Touring - What size LHT for my 6'1" wife?

Yeah, I know she's a giant, but she's my giant. :)

I've been replacing components on her old Giant Innova hybrid with the plan being buy a LHT frame for X-mas and switch all the new stuff over to that. Sneaky, huh? The problem is I want it to be kind of a surprise so I need help figuring out what size LHT to get her.

She's 6'1" tall with long legs--she always has to special order "long" pants from J Crew, Banana Republic and the like. Her mens jeans are a 34 length. So, should I get a 60 or 62 for her? Any special considerations with sizing a frame for a woman as opposed to a man? Also, she's more of an upright rider so I'll probably err on the side of shorter top tube if its a close call. Thanks!

Yeah, I know she's a giant, but she's my giant. :)

I've been replacing components on her old Giant Innova hybrid with the plan being buy a LHT frame for X-mas and switch all the new stuff over to that. Sneaky, huh? The problem is I want it to be kind of a surprise so I need help figuring out what size LHT to get her.

She's 6'1" tall with long legs--she always has to special order "long" pants from J Crew, Banana Republic and the like. Her mens jeans are a 34 length. So, should I get a 60 or 62 for her? Any special considerations with sizing a frame for a woman as opposed to a man? Also, she's more of an upright rider so I'll probably err on the side of shorter top tube if its a close call. Thanks!

Save for a custom. Stock LHT geometry is going to be very hard to fit that body.

I have a 35 in. pbh and chose a 60 cm LHT, because I neded the top tube lingth shorter. I'm told this is a feminen thing usualy. I have a 8 cm stem . the 8 cm. stem had to be ordered. not shoure if 6 cm stems are avalable. 1 thought, if she is comfortable on the present bike duplcate the dementions on the LHT, or address the curent problems.

Yeah, I know she's a giant, but she's my giant. :)

I've been replacing components on her old Giant Innova hybrid with the plan being buy a LHT frame for X-mas and switch all the new stuff over to that. Sneaky, huh? The problem is I want it to be kind of a surprise so I need help figuring out what size LHT to get her.

She's 6'1" tall with long legs--she always has to special order "long" pants from J Crew, Banana Republic and the like. Her mens jeans are a 34 length. So, should I get a 60 or 62 for her? Any special considerations with sizing a frame for a woman as opposed to a man? Also, she's more of an upright rider so I'll probably err on the side of shorter top tube if its a close call. Thanks!

One other option if you absolutely =can't= go custom is to go with an older high quality frame and get it powdercoated her favorite color. Older Trek 620s and 720s had shorter top tubes than an LHT or most other modern tourers. It's still going to be suboptimal, but it'll be closer than an LHT and cheaper than a custom even with powdercoating.

She still =might= be able to ride an LHT if she's in great shape and very flexible, but at 6' with a 90cm true inseam, and a good deal of flexibility, there's no LHT I'd ride.

Thanks for the input. That confirms some of my thoughts.

She's just getting back into riding, so she's no flexibility whiz. She has bad joints from playing college basketball so she needs a more upright and comfortable ride.

Sounds like the LHT might be too stretched out for her. I think I'll just trick out her hybrid for now and ease her into the idea of bike shopping--ride a bunch of bikes and see if there's anything out there that will work for her. If nothing works, I really like the powder-coating idea.

Closely compare the geometry of the Surly Long Haul Trucker (http://www.surlybikes.com/longhaul.html) to the SOMA DoubleCross (http://www.somafab.com/geometry03.html) (and Extra Smoothie, while you're at it) before you buy. The Soma geometry may be better suited to her and the frame is made of better steel, but the prices are about the same. Just a thought.

I'm 6'1" but I have 33 inch inseam. I found standover on the Urbane tourist 58 cm is a little tight. The top tube is on the shorter side so that as you get up to 62, the TT is listed at 60, and I noticed the same thing with mine. At 33" I have the seat pretty low, check out my pic on page 16 of the loaded rigs. So you would be shortened up on two points, the smaller frame and the proportional tube sizes.

Here are their numbers:

ST c/c ST c/t TT HA SA CS BB Drop
XXS 42 cm
50.5 cm 72.0 74.0 45.0 cm 6.6 cm
XS 46 cm
52.0 cm 72.0 74.0 45.0 cm 6.6 cm
S 50 cm
54.0 cm 72.0 73.5 45.0 cm 6.6 cm
M 54 cm
56.0 cm 72.0 73.0 45.0 cm 6.6 cm
L 58 cm
58.0 cm 72.0 73.0 45.0 cm 6.6 cm
XL 62 cm
60.0 cm 72.0 72.5 45.0 cm 6.6 cm


Sorta proves Halfspeeds point that you can sometimes get what you want by checking frame dimensions, charts are often not correct, so if you get seriously interested in a particular frame, it might pay to get someone to put a tape on it for you.

According to Sheldon's site the practice up till the early 80s was to proportionally size the seat tube and the head tube only, so the top tube was not lengthened in larger than average sizes. So overall, all you need is an older style bike and you should be fine.

SOO, what about a Kogswell Porter? Nice looking frame and the 59 cm ST is 57 TT, or the 61.6 has the TT of 60, though I think that might be too large. Uses the 650 wheel which is trendy though oddball.

http://kogswell.com/PR.html

Bear in mind that as the seat tube gets shorter, the drop from the saddle to the bars gets deeper and the effective cockpit length gets longer.

There also seems to be a tendency for women to prefer a shorter top tube than similarly proportioned men. It may be due to differences in upper body strength or weight distribution. In any case, that's a big generalization which could be very wrong in any particular.

Internet sizing is always fraught with peril and is, at best, a guideline.

FWIW, I prefer a 61-63cm seat tube with a 57.5-58cm top tube and a 10 or 11cm stem. I'm also flexible enough that I can bend over and put my palms on the floor.

Bear in mind that as the seat tube gets shorter, the drop from the saddle to the bars gets deeper and the effective cockpit length gets longer...

...but the weight borne by the hands increases, creating other problems.

...but the weight borne by the hands increases, creating other problems.

Any increase in cockpit length or saddle to bar drop will do this. Although it's a problem only to the extent that it takes the rider out of the range of comfortable fit.

Any increase in cockpit length or saddle to bar drop will do this. Although it's a problem only to the extent that it takes the rider out of the range of comfortable fit.
I respectfully disagree. If you keep a constant straight line distance from saddle nose to handlebar, but compare:

(1) longer effective top tube with handlebars horizontally level with the saddle
to

(2) shorter effective top tube with handlebars lower than the saddle,
the hands will bear more weight in the latter situation than the former. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but it seems you suggest that each situation would be the same.

I respectfully disagree. If you keep a constant straight line distance from saddle nose to handlebar, but compare:

(1) longer effective top tube with handlebars horizontally level with the saddle
to

(2) shorter effective top tube with handlebars lower than the saddle,
the hands will bear more weight in the latter situation than the former. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but it seems you suggest that each situation would be the same.

Yes, you misunderstood. I made no such suggestion.