Why All The Bromances with Surly LHTs?
08-03-17, 07:21 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle of the desert
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
Last edited by fantom1; 08-03-17 at 07:27 PM.
08-03-17, 07:21 PM
#53
Crawler
I also have a Ora Titanium Cross bike that I use as a commuter/short tour type, but I'm going to permanently set it up as a commuter and use my Lynskey GR250 as my bike packing bike. Cross geometry is not great for longer road touring IME.
08-03-17, 07:28 PM
#54
Crawler
I also liked Salsa Vaya better when road is rougher.
How about Kona Sutra?
I have no personal experience with Sutra though.
Soma has great bikes as well IMO.
Last edited by linus; 08-03-17 at 08:09 PM. Reason: Wrong picture link
08-03-17, 07:38 PM
#55
Crawler
I'm also a roadie but I don't do crit racing so I don't really have a need for a zippy bike. The LHT is my current main road bike and it works perfectly for the riding I do (long flowy roads, gravel, descents etc). It may be sluggish to accelerate but it does maintain speed and is stable enough to be a very comfortable ride on longer distances.
I don't really get where the idea comes from that a bike needs to be zippy and quick turning to be fun. I've had my best descents on an LHT and it does come down mountains like a missile. No matter the speed and it just keeps on rolling as stable as a truck. If I'm not doing crits I'll take stability over zippyness any day of the week.
Unless you have a bike with less than 70mm BB drop, majority of bikes will be stable. Comfortable? That is subjective matter so I won't comment on it.
Stable as a truck? LOL.
08-03-17, 07:43 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 345
Bikes: Black Beauty; The Lone Ranger; Samsquantch
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
The Sutra and Rove have a pretty long Chainstay (440mm), about 5mm shorter than the LHT if I remember correctly, and comes in 700c only.
08-03-17, 07:57 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,872
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 598 Post(s)
Liked 283 Times
in
194 Posts
Sorry, but the 520 had bad gearing and not enough clearance for fatter tires. Try again. It also didn't have the little things that Surly thought of like extra spoke holders and a beefier wheelset. I said "TOUR READY," sheesh.
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
Now, I built up an LHT frame several years ago and toured with it for a few years before selling it. It was a fine touring bike and performed its desired purpose admirably. Sheeh
08-03-17, 08:14 PM
#59
Crawler
Thats the Roadhouse. The Rove is similar to the Sutra, except it is made out of lighter weight Steel, aluminum and Titanium materials where the Sutra is a Cro-Mo frame, mainly for touring.
The Sutra and Rove have a pretty long Chainstay (440mm), about 5mm shorter than the LHT if I remember correctly, and comes in 700c only.
The Sutra and Rove have a pretty long Chainstay (440mm), about 5mm shorter than the LHT if I remember correctly, and comes in 700c only.
FYI, 440mm is not long. Disk Trucker has 460mm chainstay.
08-03-17, 09:42 PM
#61
Sunshine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Des Moines, IA
Posts: 16,614
Bikes: '18 class built steel roadbike, '19 Fairlight Secan, '88 Schwinn Premis , Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross V4, '89 Novara Trionfo
Mentioned: 123 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10963 Post(s)
Liked 7,490 Times
in
4,189 Posts
Yeah, the traitor wander is neat. Its sizong offerings are also very limited, i believe. As for the ride...im surprised its more fun as its just butted cromoly tubing with similar geometry(from whst i remember).
Its certainly a good deal...i think that's because sizing is limited. Doesnt seem like the brand is really actively bringing new touring bikes into the market.
Its certainly a good deal...i think that's because sizing is limited. Doesnt seem like the brand is really actively bringing new touring bikes into the market.
08-03-17, 10:19 PM
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: South Korea
Posts: 783
Bikes: Merida Speeder
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 233 Post(s)
Liked 165 Times
in
115 Posts
This thread is making me all nostalgic for the threads that a certain poster used to inflict upon us all. I haven't seen him around lately, but his "Why aren't all touring bikes made from unobtanium and rare earth metals with endangered goat scrotum-wrapped handlebars and gold-plated rims?" threads were memorable.
