Joined: 06 Apr 2006Posts: 548Location: Providence, RI
I'm going to San Francisco next month on a bike. The bike I could take is my Trek 800, and it's got a bunch of things I'd rather replace before taking it more than a thousand miles. I have graduation funding, so I want to buy a bike to replace the Trek as a tourer.
I've been test-riding touring bikes, and my favorite so far is Surly, followed by Trek 520.
Q: If I were to get a Surly LHT, should I get the 54 cm or the 56?
My bikes now are pretty close to 54 cm, but I like to be up kinda high on my bikes, I guess. Either that or those bike shop guys who adjust the seat post are lazy bastards. Actually I think maybe both of these are true.
Complicating factors:
The 54 cm LHT fits 26" wheels, while the 56 fits 700c.
There's a 54 cm LHT on sale on ebay: http://tinyurl.com/zkcfg
I welcome opinions about this conundrum or yell at me to buy a different bike or whatever. Also Brandon: I know you think I should quit my job and dig through piles of bike junk all day and just fix up my Trek instead of buying a new bike, so you don't need to post that here, though feel free to do so if you need to.
_________________ Adam
lantius
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:30 am
1337Joined: 22 Jul 2005Posts: 6705Location: right over
that's interesting, i didn't know the 54cm LHT was 26" tires. those surly guys sure are clever.
did you test ride the LHT in 54cm? it seems like comfort would be paramount if you are going to be riding for any substantial distance.
joeball
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:34 am
Joined: 24 Jul 2005Posts: 6037Location: Ether
So I am not an experienced tourer but I have read up on it some and started compiling the bits for a tourer at some point.
Larger frames seem to be the consensus. This aids in getting an upright posture, no drop from the seat to bars.
You shouldn't really let the wheel size affect your decision if you are building a new bike. Ample tires are available for each and these differences are made so that geometry is not sacrificed.
lieutenantsean
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:56 am
Joined: 10 Oct 2005Posts: 1255
You are giving this way too much fucking thought.
Pick the one that you would be most comfortable sitting on for eight hours at a stretch.
_________________ Bringing you Retro-Grouchiness since 1984
joeball
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:01 pm
Joined: 24 Jul 2005Posts: 6037Location: Ether
lantius wrote:
that's interesting, i didn't know the 54cm LHT was 26" tires. those surly guys sure are clever.
yeah rivendell does this with the Atlantis also, different wheel sizes. I think the switch comes between the 56 and 58cm sizes though.
SeditiousCanary
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:36 pm
sorry, can't make it!Joined: 26 Jan 2006Posts: 2315Location: Fremont Troll
joeball wrote:
Larger frames seem to be the consensus. This aids in getting an upright posture, no drop from the seat to bars.
Funny, I usually say smaller so it's easier to controll the bike with 50+ extra pounds on it. As long as you have 2" of clearance, it shouldn't make a difference though.
And yeah, the one you like to sit on for eight hours is the one to get regardless of size.
mork the delayer
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Joined: 06 Apr 2006Posts: 548Location: Providence, RI
lantius wrote:
that's interesting, i didn't know the 54cm LHT was 26" tires. those surly guys sure are clever.
did you test ride the LHT in 54cm? it seems like comfort would be paramount if you are going to be riding for any substantial distance.
Actually noone I've talked to has a LHT built in a size I could reasonably ride, so I rode another Surly, I think the cross-check. The LHT geometry is very close to the Trek 520 though.
_________________ Adam
the dreaded ben
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:58 pm
Grumpy GreebJoined: 20 Aug 2005Posts: 5329Location: flavor country
i'd say look at other brands as well. burly for one. the surly's are expensive to build and nothing special.
and the trek 520 should not be out of question.
1. it is a very good buy as far as value.
2. it's built in the us, mind you buy idiots, built here nonetheless.
3. it's a great color this year
4. tried and true. almost the same bike as the 1985 version.
5. everyone has one to try.
Joined: 28 Jan 2006Posts: 555Location: Wallingford
the dreaded ben wrote:
2. it's built in the us, mind you buy idiots, built here nonetheless.
hehehe
I love it when people make typos while calling someone else stupid.
I had a 520 that I rode into the ground (~30,000 miles total). The wheels (rims) are dead after that many miles but the bike held up nicely.
_________________ Confidential to everybody: "Pearl necklace" is out. "Cheney" is in. Pass it on.
MikeOD
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:36 pm
Joined: 04 Feb 2006Posts: 545
Agreed that wheel size shouldn't be an issue in the decision. The 54cm Surly with the 26" wheels would be fine for a tourer. So long as the frame fits you of course. The smaller wheels for a frame that size will ensure no toe/fender overlap.
The top tube on the LHT is slightly longer than the Trek for the same sized frame, so again, depends on what fits for you. I tend to need a ridiculously short stem to make bikes fit comfortably with drop bars. If you don't have that problem then the Surly will probably work well for you. I've ridden a 54, 56 and 58 and like them, the long wheelbase makes for a comfortable ride, and it seems like everyone who tours on them likes them. The proportions just don't fit me very well or I'd probably have one already.
The trick with the Surly's is finding one built up to try. Recycled had a 54 LHT built up this past winter/spring but I think it's gone now. Freerange cycles in Fremont often has one built up, but I don't care for some of their component selection for a touring bike (32 spoke wheels, brifters), and their price is usually around $1600. That makes the ebay auction look pretty good.
