trailz 

Narrowed the search to either a 54 or 56 LHT.
While I prefer the 700c wheels (only available on the 56), I do have two concerns:

1) 2 out of 3 LBS guys think the 54 is a better fit for me.
2) the standover height on the 56 is 32", and my pubic bone is 32.625". (too close?)

(seems all other aspects of the 54 & 56 geometry are fine -- based on test drive comparison)

The main other reason I like the 56 is that I can get the bars higher (in relation to the seat). Generally speaking, I'd like the top bar to be 2.5" above my seat. I should also note that I will be putting a trekking/butterfly bar up front, which will make the perceived top tube length shorter (bars sway back from stem).

Being just over 5'8", it seems most ride the 54.

Am I wrong thinking the 56 will provide better comfort for me?

Dellphinus

I've been riding a 54 for several years. All the LBS guys said I needed a 52. 54 just felt better (we dialed dimensions of both into a fitting bike), less "scrunched". TT is snug when standing. Problems this has caused- 0.

Rivendell has some words on bigger vs smaller frames (and LBS tending to recommend smaller) as well.
What part of the fit do the LBS'es think is better?

staehpj1

Different strokes, but I like smallish frames. I like an aggressive posture and therefore prefer my bars low. I find that if I use the Rivendell chart I need to drop two sizes lower (that is sizes, not centimeters). If you subscribe to the preferences expressed on the Rivendell page you may find their chart accurate though.

LeeG

I have the 26" wheeled LHT in 56cm and had the 700C version. I ride with bars 1" below seat with 110cm stem. With larger 1.75" tires the 56cm sits higher than the 700c with 32mm tires. I like how the 26" wheeled 56cm handles better than the 700c version. The toe overlap and wheel flop is bothersome in the 700c version. I can't help you on sizes but your reasoning for a longer top tube makes sense. Are the LBS recomendations for 54 cm based on your prefered handlebar height, a lower position or leg length/standover?

OldFencer

Have you been able to ride both sizes? If so, which felt more dialed in?

With my in seam (31 and change) I should have went with a 56 LHT, but I got a 58 and TT is very close to being "two blocked and locked" as it were, but I've had no problems. I did swap the stem down to a 900 because I felt a bit stretched out.

For my 2 cents, suggestions from the LBS are real good starting points, but its going to be you in the saddle so go with the one that feels right.

Cyclebum

The main issue here seems to be bar height. Go with the one that most easily allows you to place the bar where you want it. The 56. As long as you are clear of the tt, mounting and dismounting may be a bit of a challenge, but riding comfort is more important.

The other issue to consider is where your sit bones land on the saddle when in your most frequent riding position. This can be adjusted not only with rail placement, but with type of seat post. I've found that with my seat way forward, I not only get the best sit bone landing zone, my pedaling efficiency is also better. But that's just me.

vik 

When I straddle my 58cm LHT with both feet flat on the ground I make light contact with the TT. It's my oldest bike and I ride it a lot. I've never had an issue with lack of SO clearance and I usaually don't even notice the lack of clearance. I have ridden this bike off paved roads so even soft and/or uneven surfaces don't present a problem.

Buy the bike that has the length of TT and/or bar height you prefer.

Are the steerers cut? I would have thought all LHT steerers were the same height.

trailz 

LBS confirmed with Surly that the steerer arrives un-cut on complete bikes. I won't cut it until I get the trekking bars are at a comfortable height.

xyzzy834

Standover height is probably the least valuable measurement for fitting a touring bike. It should be a check box instead of a measurement. Either you can stand over the top tube or you can't. It gets used as the primary measurement because it's easy to measure/test and most frames have rather squarish dimensions, top tube versus seat tube. For most people, a comfortable standover means a reasonable fit lengthwise as well. Not so for everyone.

Top tube length (how much you are stretched out) and bar height are much more important for comfortable riding. A bike shop that caters to the speed junkies will tend to prefer more compact frames with longer seatposts and stems for better stiffness and a more aggressive riding posture.

EKW in DC

I wrestled with a similar issue myself about a month ago when I was deciding whether to order the 56cm or 58cm 700c frame to build up. I did a lot of reading here and over on the Surly LHT and CC Owners group over on Google. There's even a table that has been created by users listing their height, weight, PBH, frame size, etc., and comments on fit, stem length, etc. I found the latter particularly useful for getting a feel for what I would want. FWIW, I ordered the 56 cm size. I can't report on the results of my decision yet - still waiting for the frame to come in so I can build it up. From the stated SO height, even the 56 may be a little snug on the boys, so the 58 just seemed too tall. I was drawn to the idea of the 58 by the longer TT (I have shorter legs and a longer torso), but in the end decided I could add a little reach by using a longer stem.

Nice call on the trekking bars. I've had mine for 8 months or so on my hybrid and love them for daily commuting and longer rides. I expect them to continue to serve me well once I swap them over to the LHT build.

djb

+1 on these comments

case in point with myself, at 5'10.5 my Tricross 54cm (54.5 tt) fits me wonderfully and is much more comfortable than my touring bike with a slightly longer toptube. Measuring from the middle of my seat (line of seatpost to top of seat) to the nearest part of the handlebars is about 63cm and it just fits me very well. Everyones backs and arms are diff, thats the tricky part.

*the comment made about "reach" is just so accurate. Concentrate on that.

GamblerGORD53

I'm also 5'8" with similar standover. I would get the 56cm, no doubt. The half inch extra length will only be of benefit.
Higher bars lessen the reach several cm. Fit the stem and you will be good to go.

rcschafer

That is great information! Here's the spreadsheet. Trying to decide between a 56cm and 58cm Crosscheck myself.

