Best mail order source for Surly Long Haul Trucker?

[me@privacy.net]

I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
for hrs away.

I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49

I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?

Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
order one from and have shipped to my house?

[Hank Wirtz]

On Sep 29, 9:31 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

As far as I know, nobody has it in stock at the moment. They get a
batch built, they hit QBP's system, and they're sold out within a few
days, then it's a couple months until the next batch. I've heard
reports of some hitting bike shops this week, but none of the usual
web sites that tie directly into QBP's stock (Jensonusa.com,
AEbike.com, harriscyclery.com, ebikestop.com) list it as available, so
it may have sold out already.

Bare frames are widely available, though.

I'd suggest checking the dealer list on Surly's site. Call around and
see if a local bike shop (even if it's not local to you) has one they
can ship you. http://www.freerangecycles.com/ is a shop that was
building up LHTs from the frameset long before the complete bike came
out, and I'm guessing they could hook you up whether the complete is
sold out or not. A custom config like that would likely cost more,
though.

I'm more concerned about the sizes you mention. I assume 5'1" is a
typo and you mean 5'10 or 11". At that height, you should be looking
more at a 58, not a 54. At least in my opinion. I'm 6' even, and my
LHT is a 60cm. You might want to check out the LHT owner's group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurlyLHT Many, many threads discussing
sizing, and that may give you more insight.

Good luck!

[landotter]

On Sep 29, 11:31 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

I've had good luck with bikemannetwork when it comes to QBP stuff.
They're up in Maine, so not the guys you want shipping to Oregon or
something.

As far as size goes, I bet you're closer to a 56 than a 54cm at that
height and inseam. I know guys your height that ride 58s, FWIW.

Don't forget to order pedals, and if you're nervous about the stock
stem, get a cheap adjustable one to play with.

[Michael Press]

In article
<rbvsf31pps8349s5cc7r9ncou4121p51a0@4ax.com>,
me@privacy.net wrote:

> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

You should get a 56 cm at least,
measured from center of bottom bracket spindle
to middle of the top tube at the seat tube.
Be sure to fit the top tube length properly;
and you cannot do this unless the saddle is
positioned fore and aft for ideal weight
distribution over the pedals.

--
Michael Press

[SMS]

me@privacy.net wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

54 cm will most likely be too small.

Good luck actually buying a Surly LHT. Huge shortage, as there are no
alternatives for a bicycle like that, in that price range.

[Pikachu]

In article <rbvsf31pps8349s5cc7r9ncou4121p51a0@4ax.com>, me@privacy.net
wrote:

> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?


FWIW, trying to fit someone over the 'net isn't the wisest practice.
Having said that, I will provide my data for your reference.

I'm 176cm (5'9") tall with a 81cm (32") PBH*, and I ride my 54cm LHT
comfortably, meaning with a Brooks saddle I have a fistful of seatpost
showing, and I don't need to use an odd-sized stem nor lots of spacers
under than stem. I could probably ride a 56cm, but the standover height
will get uncomfortably close to my PBH. This was a consideration for me
because I use the bike for commuting and errand running, with a lot of
stop-n-go and traffic negotiation. I would have less of an issue with
the standover clearance if I were to buy the bike for touring.

Here are a few more notes for your consideration:

1. The 56cm is the smallest 700c LHT. The 54cm and smaller ones all use
26" (ISO 559mm) wheels. That may be a consideration because 26" wheels
are typically stronger than 700c wheels, although the selection of 26"
narrow road-going tires is quite limited. Regardless, all LHT have
135mm wide rear hub spacing. At least for me, it was easier and cheaper
to source a 26" wheel with 135mm hubs, than a 700c wheel with 135mm hubs.

2. Because of the wheel size difference, the effective gearing is also a
bit different. That may be a consideration if you're reusing some
drivetrain parts. I use Continental's Sport Contact 26"x1.6 tires with
a Campy road triple 53/40/30 and a 12-32 cogset. I have not run out of
gears yet, despite some heavy loads, strong headwinds, and hilly
terrain. The bike is slightly but noticeably slower than my 700c road
bike though.

