Surly Long Haul Trucker

If you aren't actually touring you would be better off with a
cyclocross bike that has rack mounts. The LHT is overkillfor casual
rides.



On Jan 24, 8:07*am, SMS wrote:
bikerrex wrote:
"Trad touring on a budget" sounds about right.

I'm looking for something suited to 100 - 150 km days for a week straight
(with one or two 200 kms thrown in). *There'd be two panniers with camp/cook
gear on the back, but at most a handlebar bag up front.

The terrain around here tops out at about 600 feet, but it's all up and down
(eastern Newfoundland), and some of the descents do make you think twice
about your braking system.

I've done this sort of thing already on one of those "cheap aluminium
*******s" you describe. *Was wondering if LHT would be dramatic improvement?
LHT comes with either 26" or 700 CC wheels; was thinking the former more
suitable for me.

It's based on frame size, so you really don't get to choose the wheel
size. You buy the proper size frame. Unless you're right on the edge
between the largest 26" wheeled frame and the smallest 700C frame, you
get no choice (and you should get the larger frame if you're between
frame sizes on a touring bicycle).







"landotter" wrote in message
....
On Jan 21, 5:09 pm, "Rex Button" wrote:
I'm collecting opinions on it.

Anything to offer?

It's the best deal going spec wise if you want a trad touring bike on
a budget. Does that make it right for you? Who knows, except you.
There are plenty of other options if you want a practical and sturdy
bike, few of which you'll see on the sales floor of the average bike
shop. So give details. You might be more of a fit with the Surly Cross-
Check, which is a bit lighter and sportier, but incompatible with big
feet if ya wanna run panniers, or you might live in the PNW and be a
candidate for something with disc brakes. You could be a cheap *******
like me and discover the joys of riding an upgraded aluminum hybrid
with funky trekking bars like those right-pondians do.

I wish there was a Cross Check with a triple crankset, but the "big
feet" issue would still be there anyway. Actually there are workarounds
for big feet and panniers on shorter wheelbase frames.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:39:16 -0330, Rex Button wrote:

I'm collecting opinions on it.

Anything to offer?

What do you want to do with it?

Briefly, light touring.
100 - 150 km per day (occasionally 200km) for a week or two straight.
No front bags; just two rear and maybe a bar bag up front.

Maybe even some brevets later; but it seems to me the LHT is a bit heavy for
that?
LHT is available with 26" or 700 CC wheels; I'm small enough to get away
with the 54cm frame, so 26" is an option, and i'm thinking the better one
for what I've got in mind.

In terms of terrain, we're talking eastern Newfoundland. Max altitude around
600 feet, but it's all up and down, with short grades often at 7% and
sometimes 10%.

Frame size & wheels:
Understood. The 54 frame would suit me fine; pretty sure it's built around
26" wheel.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
bikerrex wrote:
"Trad touring on a budget" sounds about right.

I'm looking for something suited to 100 - 150 km days for a week straight
(with one or two 200 kms thrown in). There'd be two panniers with
camp/cook gear on the back, but at most a handlebar bag up front.

The terrain around here tops out at about 600 feet, but it's all up and
down (eastern Newfoundland), and some of the descents do make you think
twice about your braking system.

I've done this sort of thing already on one of those "cheap aluminium
*******s" you describe. Was wondering if LHT would be dramatic
improvement? LHT comes with either 26" or 700 CC wheels; was thinking the
former more suitable for me.

It's based on frame size, so you really don't get to choose the wheel
size. You buy the proper size frame. Unless you're right on the edge
between the largest 26" wheeled frame and the smallest 700C frame, you get
no choice (and you should get the larger frame if you're between frame
sizes on a touring bicycle).



"landotter" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 5:09 pm, "Rex Button" wrote:
I'm collecting opinions on it.

Anything to offer?

It's the best deal going spec wise if you want a trad touring bike on
a budget. Does that make it right for you? Who knows, except you.
There are plenty of other options if you want a practical and sturdy
bike, few of which you'll see on the sales floor of the average bike
shop. So give details. You might be more of a fit with the Surly Cross-
Check, which is a bit lighter and sportier, but incompatible with big
feet if ya wanna run panniers, or you might live in the PNW and be a
candidate for something with disc brakes. You could be a cheap *******
like me and discover the joys of riding an upgraded aluminum hybrid
with funky trekking bars like those right-pondians do.

