Hydrated

+1

I agree... weight isn't nearly as important as most people make it out to be. But bike feel is. The way a bike handles and feels directly impacts your psyche... especially if you're in the saddle all day and maybe into the night. Sure, there are times when that 5 pounds of extra bike weight will hurt you, but those times are generally fewer than you'd think. The impacts of that extra 5 pounds are almost always psychological... not physical.

For example:
My main two bikes are my Kogswell PR MkII 650B... and a 1996 Serotta Atlanta. I have 8 others, but these are my favorites. I always just took it for fact that the Serotta was the go-fast ride and the Kogswell was the long distance warhorse (as a matter of fact, I named the Kogswell "Bucephalus")... and I always thought that it was simply because of the weight differential between them.

But one day I realized that the Kogswell was no slouch in the speed department. More than once I outpaced or chased down roadies on their carpet fiber lightweights. Now on the Serotta that wouldn't have surprised me... but Bucephalus has a big honkin' porteur rack and SON generator hub/lights and Carradice saddlebag.

Then I weighed both bikes. The Serotta weighed in at about 22 pounds in rando trim. And surprise... after removing the porteur rack and getting him in rando trim (lights and bags)... the Kogswell weighed 26 pounds. Just 4 pounds difference!

I was shocked... and I now realize that the major difference is in the way each bike feels. The Kogswell is comfy and rides like your Grandad's Buick... but it is light enough to stroll along at a smokin' pace on the flats. But the Serotta... Serotta's Colorado Concept tubing makes for a really stiff bottom bracket, and coupled with the short chainstays means that the bike climbs like a mountain goat. Every ounce of power that you put to the cranks gets to the rear wheel. But that bike is a nightmare on chipseal roads and cannot compare with the Kogswell and its 650B Hetres or Parimotos in those conditions.

Basically, the realization that these bikes have such a similar weight has shattered my predisposed idea that the Kogswell is the necessarily slower of the two bikes. The main reason that it was slower was because my brain was telling me that it was slower. Yeah... the Serotta is a far better climber... but it isn't just weight... it's geometry and construction.

So the moral of this story:
Don't fret over 3 or 4 pounds for a long distance bike. Worry about how the bike feels after a few hours in the saddle and whether it is appropriate for the terrain in which you're riding.

Oh yeah... and about that LHT. I rode a Surly Pacer for several years before I built up the Serotta. Once I got some miles on the Serotta, I realized how much I disliked the Pacer's ride. It feels dull and sluggish in comparison, even though it weighs 6 ounces less than the Serotta. Surly has something of a rep for having poor ride quality, but I always discounted it. Any Surly frame would be well down on my list.

aceofspaids

There is a significant price difference (when new) between a Kogswell, Serotta and any Surly.......let's just go ahead an get that point in there. In my opinion Surly has the best riding steel bike in it's price point. I am a larger guy 6'3" and a shade over 250lbs, so the weight of the LHT is no worry of mine and my large frame quite enjoys the feel of the more relaxed (mountain bike if you will) LHT.

Hydrated

You have a great point about new frame prices. But I don't buy new frames. The last brand new bike I bought was in 1983 when I bought my 1984 Trek 520... I still have it BTW.

Time is my friend. I keep my eyes open for bikes that were at the top of the food chain ten or 15 years ago, and I buy that way. There's no way I'm going to shell out $3800 for a new Serotta frame/fork when I can get a pristine used one for far cheaper. I put together my Serotta Atlanta for about half of what a new LHT complete will run you. But it took a lot of patience to catch that frame on CL.

Of course you are well over 6' tall, so finding a used frame in your size will be much more difficult than for me. I am a thoroughly average sized guy.

aceofspaids

Yup, finding a 60-62cm frame in decent-good shape is very hard to say the least. I picked up my LHT frame for just under $500, and have maybe $1000 in the entire build and I think it's actually as good if not better specs than the factory build. It all comes down to different strokes for different folks, and I like my LHT for all my rides short or long.

redxj

Ah, I might disagree here slightly. First off I am a big guy as well (6'6" 240lbs), and am a serial bike owner and have a current fleet of 14 bikes. If I was of average height I would not be able to own half of these bikes because I couldn't afford to own them. The big bikes are out there, but yes they don't come around as much. But, when they do they sell for far less than a normal size does. I only have one bike I bought new (actually a complete LHT), and it came at a below wholesale price as I was (and still am) a bike shop employee.