3. If you have the skills and inclination, buying the frame/fork and
building up the bike isn't a bad way to go. I got a frame/fork, and
cobbled my bike together over a couple of months of eBay dealings. For
about the same price as Surly is charging for their LHT bike, I got a
LHT with the parts I wanted. Having stated that, if the Surly build is
acceptable to you, it is quite the value for money.

Pikachu

* PBH is similar but may not be the same as inseam; see rivbike.com for
details.

[Scott Gordo]

On Sep 29, 12:31 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

Have you given this bike a look:

http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html

I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
and I think that's in line with an LHT.

/s

[russellseaton1@yahoo.com]

On Sep 29, 11:31 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

If you are this uncertain about what frame size to order, you need to
go to a competent bike shop and get fitted. Mail order is great if
you know what size bike you need. Otherwise you just give more
ammunition to the support your local bike shop only people no matter
how much they overcharge and don't carry what you want.

[mark]

me@privacy.net wrote:
> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> for hrs away.
>
> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> order one from and have shipped to my house?

Like a bunch of people said, 56 cm or 54 cm sounds awfully small. I'm
5'9" and I'm happy on two 58 cm frames (1 road, 1 touring), and I can
make my old 57 cm road frame work with the right saddle.

Here are a few more sites with good information about fitting bicycles:
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/

http://www.rivbike.com/


HTH,

mark

[me@privacy.net]

>I'm more concerned about the sizes you mention. I assume 5'1" is a
>typo and you mean 5'10 or 11". At that height, you should be looking
>more at a 58, not a 54. At least in my opinion. I'm 6' even, and my
>LHT is a 60cm.

Oops...yes a typo

I am 5 foot 10 inches.... maybe 11 inches not sure

But I stood over top a friends Cannondale 56 cm cross
bike and the top tube was right UP against my
crotch...so assumed form that bike that a 54 cm
(smaller) was better

Are the touring bike frames geometrically different in
height form a cross bike frame? At least enough diff to
make me fuzzy on all this?

[JG]

I'm 5'10'' or 11', 31" inseam, and ride a 56cm Ritchey touring frame
from 1980. I can stand over it, but it's snug. It's the way touring
bikes were set up, but the seatpost looks short compared to
contemporary set ups.

I don't think I could ride a 58cm, but the Surley may have sloping top
tube or non-700c wheels, so maybe my advise is out of date...

JG

[datakoll]

try 'universal cycles' and graze thru while there eg 'pedals'

[me@privacy.net]

>I'm 5'10'' or 11', 31" inseam, and ride a 56cm Ritchey touring frame
>from 1980. I can stand over it, but it's snug. It's the way touring
>bikes were set up, but the seatpost looks short compared to
>contemporary set ups.

Ok so should touring bike top tubes be right up against
my crotch? No space at all?

[datakoll]

On Sep 30, 12:15 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <rbvsf31pps8349s5cc7r9ncou4121p5...@4ax.com>,
>
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> > for hrs away.
>
> > I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> > I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> > work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> > Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> > order one from and have shipped to my house?
>
> You should get a 56 cm at least,
> measured from center of bottom bracket spindle
> to middle of the top tube at the seat tube.
> Be sure to fit the top tube length properly;
> and you cannot do this unless the saddle is
> positioned fore and aft for ideal weight
> distribution over the pedals.
>
> --
> Michael Press

right. length defines how your knees travel over and down into the
power stroke while reducing inside thigh contact onto the saddle.
correct knee glide reduces compressive knee malfunction, essential to
LHT.

[landotter]

On Sep 30, 3:38 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
> > for hrs away.
>
> > I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>
> > I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
> > work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>
> > Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
> > order one from and have shipped to my house?
>
> 54 cm will most likely be too small.
>
> Good luck actually buying a Surly LHT. Huge shortage, as there are no
> alternatives for a bicycle like that, in that price range.

The Cross Check Complete is in stock, and a great alternative unless
you're heavy touring. It might even be better if ya want slightly
sprightlier handling. Same price.

