davehor

Hi,

So I'm hoping to use the hive intelligence to help me buy the right sized frame.

Trek 520: either 60 or 63!

Me 190cm (6'3") and 91cm (36") inseam. Gonna use the frame for a Reiserad/Touring build: long days, one after the other, eating up kilometers (miles ) with alot of baggage. Would like a relaxed position and not too stretched out.

Can you guys and girls help me out here. Anyone with similiar experience or some insight?

Thanks in advance,
Dave

eduskator

I checked on Trek's website, and a 63 would fit you best according to your specs.

If your one of these that rides one size smaller, go with the 60 .

Phil_gretz

You appear to have "normal" proportions (torso vs legs), so that argues toward the 63 cm frame. You can adjust the stem accordingly.

Road Fan

For touring I would definitely use something like a 700c x 32 mm tire with SKS fenders. I have a 1984 610 and it takes that size pretty well. I have those tires on Sun CR-18 rims, which are a little wider than most of what's out there these days. You might get a better ride quality with 650b wheels and tires (38 mm tire width?), but you'll probably need some frame brazing to attach cantilever brake pivots.

I'd also set the bike up for 130 mm rear end so you can make a 3x10 drivetrain with indexing. I'd go for a supercompact triple - something like 26-36-46, with 12-32 in the rear. Depending on your derailleurs, you may be able to go wider-range in the back. But this should give you a range 104 gear inches down to 22 inches.

Getting a good gearing set-up without stress to the frame is pretty important for durability. I've been a fan of cold-setting frames, but it has not always worked well for me. If your 520 is old enough that it does not have a 130 mm rear spacing, I might choose a newer frame as the basis for thie project.

Unless the frame is made for it, I would not go with disc brakes.

Saddle, seatpost, bars - set up what you like; at a lot of levels a touring bike is still just a road bike.

davehor

Everybody I ask is recommending a 63. I guess this is gonna be my size Thanks to everyone. I'll let you know, here, as soon as I've sat on it.

Road Fan

Looking at the site (I didn't know Trek was still offering a 520! and it's steel!), the seat tube angle would be more steep than I like. My size would be 51 or 54. In 1980s Treks, my 610 is 21" or 52 cm, and I had a 620 that was 55 cm. The seat tube angles were both about 73 degrees, and I always struggle to find seatposts with enough setback for a B17 or a Brooks Professional. YMMV, but this would keep me off of this otherwise great frame.

But you might want to check you existing bikes and saddle choices to see if what Trek will sell you is actually suitable.

davehor

Don't mean to be rude, but we are quite different sizes, and I'm not sure if you read the OP. So thanks for the advice but I think I'll still go with a 520, and in 63 the angles are quite different.

Road Fan

I hope you're aware, when you sit on it you are reacting not to the frame size but the the saddle height, its setback, and the resulting reach to the bars. The reach to the bars is affected by bar design (handlebar reach) and the stem extension. The salespeople should consider which frame size allows you the most useful range of fitting adjustments for initial setup and for future re-fittings as time goes on and as your preferences may change. You might not even know what will be comfortable for long tours until you have trained up to the point of starting one. I find that when I get a new saddle, I need to refine its position as my distance increases. What is good for the indoor trainer is good for perhaps 10 km. I may encounter pain when I reach 20, so additional refinements are needed, and so on.

davehor

Well I was afraid this would happen... Thanks again for your advice. I had hoped this would have been clear in my OP but it seems it wasn't.

Road Fan

I did read it and have just re-read it, and I don't comprehend what you think I missed. Overall I don't see the difference in our sizes as relevant - I was absolutely not trying to say that "my bike will not work for you." I certainly did not miss how tall you are. In the past I have felt that Trek often makes seat tubes that are too steep, not just for me but for some others whom I have met. My main point was to suggest that you consider whether the seat tube angle is appropriate for you. Plus, the way the Trek site appears on my computer, no frame dimensions are shown for sizes greater than 57.

If you are fine with what you will get, good for you.

As far as going to get a test 'sit,' see if you can get a test ride of 45 minutes or so.

Road Fan

All I can say is, I don't understand your concern, but I hope you intend to keep posting on the site. You may not have noticed, there is a sub-forum for Touring.