Surly discontinues LHT!?!
#26
Senior Member
No, I am going functional. Many like to be stretched out, with the bars level or higher than the seat. With the old style LHT I can do that very nicely. No, a 90cm stem does not make the bike twitchy, I am running one at the moment and it is very stable, and handles well. As for stem flex with a high spacer stack, that is hysterical. I guess you never rode old quill stem bikes. Of course buying the right sized frame helps prevent the high spacer stack. I'm not talking about your frame choice, so don't take it personally.
I also didn't say a 90mm stem makes a bike twitchy. You're also running a relatively small frame size. Typically smaller frame sizes tolerate shorter stems better especially if the frames use size specific angles. It's under 90mm in my experience where the LHT especially starts getting progressively more twitchy with 70mm being already pretty bad. Depends on bars of course. I've only tried with drop bars.
I've tried quill stems. I had an old touring bike which used a french BB, quill stem and was made with the horrid small diameter tubing that was the rage before bike makers decided to stiffen things up. That thing would go to a speed wobble unloaded in relatively small speeds. Just because something was, doesn't mean things can't be better.
Having a tall spacer stack and drop bars at the end of a stem does in fact incorporate flex which can be felt. I'd rather live without that. Also while not taking anything personally, the 62cm is as good a frame size for me as I could get with the Surly lineup. Why I didn't get another brand? Not sure, but I suspect there weren't many frames on offer then. Bikes yes, frames no. And had I bought the 64, I would have needed to not ride it because it would have been too long. At some point on our grand European expedition I would have had to find a 60mm high rise stem from the German countryside. Finding an 80mm was hard enough.
With the old style frame, there is plenty of room for a frame bag while retaining easy access to large water bottles, functional.
I'm sorry you are having a difficult time understanding that some people actually liked the old style LHT frame, and prefer it to the new one. You also seem to have a difficult time understanding that many of those people, me included, also think the new frame is very nice, and is a well thought out design. The new frame just doesn't appeal to me as much as the old one, for many reasons, and function is one of the top reasons. I like the way my 56cm 26 inch wheel LHT handles, and like how stable it is. I like the fit. I like the longer chain stays. I like the room under the top tube.
So continue to debate, I will watch. But once again, I like the new frame, I just prefer the old one, for functional reasons, and am sad we lost an old style frame that worked well, and that was a great value.
#27
Senior Member
I think that Surly threw some of the folks who made them who they are under the bus. They grew by selling to a number of niche markets, one of them being the LHT buyers.
I personally never liked the LHT. I also hate the way many of it's user set them up with the tall bar way up high and so on. I always favored something with geometry more like the new Disc Trucker if I were to set up a heavy tourer. That said there is still a fairly large niche market for something like the LHT, but the larger mainstream market is booming and Surly chose to go more mainstream. It is their choice to make. Business is business and all that, but I can see why a lot of their customers who want an old style touring bike feel disappointed and let down.
I agree that it is about preferences and that arguing better or worse is meaningless.
I personally never liked the LHT. I also hate the way many of it's user set them up with the tall bar way up high and so on. I always favored something with geometry more like the new Disc Trucker if I were to set up a heavy tourer. That said there is still a fairly large niche market for something like the LHT, but the larger mainstream market is booming and Surly chose to go more mainstream. It is their choice to make. Business is business and all that, but I can see why a lot of their customers who want an old style touring bike feel disappointed and let down.
I agree that it is about preferences and that arguing better or worse is meaningless.
Likes For staehpj1:
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,136
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1060 Post(s)
Liked 1,317 Times
in
759 Posts
I think that Surly threw some of the folks who made them who they are under the bus. They grew by selling to a number of niche markets, one of them being the LHT buyers.
I personally never liked the LHT. I also hate the way many of it's user set them up with the tall bar way up high and so on. I always favored something with geometry more like the new Disc Trucker if I were to set up a heavy tourer. That said there is still a fairly large niche market for something like the LHT, but the larger mainstream market is booming and Surly chose to go more mainstream. It is their choice to make. Business is business and all that, but I can see why a lot of their customers who want an old style touring bike feel disappointed and let down.
I agree that it is about preferences and that arguing better or worse is meaningless.