[me@privacy.net]

>The Cross Check Complete is in stock, and a great alternative unless
>you're heavy touring. It might even be better if ya want slightly
>sprightlier handling. Same price.

yeah I'm thinking abt it as well

unsure of size at the moment tho

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 1, 12:06 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >I'm more concerned about the sizes you mention. I assume 5'1" is a
> >typo and you mean 5'10 or 11". At that height, you should be looking
> >more at a 58, not a 54. At least in my opinion. I'm 6' even, and my
> >LHT is a 60cm.
>
> Oops...yes a typo
>
> I am 5 foot 10 inches.... maybe 11 inches not sure
>
> But I stood over top a friends Cannondale 56 cm cross
> bike and the top tube was right UP against my
> crotch...so assumed form that bike that a 54 cm
> (smaller) was better
>
> Are the touring bike frames geometrically different in
> height form a cross bike frame? At least enough diff to
> make me fuzzy on all this?

Yep...Touring bikes have low Bottom Brackets for stability, CX have
high BBs for clearing roots and other obstacles. Most people can ride
a much bigger touring frame than a CX (or road racing, which have high
BBs to be able to pedal through corners) frame because for equal ST
lengths, standover on the tourer is lower.

[Booker Bense]

In article <bah2g3177b7ud5rj234ppptjbidknc6bs1@4ax.com>,
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>I'm 5'10'' or 11', 31" inseam, and ride a 56cm Ritchey touring frame
>>from 1980. I can stand over it, but it's snug. It's the way touring
>>bikes were set up, but the seatpost looks short compared to
>>contemporary set ups.
>
>Ok so should touring bike top tubes be right up against
>my crotch? No space at all?

IMHO, you're looking at entirely the wrong measurement.
Effective Top tube length is where you should be looking,
get the bike size that has the top tube range you are
comfortable with. If that's right, generally everything
else falls into place unless you are on the end of some
physiological bell curve.

Also, the LHT switches wheel sizes from 26" to 700C at
56cm , so the 54 and the 56 would be quite
different bikes in some ways.

_ Booker C. Bense

[me@privacy.net]

>IMHO, you're looking at entirely the wrong measurement.
>Effective Top tube length is where you should be looking,
>get the bike size that has the top tube range you are
>comfortable with. If that's right, generally everything
>else falls into place unless you are on the end of some
>physiological bell curve.

OK but how will I know what top tube length is needed
for my body?

Just get on several touring bikes and "feel"? IOW.....
see how much my upper body torso is stretched out of
cramped/compressed up?

[me@privacy.net]

>Yep...Touring bikes have low Bottom Brackets for stability, CX have
>high BBs for clearing roots and other obstacles. Most people can ride
>a much bigger touring frame than a CX (or road racing, which have high
>BBs to be able to pedal through corners) frame because for equal ST
>lengths, standover on the tourer is lower.

Phew...glad I asked then

OK I need to go find a REAL touring bike to stand over
on and see how THAT 56 cm frame fits then.

But question still stands...do you want NO clearance
between crotch and top tube on touring bike?

[me@privacy.net]

>Have you given this bike a look:
>
>http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>
>I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
>price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
>and I think that's in line with an LHT.

No I haven't but it sure looks nice for the price!!

Is it a touring bike per se?

[SMS]

Scott Gordo wrote:
> On Sep 29, 12:31 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>> I live in small town with no local bike shop nor one
>> for hrs away.
>>
>> I'm 5' 1 or 11 inches and 32" inseam..... age 49
>>
>> I want to buy a Surly LHT....... I "think" 56 cm will
>> work but not sure. What you advise? maybe 54 cm?
>>
>> Bottom line..... where is the best mail order source to
>> order one from and have shipped to my house?
>
> Have you given this bike a look:
>
> http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>
> I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
> price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
> and I think that's in line with an LHT.

Not a great deal for 520 steel.

The wheelbase and chain stay lengths are a little too short for a true
touring bicycle. For someone with large feet, heel clearance could be a
problem with some panniers, though check out
"http://bicycleluggageracks.com/" for some racks and other methods to
solve this problem.

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 1, 2:35 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >Yep...Touring bikes have low Bottom Brackets for stability, CX have
> >high BBs for clearing roots and other obstacles. Most people can ride
> >a much bigger touring frame than a CX (or road racing, which have high
> >BBs to be able to pedal through corners) frame because for equal ST
> >lengths, standover on the tourer is lower.
>
> Phew...glad I asked then
>
> OK I need to go find a REAL touring bike to stand over
> on and see how THAT 56 cm frame fits then.
>
> But question still stands...do you want NO clearance
> between crotch and top tube on touring bike?