08-03-17, 10:39 PM
#63
Senior Member
This thread is making me all nostalgic for the threads that a certain poster used to inflict upon us all. I haven't seen him around lately, but his "Why aren't all touring bikes made from unobtanium and rare earth metals with endangered goat scrotum-wrapped handlebars and gold-plated rims?" threads were memorable.
08-03-17, 10:57 PM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,480
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 141 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
7 Posts
Sorry, but the 520 had bad gearing and not enough clearance for fatter tires. Try again. It also didn't have the little things that Surly thought of like extra spoke holders and a beefier wheelset. I said "TOUR READY," sheesh.
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
So I'll try again, the 1990 Trek 520 came stock with triple crankset of 50-44-28 and a largest cog of 28 in the rear, pretty darn low for 7 speed cassettes for that time period. Also, a 32-35 tire fit easily which was quite standard for the time (and many still use today). Believe it or not, many people toured quite successfully prior to the LHT's debut.
Now, I built up an LHT frame several years ago and toured with it for a few years before selling it. It was a fine touring bike and performed its desired purpose admirably. Sheeh
Now, I built up an LHT frame several years ago and toured with it for a few years before selling it. It was a fine touring bike and performed its desired purpose admirably. Sheeh
and in the super dark ages of cycling, before the newfangled 7 speed of which you speak, there was the early trek 520 https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...83/83Trek7.jpg it was not the touring machine that the 720 was. https://www.vintage-trek.com/images/t...3/83Trek14.jpg It was not impossible to find a 32 tooth Maillard, and the derailleurs handled it fine. (I have a 32 tooth six speed Maillard on an 83 560 trek). So while it was not the super robust LHT, a 720 had plenty of rack mounts and the best(or at least the latest)touring friendly parts. Its also interesting to note that while other treks of the same year had the newfangled 700c wheels, the 520, 620 and 720 all had 27", which was easier to find out on the road, at least in the states. So some thought did go into a touring bike pre LHT.
Oh, and I have to come back to edit that lack of spoke holders don't keep a bike from being "tour ready". I was just a kid when the first Miyata 1000's and trek 720's were new so had no idea what a perfect tourer was, but so glad that I shoved spare spokes taken off of salvaged wrecked steel wheels into the seat post of my Varsity, lashed my JC Penny's pup tent onto the Pletcher rat trap rack and headed out on overnights instead of waiting decades for the perfect tour ready bike to be invented.
Last edited by shipwreck; 08-03-17 at 11:10 PM.
08-04-17, 02:28 AM
#65
Senior Member
Crit racing is not only place you need "zippy" bike. I haven't been on a crit race with multiple turns in a row. When you are dong 80km+ downhill with multiple switchback is where your handling matters.
Unless you have a bike with less than 70mm BB drop, majority of bikes will be stable. Comfortable? That is subjective matter so I won't comment on it.
Stable as a truck? LOL.
Unless you have a bike with less than 70mm BB drop, majority of bikes will be stable. Comfortable? That is subjective matter so I won't comment on it.
Stable as a truck? LOL.
I've done 80km/h+ descents with multiple switchbacks with my LHT and did not feel the handling to be a hindrance. Quite the opposite in fact. When I say it descends like a missile I really mean it. The LHT has a very long wheelbase for a road bike which helps with faster speeds, so much so in fact that after a certain speed the feeling of additional speed from bike input just stops increasing.
Cornering ability at higher speeds is also not dictated by the wheelbase length but rather weight distribution and available grip. For me a shorter chainstay would mean worse weight distribution and easier rear wheel washout.
Longer wheelbase does however make the bike more stable in any situation, also cornering, actually making it easier to control the bike at sustained extreme handling situations.
Where a longer wheelbase is not an advantage is the type of riding where one needs to constantly throw the bike from short corner to a short corner, ie. crit racing, and also paradoxically, cyclocross. Fast descents commonly have enough spacing and shallow enough curves so that a zippy geometry on a bike has no advantage over a slower steering one. At least descents that are commonly driven by cars, trucks and motorcycles.
At least in the MTB world people are starting to realize that at high speeds a longer wheelbase actually helps with descending and stability. Some of the current gen downhill and enduro bikes are getting some seriously long chainstays.
