Trek 1.1 Sizing?

[greenskin]

Basically Im in the market for an entry-level road bike, and I have settled on the Trek 1.1. I am just over 6' tall and at one branch of a well known cycle retailer I was told I needed a 56cm frame, and on a short test ride it felt comfortable. Their reasoning for reccommending the smaller frame was because Trek bikes apparently are longer(??)

The problem arose when I went to another shop, which measured my inside leg and said I needed a 58cm frame.

Would it be better to go for a larger or smaller frame under these circumstances?

[itsnotarace]

Inside leg measurement is fairly irrelevant these days with sloping frames, unless you are worried about how much seatpost will be showing. Buy the bike with the correct top tube length so you are not too stretched out and not too cramped. Try the 58 on a test ride, you will know which feels better

[robpearson]

I have a 2009 trek 1.2 in a 56 cm frame, and am a shortarse at 5ft 9 I'm not sure if the frame has changed in the last 4 years, but I'd definately try the same in a 58 back to back if you can

[Birdthom]

I started out on a Trek 1.2 with a 56cm frame but went to a 58cm when I switched to a Trek 3.1 as the 3.1 top tube was the same length as that on my 56cm 1.2 for some reason. I am 6 foot 1, and I could probably ride a 1.2 quite happily in either size. I would guess that the size guide will point you at a 58cm, but if you feel more comfortable on the 56cm then go for it. Definitely try both though.

[944fan]

I have just bought a 1.1. My LBS told me that Trek frame's sizing is on the small side. I have a 62cm frame (I am 6'5''). It does feel a little long though as when I am on the hoods it is hard to keep my arms bent, they are locking out and causing me some tendon pain.

[greenskin]

thanks for the replies. I think the thing to do is to try the 58cm and go from there. The seat post was jacked up quite high on the 56...

[JEA1K]

greenskin said:

thanks for the replies. I think the thing to do is to try the 58cm and go from there. The seat post was jacked up quite high on the 56...

Certainly think the 58 will be better. I'm 5'11" and have had a Trek 1.1 and now a Madone 4.7 both 56" and an ideal fit. A 54" or 58" could have been adjusted to fit. At over 6', the 56" will still fit but the 58" should be perfect.

[Jayfish]

I have a 1.1 and had a proper BikeFitt (sp?) at 6'2" I was on the cusp between the 58 and the 60, sounds to me like they have too many 56's in stock

[HereBeMonsters]

I actually find the top tube on my Trek 1.2 a little short compared to what it should be. When I'm on the hoods (90% of the time) it's fine, but on the drops I feel bunched up.

[itsnotarace]

HereBeMonsters said:

I actually find the top tube on my Trek 1.2 a little short compared to what it should be. When I'm on the hoods (90% of the time) it's fine, but on the drops I feel bunched up.

You could try some classic shaped bars with a deep drop such as 3T Rotundo Pro or Deda Newton Deep

[Smartboy]

I have a 2013 Trek 1.2 and at 6ft with 34inch inside leg, the 58cm frame suits me very well.

I guess I've got about 8-10cm of seat-tube extended from the frame so a 56cm frame would have meant the seat tube would be extended a fair bit more and sounds a tad too much on the small size for my build.

I guess if you have relatively short legs and arms and a longer torso, maybe a 56cm frame would suit you better?

I guess I can just repeat comments from above, that if it feels right for you and you've compared the two sizes, then who are we to judge!

[HereBeMonsters]

itsnotarace said:

You could try some classic shaped bars with a deep drop such as 3T Rotundo Pro or Deda Newton Deep

TBH, I'm falling out of love with road cycling. It's dull, and the sale of the bike would fund some nice bits for my retro MTB build in the other thread.