What do you need it for? I mean, obviously, you don't want to sqish
your nuts every time you get off the saddle, but do you need the top
tube an inch or two below the seam of your shorts? No, you don't need
it. It's not that you want as little standover as possible, it's just
not hugely necessary.

Like others have said, Top tube length is more important, and smaller
frames mean lower bars, and cramped cockpits. I thought my 56cm road
bike with a long stem and seatpost fit well, but then I tried a 60cm.
What a revelation. Bars were higher without being goofy, steering just
seemed...better. Cranks were farther forward due to the shallower seat
angle, it was just more comfy.

Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.

[Booker Bense]

In article <72q2g3pb5nhle3oumamp86aagid2rafmi7@4ax.com>,
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>IMHO, you're looking at entirely the wrong measurement.
>>Effective Top tube length is where you should be looking,
>>get the bike size that has the top tube range you are
>>comfortable with. If that's right, generally everything
>>else falls into place unless you are on the end of some
>>physiological bell curve.
>
>OK but how will I know what top tube length is needed
>for my body?

What's the top tube length on the bike you have now or
a bike that you're really comfortable on? I don't think
you can really answer this question without riding some
bikes and knowing what is a comfortable position for
you...

>
>Just get on several touring bikes and "feel"? IOW.....
>see how much my upper body torso is stretched out of
>cramped/compressed up?

Touring bikes tend to have longer top tubes in relation to
seat tubes. I've figured out ( and it wasn't particularly
simple or easy [1]) that something in the range of 55cm
works pretty well for me, on most bikes that would be
either a 56 or 54 cm seat tube. On the LHT it's either
an 52 or 54 cm bike.

If anything I would err on the size of slightly too short
of a top tube for a touring bike[2], since you'll likely
want a more upright position and that will be easier to
get with a shorter top tube as long as you can get the
handlebars high enough. On a bike like the LHT the steerer
tube is steel so you can stack it fairly high and longer
stems are easier to find than shorter ones.

Peter White's article on bike fitting is some very useful
general advice.

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

_ Booker C. Bense

[1]- Mostly by buying a bike that was the wrong size and learning
the hard way what can be worked around and what can't.

[2]_ As long as you aren't way above standover height.

[Scott Gordo]

On Oct 1, 5:39 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >Have you given this bike a look:
>
> >http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>
> >I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
> >price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
> >and I think that's in line with an LHT.
>
> No I haven't but it sure looks nice for the price!!
>
> Is it a touring bike per se?

Honestly, what little touring I've done has either been supported or
of the quick 4-day flip/flops + a credit-card-for-hotels-and-food
variety, and that was done on a Schwinn Peloton with racey angles, so
I have no idea whether the bike will hold a line plummeting down Mt.
Hood with 60lbs of gear at 40mph.

FWIW, I found the Jamis a nice, upright, smooth, very comfortable
ride.* I think his bike was a 2003 or thereabouts. My friend is nearly
300lbs (and criminally negligent about maintenance.) He never had a
problem with the wheels or tires, and never mentioned any shimmy. The
backswept Ritchey Biomax bars were great, the Sora stuff worked fine
despite the low-end status PLUS lack of maintenance. More than
anything, and YMMV, the bike just had that magic feeling that it fit
me perfectly, and led to some changes on my own road bike. No
soreness, no tingling. Really, just a joy to ride. I think he also
found it for under $600, which made it a good enough value that you
kind of root for it as an underdog.

/s

* I should mention that I 'borrowed' his bike while he was out of town
for a Paris-Roubaix Hommage ride through the cobbled streets of
Brooklyn. It would have been a lot more work on my MTB and, well, as
much as I love and trust my Peloton, I wasn't about to risk finding
out what wasn't up to the task. Again, this wasn't touring, but it was
likely the best bit of torture testing I've put a road bike through. I
should mention that I'm also on the Clyde end of the spectrum,
weighing 210lbs.

