# new WSD bike from Trek



## codename47 (Oct 20, 2008)

Hello,
has anyone tried Trek Lush WSD They has XS(14.5") size that I'm interesting. The standover chart is wrong I think - it starts 68.8cm for 14.5" size and goes to 67.7cm for 17.5 - is that correct?
68 degree for 120mm travel is pretty good I think.
Here's picture of 14.5"(maybe) : Trek Lush photo from the Mtbr Mountain Bike Photo Gallery 
Introducing the Trek Lush - Bike Rumor


----------



## wuzilla (Sep 9, 2008)

My wife just bought a 2011 Trek Fuel WSD EX-8. From what I understand, the basic suspension design & geometry is identical. They just made the frame tighter to allow for more standover in the smaller sizes - a pretty big deal, since they needed to custom design a smaller rear shock to fit in the tighter space. I think Trek has also lost some sales in the Women's market due to the WSD Fuel being nearly identical in appearance to the men's Fuel - Specialized's ladies line is significantly different in appearence which helps from a marketing standpoint.

That said, I think the Fuel/Lush trail-bike layout is one of the best on the market. I know my wife liked it enough after trying out models from Niner & Spec. that she ended up getting an early B-day present!


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

codename47 said:


> ... The standover chart is wrong I think - it starts 68.8cm for 14.5" size and goes to 67.7cm for 17.5 - is that correct?...
> 68 degree for 120mm travel is pretty good I think.


I think you're right, it looks like they reversed the whole row of standover heights in the specs table:

Frame........ Standover
Size

14.5......... 27.1 in

15.5......... 26.9 in

16.5......... 26.8 in

17.5......... 26.7 in


----------



## Mudmouse (Aug 15, 2007)

Hi,
I'm interested in hearing more about the Lush as well. I'm looking at similar bikes from Specialized, Scott, SC, etc. I noticed the SO height on the sizing as well. It's not just Trek, several different bikes had the same thing.


----------



## connie (Mar 16, 2004)

mtbxplorer said:


> I think you're right, it looks like they reversed the whole row of standover heights in the specs table:
> 
> Frame........ Standover
> Size
> ...


I don't know this for sure, but I would bet it is actually accurate - I've seen the same thing in other bike standovers as well. When the sizes get smaller it becomes harder to get the standover as low because of the angles. (Meaning, the height of the head tube/fork height/etc. is all staying the same, but as the top tube gets shorter, it has to be at a steeper angle, so the place where you would measure it gets slightly taller with a more compact frame...)

But a 27.1" standover is still very low, so it should be good even on an XS.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

^^Yeah, you may well be right, esp if the top tubes "shrink" more than the seat tubes as the sizes go down. Wierd though.


----------



## patches2646 (Aug 6, 2011)

I would love to know if the standover heights are correct or wrong as well. That .4 of an inch makes a huge difference for me as my inseam is 26". Its either this Lush for me or building a bike with an 01-06 Juliana SL frame....


----------



## connie (Mar 16, 2004)

patches2646 said:


> I would love to know if the standover heights are correct or wrong as well. That .4 of an inch makes a huge difference for me as my inseam is 26". Its either this Lush for me or building a bike with an 01-06 Juliana SL frame....


It doesn't say what size stem comes on it, but it might be worth trying one of the bigger sizes of the Lush and putting a really short stem on it instead of what comes stock? (Thereby getting the lower standover, but effectively shortening the reach.) Also depends on your torso length, but.... just a thought.


----------



## codename47 (Oct 20, 2008)

@patches2646, both Trek and SC doesn't published in which point they measured standover, XS Juliana has 27.8" according to their site: Santa Cruz Bicycles . SC has 69.5 HA, it's not at the same league as 68's Lush.
It would be nice to compare pictures of both taken from the same perspective.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

When the top tube is bent, they don't always end up measuring to the lowest point. See that reinforcement that goes up to the seattube, they might be measuring a piece of that on the XS frame, and not on the S..


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

*the answer from Trek*

This is not a typo, unfortunately with full suspension frames it is not uncommon to run into this. The shock and it's placement are at set locations, and need to be in order for the bike to have the same performance characteristics throughout the size run. With the smaller front ends though, there is less room for the top tube to drop down and create greater stand over. There is still a great deal of clearance on the Lush across the line, as one of our main goals in creating this bike was to offer a low stand over height, so we do recommend working with your local dealer to see if the fit will work. They may not have one in stock now, but with the provided geometry they would be able to help show what the fit would be like on the bike.

Thanks for writing, and have a great weekend, 
| Trek Bicycle Corporation


----------



## codename47 (Oct 20, 2008)

just received answer from Trek on e-mail:
"Thanks for writing. We take standover from the center of the top tube.
PAUL ANDREWS - TREK BICYCLE"
I assume that he means top tube, not effective top tube. At diagram on Lush site is more like ETT - "K" dimension:








PS. They edited all stadovers of Lush, Lush S, Lush SL model, old standovers are still only at Carbon size chart.


----------



## ambyrle (Nov 10, 2011)

I haven't tried the 2012 Lush models, but I tried out the 2011 Fuel Ex WSD models. I'm just over 29" crotch to floor. When I tried the 16.5 model, I had maybe an inch of clearance. With the 15.5 I had a much more comfortable 2 or 3". There was a noticeable difference, and the 15.5 was definitely lower than the 16.5. I didn't try any other sizes, and I don't know if they changed the frames when they changed the model name...but I noticed their FSR line for women now starts $500 higher than it did for 2011 models  I couldn't afford a bike at the time, and now that I can, I'm going with the Specialized FSR Comp for that reason. Also, the Spec has a nifty swooping top tube that gives you lots of standover height 

[edited to disambiguate a pronoun  ]


----------

