Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-07, 10:29 AM   #1
Burningman
See You Down The Road
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Bikes:
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Need Frame size suggestions for Surly LHT

Ha folks,I'm looking to put my Miyata 610 to stud and getting a Surly Long Haul Trucker.

I'm stuck on weather to get a 58cm or the 60cm....I'm 6'2 and have a inseam of 33.5"

Any extra help would be great...Thanx
Burningman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-07, 11:32 AM   #2
martianone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northern VT
Bikes: recumbent & upright
Posts: 1,871
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i ride a 58 cm cross check, my riding position is fairly relaxed with an albatross handlebar
i'm just under 75 in tall, my inseam is a little shorter than yours, but i have a long torso.
58 cm cross check and LHT have almost identical top tube and stand over dimensions.
the 58 is a comfortable fit for me
martianone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-07, 12:09 PM   #3
Robert_in_ca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laguna Hills California
Bikes: Cannondale R3000, Specialized Enduro SL
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6'1" and feel right at home on the 56.
Robert_in_ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-07, 07:39 PM   #4
Michel Gagnon
Year-round cyclist
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Montréal (Québec)
Bikes:
Posts: 3,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 5' 11.5" and use a 25" Trek 520 (i.e. 63.5 cm frame), with 12-14 cm of seatpost exposed. If I remember correctly, the 700c LHT has fairly much the same geometry than the Trek.

As for the ideal frame, a lot depends on your body proportions as well as your optimal riding position. If you don't plan many off road rides, the larger frame will allow you to place the bars higher without having to use any special gizmo like a steerer tube extender.
Michel Gagnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-07, 08:57 PM   #5
Highcyclist
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oregon Coast
Bikes: '07 Surly LHT
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6' and ride a 58cm LHT. If at all possible, test ride the different frames. I was all set to get a 56cm, when I had a chance to ride a 58cm, and finally decided to go with that. I've been very thankful that I did.
Highcyclist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-07, 10:48 PM   #6
adrianlatrace
Senior Member
 
adrianlatrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Schwinn Collegiate
Posts: 85
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel Gagnon
I'm 5' 11.5" and use a 25" Trek 520 (i.e. 63.5 cm frame), with 12-14 cm of seatpost exposed. If I remember correctly, the 700c LHT has fairly much the same geometry than the Trek.

As for the ideal frame, a lot depends on your body proportions as well as your optimal riding position. If you don't plan many off road rides, the larger frame will allow you to place the bars higher without having to use any special gizmo like a steerer tube extender.

Wow, how does that work? There must be absolutely zero clearance between the bike and your loins eh? Why did you decided to go with a bike so large? (I'm just curious as to why..) I'm trying to figure out what I size I should get as well. We have a 21" on the floor in my shop but nothing larger. I'm 6'-6'1" and it feels ok, just maybe a bit small..
adrianlatrace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-07, 11:53 PM   #7
old and new
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burningman
Ha folks,I'm looking to put my Miyata 610 to stud and getting a Surly Long Haul Trucker.

I'm stuck on weather to get a 58cm or the 60cm....I'm 6'2 and have a inseam of 33.5"

Any extra help would be great...Thanx
Inseam seems wrong, you measured it wrong, I believe. I'm 5'10" with a 33.25" inseam, I have VERY short legs for my height, my pant inseeam is 30", 31" at most,still the pants fit long. If you test bikes to see if you're more at ease on one than another, fine. if you use fit-calcs. or consult with folkes in absentia
.. your data will mislead you. Both 58 and 60 seam reasonable judging by your height, taking your body and arm length into consideration as well. I'll say that 56 is too small,statistically and from experience,56 is for 5'9"- 5'11",again depending on TRUE inseam, PBH that is.
old and new is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-07, 04:09 AM   #8
dydst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Bikes:
Posts: 100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6'2 - 6'3 and 240 lbs., I went back and forth between the 58-60. After fit kit and one of those bike machines where they set up the geometry of the frame you want, 60 cm. was right for me.
dydst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-07, 05:48 AM   #9
brianmcg123
Senior Member
 
brianmcg123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: TN
Bikes:
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Try them both.

My suggestion, if you want the bars as high as possible with out the use of a ton of spacer get the 60 and a shorter stem. If you like the bars below your saddle, get the 58.

Here is some good fitting advice if you want a comfortable riding bike:

We divide this into 2 sections.doc

Raise Dat Stem.doc

A Better Way to Sit.doc

A Comfortable and Efficient Position.doc
brianmcg123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-07, 06:40 AM   #10
Burningman
See You Down The Road
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Canada
Bikes:
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is all helping alot,thanks very much everyone (my inseam is right,I'm all torso)
Burningman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-07, 01:13 PM   #11
NeezyDeezy
Senior Member
 
NeezyDeezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 880
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm not sure if you'll find the difference between a 610 and a LHT to be worth it.
NeezyDeezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-07, 07:36 AM   #12
jens5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Durham,NC.
Bikes: Heron Wayfarer/ 2004 Giant Cypress SX
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm 6:1 and wear 32" inseam jeans. Weight 230lb's, I'm definitely trading my 58cm LHT frame and swapping it out for a 60. I went thru ridicules measures to get my bars barely high enough on the 58. Uncut fork, every available spacer, 30 degree high rise stem and a nut's amount of seat post showing. Remember, Surly does not measure the seat tube for they're measurement, they measure top tube c to c. A 58 cm. Surly LHT is really according to the old tried and true c to c seat post measurment a 56 &1/2. Anyone interested in a 58 dark cherry frame?