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 1, 2:39 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >Have you given this bike a look:
>
> >http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>
> >I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
> >price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
> >and I think that's in line with an LHT.
>
> No I haven't but it sure looks nice for the price!!
>
> Is it a touring bike per se?

Pretty much. It has shorter chainstays, but longer fork rake. Probably
climbs out of the saddle better than an LHT when unloaded, but
depending on your shoe size, might be a problem for heel clearance
when carrying panniers. This can be remedied by careful rack
selection, getting one with a longer shelf, like the Jandd Expedition.
You'd want wider tires than the 28mm Zaffiros when carrying a load.

[Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®]

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:56q2g3t38rte8ffoi7bml8fks2crcdafav@4ax.com...
> >Have you given this bike a look:
>>
>>http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/07_bikes/aurora.html
>>
>>I rode a friend's a few years ago. Very nice bike. Looks like the
>>price has crept up to $850, but, like I said, I liked it quite a bit
>>and I think that's in line with an LHT.
>
> No I haven't but it sure looks nice for the price!!
>
> Is it a touring bike per se?

Yes. Aurora is Jamis's touring line. Comparable to Trek 520, at a lower
price. May not have Surly's hipster cred, but as good a bike.

[me@privacy.net]

>Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
>stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.

Understood and thanks!!

You are right... I don't NEED top tube clearance...or
tons of it anyway..... just wasn't sure of how much if
any clearance is a good idea!

You've changed my thinking some..... I will go find a
real touring bike in 56cm and stand over it and se how
that feels

But question.... when you went for your 60cm
bike.....and you stood up...was the top tube such that
NO clearance at all for your crotch?

[SMS]

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2:35 pm, m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>> Yep...Touring bikes have low Bottom Brackets for stability, CX have
>>> high BBs for clearing roots and other obstacles. Most people can ride
>>> a much bigger touring frame than a CX (or road racing, which have high
>>> BBs to be able to pedal through corners) frame because for equal ST
>>> lengths, standover on the tourer is lower.
>> Phew...glad I asked then
>>
>> OK I need to go find a REAL touring bike to stand over
>> on and see how THAT 56 cm frame fits then.
>>
>> But question still stands...do you want NO clearance
>> between crotch and top tube on touring bike?
>
> What do you need it for? I mean, obviously, you don't want to sqish
> your nuts every time you get off the saddle, but do you need the top
> tube an inch or two below the seam of your shorts? No, you don't need
> it. It's not that you want as little standover as possible, it's just
> not hugely necessary.
>
> Like others have said, Top tube length is more important, and smaller
> frames mean lower bars, and cramped cockpits. I thought my 56cm road
> bike with a long stem and seatpost fit well, but then I tried a 60cm.
> What a revelation. Bars were higher without being goofy, steering just
> seemed...better. Cranks were farther forward due to the shallower seat
> angle, it was just more comfy.
>
> Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
> stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.

This is true. I have a 58cm touring bicycle where the standover height
on the 56cm would have been more appropriate for sufficient ball
clearance, but the 58cm is a better fit for actual riding.

[Hank Wirtz]

On Oct 2, 8:02 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
> >stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.
>
> Understood and thanks!!
>
> You are right... I don't NEED top tube clearance...or
> tons of it anyway..... just wasn't sure of how much if
> any clearance is a good idea!
>
> You've changed my thinking some..... I will go find a
> real touring bike in 56cm and stand over it and se how
> that feels
>
> But question.... when you went for your 60cm
> bike.....and you stood up...was the top tube such that
> NO clearance at all for your crotch?

If I'm wearing baggy shorts, the seam rests on the top tube. I
probably would not want larger tires. But on my tour this summer, I
did three mountain passes in two days, with temps in the high 80s/low
90s and was stopping to rest and rehydrate every 20 minutes or so.
When standing on the side of the road, having to keep the bike as
upright as possible due to the load, I was thinking "Dear God, how am
I going to make it up this hill?" not "Why do I have so little
standover clearance on my top tube?"

[Chalo]

m...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> >
> >Not saying you need a 60, but don't let minimal but adequate standover
> >stop you from getting the bike that fits _while you're riding it_.
>
> But question.... when you went for your 60cm
> bike.....and you stood up...was the top tube such that
> NO clearance at all for your crotch?