Also think about whether the gearing on the Trek would work for you. For a loaded tourer I'd want lower gears than come stock on the 520 - I believe the lowest is 30x32, which for me just wouldn't cut it for hauling 40+lbs of gear. If you're a real strong rider and/or plan on traveling ultralight, that gearing might be ok. If not, that means swapping out the crank for a mountain crank or a 110/74 to get down to at least a 24t granny gear. When I was looking at the 520 at Gregg's the sales guy started grumbling about changing out parts and said I'd just have to pay for the new crank and try to sell the old one myself. Not a deal breaker I suppose, if it's the right bike for you. But it does minimize one of the benefits of the Trek which is the relatively low price.
joeball
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:46 am
Joined: 24 Jul 2005Posts: 6037Location: Ether
MikeOD wrote:
Also think about whether the gearing on the Trek would work for you. For a loaded tourer I'd want lower gears than come stock on the 520 - I believe the lowest is 30x32, which for me just wouldn't cut it for hauling 40+lbs of gear. If you're a real strong rider and/or plan on traveling ultralight, that gearing might be ok. If not, that means swapping out the crank for a mountain crank or a 110/74 to get down to at least a 24t granny gear. When I was looking at the 520 at Gregg's the sales guy started grumbling about changing out parts and said I'd just have to pay for the new crank and try to sell the old one myself. Not a deal breaker I suppose, if it's the right bike for you. But it does minimize one of the benefits of the Trek which is the relatively low price.
Yeah that is the one qualm with the 520 specs is the cranks, they are a Shimano 105 road triple (52-42-30) mated with a 32-11 cassette. Probably a pricepoint item but annoying none the less.
Joined: 28 Jan 2006Posts: 555Location: Wallingford
I realize that I'm a bit biased and stuff, but I really liked the road cranks with the mountain cassette. I managed to make it from Seattle to LA only using the small chainring once (and that was because I overshifted). That and I like having the 53 up front. Fully loaded you are pushing a lot of wind and even on a big downhill you are going to need that 53 to break 50 mph.
And come on...what's a bike tour if you don't break 50?
_________________ Confidential to everybody: "Pearl necklace" is out. "Cheney" is in. Pass it on.
the dreaded ben
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:39 am
Grumpy GreebJoined: 20 Aug 2005Posts: 5329Location: flavor country
i'd say, if you can't get up a hill in less than a 1 to 1 ratio, you should try to run over your own head;
but chances are you can't do that right either.
Stanglor
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:41 am
Joined: 28 Jan 2006Posts: 555Location: Wallingford
the dreaded ben wrote:
i'd say, if you can't get up a hill in less than a 1 to 1 ratio, you should try to run over your own head;
but chances are you can't do that right either.
As usual Ben said it a lot better than me.
That's what I meant.
_________________ Confidential to everybody: "Pearl necklace" is out. "Cheney" is in. Pass it on.
jillita
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:52 am
Joined: 13 Oct 2005Posts: 744Location: the westside
Stanglor wrote:
I managed to make it from Seattle to LA only using the small chainring once (and that was because I overshifted). That and I like having the 53 up front. Fully loaded you are pushing a lot of wind and even on a big downhill you are going to need that 53 to break 50 mph.
And come on...what's a bike tour if you don't break 50?
Tinker Juarez is a real man <cough>. Doing RAAM w/o touching his small chainring:
"During his massage his crew swarmed about; mother Rose feeding him, Trevor calculating estimated times for the miles to come, Ed and Jim attending to his bike. When Ed commented that when he cleaned the drivetrain, he found absolutely no sign of grime on the small chainring, Tinker’s nonchalant answer was, “Well, I haven’t been out of the big chain ring yet. Not at all. But that little ring, it’s coming. It’ll have its day.” Incredible! Tinker has amassed 816 miles since Sunday, has climbed thousands of feet, and from the 8000’+ town of Durango he declares that he’s done it all in his 53!
Which isn’t to say that these first days of the Race Across America have been easy. Far from it. “This is by far the hardest thing I’ve ever done,” he admits. “It’s so much harder than I ever could have imagines. But I could go home and cry about how hard this is, or I can keep on going and cry on my bike. Crying on my bike sounds better."
MikeOD
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:04 pm
Joined: 04 Feb 2006Posts: 545
the dreaded ben wrote:
... you should try to run over your own head;
but chances are you can't do that right either.
That sounds like an advanced .83 skill that I haven't figured out yet. But I bet if I ever make it to the whiskey bar for a pre-funk then I'll suddenly know how.
MikeOD
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:16 pm
Joined: 04 Feb 2006Posts: 545
What was I thinking talking to this crowd about low gears. Loaded touring on a fixie, riding cross country on a racing bike at 200+ miles/day...
Aaron
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:54 pm
Joined: 25 Jul 2005Posts: 4645
Wheel size should apppropriate for your body size. Super small people need small wheels and large people need bigger wheels. Us average types can ride several sizes.
Personally I am a huge 650A fan. 650B is retarded. I was working on a 650C bike today. An old middle weight cruiser.
I am really, just kidding. There is something to be said for 26" MTB size wheels. You can get tubes and tires at Wal-Mart!
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 11, 2023 9:10 am
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 548
Location: Providence, RI
1337
Joined: 22 Jul 2005
Posts: 6705
Location: right over
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 6037
Location: Ether
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 1255
sorry, can't make it!
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 2315
Location: Fremont Troll
Grumpy Greeb
Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 5329
Location: flavor country
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 555
Location: Wallingford
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 545
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 744
Location: the westside
