dewaday

I'll add my voice to the interweb prognostication, although it'd be better if you got sized.
On a Surly frame, anything bigger than a 58 and you'll be too stretched out. Surly's ride at least a size bigger then most frames, especially if you've got a shorter torso. I'm a touch under 6' with a 33.5 PBH and comfortably ride a 56. There's even times on long rides I wish I had a little less reach.
That said, make sure you put a Brooks on it.

norwood

As was suggested early in the thread by kk4df, you owe it to yourself to read the Rivendell sizing guidelines, if you haven't done so already.
https://www.rivbike.com/article/bike_...g_a_frame_size

As for me, I know (now) what I like and you also probably have some preferences. Sure you can go with a much smaller frame and make it fit and maybe you'll like it and thats fine. I've come to realize that I don't care for long (horizontally) stems. To me they make the steering too much like the tiller in a boat. The bars "swing" side to side. I prefer more of a pivoting motion from a shorter reach stem. I know I don't care for a lot of seatpost showing. At the time I bought my Bianchi, I was "fitted" by guys who were racers and got a 57cm frame. I had about 2" between my PB and the top tube. I felt it was a little small but they assured me it was perfect for me. After a while I knew without a doubt that I would have been much happier with a 59cm but I kept it and "adapted". First I thought a longer stem was just what I needed (make a small frame fit=longer stem right?) Tried that, made things worse, I was bending over too much putting too much weight on my hands. That was 13 years ago, now I'm middle aged and even less bendy. In the last few years have made some adjustments to make this bike more comfortable. Shorter reach stem, much higher than before. I've gone to a Brooks Flyer (love it) which allows the seatpost to come down a bit and look some what "normal" to me. Aesthetics I guess. I do know the most comfortable bike ever owned was a 25" frame Raleigh Technium which was admittedly a little large for me. When I straddled it, I was almost in contact with the top tube. I'm about 5' 10" BTW. But I realize Bianchi Veloces and Raleigh Techniums aren't Surly LHTs (with their uniquely long top tubes, pure sarcasm... sorry)

I can fully understand wanting a lower standover height on a touring bike because sometimes the load on back may prohibit swinging the leg back and over on a mount and dismount. If thats important to you then go for a smaller size by all means. I do not agree with the thought that you would be too stretched out on a bigger size nor do I believe you'd be too bunched up on a smaller frame. With a longer stem is the real possibility of putting more weight on your wrists and hands than you might like. I'm not sure why some people have no problem recommending a smaller frame with a longer stem for fit, yet a larger frame with a shorter stem is somehow not acceptable.

Ultimately you are the one who has to live with your decision, it really depends on what you like. I agree this is a usefull (and fun) thread.

Disclaimer:
Lastly, as was eloquently pointed out by chipcom, I have no "experience" with LHT frames so take all this for what it's worth.

bokerfest

As you can see to the left I am labeled as a Bicycle Student and as far as I am concerned 95% of you on here are the same (and probably even more that).

And as any good student does, I am reporting in I have learned. There is more I have got from this thread but that will come later on when I suggestions start slowing down.
For now here is one thing. This being from the article on frame measurements by Rivendell that kk4df post about.
Those of you who did not take the time to read it, here is what I highlighted from it:

well biked

Surly only makes one fork, all with the same steerer tube length, for all the 700c frame sizes. Same with the 26" fork: one steerer tube length for all the 26" sizes. And as the frame size gets larger, the headtube gets longer. So in reality, you can put a much taller stack of spacers beneath the stem on, say, the 56cm 700c bike (assuming an uncut steerer tube) than you can with a 62cm bike. That's actually another reason to buy through a bike shop instead of mail order, because you can instruct the shop to leave the steerer tube uncut when they assmemble the bike. Or maybe a mail order bike comes in a Surly box with the steerer still uncut, I don't know.

