Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Surly LHT size question

    I hate to even ask about sizing, but there are few shops near me that sell Long Haul Truckers, and none that stock large sizes. I'm 6 ft 3.5 inches, 155 lbs, and I'm stuck between the 60 and 62 (my Specialized Tarmac fits great @ 61cm). I've heard that LHTs run "small," so I'm leaning toward the 62, and I'm curious if there's any fellow tall riders out there that can shed some light for me. I've got long legs, not sure of my exact measurements. I'm doing long, fully loaded tours, and I'm set on the LHT even though all I've test rode is an ovbiously-too-small 56cm as I've heard nothing but great things from friends and the internet.

  2. #2
    Senior Member robow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,889
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If your Tarmac fits great, then take the effective top tube measurement from that bike along with the stand over height and compare to the advertised measurements of the 60 and 62 LHT. You should be able to get a better idea that way. Generalizations like, "LHTs run small" aren't usually much help

  3. #3
    apocryphal sobriquet J.C. Koto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Star City, NE
    My Bikes
    2008 Surly Long Haul Trucker "Bichael Velosteem"
    Posts
    801
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I too really sweated the LHT sizing issue, but when it really comes down to it, either size will probably be fine for you. Surly has 9 (!!) frame sizes, unlike many other manufacturers, and the 2 cm diff won't really make a difference. robow had the right call about comparing the effective top tube and standover, then just pull the trigger!

    That said, here's a personal anecdote: I was *really* sweating between a 52 and 54. I decided to play it safer and get the 52 since I like to ride on various terrain. When the bike finally arrived (I too had to special order sight unseen), it fit like a glove. However, on my first real ride, I was thinking "Hmm, maybe a 54 would have been better", but not less than 10 seconds later (really!), I hit some *major* mud. At that point my decision to go with the 52 was well vindicated

    The inarticulate point I'm trying to make is that you really can't go wrong -- once you get the bike you'll just love it!

    Sorry I can't help you on the tall thing, but us smaller guys have a similar set of issues...

  4. #4
    Dismember Lou627's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Queens
    My Bikes
    LHT/72 Schwinn Letour SS
    Posts
    229
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    im 6'2'', 200, went with the 58 and love it. If they "run" anything it would be large. I was concerned though so went back after a week to try the 60 and found it uncomfortable. Im sure though if I had got the 60 and went back a week later to try the 58 I would have felt the 58 was uncomfortable.

  5. #5
    cyclopath vik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Victoria, BC
    My Bikes
    Surly Krampus, Surly Straggler, Pivot Mach 6, Bike Friday Tikit, Bike Friday Tandem, Santa Cruz Nomad
    Posts
    5,236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by robow View Post
    If your Tarmac fits great, then take the effective top tube measurement from that bike along with the stand over height and compare to the advertised measurements of the 60 and 62 LHT. You should be able to get a better idea that way.
    I ride a 58cm LHT. I tried a 54cm and 56cm LHT - I can fit fine on all three bikes, but I really like the bigger frame. That's just a personal preference. If you select a LHT size based on the measurements from your existing bike you'll be fine. If you are fussy [like me] take the time to drive somewhere you can try a few sizes and see which you like best. Fitting on a bike and feeling fantastic on it are two different things. Had I bought a 56cm LHT [the size that fits the best based on the numbers] I would certainly enjoy riding it, but I don't think I'd be as in love with the bike.

    I had the same experience recently with a Bike Friday Tikit [folding bike]. I own a large which I'm on the small size for. I rec'd a medium bike to test [the size that fits me by the numbers]. I was amazed how much better I liked riding the large frame. I can ride the medium, but honestly it's a take it or leave it experience while I love riding my large Tikit. The difference in wheelbase is only a few cms and the frames are otherwise identical.
    safe riding - Vik
    VikApproved

  6. #6
    apocryphal sobriquet J.C. Koto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Star City, NE
    My Bikes
    2008 Surly Long Haul Trucker "Bichael Velosteem"
    Posts
    801
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lou627 View Post
    im 6'2'', 200, went with the 58 and love it. If they "run" anything it would be large. I was concerned though so went back after a week to try the 60 and found it uncomfortable. Im sure though if I had got the 60 and went back a week later to try the 58 I would have felt the 58 was uncomfortable.
    Word.

    EDIT: I keep forgetting - If you're in a hurry to get the LHT, then check with the shop to see if they can get one faster than the other. There might be a wait one way or the other, and if you really want the bike now, then just get the one that can be obtained sooner. That's as good a determining factor as flipping a coin. Better, perhaps.

    If you are looking into a future purchase, then disregard this edit
    Last edited by J.C. Koto; 07-24-08 at 07:34 PM.

