Touring - Surly LHT 26'' or 700cc wheels

I am thinking about getting a Surly LHT but I am between sizes. I am 5'10'' with a 31 inch inseam. I can ride a 54 or a 56 road bike. I currently ride a 56 CAAD8, which is a hair too big, but the 54 felt a little too small.

I noticed that the Surly LHT 54 comes with 26'' wheels and the 56 comes with 700cc wheels. Is there an advantage or disadvantage between the two wheel sizes that would push my decision one way or the other? For touring bikes should I go big or small if I am between sizes? thanks

For some people the real advantage to 26" is availability. If you plan on being in the boondocks a lot on your tour(s), you can find 26 inch tires at a Walmart in a pinch.

For a touring bike, I would err on the larger size, but only if there's enough standover clearance and the reach isn't too far. For standover clearance, I would use the PBH (pubic bone height) as the measure of choice. I'm 5'6" and have a 30" pants inseam, but a 32" PBH. I'll be getting a 53cm Jamis Aurora next month.

For a touring bike, I would err on the larger size...

why??!! Please explain.


jhan, buy the LHT that is closest to what you consider the ideal top-tube length.
(but get the 54cm :))

jhan, buy the LHT that is closest to what you consider the ideal top-tube length.
(but get the 54cm :))


My vote, also. Can fudge top-tube between 54 and 56 pretty easily w/ setback seatpost, stem length/angle yadda yadda I imagine.

Long headtube and way increased clearance are big pluses of the 54 I think. (I can run 26x2.0 tires,full fenders, and still mount a pump *behind* the seatpost)

I'd say give the 54 a try. I'm about 5'9" and my PBH is about 33.5", if I remember correctly (no tape measure here at work), 31-32" pants inseam. My road bike is a 55 cm Bianchi (measured C-T, like the LHT is).

I wanted the 26" wheels so I took a gamble and bought a 54 cm LHT online ($900 shipped can't be beat). I figured I could always sell it if it was too small. It fits fine and I'm glad I've got the 26" wheels (for re-using my previous hand built wheelset and for the reported ease of tire replacement in backwoods locales).

I think people go overboard with the big frame thing. Rivendell would fit me two sizes bigger than I prefer (and try to sell me a hundred dollar hatchet :) ). I like to have the bars well below the saddle (3"-4"). Different strokes and all that though.

If the frame is a bit small you can always adjust the seatpost and stem. If it is too big you can't do much. So I say if in doubt at all go for the smaller size.

i'm a 178cm tall

pretty average height ~

would i fit the 54cm Surly ?

I really wanna be able to fit 26" wheels, so going on the above advice, its not a drama if the frame size is a tad small for my size ?

i'm a 178cm tall

pretty average height ~

would i fit the 54cm Surly ?

I really wanna be able to fit 26" wheels, so going on the above advice, its not a drama if the frame size is a tad small for my size ?

Again... buy based on Top-Tube. If anyone actually gives you an answer, e-punch them as so-called online-experts are not.

For reference only cuz I know you people won't bother seeking professional help... I too am 178cm tall with an 88cm inseam. I love my 54cm LHT.

Sometimes it seems like everyone who is too big for the 26" wheel sizes wants them because they think they'll be significantly more durable and everyone who is too small for the 700Cs wants them because they think they'll be faster. For the most part, it really doesn't matter (at least not for those reasons).

Looking at actual geometry charts, the LHT runs a bit longer than the CAAD8 which has a pretty square geometry. So if you feel stretched out on your 56cm CAAD8, you might feel even more so on a 56cm LHT.

The reason for this is that the LHT has a slightly sloping top tube and is sized by actual C-T. That means that any particular size will fit like a larger bike with a traditional horizontal top tube which the CAAD8 has.

So a 56cm LHT is closer to a 57 or maybe even 58 CAAD8 depending on exactly what the top tube slope angle is.

Oh, and I'm going under the assumption that when Surly says "center to top" they mean center of the bottom bracket to top of the top tube. Surly doesn't say anywhere obvious. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. YMMV.

