Best mail order source for Surly Long Haul Trucker?



H

Hank Wirtz

Guest
On Oct 1, 2:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >Yep...Touring bikes have low Bottom Brackets for stability, CX have
> >high BBs for clearing roots and other obstacles. Most people can ride
> >a much bigger touring frame than a CX (or road racing, which have high
> >BBs to be able to pedal through corners) frame because for equal ST
> >lengths, standover on the tourer is lower.

>
> Phew...glad I asked then
>
> OK I need to go find a REAL touring bike to stand over
> on and see how THAT 56 cm frame fits then.
>
> But question still stands...do you want NO clearance
> between crotch and top tube on touring bike?


What do you need it for? I mean, obviously, you don't want to sqish
your nuts every time you get off the saddle, but do you need the top
tube an inch or two below the seam of your shorts? No, you don't need
it. It's not that you want as little standover as possible, it's just
not hugely necessary.

Like others have said, Top tube length is more important, and smaller
frames mean lower bars, and cramped cockpits. I thought my 56cm road
bike with a long stem and seatpost fit well, but then I tried a 60cm.
What a revelation. Bars were higher without being goofy, steering just
seemed...better. Cranks were farther forward due to the shallower seat
angle, it was just more comfy.

Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.
 
H

Hank Wirtz

Guest
On Oct 1, 2:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >Have you given this bike a look:

>
> >http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html

>
> >I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
> >price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
> >and I think that's in line with an LHT.

>
> No I haven't but it sure looks nice for the price!!
>
> Is it a touring bike per se?


Pretty much. It has shorter chainstays, but longer fork rake. Probably
climbs out of the saddle better than an LHT when unloaded, but
depending on your shoe size, might be a problem for heel clearance
when carrying panniers. This can be remedied by careful rack
selection, getting one with a longer shelf, like the Jandd Expedition.
You'd want wider tires than the 28mm Zaffiros when carrying a load.
 
B

Booker Bense

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>IMHO, you're looking at entirely the wrong measurement.
>>Effective Top tube length is where you should be looking,
>>get the bike size that has the top tube range you are
>>comfortable with. If that's right, generally everything
>>else falls into place unless you are on the end of some
>>physiological bell curve.

>
>OK but how will I know what top tube length is needed
>for my body?


What's the top tube length on the bike you have now or
a bike that you're really comfortable on? I don't think
you can really answer this question without riding some
bikes and knowing what is a comfortable position for
you...

>
>Just get on several touring bikes and "feel"? IOW.....
>see how much my upper body torso is stretched out of
>cramped/compressed up?


Touring bikes tend to have longer top tubes in relation to
seat tubes. I've figured out ( and it wasn't particularly
simple or easy [1]) that something in the range of 55cm
works pretty well for me, on most bikes that would be
either a 56 or 54 cm seat tube. On the LHT it's either
an 52 or 54 cm bike.

If anything I would err on the size of slightly too short
of a top tube for a touring bike[2], since you'll likely
want a more upright position and that will be easier to
get with a shorter top tube as long as you can get the
handlebars high enough. On a bike like the LHT the steerer
tube is steel so you can stack it fairly high and longer
stems are easier to find than shorter ones.

Peter White's article on bike fitting is some very useful
general advice.

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- Mostly by buying a bike that was the wrong size and learning
the hard way what can be worked around and what can't.

[2]_ As long as you aren't way above standover height.
 
B

Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >Have you given this bike a look:
>>
>>http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>>
>>I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
>>price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
>>and I think that's in line with an LHT.

>
> No I haven't but it sure looks nice for the price!!
>
> Is it a touring bike per se?


Yes. Aurora is Jamis's touring line. Comparable to Trek 520, at a lower
price. May not have Surly's hipster cred, but as good a bike.
 
S

SMS

Guest
Scott Gordo wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
>> for hrs away.
>>
>> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>>
>> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
>> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>>
>> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
>> order one from and have shipped to my house?

