Long haul trucker question
 

I am new to long distance biking. I am a Ning a bike camping trip with my family. I found a killer deal on a new long haul trucker - $700 bucks but it is a 56 cm and I was told to get a 58 or 60 cm.

Would I notice a big enough difference to go ahead and order the larger size or not and save money?

Hi, welcome to the Forum! Bets to try it out if possible to see how it feels. You can't always go by what you're told to ride-I'll use myself as an example. 5'11, 33" inseam. My touring bike is a 58 (Trek 520). My mountain bike is a 46 (Oryx). Yep, the seatpost sticks up quite a bit, BUT it is very comfortable to ride for 10 years
now. When I took out the LHT 58 last year it felt comfortable. but huge like a big truck. Anyhow, in the end I perferred the 520 as it is a little bit more nimble and just as capable. Also, you can try the Fit My Bike app. $5 quick and easy. Still a ride will determine if it fits or not. Good luck.

Probably won't work, but you could buy the bike, if it isn't right, which it probably isn't then you could buy a cheap sourced surly frame. Then you swap gear and sell the frame. Not as easy as it sounds, but you learn how to do some mechanical things, and you could save enough money to make it worth while.

http://www.competitivecyclist.com/St...ulatorBike.jsp

I think that is the place that does outputs in French Fit, or if not, there is one out there.

Fit is the most important thing of all. So if you really are a "59", you surely don't want a 56. If you were oddball enough that you need a 56 when people say you need a 58-60. then you are almost certainly long in the torso, in which case you need the 58 with a bike with a sloping top tube, or a custom. Speaking generally. Unless the people who thought you were a 58-60, were ignorant, then you are not going on a 56. I am 6"1", and look normal enough, fit off the rack when I am in shape, but I am short in the leg and run a 56 59.

I think it depends.

LHT have long top tubes which work well for someone with a proportionally longer torso. I am 6' and have a proportionally shorter torso and an inseam of (88.5 cm) 35". I have a 58 cm LHT that fits well in the seat height, fore and aft saddle position and stand over height, but is almost too long in the reach. I could easily ride a 56 cm and it might even fit me a little better.

A lot of times LHT don't have their steerer tube cut, which allows more bar height adjustment. Also, $700 for a new LHT is a good deal. You can probably sell it for that if it does not meet your needs.

Try riding one if you can.

The top picture is the 58 cm LHT set up to fit me. I put a shorter stem, 80mm, on it, and the steerer tube is uncut allowing the the bars to be a little higher.
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/y...a7ac65a23d.jpg

This is a 56cm Cannondale T2. Both bikes have the same seat height, and same relationship of the seat to the pedals. I would like the bars just a little higher on the T2, but I'm about as high as I can go. I've ridden both bikes on some pretty long tours, and was happy with both. As you can see, there is not a lot of difference in riding position.
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/y...11252bea31.jpg

Try it. That is a good price. I should probably use a 60 but I have a 58 LHT.

A 56 if it is a 700c bike might have some toe overlap issues, so think about that when you try it. Toe overlap is a big deal to some, but not to others. I hardly notice toe overlap on my 58 unless I am going really slow and steering hard.

When you try it, if your handlebars feel too close to you, think about the stem as maybe a longer stem would be enough to make up the difference?

If you can't try it out because maybe there is snow on the ground where you are located, if it is a bike shop tell them you would like it setup on a trainer so you can at least get a feel for frame size and whether or not the frame fits you.

If they cut the steerer, that might be a problem for you, think carefully about that. You might not be able to raise the handlebars enough with a cut steerer.

Some people are in between sizes. If 60 would work for you, it seems that the 56 is going to be too small (you aren't between sizes).

For something that you are going to keep for a while, you'd likely be better-off spending the extra and getting the right size.

Would a 56 have worked for you?

He was recommeded a 58 or 60, which suggests that the 58 is marginally too small for him. Depending on the size of his feet, the overlap could be worse for him on the 56.

Top tube length, sweet spot on the saddle to the bar, is critical for a comfortable ride. Fortunately, that is widely adjustable with saddle position and stem length/angle. Even if too short as stock, you may be able to tweak it. Or sell it for more than you paid.

If there's a local bike shop, go and try some different sizes to get a better idea of what's in your range and what can be done to stretch the effective TT length. Be worth the trouble for a new $700 LHT.(Sounds too good to be true.)

You won't know if touring is going to be 'your thing' until you do one. No need to invest a lot of money up front only to find out that touring is really not you cup of tea. A bike that fits just right is not required to check out your proclivity for touring. You can still have a great time. It's really not about the bike.

Seriously. No. You can't use that. Especially for touring. Typically a rider will choose the larger size and put a shorter stem on for a more upright ride when touring. Many people like sitting really upright to simply see everything around them. A super small frame would require a long stem and even then you'd end up in a very aero position and be much less apt to look around. Horrible idea for a touring bike.

As a complete touring n00b, I'll ask: So is it better to have a frame set slightly too big vs one slightly too small?

The reason I'm asking (aside from the desire to learn) is that my bike frame seems just the slightest too tall for me. FWIW, it's a 1990 or '91 Schwinn High Plains with (what seems to me anyway) a rather high-off-the-ground bottom bracket and has 26" wheels.

The pedal stroke/seat height ratio is perfect and the length of the top tube seems pretty good, but the stand-over height puts the top tube nearly touching my "nether region". I love the bike and how it rides, it seems just the slightest too tall when standing over the top-tube.

I said:

And got this comment:

I could use a 56cm if I had a longer stem, assuming that the steerer was not cut.

You really should focus on top tube length when looking at bike fitting well. One 58cm bike might fit quite differently from another 58cm bike. That is why I suggested that he try it.