But this talk about raising the handlebars extremely high on a 60cm or 62cm frame isn't really going to happen, there's not enough steerer tube length to do it. I mean, you can still get them fairly high, but it seems you may be entertaining thoughts of basically making the bike fit by raising the handlebars extremely high, and therefore moving the bars back because of the angle of the headtube. I don't think that's a good way to think about this. The bottom line is that Surly has frames in the LHT to fit a huge variety of human sizes. Those 60cm and 62cm bikes are intended, assuming fairly normal proportions, for someone taller than 6'1". The top tubes are unusually long proportionate to the seat tube because they want you to be able to get the proper top tube length and still be able to run fat, tall tires and not run into a standover problem. Remember, they're trademark saying is "fatties fit fine."

tgbikes

"The Student" has started the best thred I'v read in 15 years. I will try to make a case for indivusl fitting. I have riden cost to cost on a bike that was to small, and injoyed it. Starting in 1990 I was a avid G P fan, had the three rivendell catalog (fitting Bibles) RR's and so on. When it was all said and done all that was said was every one should have a long TT & tall stem, or go back to your home planit. The thing that bothered me about the small 23in. Voyageur was toe overlap, I was only 55 at the time and it wasen't that big a deal. As time went by I tried 4 other touring bikes. I had issues with each of them. What I mean is that,I have size 13 ft. like 175 crank arms and at 63 toe overlap is a confllict I choose to avoid. I am 5-11 pbh 35.25 armes 33.5 standing facing a wall my finger tip to tip is 76.5. Short torso and long armes. My wonderful wife gave me a $1.000 for my 60 th. and told me to get a touring bike or frame that would fit. I chose a LHT with ft. axle to crank axle distance that would inshure no toe overlap 63.5 cm. and the shortist Tt = 60 cm It has a 8 cm stem that is 63 mm below the saddle. I think that GP must have a very long torso and short armes, I am happy for him but all of us are not made that way. I can see how a 23 yr.old person with size 9 shoes and 165 crank armes would not need to be concerned with toe overlap. If that persosn was not to smart they would say that no one should worey about it.

BigBlueToe

I'm 6'4". I don't know my PBH but I wear pants with a 36" inseam. I ride a 62 and it's plenty big enough. At your height I would guess a 60, but it's just a guess.

bokerfest

62cm = 1-2
60cm = 7-8
58cm = 13
56cm = 1

brianmcg123

My bike is a 56cm. I have about an inch of standover clearance with 35mm tires.

I see touring bikes like the one above all the time. I think they go into a bike shop and the people selling bikes don't know anything about touring and size them up like they would on a race bike. I don't think sizing on a touring bike should be the same as to a race bike. You ride it to accomplish different things.

unicedmeman

I'm in a similar situation to the OP and I'm torn between the 58 and 60. I was sized by an LBS which reccomended the 60cm frame. I was able to sit and play around on a 60cm crosscheck frame (which I felt very streched out on at the time but the bars weren't rasied).

The owner of the LBS (did my fitting) decided after I left that the 58cm would be a better fit for me and ordered it instead of the 60cm. They have also already cut the steerer tube . I'm afraid that when I go in there tomorrow to dial in the fit I may end up with the wrong size and an uncomfortable fit due to the cut steerer.

My question is:
Should I discuss all of my concerns with the LBS tomorrow? And... If the 58cm doesn't seem right to me do you think there will be pressure to buy? I haven't had to sign anything.

gregstandt

Be careful communicating your measurements or this could happen.

juggleaddict

keep in mind you can always get a riser adjustable stem/ more spacers and a lay back seatpost, it's practically a 60cm with a 58cm frame, i say go with 58 and keep as much space as reasonable for the stem movement until you decide what the right size is, if you get a frame that's too small there are options, if you get one too large, you'll feel "stretched" as you ride, and if you're touring . . . that'd suck

habcup

I am 6'3, 160 lbs with a 37" inseam and long arms. I purchased the 62cm complete last year. In hindsight, I wish I had bought a 60cm, or possibly a 58cm. While I'm comfortable with the bike, I think I would prefer a lower top tube for dismounting and mounting. This isn't an issue with an unloaded bike, but with bags packed tall on the rear, dismounting and mounting would be easier with a lower top tube. As an alternative, I wish the bike had more of a slopping top tube, but maybe not to the extreme of a Salsa Fargo. If I had your slightly smaller dimensions, I'd go for the 58cm. Keep in mind, Surly measures the size from the center of the bottom bracket to the top of the top tube, not the top of the seat tube. So a 62cm Surly would be considered a 65cm by many manufacturers (60=63, 58=61 etc.).

The 10mm difference in top tube length between a 60 and 62 LHT is nearly nullified with the difference in seat tube angle. The 58cm has a bigger jump in top tube length from a 60cm, especially since the seat tube angles are the same.

Meek

Did you order it yet? My vote is 58 only because I am very similarly sized and ride a 58tt on my road bike. How that translates to a raised bar LHT I don't know...

Keep us updated...

grantman18

Definitely do not go bigger than a 58, I'm 5'10" and the 56 is only slightly large for me

coldfeet

I would not normally claim any knowledge on this subject, as chance has it however,...