>
> Have you given this bike a look:
>
> http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>
> I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
> price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
> and I think that's in line with an LHT.


Not a great deal for 520 steel.

The wheelbase and chain stay lengths are a little too short for a true
touring bicycle. For someone with large feet, heel clearance could be a
problem with some panniers, though check out
"http://bicycleluggageracks.com/" for some racks and other methods to
solve this problem.
 
>Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
>stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.


Understood and thanks!!

You are right... I don't NEED top tube clearance...or
tons of it anyway..... just wasn't sure of how much if
any clearance is a good idea!

You've changed my thinking some..... I will go find a
real touring bike in 56cm and stand over it and se how
that feels

But question.... when you went for your 60cm
bike.....and you stood up...was the top tube such that
NO clearance at all for your crotch?
 
S

SMS

Guest
Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Yep...Touring bikes have low Bottom Brackets for stability, CX have
>>> high BBs for clearing roots and other obstacles. Most people can ride
>>> a much bigger touring frame than a CX (or road racing, which have high
>>> BBs to be able to pedal through corners) frame because for equal ST
>>> lengths, standover on the tourer is lower.

>> Phew...glad I asked then
>>
>> OK I need to go find a REAL touring bike to stand over
>> on and see how THAT 56 cm frame fits then.
>>
>> But question still stands...do you want NO clearance
>> between crotch and top tube on touring bike?

>
> What do you need it for? I mean, obviously, you don't want to sqish
> your nuts every time you get off the saddle, but do you need the top
> tube an inch or two below the seam of your shorts? No, you don't need
> it. It's not that you want as little standover as possible, it's just
> not hugely necessary.
>
> Like others have said, Top tube length is more important, and smaller
> frames mean lower bars, and cramped cockpits. I thought my 56cm road
> bike with a long stem and seatpost fit well, but then I tried a 60cm.
> What a revelation. Bars were higher without being goofy, steering just
> seemed...better. Cranks were farther forward due to the shallower seat
> angle, it was just more comfy.
>
> Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
> stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.


This is true. I have a 58cm touring bicycle where the standover height
on the 56cm would have been more appropriate for sufficient ball
clearance, but the 58cm is a better fit for actual riding.
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> This is true. I have a 58cm touring bicycle where the standover height on
> the 56cm would have been more appropriate for sufficient ball clearance,
> but the 58cm is a better fit for actual riding.


Compact geometry would help here - YKIMS :)

clive
 
H

Hank Wirtz

Guest
On Oct 2, 8:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
> >stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.

>
> Understood and thanks!!
>
> You are right... I don't NEED top tube clearance...or
> tons of it anyway..... just wasn't sure of how much if
> any clearance is a good idea!
>
> You've changed my thinking some..... I will go find a
> real touring bike in 56cm and stand over it and se how
> that feels
>
> But question.... when you went for your 60cm
> bike.....and you stood up...was the top tube such that
> NO clearance at all for your crotch?


If I'm wearing baggy shorts, the seam rests on the top tube. I
probably would not want larger tires. But on my tour this summer, I
did three mountain passes in two days, with temps in the high 80s/low
90s and was stopping to rest and rehydrate every 20 minutes or so.
When standing on the side of the road, having to keep the bike as
upright as possible due to the load, I was thinking "Dear God, how am
I going to make it up this hill?" not "Why do I have so little
standover clearance on my top tube?"
 
C

Chalo

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> >
> >Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
> >stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.

>
> But question.... when you went for your 60cm
> bike.....and you stood up...was the top tube such that
> NO clearance at all for your crotch?


The clearance that matters is where bike frame fails to reach a
compromise with your anatomy. When I was in the bike shop business,
we did not consider a frame too tall for road use if the rider could
stand over it in flat shoes and pick the bike up one inch off the
ground.

Chalo
 
On Sep 29, 11:31 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?


