Touring - What size frame for a Surly LHT?

I’m in the starting process of building a LHT and need advice on the size frame to buy. I’m 6’ and have an inseam of 31” so it seems that the 54 cm would be good, but it accommodates 26" wheels. On the other hand, the 56cm accommodates 700s but that might be a little tall for me b/c as the SOH is 32”. As for now, I won’t be doing any major during, but plan to in about a year…Europe and beyond. So, I guess I’m just looking for opinions/advice concerning wheel size and frame size…thanks and sorry if this is a lame touring noobie question.

Hi,
I had similar questions when I was considering one of those.
Here's the weird thing, a 54cm frame is typically for a guy like me who is 5' 8". You should be on a 56 or even a 58, depending mostly on the length of the top tube. I am pretty certain you would feel cramped on a 54. I took a pass on it, and got something different for that reason. I couldn't see how one would fit me; because ANYTHING over 30" in standover and bone hits metal solidly.

It's really simple. Just get the 54 and buy a longer stem. Unless you spend most of your riding going very slowly and turning all the time, you can't possibly tell the difference.

I can, and have. More than once.

hey late,
what bike did you end up getting?

I can, and have. More than once.

That's virtually impossible.
If you ride perfectly straight ahead, there is absolutely NOTHING that will give it away.
And during normal riding, you don't turn that much.

Hi,
a Gunnar Sport, which is a recreational road bike that is OK
for credit card touring. Defintely not for loaded touring. The Trek 520 is a fine touring bike, as is the Cannondale T series. Gunnar is owned by Waterford; and the Waterford Adventure bike is really something.

It's really simple. Just get the 54 and buy a longer stem. Unless you spend most of your riding going very slowly and turning all the time, you can't possibly tell the difference.

I'm 6' tall and have a very short torso and I like a 57.5 cm top tube with a 100 - 110mm stem. The 54 Surly has a 55.5 cm top tube and the OP is 6' and has a long torso. (I deduced that from his short legs.) For =me= to have enough top tube on a 54, it would need to have a 130mm stem. For him? It would have to be significantly longer and I don't know of anyone who makes them any longer than 130mm.

Of course, that's also assuming that he's talking about his bike inseam and not his pants inseam.

If he's talking about his pants inseam, then there should be plenty of room for a 56 which brings him closer to the range a long stem will work.

That's virtually impossible.
If you ride perfectly straight ahead, there is absolutely NOTHING that will give it away.
And during normal riding, you don't turn that much.

I have gotten small frames twice. Never could get comfy on either of them.

sorry, i was refering to my pant inseam...still new to all the cycling geometry lingo and what not. so, you think the 56cm w/ a longer stem might be the ticket?but of course, i can play with the stem if need be. i'm really hoping this will work b/c i'm very interested in building the bike myself for practical experience.

sorry, i was refering to my pant inseam...still new to all the cycling geometry lingo and what not. so, you think the 56cm w/ a longer stem might be the ticket?but of course, i can play with the stem if need be. i'm really hoping this will work b/c i'm very interested in building the bike myself for practical experience.

Maybe. I don't even know what your true inseam is. What I do know is that a 54 sounds really small for a six footer, regardless of shape. If you truly have a long torso, it might be wise to get the biggest frame you can stand over because it'll be really hard to get too long on the top. If you can straddle a 58, consider it.

I'm at the other extreme. I'm the same height as you, but I have long legs and a short torso. All of my bikes are between 61 cm and 63 cm with a 57.5 to 58 cm top tube. I don't think I could be properly fitted on an LHT because the right top tube length would get me a seat tube that is too short and I'd have a hard time getting the handle bars high enough. The point of the story is that not every bike comes in a size for every rider.

If you really are at the extreme end, you might want to consider a custom. Bob Jackson cycles in the UK can build a touring frame to your spec for under $700 USD. Mercian can do it for a little more. US builders for a lot more.

Edit: Just for reference, my pants inseam is anywhere from 32 - 34 inches depending upon who makes the pants. My true inseam is a tad over 35.

I'm 5'10", with 33.5" (actual) inseam, and I fit fine on the 54 cm LHT.
The leg length is taken care of with saddle height and the horizontal with proper stem length.

I'm still using my 60-mm stem, but it's slightly too short for me, so I'm getting a longer one later. 90-100 mm probably.

For me, a larger size than 54 was never an option, because 26" wheels are so much better than 700 wheels.

Well obviously Surly believes in the 700 concept, or they should have stuck with the 26 through the whole range. One can argue the 700s are too big for some riders, but if the 26s are more efficient, then they could be used on all sizes including XXL. For those who think 700s are valid, it's pretty bovious they would have to believe they were useable for the average adult male. Nobody brings stuff out for just the tall guys. So on that basis the 56 fits in the average range and up.

At 6'1", 32" inseam in bare feet, and 6'4" reach (though some of that is shoulders), I find the 58 fine. EVZ, I don't see any reason for you to go smaller than 56.

I'm 5'10", with 33.5" (actual) inseam, and I fit fine on the 54 cm LHT.
The leg length is taken care of with saddle height and the horizontal with proper stem length.

I'm still using my 60-mm stem, but it's slightly too short for me, so I'm getting a longer one later. 90-100 mm probably.

For me, a larger size than 54 was never an option, because 26" wheels are so much better than 700 wheels.

The problem with taking care of the leg length with the saddle height is that it means the drop from the saddle to the bars gets bigger. You can "solve" that by leaving a lot of steerer or riding in an "aero" position but those are suboptimal comprimises. (Raising the bars with extra steerer length on a too-short bike makes it even shorter because the steerer is on an angle towards the rider.)