EKW in DC

Yeah, the spreadsheet is great. There's also a map "that shows Surly bicycles around the world whose owners are willing to let others test ride them." Good for those who might not have the opportunity to test ride one at an LBS in their area...

pdlamb

As long as you clear the top tube, you're golden. Most of the time you stop for traffic lights, stop signs, etc., you only need to get one toe down, and you're allowed to tilt the bike to the side. Since you want the bars up, go for the larger size that allows and encourages higher bars!

z90

If you are 5'8" and have a 32" inseam, that means you have relatively long legs and a short torso. For comparison, I'm 6'2" with a 33" inseam. I'd go with the 54, and I'm a believer in big frames for bikes like the LHT. And definitely check out the spreadsheet others have mentioned. I don't think you'll have trouble getting your bars high enough with the smaller frame, but the top tube may be too long on the larger frame.

irwin7638

I had a 56cm LHT with 700c wheels. I have a little more than a 32" standover at 6' and found the bike extremely comfortable. I think you will be fine unless you are a serious crotch worrier. I think you will be happier with the longer top tube with the trekking bars, they do reduce your forward stretch. I went from the 56cm LHT to a 54CM Hunqapillar and both fit just as expected.

Marc

Rob_E

I also had to choose between the "safe" standover height (a 56), and a bike that was going to be a little close (58). I've always liked a bigger bike. My bars are high and swept back (Albatross, but I've also used trekking bars), so a long top tube was a good thing. I went with the 58 cm and love it. Stand over height is close, but I've never hurt myself. I can straddle the bike, and that's all that really matters. If your concern is based solely on stand over height, and that's what the people sizing you are basing it on, then you just need to verify that you can actually straddle the bike. If so, go with your gut. I prefer 700c wheels, too, and I'd probably consider a slightly oversized bike if I was on the cusp. Also if you took your PBH while barefoot, figure your shoes will give a smidge more height. Also, in the end, if you feel that the ride will be more comfortable on the larger size, but standing will be more comfortable on the smaller size, just ask yourself whether you plan on spending most of your time riding this thing or just standing over it. ;-)

But also remember we're talking about 2 centimeters, which, according to the Surly website, only makes for a difference of .8 centimeters in standover height. I guess those could be the difference between a pleasant and a painful dismount, but for that small amount of difference, I'd pay more attention to the other aspects of of the two sizes that are important to you.

positron

as others have said:

get the one with the right length TT.
Standover is basically irrelevant- it either hits your junk or it does not, this is NOT the way to size bikes...

you can put the bars as high as you want with either frame- the steerer will be uncut.


If your Top tube is too long, you will regret it forever. Very short stems make bike handle strangely.
Im guessing for you, that means the 54. unless you have ape-arms (long) and short legs...

hybridbkrdr

I'm 5'8" and measured my crotch area at 81cm or 31.8inches. Anyway, I know I'm talking about a Nashbar touring frame but I found my crotch too close to the top tube when standing over it with 700x45 tires. Of course those are really fat tires. So, I intend to use that frame for a city/rain bike and order a 52cm Nashbar touring frame later on. I can understand the comfort issue. But, every once in a while when you have to put your foot on the ground whether it's an emergency or not. I just can't convince myself to go real long distances with a 54cm frame knowing if I quickly put a foot down I might hit my crotch area on the top tube.

BigBlueToe

These days I think standover height is a minor concern, due to things like compact frames, sloping top tubes, etc. Make sure you can straddle the top tube while standing flat-footed without crushing anything sensitive.

I think apparent top-tube length is more important. I want to feel the correct amount of reach without my stem being overly long or short.

It's also crucial that you have your saddle high enough to get good leverage on the pedals. You can find this measurement by raising your seatpost incrementally until you find the sweet spot. However, if Ihave to have myseatpost pulled out so high that my saddle is way below my bars, I think my frame is too small. I had a bike like this, sold to me by a less-than-forthright salesman who didn't have a bike in my size. He wanted to make a sale and I was too dumb to realize I shouldn't listen to him. Different people like their bars different heights in relation to their saddle. I like mine right below to avoid numbness in my hands. If you're a racer-type who cares a lot about aerodynamics, you'll probably want your bars lower.

If you get all the other dimensions right, stand-over height shouldn't be an issue. (I wouldn't think anyway.)

digger531

I would definitely go with the 54. Think toe overlap. I feel this is a bigger concern than it is credited. Also although your trekking bars will shorten the over all reach this will have the same effect as a shorter stem= twitchy

digger531

it took me three times to get that to post so let me continue. i am just over 6' with a 35.5" inseem. Following "common wisdom" I ordered a 60cm (not lht) frame for my "ideal" touring bike. I ride it with a 70mm stem and a sagging back. WHEN I order my smaller frame the only question will be 58 or 56?

khorpulent

That map is cool, and Louisiana is now on the map.

I vote going for the bigger bike, but with the 26 inch wheels. I have about the same inseam (I'm 5'10", 32 inch inseam) and I got the 54 because at the time you couldn't get the 56 with the smaller wheels (this was before they sold the complete bike). I've taken it about 10k miles including three tours since then and have wished I got the 56 the whole time.

spons23

I'm 5'10 with a 30 in inseam. I had a 54 lht with 26wheels. I just traded it for a 56 cross check and am really enjoying the bigger frame with bigger wheels. However I have come to realize that the LBS cut the steer tube on the lht (despite me specifically asking him not too. I was too naive at the time to know the difference.) Thus never allowing me to get the albatross bars high enough on the long haul trucker. Also the 54 was too small for the albatross bars. My knees were in danger of hitting my bar end shifters on a quick tight turn.

I hope this helps.

luke