If you are this uncertain about what frame size to order, you need to
go to a competent bike shop and get fitted. Mail order is great if
you know what size bike you need. Otherwise you just give more
ammunition to the support your local bike shop only people no matter
how much they overcharge and don't carry what you want.
 
M

mark

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?


Like a bunch of people said, 56 cm or 54 cm sounds awfully small. I'm
5'9" and I'm happy on two 58 cm frames (1 road, 1 touring), and I can
make my old 57 cm road frame work with the right saddle.

Here are a few more sites with good information about fitting bicycles:
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/

http://www.rivbike.com/


HTH,

mark
 
J

JG

Guest
I'm an inch and a half taller and 58cm is way too big... I think
there must be enough variation in individual physionometry to make any
anecdotal advise useless.

The Rivendell numbers seem to be right on. Touring bikes are sized
snug. Remember, you won't be standing over them. You will have one
foot on the pedal and the other toe on the ground.

JG
 
>Like a bunch of people said, 56 cm or 54 cm sounds awfully small. I'm
>5'9" and I'm happy on two 58 cm frames (1 road, 1 touring), and I can
>make my old 57 cm road frame work with the right saddle.


Hmmmm..... something fishy then

Maybe that 56 cm cross bike had big wheels or
something...don't know

At any rate I will be very careful abt frame size when
making my choice. You guys have convinced me.
 
>Touring bikes are sized
>snug. Remember, you won't be standing over them. You will have one
>foot on the pedal and the other toe on the ground.


Really?

You want little crotch clearance then? Or ate least
that is NOT abnormal, correct?
 
M

mark

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>> Touring bikes are sized
>> snug. Remember, you won't be standing over them. You will have one
>> foot on the pedal and the other toe on the ground.

>
> Really?
>
> You want little crotch clearance then? Or ate least
> that is NOT abnormal, correct?

What's important (to me, anyway) is how I feel while I'm sitting on the
bike pedaling it, not how I feel when I'm stopped with both feet on the
ground. I suppose limited standover clearance would be a little
disconcerting to a novice rider, but anyone who is able to mount,
dismount, stop at traffic lights and start up again without wobbling
should be able to deal with limited standover clearance without any
trouble. Keep in mind that, for a given seat tube length, a bike with a
low bottom bracket (traditional touring geometry)will have more
standover clearance than, say, a cyclocross bike with a higher bottom
bracket.

As for buying a bike over the Internet or by mail, I've bought 3 fairly
expensive bikes that way with good results, mostly because I got some
good advice about measuring my pubic bone height before I picked the
bike, and because the people I dealt with (Marinoni and Rivendell) were
very conscientious about picking a bike that matched my size, instead of
selling me whatever they needed to clear out of their inventory.

mark
 
B

Booker Bense

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Like a bunch of people said, 56 cm or 54 cm sounds awfully small. I'm
>>5'9" and I'm happy on two 58 cm frames (1 road, 1 touring), and I can
>>make my old 57 cm road frame work with the right saddle.

>
>Hmmmm..... something fishy then
>
>Maybe that 56 cm cross bike had big wheels or
>something...don't know
>


There's way more to how a frame fits than the seat tube length,
and you also need to be aware that differnent manufacturers
measure it differently. ( look for the C-T or C-C codes for how
it's measured. )

Try www.sheldonbrown.com for some of the gory details and
carry a tape measure when you test ride bikes.

_ Booker C. Bense
 
J

JG

Guest
As Booker says, measures differ. Some measure to the top of the top
tube, some to the center. A 72 degree versus a 75 degree seat tube
can change the stand over height of a 56 by nearly a cm. And as
others have mentioned, the amount of drop (the distance between the BB
and the level of the dropouts) vary depending upon frame design. Plus
there are the wheels... All of this will change how frame size maps
to stand over height.

Get a good PBH measure a la Rivendell instructions, and ask Surley for
the right size.

The time honored stand over it and lift the front wheel an inch method
will demonstrate what's meant by "snug"...;-)

JG