I personally never liked the LHT. I also hate the way many of it's user set them up with the tall bar way up high and so on. I always favored something with geometry more like the new Disc Trucker if I were to set up a heavy tourer. That said there is still a fairly large niche market for something like the LHT, but the larger mainstream market is booming and Surly chose to go more mainstream. It is their choice to make. Business is business and all that, but I can see why a lot of their customers who want an old style touring bike feel disappointed and let down.
I agree that it is about preferences and that arguing better or worse is meaningless.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,468
Bikes: Co-Motion Cappuccino Tandem,'88 Bob Jackson Touring, Co-Motion Cascadia Touring, Open U.P., Ritchie Titanium Breakaway, Frances Cycles SmallHaul cargo bike. Those are the permanent ones; others wander in and out of the stable occasionally as well.
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 339 Times
in
229 Posts
I am surprised by the lack of reaction wrt this news, since the LHT was(is?) an iconic touring bike. (and it so happens that we own 1 LHT and 2 Trolls ). I am curious as to what this means.
For one, Surly announced that 4 models are to be discontinued: LHT, Troll, Pugsley and Pack Rat. Interestingly, these four models were all members of the touring family (going from 9 to 5 models). At first I was tempted to conclude that Surly's decision meant that touring is becoming less popular (not unreasonable to think that demand for bikes is high for commuters and low for touring). But they haven't announced either a commuting family nor new models that would fit the bill.
Perhaps these 4 models were not popular because they catered to the 26". Or because they were compatible with v/cantilever brakes whereas the industry has moved to disc.
May well be not that significant since the Disc Trucker is apparently rebranded as LHT disc.
So... does this signal that the touring category is becoming even more marginal (and that there is significant restructuring to expect from brands deeply involved in this segment). Or that some "technologies" (26", v-brakes) are on the verge of becoming museum pieces? (is is actually becoming more difficult to source 26" rims/wheels/tires; I have no idea wrt v-brakes)
For one, Surly announced that 4 models are to be discontinued: LHT, Troll, Pugsley and Pack Rat. Interestingly, these four models were all members of the touring family (going from 9 to 5 models). At first I was tempted to conclude that Surly's decision meant that touring is becoming less popular (not unreasonable to think that demand for bikes is high for commuters and low for touring). But they haven't announced either a commuting family nor new models that would fit the bill.
Perhaps these 4 models were not popular because they catered to the 26". Or because they were compatible with v/cantilever brakes whereas the industry has moved to disc.
May well be not that significant since the Disc Trucker is apparently rebranded as LHT disc.
So... does this signal that the touring category is becoming even more marginal (and that there is significant restructuring to expect from brands deeply involved in this segment). Or that some "technologies" (26", v-brakes) are on the verge of becoming museum pieces? (is is actually becoming more difficult to source 26" rims/wheels/tires; I have no idea wrt v-brakes)
(1) Disk brake technology has firmly and decisively surpassed rim brakes
(2) Lots of people that used to buy full touring bikes were really doing 'light' touring or creditcard touring and those people are now finding many of the lighter gravel bikes are better choices for light touring than full heavy touring bikes.
We sell about 500 bikes every year and stock touring and gravel bikes. We carry the LHT and did not sell a single one last year. Other more up to date touring bikes like the Marakesh are still pretty stable in sales but the LHT is waning in popularity. Side by side with a Marakesh, the LHT is hard to sell. The only folks that seem to buy an LHT are people that decided to buy one before they came in and do not look at anything else.
Last edited by dwmckee; 12-18-20 at 08:23 PM.
#30
Senior Member
It means that:
(1) Disk brake technology has firmly and decisively surpassed rim brakes
(2) Lots of people that used to buy full touring bikes were really doing 'light' touring or creditcard touring and those people are now finding many of the lighter gravel bikes are better choices for light touring than full heavy touring bikes.
We sell about 500 bikes every year and stock touring and gravel bikes. We carry the LHT and did not sell a single one last year. Other more up to date touring bikes like the Marakesh are still pretty stable in sales but the LHT is waning in popularity. Side by side with a Marakesh, the LHT is hard to sell. The only folks that seem to buy an LHT are people that decided to buy one before they came in and do not look at anything else.