I worked in a bike shop in the 1970s. Back then most bikes came in about 3 sizes instead of about 10. We have gotten very picky about getting our bikes sized just right, but realistically a change of stem can often make up for quite a bit of sizing difference without any problems.

My niece uses a 58cm carbon road bike but she is several inches shorter than me and her previous hybrid was a very different size from her road bike. The difference was that her hybrid had a pretty long top tube, the road bike a short top tube. You really do not know how a bike will fit until you get on it and try it.

You could try narrower tires; that would lower the bike a tad. Good touring slicks are available in 26 x 1.5 and even 1.25 sizes.

But it sounds like your bike is the right size already. For a horizontal-top-tube frame (most older bikes), you should have just enough standover room to not nad-jack yourself, but no more.

Old MTBs had high bottom brackets for obstacle clearance, which makes their standover heights quite tall. That's why MTBs went to sloping top tubes so quickly; it lowers the standover while keeping a high bottom bracket.

"nad jack" - too funny! :lol: We (in our house...) we call it "junk smash" - all the same though - rofl! :lol:

Given this definition, then my bike is a perfect fit!

I wondered why so many bikes have the angled top-tube - was thinking for step-through ease, but nad-jack avoidance is a much more, "right to the point" reason.

Frame "size" is seat tube length .. if the top tube slopes It will be shorter , but not really smaller.

by Who, gather your own Data.

Measure your straddle height.. flat footed how high can you stand over something and not say Ow! ??

Top tube length is the other frame size variable.

Only you can decide if the stand over is too "dangerous" for you. You may pay for it someday with pain but that's a gamble. Most folks -do- have to jump straight forward sooner or later and have that issue but a nicely fitting bike is a great thing. In answer to your question...
Picture yourself on a tiny, tiny frame with a long seat tube so you can still sit with the proper leg length. You would have to reach down waayyyy low to get to the handlebars. Picture yourself on a huge frame....now you have to reach up way high and you're sitting up tall. A larger frame will sit you up just a bit more upright. In the old days with quill stems you could raise your stem easily to any height and make it very short or very long .Getting the correct reach wasn't as touchy as it is today but the basics remain the same in that a smaller frame with a longer stem may work just fine, or a larger frame with a shorter stem may work just fine. Or you might fit perfectly on just one frame size for a given manufacturer but all other things being equal a larger frame will sit you up a bit more (quite a bit) for a more "comfort" ride and a smaller frame will force you to be more aerodynamic. Almost everyone can fit two frame sizes but not always. When a person can fit two...it's a question of their flexibility and riding style/needs that makes the decision. Old geezers and casual riders will typically be best served by the larger frame with an appropriate stem. Young flexible people and racers for whom leaning over is a non-issue will be better served by a smaller frame. Tourers will typically be served by a bigger frame but a "real" touring bike will have this in mind and be designed to put the rider in a more upright position than you would find on a racing bike.
A quick fitting with a "knee over pedal spindle" may lead you to buy a larger frame with a short stem but later you may realize you need to be further back and then find out the frame is too large...which is one of the huge ways people get a wrong sized frame....shops do the KOPS thing and then people learn it's not the right place for their knee. But I digress.
The thing is many people can use a larger frame or one size smaller. If you look at Tour de France riders or any pro racing you'll notice their seat posts stick wayyy the heck out of the bike. They are on small frames with long stems. Every one of them. It causes them to be very bent over and aerodynamic. That's just the opposite of what a touring biker wants to do and it's why touring bikes are designed to put a person in a more upright position than a racing bike and even within that context you'll still often find yourself torn between this or that size bike and often two sizes can be made to fit just fine by the choice of a stem, even with stand-over height being considered. The key thing when choosing reach is for the bike fitter to -not- simply go by KOPS and to get your real balance point properly set so you retain some power (riding with saddle forward) while having some balance and not excessive pressure on your hands (saddle back). With your saddle in the right position (may or may not be KOPS) ...THEN you can figure whether this or that size frame will work properly.
What tires are you using? Can you get a pair with a little less tread...drop another little bit of breathing room that way? Best of luck.

A lot of good advice here, but unfortunately we are missing the most important information. What are the OP's measurements? How did whoever said you needed a 58 or a 60cm frame come up with that? The LHT has a long top tube. It does stretch you out more than some bikes, it just depends on the geometry of the frame. A little more information would make it easier to give good recommendations.

You may want to look at the spreadsheet on the google LHT group, it shows what size frames people have, what their measurements are and what other components they have and the sizes, such as stem length. It will give you a good idea of what size fits what. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...cHZrQ3c#gid=23

Well it looks like the OP has not logged back on for a few days. Wonder what he did...assuming it was a he.

FWIW, I ride a Spec roubaix at 58.5 and orginally thought it was a tad too big...my local bike shop recommended the 58.5 over the 56...well after 14,000 miles on the Roubaix I think it is OK ;)

A couple months ago, after a lot of research, bought a new Surly LHT sight unseen at 58" by comparing the height to my Roubaix. Just love the Surly, only adjusted the seat a bit, about 700 miles on it but a tour is looming soon, I hope.

The OP is taking about different sizes for one bike model.

The seat tube length (what the "sizes" are usually) is a useless way to compare different models (the top tube length is a much better number).

The fact that people "made do" with three sizes in the 70's doesn't mean they aren't better off with more sizes to choose from.

A new cyclist may not be able to choose the best size by just "trying it". They might really need to work directly with somebody with experience.

He was told by a shop employee, presumably, who knows what he looks like, presumably, that other sizes (two larger sizes) would be better. And you, having no idea what he looks like, think that your advice is likely to be better.

What does your niece have to do with anything?

This ... it seems common, proportionally, they .. Women .. have longer legs for their height ,
and shorter arms, torso and thus, reach.