700cc wheels being significantly faster is largely theoretical, 26" wheels being more durable probably less theoretical. But as far as quality wheels at an affordable price, and availability, 26 inchers beat 700cc hands down in a very non-theoretical way. Mountain parts are cheaper than road parts because road bikes are still a fairly expensive niche market when compared to mountain bikes. Price for the wheel sizes is reflective of this.

Oh and just FYI, wheel sizes are not measured in cubic centimeters. The correct nomenclature is "700C". See sheldonbrown.com/tire_sizing.html

I would go for the 26" wheels if they offered a choice of wheel size in every frame size, or at least in the larger sizes also.

"700cc wheels being significantly faster is largely theoretical, 26" wheels being more durable probably less theoretical."

+1


"But as far as quality wheels at an affordable price, and availability, 26 inchers beat 700cc hands down in a very non-theoretical way. Mountain parts are cheaper than road parts because road bikes are still a fairly expensive niche market when compared to mountain bikes. Price for the wheel sizes is reflective of this."

-1 in the sense that if you build road wheels on 26" stock and touring bias them, then you are after some crazy weird and less available parts. I would say that was the logical extension of this frame since it is sorta a highway touring frame vs. an off road frame. So you might end up with 36 or more spokes, on your hubs and rims. Touring weight road rims, slicks, and lightweight tubes, possibly presta (if you live in my neighbourhood). That is pretty much a parts list designed to flunk fulfilment at any LBS in america. Of course it doesn't really cost all that bad...

26" wheels accelerate faster, theoretically, so if you're doing any stop-start city riding or any climbing whatsoever, 26" wheels are overall faster.

I have posted the following information before so please forgive the repetition.

I had the same choice between 54 and 56cm LHT's although the 54cm fit the best. I really agonized over the 26" vs 700c issue and in the end went with the better fitting bike--the 54cm with the 26" wheels.

There may be advantages to 26" wheels like strength, availability of parts... If there are disadvantages I have not experienced them.

One of the prejudices that I and others have had is that they are less comfortable...But, 26 x 1.75" wide tires provide enough cushion that there is really no issue here.

Another prejudice is that 26" wheels are slower. Recently I have started to accumulate some data comparing my LHS with my Specialized Roubaix over the same routes. My average speed varies from about 14 to 16 mph on both bikes over distances from 40 to over 100 miles. Sometimes the LHT is faster and sometimes not. It probably depends more on the day's wind pattern and also that I am no speed demon so aerodynamics is not a big deal. Still, I find this result surprising (these two bikes really are very different) since the reason I looked back at the data was to see how much slower the LHT was...And it's not.

I just figure I'd chime in a little on the 700c vs 26" debate.

as far as strength goes-I've built up two 700c wheelsets that were very stiff and strong (delgado to surly hubs) and they were pretty much indestructible. They were built with right around $200. Tire size gives you a lot of the strength in your wheel. I have ran the same set of wheels with 23c tires, and 2.3inch exiwolfs and I have done plenty of riding in unideal conditions with no problems with trueness.

Also, as far as wheel sizes go, the larger wheel, while accelerating slower (in theory) will also (in theory) hold momentum better. So once you get going it will be able to keep going. Not to mention a 700c wheel, with a larger tire provides more surface area for traction, and better rolling over rough ground. This will make the ride more pleasant, i guess.

The availability of tires, I don't really get that. You can buy fairly lightweight, foldable tires. Couldn't you just bring those along if you're traveling through the middle of nowhere?

I like 700c. But get whatever floats your boat. And fits you.

Also, as far as wheel sizes go, the larger wheel, while accelerating slower (in theory) will also (in theory) hold momentum better. So once you get going it will be able to keep going. Not to mention a 700c wheel, with a larger tire provides more surface area for traction, and better rolling over rough ground. This will make the ride more pleasant, i guess...

Agree in in theory if you scale with wheel diameter keeping everything else constant then you might come to the above conclusions. However, as a practical matter, all the effects mentioned above also dependent on tire size, type and inflation pressure and so I am betting that tradeoffs can be made with both 26" and 700c to get (probably) virtually the same performance from both (in a fully-loaded touring context).