(1) Disk brake technology has firmly and decisively surpassed rim brakes
(2) Lots of people that used to buy full touring bikes were really doing 'light' touring or creditcard touring and those people are now finding many of the lighter gravel bikes are better choices for light touring than full heavy touring bikes.
We sell about 500 bikes every year and stock touring and gravel bikes. We carry the LHT and did not sell a single one last year. Other more up to date touring bikes like the Marakesh are still pretty stable in sales but the LHT is waning in popularity. Side by side with a Marakesh, the LHT is hard to sell. The only folks that seem to buy an LHT are people that decided to buy one before they came in and do not look at anything else.
As you mention, disc brakes enable the use of either 650b/27.5" or 700c wheels so rim brakes and 26" wheels are pretty antiquated now. To me this isn't necessarily negative since the more standardized components are the more widely available they'll be as well.
#31
Senior Member
I’m glad I have a Troll and World Troller. I can run any size wheels. 26” with wide tires and fenders to 29”. Most versatile bikes I have.
#32
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
When I built my Surly LHT in 2015, it was the 1st bike I ever had with disc brakes. Man, what a revelation that was - I will never buy another bike without disc brakes! So I understand Surly dropping the original LHT - no big deal, it's just changing with innovation. Being a tall guy (6' 3"), I was never a fan of the compact geometry style - to get the proper fit requires a really long seat post for me. But in 2019 I found myself working in Germany and in need of a bike to tour the countryside around Wiesbaden, so I bought a Fuji Tour bike. It is my 1st bike with the compact geometry - it did indeed require a very long seat post to fit me, and as well I use 180 mm cranks on it to get a bit more leg length. I actually enjoy that bike very much - it's certainly lighter than my LHT - the low gear was the same on both, so that helped me adjust right away to it, and both use bar end shifters, so it was immediately familiar. For some strange reason, the Fuji Tour was not offered in the disc brake version in 2020 - weird!
I'm planning on riding the Transam again in 2021, and as of now I plan to ride the Surly. It's a wee bit heavier, and yes it's a galaxy class star cruiser when I really only need a solar system transporter, but it's my customized touring rig (custom-built wheels with dynohub, custom gearing, fenders, etc.). I suppose I could transfer all that to my lighter Fuji Tour frame, but that's a lot of work and frankly I'm not a weight weenie - I just don't care about an extra pound or 2. Some people actually cut their tooth brushes in half to save a gram - and at the same time they are carrying an extra 20 pounds around their belly - so I just don't worry about a pound or 2. Fit & function are much more important to me, and of course it DOES matter how the bike looks! A classic touring frame has a much better and cleaner look than the new compact geometry style - I'm glad I have my Surly and I plan to add many more miles to it's current 14,000. Best wishes,
Buddy Hall
I'm planning on riding the Transam again in 2021, and as of now I plan to ride the Surly. It's a wee bit heavier, and yes it's a galaxy class star cruiser when I really only need a solar system transporter, but it's my customized touring rig (custom-built wheels with dynohub, custom gearing, fenders, etc.). I suppose I could transfer all that to my lighter Fuji Tour frame, but that's a lot of work and frankly I'm not a weight weenie - I just don't care about an extra pound or 2. Some people actually cut their tooth brushes in half to save a gram - and at the same time they are carrying an extra 20 pounds around their belly - so I just don't worry about a pound or 2. Fit & function are much more important to me, and of course it DOES matter how the bike looks! A classic touring frame has a much better and cleaner look than the new compact geometry style - I'm glad I have my Surly and I plan to add many more miles to it's current 14,000. Best wishes,
Buddy Hall
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,881
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times
in
197 Posts
https://www.fujibikes.com/usa/bikes/...ouring/touring
#34
Senior Member
In terms of performance I actually think V-brakes perform well but of course they'll still wear out your rims like any rim brake. To me the main advantage of disc brakes is rim-preservation. A good wheel with discs will last almost indefinitely.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,276
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3493 Post(s)
Liked 1,485 Times
in
1,159 Posts
I find in dry conditions my rim brake (with Koolstop Salmon) pads is as good as disc brake (TRP Spyre), some days I think the rim brake is better. And a friend of mine has concluded that his rims last much longer when using Koolstop Salmon pad instead of the harder pads that are more common.
But I find that the disc is much better than rim brakes in rain. And where I tour, rain is likely to happen.