Richard
jens5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-07, 04:30 PM   #13
Mchaz
Dances a jig.
 
Mchaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Central, Ok
Bikes: 2007 Surly Long Haul Trucker 54cm (Commuting/Wanna' go tour so bad), 1985 Trek 670 21" (Road), 2003 Gary Fisher Tassajara 17" (MTB), Cannondale DeltaV 600 (commuterized MTB), some junker bikes in my garage
Posts: 403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens5
Remember, Surly does not measure the seat tube for they're measurement, they measure top tube c to c. A 58 cm. Surly LHT is really according to the old tried and true c to c seat post measurment a 56 &1/2.
??

The screen shot is a cropped version of the chart on Surly's site:



Surly definitely uses the seat tube measurement for their frame sizing.
Mchaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-07, 05:48 AM   #14
brianmcg123
Senior Member
 
brianmcg123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: TN
Bikes:
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens5
Remember, Surly does not measure the seat tube for they're measurement, they measure top tube c to c. A 58 cm. Surly LHT is really according to the old tried and true c to c seat post measurment a 56 &1/2. Anyone interested in a 58 dark cherry frame?

Richard
I never heard that. Sounds like some bike shop sized you as if you were going to be racing crits, not touring.

It's sad to say but I am sure it is quite common. When I bought my LHT (56cm) I had to ensure the owner of the shop that "Yes, I am sure that is the size I want". Even after the bike was all set up and out the door every time I came back in he would ask, "Are you sure that was the right size, is everything O.K. with it?"

It is as if he had never seen a bike that wasn't a race bike. He couldn't understand why I wanted the bars so high.
brianmcg123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-07, 07:28 AM   #15
jens5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Durham,NC.
Bikes: Heron Wayfarer/ 2004 Giant Cypress SX
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Surly LHT sizing

Let me clarify. Surly measures the seat tube on an LHT center to top, not center to center. On a so called 58cm Surly LHT, the measurement of seat tube c to c is 56cm. I just measured it. Again, Surly sizes are based on they're top tub measurement C to C. Nobody "Fit kit" me for anything. If your used to the old standard iow, when frame sizing was measured by the seat tube c to c., and you go by that size when purchasing an LHT, your buying a frame that's too small. I may be old school, but I go by, what was once considered "true" measurement or, c to c of seat tube and not top tube.

Richard
jens5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-07, 07:32 AM   #16
jens5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Durham,NC.
Bikes: Heron Wayfarer/ 2004 Giant Cypress SX
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sure they do. Center to top. True (old) sizing? A 58cm is really a 56 c to c. Surly calls a 58cm a 58cm because the top tube is 58cm. c to c not the seat tube.

Richard
jens5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-07, 11:34 AM   #17
halfspeed
Senior Member
 
halfspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Bikes: are better than yours.
Posts: 12,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens5
Sure they do. Center to top. True (old) sizing? A 58cm is really a 56 c to c. Surly calls a 58cm a 58cm because the top tube is 58cm. c to c not the seat tube.

Richard
Either you misunderstand or your terminology is confused. Center to top is NOT a measurement of the top tube. It's a measurement of the seat tube from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the seat tube. The top tube doesn't figure into it. But you are correct that a 58 c-t is about the same as a 56 c-c on an LHT.

Most traditional geometry steel bikes from England, the North America and Asia seem to be measured c-t these days. The Italians may be using c-c. (I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions that people will point out.)

Other materials and other geometries are all over the place in how they measure. Compact frames are sometimes measured with an actual seat tube length and sometimes with what they would be if they had a horizontal top tube. So two compact frames with identical geometries and measurements could be marketed under sizes that have as much as a five centimeter difference or even more.

The upshot is that just because you have one bike that is a '56' there's no way of knowing whether another bike that's a '56' will fit without a complete understanding of how it's measured and what the geometry is.
halfspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 07:39 AM   #18
jens5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Durham,NC.
Bikes: Heron Wayfarer/ 2004 Giant Cypress SX
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Can't make it any clearer. No I'm not confused and I don't have my terminology mixed up. Been doing this for 30 years. Surly measures and markets they're LHT frame by the top tube measurement c to c., i.e., a 58cm LHT frame is a 58cm c to c top tube. When you look at the spec sheet you'll see that they're seat tube measurement's are center to top. That's a lot of "top".
Folks that are used to the old school method of sizing a frame center to center via the seat tube, may potentially acquire a frame that's too small per that method of sizing.