The single best reason for choosing one size over the other is that smaller frames should use 26" wheels because it means the builder doesn't have to bork the geometry to fit the wheels. Any other reason is mostly rationalization and vanity.

The single best reason for choosing one size over the other is that smaller frames should use 26" wheels because it means the builder doesn't have to bork the geometry to fit the wheels. Any other reason is mostly rationalization and vanity.

+cost+availability.

The single best reason for choosing one size over the other is that smaller frames should use 26" wheels because it means the builder doesn't have to bork the geometry to fit the wheels. Any other reason is mostly rationalization and vanity.

Shhhh...keep trade secrets to yourself.

Btw, 700c wheels do have less rolling resistance than 26" wheels. The reason for this is because the contact patch of a 700c tire is longer and thinner than that of a 26" tire. Yes, the total contact area of both tires will be the same, but the 700c will roll a tiny bit faster.

On the flip side, simple physics will also tell you that the 26" wheel will be marginally stronger.

As has been said, buy a bike based on fit and usage, not on tire size. Since I'm not doing fully loaded touring, the marginally faster 700c wheels are more attractive to me.

Shhhh...keep trade secrets to yourself.

Btw, 700c wheels do have less rolling resistance than 26" wheels. The reason for this is because the contact patch of a 700c tire is longer and thinner than that of a 26" tire. Yes, the total contact area of both tires will be the same, but the 700c will roll a tiny bit faster.

On the flip side, simple physics will also tell you that the 26" wheel will be marginally stronger.

As has been said, buy a bike based on fit and usage, not on tire size. Since I'm not doing fully loaded touring, the marginally faster 700c wheels are more attractive to me.

For bicycle touring "mariginal" is of so little import as to be irrelevant in practice. Plus, for speed, there are other issues like the aerodynamic profile and weight of smaller wheels. And larger wheels can be 'marginally' more comfortable. But again, in practice it makes little difference. The discussion starts to get somewhat interesting from a practical standpoint when you bring in folders and their small wheels.

I am also 5' 10" with a 31" inseam. I ride a 56cm LHT and it is perfect. For me. Maybe not you...

Here's a large(er than me) person's apparently successful stab at getting a 54cm LHT to work for him (may need to register at mtbr.com to view the pix, bikecad output is pretty cool though):

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=332319
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=347662

In the mtb world there is a trend to 700c (29er) wheels. Of course, as in anything new, they all love them. There is a theoretical advantage in smoothing out the bumps a little. It seems that this would translate to an advantage on a touring bike on a rough road also. Is it really just tradition that keeps the roadies on 700c wheels?

In the mtb world there is a trend to 700c (29er) wheels. Of course, as in anything new, they all love them. There is a theoretical advantage in smoothing out the bumps a little. It seems that this would translate to an advantage on a touring bike on a rough road also. Is it really just tradition that keeps the roadies on 700c wheels?

No, tradition is what keeps some roadies on 27 inchers.

Actually, the theoretical smoothness advantages of larger diameter wheels are almost unnoticeable. Much more important are tire width, construction and pressure. I think the LHT controversy over what wheelsize is better is mostly a matter of personal preference, unless someone is considering a tour of parts of the world where 700c is truly unavailable.

That said, my LHT has 700c wheels so these are obviously the proper choice. :lol:

Oh, and I'm going under the assumption that when Surly says "center to top" they mean center of the bottom bracket to top of the top tube. Surly doesn't say anywhere obvious. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. YMMV.

On surly's blog, they say that they measure from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube/top tube junction.
http://www.surlybikes.com/spew17.html

I think this is why it seems that Surly frames run a bit large.

They should change bike size to the length of the effective top-tube so people can stop obsessing.

Currently I have an old converted touring bike with 27 inch wheels and 27*1 1/4 inch Continental Super Sport tires (no longer made). I can also run 330 gram 27*1 1/4 Conti GatorSkins tires when I want something more puncture resistant. I am thinking about getting a LHT, and 54cm is my size, but it looks like most of the tires available in that 26 inch wheel size are pretty wide, heavy clunkers. Does anybody have suggestions for decent 26 inch touring tires in 1 1/4 inch or 1 3/8 inch size? Also, by the fact of dropping down from my former 27 inch tire to a 26 inch tire, should I expect to likely want to run something a little wider on average than I run on my current tourer by virtue of the new wheels having a little smaller diameter than my previous 27 inch wheels? I weigh about 160 lbs and probably wouldn't be expecting to carry over 40 or 45 pounds.