I am 6' 2" with somewhat lanky limbs, I was looking at an LHT at my LBS yesterday, 56cm, and when I tried it for size, it felt good, good enough anyway. I got the feeling that I needed to go up one size, 58cm. It was close though, I couldn't really see myself on a 60cm.

To the OP, when you do pull the trigger, pleas post pics with you in riding position.

Doconabike

For what it's worth, I am an average-built guy at 5'11" and my 56cm LHT frame fits me great. For many years, I rode a slightly smaller Trek 520 (53.5cm frame) and that was great too. The 56cm LHT feels slightly better.

In seeing how many people like wildly varying frame sizes, I have come to the conclusion that most of us could ride comfortably on a fairly broad variety of frames.

Make the best choice you can, remember that seat posts are adjustable and stems can be changed, and enjoy the ride.

Good luck in your buildup.

brianogilvie 

Since this thread has reopened, I'll add my 2 cents. I am 5'10" with a 33.5" pubic bone height, and I love my 58cm LHT. I have about an inch of standover height. With my Brooks Flyer positioned right, I have about 2 inches of seatpost showing above the seatpost clamp. (An unsprung saddle would show more.) I did swap the stock 110mm stem for a 70mm 6-degree drop stem from Vélo Orange; my LBS cut the steerer tube at just the right height for me to position the bars either just above or just below the saddle, depending on what I feel like.

Photo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brianogilvie/3347033326/

I did a 2-hour ride today with the new stem and riding on the hoods felt much better than my rides last fall with the old stem.

I probably would have been happy with the 56cm, but it was out of stock when I bought the bike. And I'm of the Rivendell fitting school. One happy consequence of getting the 56cm is that there's no toe overlap even with my 50mm Berthoud fenders.

fantom1 

I'm nearly the same dimensions as you (slightly shorter pbh), and the 58 is a pretty much perfect fit for me.

58

Bicycle dad

I am 6' with normal build with maybe slightly longer legs. Just do not recall the numbers but nothing extreme and ride a 58 cm LHT. I am using everything it came with and have had no issues. If I were to change something I would put a shorter stem on it.

Like others have said it is long top tube for a 58. I seem to have a lot of room between me and the handle bars when riding.

Vote one more for 58 cm.

norwood

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the OP has had his LHT for some time now.

John Nelson

You are correct. OP posted a picture of his new bike over seven weeks ago.

bokerfest

So most of you are wondering what happened to the rest of the story.
I was going to wait to post what I got and how it has treated me after my 6 week tour which happens in Apr-May but since someone reopened this thread I will just give you the first part and post again on here after my tour.
So for the sake of those trying to do their research on their LHT purchase and sizing, call this thread dead for now and then dead again after I put my results after my tour. When reading through a thread to find your information it is always helpful when people get to the point.

Eight or nine days after starting the thread the vote was 58 winning over the 60 by some but not a lot.
Then in my search to buy I found a 60cm '08 LHT for $910 compared to the 58cm at $1095. I went through and read the opinions again and really that and the price, mainly the price. Won me over. So I went with '08 60cm. I know for those people that said 'Use your head man, get the 58' and the stern 'nothing bigger than the 58.' and you are wondering why even ask people's opinion when I do not take it. (actually in the beginning I also asked the opinion of getting a bigger cheap 08 over possibly better fitting 58 09, but no one responded to that)

Picture of the bike
I know, nothing to exciting. Just a normal LHT but I thought I would put some thing up for the viewing.
I have road the bike 500 miles so far. No problems as of yet. Longest day was 70mi.

As I said before I will post again after my tour and how my body was treated to the size that is supposabily to large to many people's opinion. I guess the good thing is that if it is too large I will be the only one at a loss. And all of you will be more certain that 60cm is too big for a guy with my measurements.

LeeG

your front rack is mounted backwards, turn it over. Going from the seat height I'd say the frame is on the big size but your handlebar stem length and height says the bike is a good size.

bokerfest

You are right it is backwards. Newbie error. I have been running panniers and it has done fine the way it is now.
The seat is about 1 inch higher now and saddle is tilted up just a hair and forward a inch. This picture was taken before the dialing in stage. Also my handle bars are tilted down some.

Re-Cycle

Just ordered a 58 '09, figured I'd add to this thread and say 'wish me luck'

I'm about the same size as you are bokerfest and actually ordered the 58 based mostly on this thread.