wondering about that cockpit measurement again…do you ride - or did you get fit - with your pads somewhere towards the middle of your forearms, or do you normally hit them back by your elbows? The answer would explain a lot.
Thanks so much for the quick response. I got fit on a Serotta fit bike with vision bars (not the bars I actually ride), and my adamo saddle and I recall that the pads were behind the base bar. When I ride on my current set up, I usually ride with the pads more toward my forearm than back by my elbows.
My fitter did write a note on my measurement page that states that the “aerobar pads behind the base bar were effecting reach number…need pads over basebar”.
I recall he was also thrown off by the cockpit length number when we did the fit. He went back and looked at the numbers again and explained why he thought the number was off.
He said “The elbow pads are really far back on those Profile Design bars. About 5.5 cm behind the basebar. Get those things over top of the basebar (where they belong) and that reach numbers shrinks by that same 5.5cm.”
Also, does the shorter length of the adamo saddle have anything to do with the extended cockpit number?
Hopefully helps you with my questions. Thanks again. It’s very cool of you to answer these questions on the forum.
The Adamo certainly contributed to the original mismatch, but by itself it couldn’t account for everything since I believe the convention is to assume ~3cm worth of fudging for that stubby nose. Forearm pad position and the overlong extensions cover the rest. Without having your fit sheets or the components involved in front of me I’m guessing at the overall adjustment to make, but it seems reasonable to take the 5.5cm your fitter noted, add 3cm for the Adamo and another couple cm for the extensions and voila your cockpit gets right back into the vicinity of your saddle height…Slowman’s convention is saved!
Adjusting the pad reach accordingly (i.e. ignoring the extensions contribution), I now have you at around 500-510 and that’s spot-on for the stock 100/45 on the XL frame with a relatively low spacer stack @15mm.
Thanks Carl. I really appreciate the insight. Last question. Might it be smarter to go with the 100/10 since that will give me a bit more pad reach to play with in light of the fact that the 100/45 and 100/10 can get me the stack I need?
The 100/10 only buys you 10mm of additional forward reach, but if you want err on the side of having more future capacity in that direction then sure, why not. Doing so flips the future adjustability limits on stack though. Lots of room to go lower with the 100/10 vs the 100/45, but if you decide your current drop is just a bit much, you’ve only got 10mm to move up before you top out on the 100/10’s pad stack capability.