Thanks for any suggestions.:D

Edit: Never mind. I see now that there are enough tire choices in enough sizes.

They should change bike size to the length of the effective top-tube so people can stop obsessing.

That's half the answer. The other half is head tube length.

That's half the answer. The other half is head tube length.

agreed 100%... which is why I'm starting the advocacy group, "Unsteerers... longer is better!"

I just found this essay on the Santana tandem website, where the President of Santana Bicycles, Bill McCready, concludes that "a 26 inch wheel tandem with equivalent rims, tread width, tread pattern and inflation will be 2-4% slower than a 700c tandem". He goes on to say that "While this will be a small difference for those who want the flexibility of using their tandem off-road, those interested in ultra-fast pavement rides might expect a cruising speed difference of up to one mile per hour (or a century finishing time difference of 5-10 minutes)."

He also notes "To achieve the same gearing as a 700c road tandem with a 54 tooth chainring, a 26" racing tandem will need a 60 tooth ring --- which is incompatible with the curvature of modern front derailleurs. And when you want to stop, because braking power is a squared function of effective brake radius, a rim brake on a 26" tandem is 19% less effective than the same brake on a 700c tandem."

http://www.gtgtandems.com/tech/700-26.html

Considering that Mr. McCready's rationale for the 26 inch wheel tandem being slower than a 700C tandem was due to a different shape for the tire contact patch, believed to become shorter and wider as wheel diameter is reduced, it seems to me that the same theory would apply to the Surly Long Haul trucker when looking at a 26 inch wheel Long Haul Trucker versus a 700C Long Haul Trucker. The comments about reduced braking power for the 26 inch wheel would also apply.

In addition, it should also be noted that although both the pre built models of 26 inch wheel and 700C wheel Long Haul Truckers come spec'd with the same Sugino 26-36-48 cranksets matched to Deore 11-34 cassettes, the two LHT models will provide substantially different gear inches for any given gear combination due to the different wheel diameters, and this could be another factor for the original OP to look at when choosing between the 26 inch wheel and 700C wheel LHT, although gearing can be changed pretty easily.

Worrying about having a fast bike to maximize speed on a loaded tour has never been a consideration for me and probably never should be, but I was thinking that it might be on my next tour because of the nature of the individuals planning to participate. I am certain somebody there is going to try to turn portions of the tour in to a race! :)

Anyway, anybody have any comments about McCready's conclusions?

i thought about all the things in skewer's post... gear inches, braking power, etc... my conclusion? meh... i'll run a slightly smaller cassette. (2 teeth on a chain ring is apprx equal to 1 tooth on a cassette on a 26" wheel bike.) That 2-4% slower will be more than made up by that single broken spoke you'll avoid, or that one day when the wallmart in Smalltown, USA ran out of 700c tubes.

The 2-4% difference in efficiency between the two wheel sizes is old news, and as noted , only amounts to a tiny time difference in a Century ride.

Additionally, the maximum 4% efficiency only amounts to 1 mph when riding at 25 mph! Who's riding that fast on a touring bike?

And the 2% efficiency only equates to a .3 mph difference at 15 mph. Virtually insignificant.

The only time the difference might be noticeable would be on very fast club rides where the members are drafting each other. The person with the smaller wheels might find it a tiny bit more difficult to keep up, and their cadence will be off with the rest of the group. Fast club rides on an LHT? You'd have to be a fairly strong rider.

<<The 2-4% difference in efficiency between the two wheel sizes is old news, and as noted , only amounts to a tiny time difference in a Century ride.>>

I have been out of the loaded touring scene for awhile, and the search engine on this forum isn't working for me, so please pardon me if I am just repeating things that have already been covered multiple times in this forum. Those are good points above. A five to ten minute loss on a century ride at fast tandem speeds doesn't translate back to any meaningful time or speed loss for a loaded tourer.