If I was shopping for a new bike, I would consider the two types of brakes to be roughly equivalent.
The bike I have with the best brakes are V brakes on Ryde CSS rims, you need to buy special brake pads for those rims. But unfortunately those rims are no longer sold. But those rims have a braking surface that will last almost forever with rim brakes.
#36
Senior Member
Just wanted to add that the short stem on my troll (55,60mm?) , which is a faster steering bike than the LHT to begin with, handles great for me, not twitchy or anything.
So I feel twitchiness sensitivity can vary a lot from rider to rider.
And my bars are at top of a long steerer also and the bike's front end is fine all loaded up, possibly helped by the sturdy troll fork.
So I feel twitchiness sensitivity can vary a lot from rider to rider.
And my bars are at top of a long steerer also and the bike's front end is fine all loaded up, possibly helped by the sturdy troll fork.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,881
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked 286 Times
in
197 Posts
Fuji's website this past year showed both a disc and a non disc version of their touring bike available, but for 2021....... Only the disc version is available
https://www.fujibikes.com/usa/bikes/...ouring/touring
https://www.fujibikes.com/usa/bikes/...ouring/touring
#38
Newbie
Personally I am much more upset by the fact that many manufacturers are moving to flat mount disc brakes (that are limited to 160mm) rather than to discs per se which is a welcome change in my opinion. If nothing else for the decoupling of the breaking and rolling elements.
When it comes to thru axles I have a mixed opinion. It just so happens that I plan on replacing most of my bikes in the next years, in all cases going for models with discs and TA. This will allow for them to share wheelsets between them, which is a pro. On the other hand for things like dynamos or internal-geared hubs the choice is not yet on par with QR options. There are maybe three TA dynamos I can think of, and in all cases they are more expensive than the QR equivalent from the same manufacturer. Also, the hypothetical increase in stiffness of a thru axle is likely negligible once you factor in the whole bike/wheels as a system.
When it comes to thru axles I have a mixed opinion. It just so happens that I plan on replacing most of my bikes in the next years, in all cases going for models with discs and TA. This will allow for them to share wheelsets between them, which is a pro. On the other hand for things like dynamos or internal-geared hubs the choice is not yet on par with QR options. There are maybe three TA dynamos I can think of, and in all cases they are more expensive than the QR equivalent from the same manufacturer. Also, the hypothetical increase in stiffness of a thru axle is likely negligible once you factor in the whole bike/wheels as a system.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,136
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1060 Post(s)
Liked 1,317 Times
in
759 Posts
The issue is not disc brakes, but the fact they completely redesigned the LHT frame, and they discontinued the old style frame, which is what some are disappointed with. I prefer the old frame, in rim brakes or disc, that part doesn't matter.
#40
Senior Member
It means that:
(1) Disk brake technology has firmly and decisively surpassed rim brakes
(2) Lots of people that used to buy full touring bikes were really doing 'light' touring or creditcard touring and those people are now finding many of the lighter gravel bikes are better choices for light touring than full heavy touring bikes.
We sell about 500 bikes every year and stock touring and gravel bikes. We carry the LHT and did not sell a single one last year. Other more up to date touring bikes like the Marakesh are still pretty stable in sales but the LHT is waning in popularity. Side by side with a Marakesh, the LHT is hard to sell. The only folks that seem to buy an LHT are people that decided to buy one before they came in and do not look at anything else.
(1) Disk brake technology has firmly and decisively surpassed rim brakes
(2) Lots of people that used to buy full touring bikes were really doing 'light' touring or creditcard touring and those people are now finding many of the lighter gravel bikes are better choices for light touring than full heavy touring bikes.
We sell about 500 bikes every year and stock touring and gravel bikes. We carry the LHT and did not sell a single one last year. Other more up to date touring bikes like the Marakesh are still pretty stable in sales but the LHT is waning in popularity. Side by side with a Marakesh, the LHT is hard to sell. The only folks that seem to buy an LHT are people that decided to buy one before they came in and do not look at anything else.
To me, Surly is simply following market trends, which are clearly "light" and "gravelly" stuff---BUT, and a big BUT--is that who cares if the frame top tube is slanted, and it can take wider tires--to me these are complete pluses, and doesnt take away at all doing all kinds of touring on this bike.