It also needs to be said that like quite a few things in cycling, the short wheelbases in road racing bikes are at least to some extent due to a remnant of the old days. Back in the day when bikes were still made of steel and there weren't as much custom tubing available, the way to get a stiffer rear end on a road bike was to shorten the chainstays, making the steel tubes shorter, the rear triangle tighter and thus the frame more stiff. Therefore a lot of makes pulled the rear wheel in as much as they could.
Nowdays short chainstays are of course dictated by aerodynamics to some extent since it is easier to make the frame / rear wheel interface 'seamless' and aerodynamic if the rear wheel sits right behind seat tube. Otherwise one would need to create quite the fairing to reach the rear wheel and that would in turn increase weight of the frame.
Of course weight distribution is affected by one's riding style and position. A serious roadie might have a relatively aggressive riding position with a forward saddle and lots of drop, making the shorter chainstay weight distribution quite functional. However since this is a touring subforum I'm guessing a lot of the riders here have somewhat more upright rearwards riding positions, making the short wheelbase possibly be catastrophic when pusing the bike towards its edge of handling ability. How many here do so in a regular basis is of course also debatable.
Now I do consider myself a roadie even though my handlebar is only an inch or so below my saddle. When I was starting out I used 5 inches of drop and a massive amount of reach but for longer distances I feel I'm more comfortable this way. I can still get plenty aero though since due to using an ISM saddle I can pretty much lie down on the bike with my forearms on the handlebar with a pseudo TT position and a completely flat back.
08-04-17, 07:13 AM
#68
Crawler
Huh
I've done 80km/h+ descents with multiple switchbacks with my LHT and did not feel the handling to be a hindrance. Quite the opposite in fact. When I say it descends like a missile I really mean it. The LHT has a very long wheelbase for a road bike which helps with faster speeds, so much so in fact that after a certain speed the feeling of additional speed from bike input just stops increasing.
Cornering ability at higher speeds is also not dictated by the wheelbase length but rather weight distribution and available grip. For me a shorter chainstay would mean worse weight distribution and easier rear wheel washout.
Longer wheelbase does however make the bike more stable in any situation, also cornering, actually making it easier to control the bike at sustained extreme handling situations.
Where a longer wheelbase is not an advantage is the type of riding where one needs to constantly throw the bike from short corner to a short corner, ie. crit racing, and also paradoxically, cyclocross. Fast descents commonly have enough spacing and shallow enough curves so that a zippy geometry on a bike has no advantage over a slower steering one. At least descents that are commonly driven by cars, trucks and motorcycles.
At least in the MTB world people are starting to realize that at high speeds a longer wheelbase actually helps with descending and stability. Some of the current gen downhill and enduro bikes are getting some seriously long chainstays.
It also needs to be said that like quite a few things in cycling, the short wheelbases in road racing bikes are at least to some extent due to a remnant of the old days. Back in the day when bikes were still made of steel and there weren't as much custom tubing available, the way to get a stiffer rear end on a road bike was to shorten the chainstays, making the steel tubes shorter, the rear triangle tighter and thus the frame more stiff. Therefore a lot of makes pulled the rear wheel in as much as they could.
Nowdays short chainstays are of course dictated by aerodynamics to some extent since it is easier to make the frame / rear wheel interface 'seamless' and aerodynamic if the rear wheel sits right behind seat tube. Otherwise one would need to create quite the fairing to reach the rear wheel and that would in turn increase weight of the frame.
Of course weight distribution is affected by one's riding style and position. A serious roadie might have a relatively aggressive riding position with a forward saddle and lots of drop, making the shorter chainstay weight distribution quite functional. However since this is a touring subforum I'm guessing a lot of the riders here have somewhat more upright rearwards riding positions, making the short wheelbase possibly be catastrophic when pusing the bike towards its edge of handling ability. How many here do so in a regular basis is of course also debatable.
Now I do consider myself a roadie even though my handlebar is only an inch or so below my saddle. When I was starting out I used 5 inches of drop and a massive amount of reach but for longer distances I feel I'm more comfortable this way. I can still get plenty aero though since due to using an ISM saddle I can pretty much lie down on the bike with my forearms on the handlebar with a pseudo TT position and a completely flat back.