<<That 2-4% slower will be more than made up by that single broken spoke you'll avoid, or that one day when the wallmart in Smalltown, USA ran out of 700c tubes.>>

Coming from the perspective of one whose current, old steel tour bike still has 27 inch wheels and tires, I find the notion of fear of being stranded due to the lack of availability of 700C tires and tubes somewhat puzzling. In the USA, you could easily carry a foldable 700C spare, some Park boot liner strips, a couple of spare spokes along with the Performance 800 number to get overnight shipping for a replacement tire to a town the next day, and not to mention that every one of the bike shops I have been to in the last five years carry 700C tires and tubes. Doesn't even Walmart carry 700C tires and tubes? Also, will 29er mountain bike tires work? They have the same 622mm ISO as 700C tires. How wide a tire will the Surley LHT's accept?

Perhaps this concern about availability of 700C tires that has been mentioned on this thread several times is a bigger factor for touring in remote, undeveloped countries? One other thing not mentioned, though probably old news as well, is that once again, given equivalent rims, tread width, tread pattern and inflation, the 700C wheels will tend to give a smoother ride. And given the essay at Santana, I would surmise that my old 27 inch wheel/tires would have a slight speed and smoothness factor advantage over both the 700C and 26 inch setups given equivalent rims, tread width, tread pattern and inflation. Heck, maybe I will keep the old, 27 inch wheel steel tourer a little longer!

It sounds to me like the key advantages of a 26 inch wheel/tires are generally better durability, easier transition to off road touring on fire roads etcetera and perhaps easier wheel/tire replacement in remote parts of the world? Also, perhaps more importantly, the 26 inch wheels allow Surly to keep the frame geometry they are seeking for models 54cm and smaller. The advantages of 700C wheels and tires is a tiny bit better expected speed and smoothness given equivalent rims, tread width, tread pattern and inflation, and better braking power given equivalent brakes. Would you agree?

I am also 5' 10" with a 31" inseam. I ride a 56cm LHT and it is perfect. For me. Maybe not you...

I used to be 5'9" and could never get comfy on a typical 54... The secret is knowing what length top tube you need and getting as close as you can to it.

Skewer, agreed. You've summed it up well.

The 2-4% difference in efficiency between the two wheel sizes is old news, and as noted , only amounts to a tiny time difference in a Century ride.

Additionally, the maximum 4% efficiency only amounts to 1 mph when riding at 25 mph! Who's riding that fast on a touring bike?

And the 2% efficiency only equates to a .3 mph difference at 15 mph. Virtually insignificant.

The only time the difference might be noticeable would be on very fast club rides where the members are drafting each other. The person with the smaller wheels might find it a tiny bit more difficult to keep up, and their cadence will be off with the rest of the group. Fast club rides on an LHT? You'd have to be a fairly strong rider.
First I have no idea how accurate those numbers are, but assuming that they are correct...
I don't see them as being all that insignificant. Acceptable? Perhaps, but not insignificant.

25 mph on tour, not often, but we did do 18-22 a good bit when riding paceline on our tour this Summer.

I have to work pretty hard to take that "insignificant" amount off my century time.

A .3 mph difference is three miles in 10 hours. If it is getting dark, cold, and starting to rain having three more miles to go is far from insignificant :)

I am not saying that it isn't an acceptable compromise, but it is enough difference to be worth consideration before deciding rather than dismissing it without consideration.

25 mph on tour, not often, but we did do 18-22 a good bit when riding paceline on our tour this Summer.

Interesting. That is what I think could happen on my next tour, so that alleged slightly slower speed for the 26 inch wheels is making me think a little. On another note, I don't know whether or not the conclusions from Santana have been confirmed elsewhere, but they have no marketing axe to grind to favor 700C tandems considering that they sell both 700C and 26 inch wheel tandems, and they have been continuously selling the 26 inch wheel tandems since 1983. And as McCready noted, the 26 inch wheel tandems make sense for a lot of people for reasons other than max speed on smooth pavement.

On a 10 hr ride, if your true average speed (including stops) comes anywhere NEAR a cruising speed of 18-22mph, you're one amazing rider...unless it's mostly downhill, of course.