  7. #7
    ...into the blue...
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    My Bikes
    Thorn Nomad 2, LHT, Jamis Quest, ....
    Posts
    436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    6' 2" w/ not very long legs. I ride a 60, which feels a bit on the large side, though the 58 definitely was too small.

    My road bike, which I don't ride much anymore, is a 58 jamis quest. Feels very cramped to me now.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Southern Oregon
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    62

    I am 6'2" with very long legs. I have a 2005 model Cannondale T2000 in size Jumbo which is the largest size for Cannondale. I bought a 2008 model LHT in 62cm and it fits me perfectly. This is a great bike by the way.
    2008 Surly LHT, 2005 Cannondale T2000,
    1992 Trek 790, 1990 Trek 970

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    My Bikes
    Surley LHT, Cannondale R1000, IBEX Ignition, Bianchi Boardwalk, KHS Milano Tandem
    Posts
    880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Surly LHT size question

    Your Tarmac and the LHT have different geometry. The LHT, like most touring frames, has a lower placed bottom bracket than the one on a road racing bike. The 60 and 62 you refer to are the respective length of each frame's seat tube from the center of the BB to top.

    If the 60 tarmac fits you well, then I would tend to think you need the 62. I am in the exact same situation with a CAAD8 (Cannondale) and my LHT. To be sure make a comparison from top tube height to ground if you can.

    Now, having said that, you should also compare top tube length, considering that you will want a more upright position on your LHT than on the Tarmac.

    When you get your LHT, keep the fork tube at its full length, using spacers all the way. Test it, then reduce if necessary. Do not cut the steerer tube without trying the full length first and certainly not by comparison to your road bike. FYI: I kept the full length and like it this way.

    For more info, go on the Google LHT group where there is plenty of information on fitting.

  10. #10
    Senior Member BigBlueToe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Central Coast, CA
    My Bikes
    Surly LHT, Specialized Rockhopper, Nashbar Touring (old), Specialized Stumpjumper (older), Nishiki Tourer (model unknown)
    Posts
    3,388
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm 6'4" with a 35" pants inseam. I went with the 62 LHT. It fits great.

  11. #11
    likes bikes. eAspenwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    h-town, tx
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well if you subscribe to the "bigger is better" frame sizing philosophy, I would hazard to guess the 62 for your height.

    I've slowly shifted over the past ten years from a smaller fit to a larger fit, probably because I've evolved from buying racey bikes to touring/utility bikes. Maybe I'm getting lamer...older...wiser...

    I'm 5'11" and ride a 58 LHT.

  12. #12
    Senior Member staehpj1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Parkville, Md
    Posts
    7,605
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by eAspenwood View Post
    Well if you subscribe to the "bigger is better" frame sizing philosophy, I would hazard to guess the 62 for your height.
    That makes a big difference. I personally like a frame a LOT smaller than Rivendell would recommend (several sizes).

    To me best position on my touring bike is the same as I use on my road bike. Some like a much more upright position. As a result, I would recommend taking anyone else's recommendations with a grain of salt unless you know their preferences for position on the bike are very similar to yours.

  13. #13
    Year-round cyclist
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Montréal (Québec)
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Check the top tube measurement too. I tend to subscribe to the "larger is better" philosophy. I measure 5' 11", with 35" legs. My Trek 520 is a 25" (63,5 cm) and I could use a slightly larger one... but I fit perfectly on a 58-cm LHT. Why? If I were to take a larger one, I would need a 0-mm stem.
    Michel Gagnon
    Montréal (Québec, Canada)

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm 6'3 with a 37" inseam and am quite happy with the 62cm LHT. I was also stuck between the 60 and the 62.

    Keep in mind that the Surlys are measured from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the top tube (and not to the end of the seat tube).

    When comparing the 62 LHT to the 60 LHT, also keep in mind the 72.0 vs 72.5 seat tube angles of these two sizes. Even though the top tube is 10 mm longer for the 62, the shallower seat angle of the 62cm places the bottom bracket only a few millimeters farther away from the handlebar compared to the 60cm. Notice that, even though the top tube is 10mm longer, the wheelbase of the 62cm frame is only 4.4 mm longer than the 60cm. So the horizontal length difference, in terms of body position, is less than 5mm.

    To put things in perspective, my 62 cm racing bike has a 590 mm top tube, 72.5 seat angle, and 130 mm stem. My 62 cm LHT has a 610 top tube, 72.0 seat angle, and a 120 stem. Between the shallower seat tube angle and the shorter stem of the LHT, the saddle to handlebar lengths of my two bikes are about equal.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •