Pulse_

Hi all,

I'm a new road bike cyclist and need to make a choice between a 60cm and 62cm frame size. My local dealer announced a "year or so" waiting time for the TREK Domane AL2 I'm interested in. Well, life's short so I ordered my bike in both sizes online. Why the **** not

The thing is my proportions are a bit off. Tall (188cm = 6'2), long legs (93cm = 36.6 inseam), short torso, arm span = height (188cm = 6'2). Those are basically the proportions of a flamingo.

TREK was nice enough to share theses measures on their website (sorry guys, this forum doesn't want me to share pics with you for now.. I wasn't aiming to post nudes or anything but whatever )
https://www.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/bi...ode=blue_black

So what would be your pick? 60 or 62cm?

Many thanks,
Eric

Iride01 

Interesting.... a title with no message. Will I be post one or two?

Iride01 

Looks like I got to be post one, but believe me, I'm not the OP for for this thread.

What's goin on here Willis?

Edit...
Now it shows me as the thread starter..... I'm not. Apparently it's Pulse_

So please reply to them.

Pulse_

Hi,

obviously there's been a problem with my previous message (it disappeared ) so I'll try to sum it up.

So basically I'm a beginner in road cycling and I bought the same bike in two different sizes considering my proportions are.. how do I say this.. special. One of them is 60cm and blue (I know the color doesn't matter for the fit ) and the other one is 62cm. It's an entry level road bike made by Trek, the Domane AL2.

Here are my measurements:
- tall (188cm = 6'2)
- light (72kg)
- long legs (93cm = 36.6 inseam)
- long arms (arm span = height = 188cm = 6'2)

I can't share pics or links for now but you can find the sizing & fit section from TREK here:
trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/road-bikes/performance-road-bikes/domane/domane-al/domane-al-2/p/33037/?colorCode=blue_black

Which size would you pick?

Many thanks,
Eric

Iride01 

You bought them both? Do you actually have them in your possession?

If so, then which one rides better. The idea that there is one and only one frame size that is right for you is really crap as far as I'm concerned because I've always been able to make myself comfortable on a wide range of frame sizes.

The smaller frame might make you feel like you are in a sporty handling car, or it might make you feel like you are in a tiny economy car with no space. Or maybe it does both like the BMW cars I've driven that are very sporty but I have to wear them like a glove.

The larger frame might give you a stable and comfortable feeling for long rides. But that stability some times comes with the price of less maneuverability and confidence when riding with groups.

Also, you need to consider things like crank length and bar width. Personally for my 34.5" (87.6 cm) inseam even the 175 mm cranks on the larger Tarmac were too long for me. I got the smaller size frame and even then had the 172.5 mm cranks replaced with 165 mm cranks at time of purchase. And I have now even replaced the 42 cm wide bars with 38 cm wide bars.

You may not need that. Some do well on long cranks. I don't. They make me feel like I'm thrashing about. I was much less tired after riding the 56 cm Tarmac than the 58 cm Tarmac. Each ridden for 10 miles and the smaller one being the second bike I road with no rest between rides.

The narrower handlebars for me has eliminated the wrist numbness that I was getting with the wider bars.

mdarnton

I am far from authoritative, but with a similar problem, scaled down. On a bike that is "my" size by leg length I am too stretched out to the bars, I think because of my relatively short torso. I have always taken the smaller frame, but there's a nag in my mind that the larger frame for my legs relative to cranks, with a shorter stem for my arm length would be the better solution, and since you seem to have both sizes, I'd be interested to hear if that relatively cheap test helps you.

cb400bill

You are a new forum member which means that you can't post links or pictures. This is an anti spam measure that works very well for us.

Your original post contained a link in it, which made your thread not appear until it was approved by a forum moderator. It also contained a censored word which you posted that started with a f and was followed by three stars. Changing the spelling of words to get around the forum censor is against the forum rules that you agreed to when you joined up. We edited your spelling of that word so the censor kicked in. We also approved your post's link.

When you then went back into your post and edited it, your link reverted back to being unapproved and your post disappeared.

We are going to post a link to the Forum Rules. We suggest that you read and follow them. https://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?f...aq_forum_rules

Here is the particular rule that you violated.

Vulgarity

As a community with a diverse variety of members and readers, we ask that our members to post without using vulgarity. Vulgarity not only includes vulgar language and pictures but also sexist, racist, anti-religious, images of graphic violence, political statements and homophobic language which may offend other members. In addition, the "masking" of vulgarity by inserting * or another keystroke in place of one or more letters in a vulgar term is unacceptable in most cases. It will also be impermissible to anagramize a word to bypass the filters. This applies to all content submitted by users including posts, PMs, avatars and signatures.

Please read those forum rules and keep those in mind when making future posts.

cb400bill

Original post re-approved.

AnthonyG

I had a look at and assessed the frame specs between the 60cm and the 62cm frames.
The short answer is, get the 62cm frame.