My reason for going with the frame with 700c wheels is the fact that I sold my road frame but kept wheels, tires, and tubes. I have lots of 700c stuff but hardly any 26" wheels, tires, or tubes. When I'm using my touring bike as a commuter or for club rides or distance rides (this is about 80% of my riding) I like to run a lighter wheel set than I would use for touring. For commuting, club rides, and distance rides I use 28 spoke Mavic Open Pros with Ultegra hubs. For loaded touring, I use 36 spoke Mavic A-319's that came with the bike. I like the versatility that this wheel size gives me for the different types of riding that I do.

If you're a mountain biker... then you probably go with the 26" wheels if you're in a similar situation as mine.

On a 10 hr ride, if your true average speed (including stops) comes anywhere NEAR a cruising speed of 18-22mph, you're one amazing rider...unless it's mostly downhill, of course.
We took long breaks and didn't average anywhere near that when breaks were included. I am 56 and this was our vacation after all :)

I doubt if we averaged 18 mph on any given day even if you only counted the time on the bike, but there were probably a couple days where we were close to that. It wasn't too unusual for us to do over 18 for a couple hours at a clip on flat to slightly rolling terrain sometimes. This only after we were a few weeks into the tour and in good form, since we trained as we went. Also it was usually with my 21 year old daughter on the front most of the day. I remember one particular day in the Wind River Valley where she led for hours at a blistering pace with a strong headwind. I was just hanging on for dear life. When we stopped she said, "Am I perverse for enjoying that". When she was feeling motivated she was amazing!

There were also days where we rode a LOT slower.

Back in the day I did do a 22.5 mph century, but that was about 15 years ago, on an unburdened road bike, on flat roads, and it included a lot of drafting. Sadly those days are long gone for me. A good century is over 6 hours for me now.

Anyway, anybody have any comments about McCready's conclusions?
garbage.

Sure, the contact patch issue is valid, but to ignore the very slight acceleration advantage of 26" wheels -- meaning any climbing and/or start-stoping -- means the "study" was incomplete and biased from the start.

silly.

Anyway, anybody have any comments about McCready's conclusions?
Some people are myopic at the expense of common sense. This is why there are so many Ron Paul posters on your daily commute.

I'm sure McCready could argue the theoretical advantage of 700C vs 26" wheels, I'm just not sure in real life it matters that much in touring situations. I don't know about anybody else, but when I tour, I cycle to look around, smell the roses, experience life, smile, etc,etc. It means that I'm usually far from pushing myself to 100% max. So even if 700C wheels offer a 2-4% advantage (as postulated by McCready, and in all fairness as he noted in his article, in a stricter road riding sense and touring is not really considered) I personally wouldn't mind cycling with someone and adding that extra 2-4% to keep up with them, it's just not a big deal to me.

And of course, there is the question of that 2-4% -in his article he clearly states: 'My best current estimate is a 26" tandem with equivalent rims, tread width, tread pattern and inflation will be 2-4% slower than a 700c tandem.'. The key word here is "equivalent". It will be rare that a group of riders will have that kind of equivalent equipment. Thinking this through if you are going to base wheel size for touring on this argument, this would logically dictate that you should eschew any kind of equipment choice or configuration that might also give you any performance degradation (e.g.: use a slightly narrower tyre, a higher pressure, use only drop handlebars that are the narrowest you can get for aerodynamics, don't use Brooks saddles since they are heavier, etc, etc). I have to think that there are many other bigger factors that can slow you down too -primarily rider performance, tyre choice and equipment weight to name a few.

Finally, to further question the 2-4% performance degradation, the advantage of faster acceleration (all things being equal) for 26" wheels 26" wheels isn't mentioned either, or in touring situations where average speeds are usually much slower (thinking of cycling up a hill here, will 700C wheels make you go *that* faster?!). He does mention the small aerodynamic advantage, but I'm not convinced the figure of 2-4% is accurate -at least for the touring context, and for all I know it may be more or less in the road context -as it seems to be more of an anecdotal conclusion.