Ciufalon

redxj is right. I see nice big bikes ll the time selling for low prices. There's a Raleigh team bike for sale right now in TX for something like $125 because it is so large.

Though I have no experience with LHT, I have heard many times that they are very sluggish and really perform best when fully loaded. Personally, I would look for something like an old Bianchi Randonneur model or Bianchi Equinox. I think one of those would be better as an all-around bike than most of the modern offerings, but I would check the geometry. I would also look at the geometry of all the bikes I was considering. Some of the older touring bikes had better all-around geometry with head tube and seat tube angles of 72 or 73 degrees and better for off-set, but still perform great for touring. The longer chain stays would be about the only difference that I can see from a good rando bike. Something like a LHT more closely resembles a mountain bike, the Crosscheck's geometry is better, but the steering geometry is still not as good as a couple of my old touring bikes for brevets/rando riding. I also know of someone who thought the Crosscheck felt sluggish (possibly due to the steering).

I use my touring bikes for every kind of riding. Some others might disagree, but I would look for something with 72-73 degree angles for HT & ST and close to 50-65 mm fork offset. That kind of geometry is considered by many to provide very good if not great riding under all but extreme conditions, like racing. The offset might be where a bit of compromise needs to be made, but not much. Just me two cents.

EDIT: I changed it from 60 - 65 mm offset to 50 - 65 mm. My memory failed me. I am also adding this thread for those interest.

EDIT 2: Just looked at that thread about the new steel TriCross from Specialized and that looks like a good compromise for what the OP has in mind.

unterhausen

OP probably figured it out in the nearly 2 years since he posted. I think an LHT is a great bike to start doing randonneuring on and there are far worse choices out there. The main point is any bike that will make it through 200k without a breakdown is fine. Cue StephenH and his worksman. That being said, if someone intends to buy a bike solely for the purposes of randonneuring, LHT would not be one of my recommendations.

Chris Pringle

As much as we read/hear great things about the versatility of the LHT, I would have to agree with you on this statement. In the bicycle world, the LHT must be the epitome of "jack of all trades but the master of none."

unterhausen

I dunno, it seems to be a pretty good bike for loaded touring

Chris Pringle

Stand corrected. It definitely excels for that purpose.

marqueemoon

I own a Cross Check to commute on and it's pretty ok for that. Not a bike I generally want to ride for fun, and no way I'd want to run a narrower tire than a 32 on it.

I've only ridden an LHT around the block. I imagine all that stiffness is great when descending a rough mountain road with 50 pounds of stuff. Unloaded it rode like a brick.

kaliayev

The LHT is an ok touring frame nothing more. It's cheap I'll give you that, but I would not call it a great value for what you get. Surly as a whole are vastly overrated IMO.

muu

agree 100% about the 'feel.' I have a Jamis Aurora (their touring model) and their low-end carbon road, the former "feels" much slower than the latter even on flats. I do wonder if it really just feels that way, as brevets and TTs I've done with the two bikes seem to have vastly different time results. For a while I thought it was the difference between the standard Brooks and the spring version (I have the latter on the touring bike), but it doesn't seem to be the case.

I've no regrets about buying either of the bikes, though; the road bike is great during the summer and in lighter drizzles (thank goodness for Raceblade Longs, even if it doesn't quite fit right), and the touring bike can cut through pretty much anything.

EdgewaterDude

Well, Surly says it themselves on in their description that the tubing they use is oversized and thicker walled. I'm assuming this is what gives the 'tank like' ride qualities.

And I generally have no problem riding a 'sport touring' or 'touring' bike for brevets/fast centuries, etc. I've got an old Voyageur that has treated me very well on long rides. I can ride all day no handed with a handlebar bag and it's got a nice road feel. I'm actually saving for a velo orange campeur to use for the same purposes.