Richard
jens5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 07:59 AM   #19
brianmcg123
Senior Member
 
brianmcg123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: TN
Bikes:
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens5
Can't make it any clearer. No I'm not confused and I don't have my terminology mixed up. Been doing this for 30 years. Surly measures and markets they're LHT frame by the top tube measurement c to c., i.e., a 58cm LHT frame is a 58cm c to c top tube. When you look at the spec sheet you'll see that they're seat tube measurement's are center to top. That's a lot of "top".
Folks that are used to the old school method of sizing a frame center to center via the seat tube, may potentially acquire a frame that's too small per that method of sizing.

Richard
Then how come their 50 and 46 cm bikes are not labled 52 and 50 cm as that is what their Top Tubes measure C-C, or their 62cm not labled a 60cm, or the 52 not labled a 53?



I guess what is going on is that Surly measures their bikes by the seat tube on sizes 42,46,50,52,54,56,60,and 62, but by the top tube on the 58. I see it now.

Last edited by brianmcg123; 05-24-07 at 08:06 AM.
brianmcg123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 08:42 AM   #20
NeezyDeezy
Senior Member
 
NeezyDeezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 880
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianmcg123
I guess what is going on is that Surly measures their bikes by the seat tube on sizes 42,46,50,52,54,56,60,and 62, but by the top tube on the 58. I see it now.
lmao

Jens5, how about you look at Surly's own sizing chart - what you're saying just isn't reflected there.
NeezyDeezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 09:29 AM   #21
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others
Posts: 10,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by old and new
Inseam seems wrong, you measured it wrong, I believe. I'm 5'10" with a 33.25" inseam
I'm 5'11 7/8" with a 33" inseam.

old and new - I don't think you have short legs for your height, unless you're a female.

Burningman: you have perhaps slightly short legs for your height. That might mean you need the larger Surly so you won't be cramped in the upper body, but you'll have to determine that for yourself...don't take my word for it.
cooker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 09:35 AM   #22
jens5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Durham,NC.
Bikes: Heron Wayfarer/ 2004 Giant Cypress SX
Posts: 305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Look. Take a Surly LHT frame. Measure the seat tube center to center, notice Surly specs don't include this measurement on they're chart. They list only the center to top on the seat tube chart They advertise they're sizing based on the top tube, center to center. When I order an advertised 58 cm or 23" frame, I'm expecting a 58cm Seat tube Center to center. This going by top tube measurement is new school at best and is less important than than what was once accepted as "true" measurement. I'm done. Semantic away.

Richard
jens5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 09:40 AM   #23
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others
Posts: 10,234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens5
Let me clarify. Surly measures the seat tube on an LHT center to top, not center to center. On a so called 58cm Surly LHT, the measurement of seat tube c to c is 56cm. I just measured it. Again, Surly sizes are based on they're top tub measurement C to C. Nobody "Fit kit" me for anything. If your used to the old standard iow, when frame sizing was measured by the seat tube c to c., and you go by that size when purchasing an LHT, your buying a frame that's too small. I may be old school, but I go by, what was once considered "true" measurement or, c to c of seat tube and not top tube.

Richard
EDITED
I think you are confused. First you are saying that the seat tube can be measured two ways: centre to centre (which you prefer) or centre to top which we will call "new school" and which you don't like.

You then apparently claim that Surly labels/markets its frames by the length of the top tube, when in fact the chart quoted in post 13 show they label/market based on the "new school" way of measuring the seat tube. It's just a coincidence that on some frame sizes the top tube c-c is about the same length as the seat tube c-t.

Last edited by cooker; 05-24-07 at 10:00 AM.
cooker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 09:59 AM   #24
brianmcg123
Senior Member
 
brianmcg123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: TN
Bikes:
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens5
They list only the center to top on the seat tube chart They advertise they're sizing based on the top tube, center to center....

THEY DO NOT ADVERTISE THEIR MEASUREMENTS BY THE TOP TUBE. IT IS PLAIN AS DAY ON THEIR SIZING CHART. THEY MEASURE THEIR FRAMES BY THE SEAT TUBE MEASURED C-T.

READ THEIR SIZING CHART FROM THEIR WEBSITE:

brianmcg123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-07, 11:52 AM   #25
old and new
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooker
I'm 5'11 7/8" with a 33" inseam.

old and new - I don't think you have short legs for your height, unless you're a female.

Burningman: you have perhaps slightly short legs for your height. That might mean you need the larger Surly so you won't be cramped in the upper body, but you'll have to determine that for yourself...don't take my word for it.
You MAY have a point, I don't try to be argumentative, I'd like to steer folkes right, as you and most do, I'm sure. I've fallen prey to my own wrong mearsurements, I'm beggining to believe that my legs are not so short. I don't assume folkes are not astute,the measuring CAN drive one "crazy".. Thanks though .
old and new is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 PM.