Old 03-20-08, 07:39 PM
  #1  
grantman18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Not another 520 vs. LHT thread, please read

Hey Everyone,

Judging by all of my other bike's sizes, I thought that I would need a 54 cm LHT or a 21" Trek 520. I decided to go with the 520 because I can EP it, whereas I cannot EP the Surly. But more importantly (to me), the LHT would have 26" wheels because it would be a 54 cm, and I really wanted the 700c's.

I tried out the 520 today before ordering it, and it felt fine in the length, but the head tube was too short. I felt like it was to "racey" of a geometry, with a lot of drop, and for long days in the saddle, I don't think that's the way to go.

I figured I had two choices, get the larger 520 or the LHT. The geometries of both bikes are very similar, with the LHT having a taller head tube. My first choice always was the LHT, but the 26" wheels turned me off. But after trying out a friends 56 cm LHT (700c wheels!), I think I'll go with the Surly. First, I'd like your opinion on the fit.

My buddy's LHT has a thomson setback post, a 100 (maybe 110) mm stem, and bars with a very deep drop. I felt a bit stretched out when I rode his bike, but my I figured that I would be ok with a normal seatpost, a shorter stem, and bars with a deeper drop. In your opinion, how short is too short for a stem? And do you think that the regular post, shorter stem, and regular bars will be enough to bring the "cockpit" closer together?

Thanks,
Andrew
grantman18 is offline