Don't forget, the OP is two inches taller than you. If his actual inseam is the same as yours, then that extra length is going to be in the reach. If you need a 90-100mm stem, how long would he need to go to compensate for that extra reach? Don't forget to factor the longer steerer.

The "three sizes fits all and fix it with steerer and seatpost adjustments" approach is oversimplified and, I think, ill advised for people who, on a daily basis, spend five to eight hours a day on a bike. If you're choosing a frame size based on wheel size instead of fit, I think your priorities are inverted.

Of course, if you're comfortable and putting on the miles on that size bike then I won't argue what's appropriate for you. But I do think you're probably an exceptional case.

do y'all measure actual inseam with our without shoes?

I measure inseam without shoes. Heel height has little practical impact on cycling, and often the sole thickness at the cycling shoe is minimal.

Don't forget, the OP is two inches taller than you. If his actual inseam is the same as yours, then that extra length is going to be in the reach. If you need a 90-100mm stem, how long would he need to go to compensate for that extra reach? Don't forget to factor the longer steerer.


If he has shorter legs, chances are he has shorter arms as well, so the reach may very well be the same, or shorter, for him...

And wheel size is pretty important if, like me, you're not the slightest bit interested in running any other size than 26". For reasons I've made very clear in numerous posts here in the past.

well, it's going to be a 56cm. instead of ordering it sort of blind online, i found a surly dealer within reasonable driving distance. i took half a day off from work yesterday; i told them my dog was sick...bwahahaha. they didn't have a lht in shop but did have a 56 cm steamroller. i tried it out and we compared the specs with the lht and determined the 54 will be too small. so, he ordered the frame...400 clams even. and when it's time to have the wheels built, he is going to do them and i'm going to apprentice, for lack of a better word, b/c i have no idea how to build. i'm stoked on putting this bike together. anyway, thank you all for your input and i'm sure i'll be asking for more in the future.

Wow, mind if I get on this thread? I am currently in a similar situation. I'm looking at getting a Surly Cross-Check for commuting and day tours. I'm 6'0", super lanky with a 34 inch pants inseam, and 91 cm PBH. I'm looking to set it up as a poor man's Atlantis with moustache bars set way high (maybe up to 2 cm above the saddle). I was thinking that maybe the 62 cm would do the trick, but afraid that that might be oversized. I've only riddenundersized, sloping top-tubed mountain and road race bikes, so I'm not quite sure how to size myself and most bike shops seem to want to get me on a tiny bike that I have to wrap myself around. Halfspeed, you seem to be similar to me. What do you think?

Hi,
while you can use a cross bike, I can't help but think the LHT
would be a better choice. With a lower bottm bracket, and a shorter top tube, the LHT will have you more stretched where you want to be (hips) and less where you don't (back). Also, it's prob going to be a little stiffer, having been designed to take a load. This helps as 4130 can be flexy in large sizes. Just my 2 cents.

Also take a look at the Pacer, great frame, but with the picture they have on their website it's amazing anyone ever buys one.

Thanks late. The pacer doesn't have the tire clearance i'm looking for. I'm thinking of running 35mm wide tires (w/ fenders) so i can ride on gravel paths and some chunkier, more damaged roads. my reasons against the LHT are as follows (and they may be a little ridiculous). the lowrider mounts and spoke holders are things that i wouldn't use and just seem like nice convenient rust points. and one day, when i'm rich, it might be nice to have a rivendell atlantis. in which case, i could always turn the cross-check into a fixie or some other type of project bike, while a LHT would be redundant. i have to admit, i look at my second reason and it looks pretty stupid.

Hi,
I can see why you'd think little bumps like spoke holders would be rust magnets, but in practise it doesn't happen much. You tend to get problems where the paint gets whacked, and that can be anywhere.

well, it's going to be a 56cm. instead of ordering it sort of blind online, i found a surly dealer within reasonable driving distance. i took half a day off from work yesterday; i told them my dog was sick...bwahahaha. they didn't have a lht in shop but did have a 56 cm steamroller. i tried it out and we compared the specs with the lht and determined the 54 will be too small. so, he ordered the frame...400 clams even. and when it's time to have the wheels built, he is going to do them and i'm going to apprentice, for lack of a better word, b/c i have no idea how to build. i'm stoked on putting this bike together. anyway, thank you all for your input and i'm sure i'll be asking for more in the future.

So Eric did you get the LHT? I'm thinking of getting a 56 myself. How's it treating you? Did the shop show you the ropes of a build?

Wintermute. try some of the online fit engines, I would think you would be 58-60. Main issue is top tube length, so. I think you could go 60 easy with your inseam, as far as standover is concerned, but you could probably get by as low as 56. It depends on how your reach is.

Wintermute:

I've got a 91cm pbh. I went with a 62cm LHT, and it fits great. Bars are almost even with the seat. Could've gotten by with a 60, but chose the 62 just to get the bars higher. IMHO framesize should be based on your inseam, as that is always constant. If you have too small of a frame, the bars will be too low. I went off the Rivendell how to fit page. They'd have me on a 64, but they measure the frame differently. Also remember that the LHT has a lower BB height, so standover is lower. Here's the completed bike...

http://www.wolfenet.org/gallery/surly/img_1545


Now the question is, this years new ride is a Bacchetta Recumbent. Even more comfortable than the Surly, and quite a bit faster... Wife says I need to sell a bike. :(