To me, the choice of wheel size is personal, and so long as you are fit and on a properly fitting bicycle with reasonable equipment, the choice of 700C vs 26" just isn't a factor in my opinion. I believe that 700C vs 26" should be more based on the geometry the frame design will yield -e.g. shorter people are going to have an easier time getting frames with "traditional" geometry that preclude toe overlap. Finally, while I admit to not going touring in places off the beaten path, I can see the logic in that 26" wheel accessories do seem to be more readily available, so I can understand why someone who can get a nice frame geometry with 700C wheels might opt for 26" wheels.

all i know is i rode the seagull century in 5 hours (it was my first century), and i got dropped by a guy on an old purple koga-miyata world traveller (26" wheels, scott at-2 bar, small panniers, large touring tires, flat pedals). it was humbling. I think we may have eventually caught him, but he was still hauling.

I asked about the difference between 700 and 26 inch wheels on the commuting forum a few weeks and got some interesting feedback. Here is the link,

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=367632

When I started touring many decades ago I rode a 700c wheel set but saw many gravel and dirt roads that I could not ride.
In the early 80's I started touring on a mountain bike with 26in wheels. I liked the ability to take any road and did so but found the bike sluggish when on pavement. Part of this was due to the limited tire selection available-mostly heavy knobby ones. I began to wish for a bike that combined the best characteristics of the two wheel sizes.
In 1989 I ordered a Bruce Gordon RNR which used 700c wheels with 45mm tires. I am still riding this bike today and it continues to solve the problem of pavement versus non-paved touring. I find that I can ride anywhere my strength and bike handling limitations allow.
I was literally ridiculed for using it on the Divide Ride because it has no suspension and the tires were too narrow at 1.75in. I had a wonderful time and had no mechanical problems or wheel problems that many others had who rode the guide book approved mountain bike and BOB trailer combination.
This system works for me and that is all that is important in the long run.

I am thinking about getting a Surly LHT but I am between sizes. I am 5'10'' with a 31 inch inseam. I can ride a 54 or a 56 road bike. I currently ride a 56 CAAD8, which is a hair too big, but the 54 felt a little too small.

I noticed that the Surly LHT 54 comes with 26'' wheels and the 56 comes with 700cc wheels. Is there an advantage or disadvantage between the two wheel sizes that would push my decision one way or the other? For touring bikes should I go big or small if I am between sizes? thanks

Just get what fits.
Don't stress about the wheel size...

When I started touring many decades ago I rode a 700c wheel set but saw many gravel and dirt roads that I could not ride.
In the early 80's I started touring on a mountain bike with 26in wheels. I liked the ability to take any road and did so but found the bike sluggish when on pavement. Part of this was due to the limited tire selection available-mostly heavy knobby ones. I began to wish for a bike that combined the best characteristics of the two wheel sizes.
In 1989 I ordered a Bruce Gordon RNR which used 700c wheels with 45mm tires. I am still riding this bike today and it continues to solve the problem of pavement versus non-paved touring. I find that I can ride anywhere my strength and bike handling limitations allow.
I was literally ridiculed for using it on the Divide Ride because it has no suspension and the tires were too narrow at 1.75in. I had a wonderful time and had no mechanical problems or wheel problems that many others had who rode the guide book approved mountain bike and BOB trailer combination.
This system works for me and that is all that is important in the long run.

Nice going! Were they still ridiculing you after they saw your setup was working for you?:) What kind of rims and hubs do you have on your Bruce Gordon?

It looks like if you buy the Long Haul Trucker complete, you get Alex Adventurer Rims mated to XT Hubs for both models, 700C and 26", which Quality Bicycle Parts says the rims are intended for road use. They are very inexpensive rims, only $23 a piece. Does anybody reading this thread have any experience touring on them?

I would also assume that since both LHT frames have 135mm spacing in the back for the XT hubs, you wouldn't be able to use any of your regular 700c wheels with standard 130mm road hubs on the back. You could substitute any 700C wheel on the front though, which has standard 100mm front spacing. For the 26 inch wheel LHT, you would be able to use any standard 26 inch mountain bike wheels on the back and front. If someone knows different, please correct me.