The longer answer is, it depends. Nominally what you need is a frame that's as tall as the 62cm frame, yet a little shorter in reach like some of the smaller frames and this is what custom frame builders can do for you, yet custom frames are a little out of fashion these days, especially in the age of carbon.
When choosing between the 60cm and the 62cm, nominally you are trying to decide if you fit for your legs first or fit for your reach first. Fitting for your legs first can have you stretching further forwards for the handlebars than you may like and fitting for your reach first may have you reaching lower than you would like to in theory.
In practice you just need to have a fitting done and see.
Anyway the important numbers when comparing two frames is Stack and Reach. The Stack (height) of the 62cm frame is actually 2.4cm higher than the 60cm frame (good) yet the reach of the 62cm frame is only 0.3cm more than the 60cm frame (not much at all) so in fact the reach won't be that much shorter on the 60cm frame anyway.
Now unless we consider the possible curve ball that you LIKE the lower handlebar height of the 60cm frame, then I would just go with the 62cm frame.

The other difference between the sizes is that the 62cm frame has a slightly more relaxed seat tube angle but only slightly. Usually this would be a good thing yet if you have shorter femurs and longer shins than average for your leg length then the slightly steeper seat tube angle on the 60cm frame may work out better.
At this level you would need to pay and work with a fitter to find out.
Nominally/law of averages, I would go with the 62cm first.

Pulse_

Based purely on the dimensions I gave (body + frame geometry), is there a size that "should" fit me best with this bike?

This is a very good point, thanks for the insight! An other argument in favor of the 62cm is the TREK size finder on their site which gives me a clear 62cm result for my mensurations (height and inseam). I could go as low as a 35 inseam (=89cm, which is 4cm shorter than mine) and they would still recommend a 62cm for my height. I'm just wondering if this calculation is reliable for all the road cycles from the brand. Their calculator isn't specific to one particular bike.
trekbikes.com/us/en_US/size-finder/

79pmooney

I'm in your league for body type. 6'-1/2" before I started shrinking, your wingspan and nearly your leg length. I used to race and still ride in much that position. My challenge with nearly all production bikes is getting the handlbars far enough away: either forward or down (and not have my knees knock on the tops when I climb). My solution has been to go to longer stems or custom made frames.

Now, I know zero about your riding style. How flexible you are, how important going fast is for you. These count for a lot here. Good thing is that you are going to get both bikes in hand and get to ride them. Ride them and think about where the handlebars are. (Getting the seat right should be easy on both bikes.) You may well want a different stem for your wingspan. There are a lot of production choices. For me, the right stem for (almost all) production bikes is outside what is available so I've had a few stems made in lengths from 155 to 180mm. That has turned bikes that were painful for me to ride into all day comfort.

Custom stems are a commitment. $2-300 and a few weeks to a few months wait depending on the framebuilder and time of year. But, for me, the single biggest improvement I've ever made on bikes.

Iride01 

Yes. But I don't know what that is. Whether it's a big enough difference, you can only find out by riding them both for as long as is possible.

And no matter how well it fits you now. It might be different for you in 10,000 miles or so.

Pulse_

Hi, do you have a good website to recommend which explains how to fit a road bike? Or do I necessarily need a bike fit made by a pro? I don't care about the price if it makes sense right from the beginning.

I apologize for all the mistakes, english isn't my mother tongue.

AnthonyG

Since you're new to road bikes, just buy the largest you can at your size, ie, the 62cm. If you wanted to go racing its a possibility that the 60cm may work better since it gives you a lower handlebar position, yet if the idea of having the lowest handlebar position possible doesn't appeal, then just get the 62cm.

Carbonfiberboy 

Actually one purchases a road bike by the top tube length, not the seat tube length, and unfortunately bikes are sized by their seat tube length for historical reasons, even though the seat tube length no longer matches the size number the bike is given and the reason for this method of sizing disappeared in the 80s.

Go to this bike size calculator: https://www.competitivecyclist.com/S...ulatorBike.jsp
Have someone help you take all the necessary measurements and put them into the calculator. One of the outputs from the calculator will be top tube length. Get the size with that top tube measurement.

After you get the bike, you can use my bike fit primer to adjust the fit as necessary: https://www.bikeforums.net/21296948-post3.html

Pulse_

Hi, many feedbacks tend to favor the 62cm indeed. I don't plan to race any time soon. The first step is to make road biking something fun and easy (which translates in a comfy and user friendly bike). Once I'll get used to it I'll better understand which place I'll dedicate to road cycling (I practice many other sports) and refine my goals/ choices. Then I might change the bike, based on my real experience and focus eventually on performance/ efficiency.

Based on my findings there is a contradiction between choices based on performance (smaller frame, lower bars) and comfort (bigger frame, higher bars). Is this reasoning adequate or am I taking a shortcut?

Pulse_

Many thanks, I'll do just that. By the way I received my 62cm bike now .

Edit: I can't access the website sadly "Well, as of 25.05.2018, CompetitiveCyclist is no longer available outside the U.S. due to GDPR regulations. "

Pulse_

Ok I tested both bikes quite extensively now and long story short I'll send the 62cm back and keep the 60cm frame. I threw the theory away and just tried to be very honest with myself about how I feel and what sensations I like.