The clearance that matters is where bike frame fails to reach a
compromise with your anatomy. When I was in the bike shop business,
we did not consider a frame too tall for road use if the rider could
stand over it in flat shoes and pick the bike up one inch off the
ground.

Chalo

[Clive George]

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47026017$0$79858$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> This is true. I have a 58cm touring bicycle where the standover height on
> the 56cm would have been more appropriate for sufficient ball clearance,
> but the 58cm is a better fit for actual riding.

Compact geometry would help here - YKIMS :-)

clive

[JG]

I'm an inch and a half taller and 58cm is way too big... I think
there must be enough variation in individual physionometry to make any
anecdotal advise useless.

The Rivendell numbers seem to be right on. Touring bikes are sized
snug. Remember, you won't be standing over them. You will have one
foot on the pedal and the other toe on the ground.

JG

[me@privacy.net]

>Like a bunch of people said, 56 cm or 54 cm sounds awfully small. I'm
>5'9" and I'm happy on two 58 cm frames (1 road, 1 touring), and I can
>make my old 57 cm road frame work with the right saddle.

Hmmmm..... something fishy then

Maybe that 56 cm cross bike had big wheels or
something...don't know

At any rate I will be very careful abt frame size when
making my choice. You guys have convinced me.

[me@privacy.net]

>Touring bikes are sized
>snug. Remember, you won't be standing over them. You will have one
>foot on the pedal and the other toe on the ground.

Really?

You want little crotch clearance then? Or ate least
that is NOT abnormal, correct?

[Booker Bense]

In article <o20ag3tiec7qeru77keijmngr8fssvutsg@4ax.com>,
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Like a bunch of people said, 56 cm or 54 cm sounds awfully small. I'm
>>5'9" and I'm happy on two 58 cm frames (1 road, 1 touring), and I can
>>make my old 57 cm road frame work with the right saddle.
>
>Hmmmm..... something fishy then
>
>Maybe that 56 cm cross bike had big wheels or
>something...don't know
>

There's way more to how a frame fits than the seat tube length,
and you also need to be aware that differnent manufacturers
measure it differently. ( look for the C-T or C-C codes for how
it's measured. )

Try www.sheldonbrown.com for some of the gory details and
carry a tape measure when you test ride bikes.

_ Booker C. Bense

[mark]

me@privacy.net wrote:
>> Touring bikes are sized
>> snug. Remember, you won't be standing over them. You will have one
>> foot on the pedal and the other toe on the ground.
>
> Really?
>
> You want little crotch clearance then? Or ate least
> that is NOT abnormal, correct?
What's important (to me, anyway) is how I feel while I'm sitting on the
bike pedaling it, not how I feel when I'm stopped with both feet on the
ground. I suppose limited standover clearance would be a little
disconcerting to a novice rider, but anyone who is able to mount,
dismount, stop at traffic lights and start up again without wobbling
should be able to deal with limited standover clearance without any
trouble. Keep in mind that, for a given seat tube length, a bike with a
low bottom bracket (traditional touring geometry)will have more
standover clearance than, say, a cyclocross bike with a higher bottom
bracket.

As for buying a bike over the Internet or by mail, I've bought 3 fairly
expensive bikes that way with good results, mostly because I got some
good advice about measuring my pubic bone height before I picked the
bike, and because the people I dealt with (Marinoni and Rivendell) were
very conscientious about picking a bike that matched my size, instead of
selling me whatever they needed to clear out of their inventory.

mark

[JG]

As Booker says, measures differ. Some measure to the top of the top
tube, some to the center. A 72 degree versus a 75 degree seat tube
can change the stand over height of a 56 by nearly a cm. And as
others have mentioned, the amount of drop (the distance between the BB
and the level of the dropouts) vary depending upon frame design. Plus
there are the wheels... All of this will change how frame size maps
to stand over height.

Get a good PBH measure a la Rivendell instructions, and ask Surley for
the right size.

The time honored stand over it and lift the front wheel an inch method
will demonstrate what's meant by "snug"...;-)

JG