I've done 80km/h+ descents with multiple switchbacks with my LHT and did not feel the handling to be a hindrance. Quite the opposite in fact. When I say it descends like a missile I really mean it. The LHT has a very long wheelbase for a road bike which helps with faster speeds, so much so in fact that after a certain speed the feeling of additional speed from bike input just stops increasing.
Cornering ability at higher speeds is also not dictated by the wheelbase length but rather weight distribution and available grip. For me a shorter chainstay would mean worse weight distribution and easier rear wheel washout.
Longer wheelbase does however make the bike more stable in any situation, also cornering, actually making it easier to control the bike at sustained extreme handling situations.
Where a longer wheelbase is not an advantage is the type of riding where one needs to constantly throw the bike from short corner to a short corner, ie. crit racing, and also paradoxically, cyclocross. Fast descents commonly have enough spacing and shallow enough curves so that a zippy geometry on a bike has no advantage over a slower steering one. At least descents that are commonly driven by cars, trucks and motorcycles.
At least in the MTB world people are starting to realize that at high speeds a longer wheelbase actually helps with descending and stability. Some of the current gen downhill and enduro bikes are getting some seriously long chainstays.
It also needs to be said that like quite a few things in cycling, the short wheelbases in road racing bikes are at least to some extent due to a remnant of the old days. Back in the day when bikes were still made of steel and there weren't as much custom tubing available, the way to get a stiffer rear end on a road bike was to shorten the chainstays, making the steel tubes shorter, the rear triangle tighter and thus the frame more stiff. Therefore a lot of makes pulled the rear wheel in as much as they could.
Nowdays short chainstays are of course dictated by aerodynamics to some extent since it is easier to make the frame / rear wheel interface 'seamless' and aerodynamic if the rear wheel sits right behind seat tube. Otherwise one would need to create quite the fairing to reach the rear wheel and that would in turn increase weight of the frame.
Of course weight distribution is affected by one's riding style and position. A serious roadie might have a relatively aggressive riding position with a forward saddle and lots of drop, making the shorter chainstay weight distribution quite functional. However since this is a touring subforum I'm guessing a lot of the riders here have somewhat more upright rearwards riding positions, making the short wheelbase possibly be catastrophic when pusing the bike towards its edge of handling ability. How many here do so in a regular basis is of course also debatable.
Now I do consider myself a roadie even though my handlebar is only an inch or so below my saddle. When I was starting out I used 5 inches of drop and a massive amount of reach but for longer distances I feel I'm more comfortable this way. I can still get plenty aero though since due to using an ISM saddle I can pretty much lie down on the bike with my forearms on the handlebar with a pseudo TT position and a completely flat back.
Have a great day.
08-04-17, 08:19 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,237
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18413 Post(s)
Liked 15,536 Times
in
7,328 Posts
Check the banned users thread. Three week time out a while ago. But I am not so sure that has stopped him. Sock puppets are not always easy to ferret out.
08-04-17, 08:21 AM
#73
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,362
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,218 Times
in
2,365 Posts
Except you are. This just proves it.
Anyone who tells other people that they are "too fat or very unfit" as well as being too stupid to know the difference is either throwing downriggers and expecting big fish or is just too thick to understand what they have said.
Frankly, what anyone else uses for gearing isn't your concern.
Frankly, what anyone else uses for gearing isn't your concern.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
08-04-17, 08:33 AM
#75
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,362
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,218 Times
in
2,365 Posts
Sorry, but the 520 had bad gearing and not enough clearance for fatter tires. Try again. It also didn't have the little things that Surly thought of like extra spoke holders and a beefier wheelset. I said "TOUR READY," sheesh.
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
I also seem to remember fork problems, but on that I could be wrong, it might have been a different bike at the time.
As for gearing, early 520s, and the 728s before them, had good gearing for their age. They stumbled because the racing crowd seems to feel that low gears are only for people who are "too fat or very unfit" or too stupid to ride race gearing but they've gotten better recently. But they aren't alone. There's any number of bikes...including the Cannondale...that have fallen into this trap.
Nope. Surly is late to the party.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!