My Troll is a good case in point. No downsides to it.
even though Im an old guy who grew up riding "traditional frame shapes", it doesnt make a smidge of difference to me, so I get it.
#41
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,681
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11035 Post(s)
Liked 7,585 Times
in
4,229 Posts
I am 215# and cant remember ever wishing my 160mm rotors were larger on my gravel bike. They stop me perfectly fine.
...but I also have canti brakes on my commute/touring bike and and satisfied with those, so I clearly have easy expectations and low standards.
Likes For mstateglfr:
#42
Senior Member
Do you find yourself needing larger than a 160mm disc quite often on a road/touring/gravel bike?
I am 215# and cant remember ever wishing my 160mm rotors were larger on my gravel bike. They stop me perfectly fine.
...but I also have canti brakes on my commute/touring bike and and satisfied with those, so I clearly have easy expectations and low standards.
I am 215# and cant remember ever wishing my 160mm rotors were larger on my gravel bike. They stop me perfectly fine.
...but I also have canti brakes on my commute/touring bike and and satisfied with those, so I clearly have easy expectations and low standards.
#43
Newbie
Do you find yourself needing larger than a 160mm disc quite often on a road/touring/gravel bike?
I am 215# and cant remember ever wishing my 160mm rotors were larger on my gravel bike. They stop me perfectly fine.
...but I also have canti brakes on my commute/touring bike and and satisfied with those, so I clearly have easy expectations and low standards.
I am 215# and cant remember ever wishing my 160mm rotors were larger on my gravel bike. They stop me perfectly fine.
...but I also have canti brakes on my commute/touring bike and and satisfied with those, so I clearly have easy expectations and low standards.
To clarify my stance: braking is the one area on the bike where I don't mind going overkill. In one to two years I will replace the Fuji for something else, and I won't mind slapping a 200mm front and 180mm back when the time comes.
I would also add that, personally, tourers are the one type of bike where I want to have the most flexibility in the type of components I fit onto. If a triathlon bike restricts my range of choices it's not such a big deal as when this happens with a touring bike.
#44
Senior Member
I switched from 160s to 180s on the front on my Troll, and like it. Seems to have slightly better stopping power, and better modulation.
#45
Senior Member
my recollection of riding it was from when it was essentially new, so there was that factor in there also, but it stands to reason that bigger rotors generally equal more braking force etc , dispersing of heat. I guess if I got the point that I needed to change a whole bunch of stuff on mine, I might consider it, but its handy that front and back are the same 160's, I kinda assumed there would be a pad size difference as well, but really dont know.
Are the pads larger? Same caliper?
Are the pads larger? Same caliper?
#46
Senior Member
my recollection of riding it was from when it was essentially new, so there was that factor in there also, but it stands to reason that bigger rotors generally equal more braking force etc , dispersing of heat. I guess if I got the point that I needed to change a whole bunch of stuff on mine, I might consider it, but its handy that front and back are the same 160's, I kinda assumed there would be a pad size difference as well, but really dont know.
Are the pads larger? Same caliper?
Are the pads larger? Same caliper?
#47
Senior Member
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Now I have another project to spend my money on
#49
I’m a little Surly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Near the district
Posts: 2,423
Bikes: Two Cross Checks, a Karate Monkey, a Disc Trucker, and a VO Randonneur
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times
in
648 Posts
Funny to read this today. I just did my hill training route the other day in wet conditions and could not get my mechanical disc's (160) to stop me. Somewhat nerve wracking as it was a long steep gravel downhill with loose sections etc... Needed to feather them quite a bit to prevent overheating. At the time I thought to myself - I need more braking power!
Now I have another project to spend my money on
Now I have another project to spend my money on
#50
Senior Member
Makes me thinkof when jaguar were the first to bring disc brakes to lemans in 50 something. Made all the others realize that their fully developed fancy schmancy drum brakes had gone the way of the dodo.
also how Mercedes in 50 something had a moveable flap that lifted up from the trunk area as a giant wind brake, until, if I recall , a regulation against movable surfaces or something to that effect.
also how Mercedes in 50 something had a moveable flap that lifted up from the trunk area as a giant wind brake, until, if I recall , a regulation against movable surfaces or something to that effect.