On the flat, the reach value which seems very similar between sizes on paper "feels" too high with the 62. My hands want the handlebars to be nearer my body, I feel too stretched out. I tried to compensate with the saddle positioning but it just didn't feel right. It doesn't make me secure in the descents either, even if the bike itself is more stable due to the longer wheelbase. My knees are looking for a more rearward position than they actually are, resulting in a wave trajectory (so to speak) when I speed up by pushing hard on the pedals. I have strong legs and the whole cockpit sits too far away to use my arms correctly to push the bike against me with the 62cm frame.

The overall feel on the 62cm is a bit off for another key reason. I feel "over" the bike. With the 60cm I feel "in" the bike. I lowered the handlebars on the 62cm but I wasn't happy with the results even in the lowest position, the thing is just too big & bulky. The bike was riding me rather than the contrary. It felt a bit better when I was up to speed but that was the only scenario where I slightly preferred my sensations over the 60cm.

Now in the sprints and hills, when I quit the saddle. This is where the 60cm shines most. I can push much harder on the pedals because the handlebars are nearer my hips and I can lean my body more forward over the stem. In the same way I could lock the handlebars with my forearms better resulting in less wobble from the front wheel. I could never get the same snappy feeling with the 62cm, whatever the setup. It's just a joy to ride the smaller frame, I felt I could tear the crank with the pressure of my feet if I wanted (so to speak) while my legs couldn't push so strongly with the 62cm.

The last thing: I like a low front end. And this is the biggest surprise for me. I'm discovering road biking (first time ever I try road bikes) and I just like to attack and go for it. I've a much more aggressive riding style than I expected. With the 62cm it almost felt like a grandpa on a rocking chair. It's lazy feeling compared to a 60cm.

All in all I never expected the differences to be so big. Now, I understand why bike fitting is such a big thing. And I'm nowhere near someone who knows about what he's talking about. I just listened to my body. Sometimes I closed my eyes and tried to be as honest as possible about how each interface was interacting with my body. The conclusion is that I deeply recommend anyone to buy two sizes when in-between sizes and test them out extensively. Whatever the theory, every body is so different. Every riding style is so unique.

It took time but I rode a lot because of the urge to choose a bike size. It's the 60cm for me. More playful, more rigid, snappy, fun. This is how I like it!

Kabuto

Pulse_ your proportions aren't off, its Trek's sizing calculator that's off. I'm slightly shorter (183cm) than you but with a similarly proportioned inseam and wingspan, and Trek's ridiculous calculator kept telling me something like "Are you sure you measurements are correct? Remeasure and enter them again." I decided to ignore the calculator and get a size 58 Domane and it fits me just fine. I'd be riding a 60 or maybe even a 62 if I believed Trek! Glad you figured out for yourself that a size 60 works for you.

CliffordK

So, are you ordering 2 bikes and actually only planning to buy one? I'm surprised the bike shop is OK with that. If they were mid-sized bikes like 54cm to 58cm, and with long back orders, they might not care. But, if you leave them with a special order 62cm, it could get stuck in the shop for a while.

What are you riding now? Keep your nose to the ground on Craigslist (don't want to lose a full riding season). Taller bikes and frames periodically pop up, and often get stuck for a while. Used prices are a bit bonkers now. But, you could also snag a good vintage bike for a little less... just to get yourself on the road.

Posting a location can help.

Pulse_

Right? Even with a much shorter inseam (89cm vs 93.5cm for me)Trek still recommendend the 62cm frame via their calculator so I knew something wasn't right. The funny thing is I contacted Trek per mail also and they answered I'm in-between sizes.. I'm lucky enough I could buy both bikes and test them out! Thanks for your feedback

I ordered both sizes online (1 year waiting time in my LHS for this bike) and tested them already. There is a 30days return policy. I'm fine if they refuse the return, I've been very careful though and will make sure the bike is in perfect condition. This particular bike is very hard to find in stock in Europe so I don't worry too much, if needed I'll re-sell it myself.

Pulse_

Just to let you know I got a full refund for the 62cm bike I sent back and I'm still very pleased with the 60cm frame

superdex

I'm 6'3" and ride a 58, so what do I know?

Based on how fast I scanned your post and replies, I'd go with the 60. The reach is only 3mm different between the two, and you'll probably want a 90mm stem.

ClydeClydeson

I would say 60cm, but either one will work. The seatpost is the easiest adjustment you can make, and that takes care of your long legs. Changing the reach is more difficult (requires changing the stem) and the shorter top tube on the 60 will start you off in a closer position than the longer 62cm.

however, the difference in dimensions is very small - Head tube length is different by 25mm (one inch) and effective top tube is only different by 14mm. It should be very easy to make the fit of either bike match the fit of the other.

Pulse_

Hi, glad you both recommend the 60cm bike but there is no choice to make anymore -> it's the one I chose a few weeks ago . Just wanted to give a feedback. It's already been ridden in southern France aswell, near the Mont Ventoux and I'm loving every minute of it!