I wish there was a Cross Check with a triple crankset, but the "big feet"
issue would still be there anyway. Actually there are workarounds for big
feet and panniers on shorter wheelbase frames.

Big Jim wrote:
If you aren't actually touring you would be better off with a
cyclocross bike that has rack mounts. The LHT is overkillfor casual
rides.


Why, weight?

Cross Check:
56cm = 4.88 lbs (2.2 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.19 lbs (.99 kg)

LHT:
58cm = 5.15 lbs (2.34 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.25 lbs (1.02 kg)

Hardly any difference.

There's a 0.5" BB drop difference.

The tire clearances seem similar.

ST & HT angles identical.

TT length identical.

The only real difference is the CS & wheelbase lengths:
425 v. 460 & 1020 v. 1056.

People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

On Jan 24, 9:20*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Big Jim wrote:
If you aren't actually touring you would be better off with a
cyclocross bike that has rack mounts. *The LHT *is overkillfor casual
rides.

Why, weight?

Cross Check:
56cm = 4.88 lbs (2.2 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.19 lbs (.99 kg)

LHT:
58cm = 5.15 lbs (2.34 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.25 lbs (1.02 kg)

Hardly any difference.

There's a 0.5" BB drop difference.

The tire clearances seem similar.

ST & HT angles identical.

TT length identical.

The only real difference is the CS & wheelbase lengths:
425 v. 460 & 1020 v. 1056.

People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

No kidding. If the LHT feels like it rolls a bit slow during unladen
jaunts, just put $30 worth of 32mm Panaracer Paselas on it. The pound
drop in rotating weight combined with the low rolling resistance will
make far more of a difference than a couple frame ounces. It's the
only criticism I've got for the stock LHT--WTB Slickasaurus tires are
garbage in my limited experience with them. Puncture prone and a bit
heavy.*

*I average perhaps two punctures per year, but with the WTBs I got ten
in a week, all from glass. Le fromage.

Peter Cole wrote:

People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

So what are you saying? That a touring bike is best
over a cross bike if one is only "touring" once or
twice a year?

On Jan 24, 10:58*am, wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

So what are you saying? *That a touring bike is best
over a cross bike if one is only "touring" once or
twice a year?

What about a high bottom bracket on a road going bike appeals to you?

wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

So what are you saying? That a touring bike is best
over a cross bike if one is only "touring" once or
twice a year?

No, that there's hardly any difference between the two, and as far as
the differences go, they're all ("touring") desirable. IOW, a "touring"
frame will do everything, including tour, the same can't be said for
other frames. All of my frames (5) are "touring" frames and I never
tour. These days, "touring" frames are considered something special, but
really they're just standard frames from a historical point of view.
Rather than justifying the purchase of a "special" "touring" frame, I
think the burden of proof should fall on the deviations from historical
standards of the new frames. Why market a special "cross" frame and
suggest that it's a better general purpose frame? What are the benefits
exactly? Those were the questions I was trying to ask with a
point-by-point comparison of two representative frames. A 0.5"
difference in BB height and a 4% difference in wheelbase aren't going to
change the way a bike rides/handles. They will change what you may be
able to do gracefully or not with the bike.

People discuss frames endlessly. I have a variety: lugged, welded,
butted, straight, skinny, fat, steel, aluminum. I just want a reliable,
reasonably light platform to mount my choice of components and be as
little limited as possible in the configuration and use of the built up
bike. As landotter said, if you want to change your bike, change the
tires. I have a huge "library" of tires, everything from deep treaded
tires with carbide studs to fat skinwalls to very skinny and thin racing
slicks. They make a much bigger difference than frames. At the frame
level, all that touring", "cross", "racing" stuff is just hype.

Why would he have to stick with surly? They are fine but are just a
house brand likely produced in some asian factory. A Cannondale (or
many others) 'cross bike with a carbon fork will weigh less. be fast
as many road bikes with skinny tires and handle light off road with
cross tires. Handling will be quicker and comfortwill be similar..

On Jan 24, 10:20*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Big Jim wrote:
If you aren't actually touring you would be better off with a
cyclocross bike that has rack mounts. *The LHT *is overkillfor casual
rides.

Why, weight?

Cross Check:
56cm = 4.88 lbs (2.2 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.19 lbs (.99 kg)

LHT:
58cm = 5.15 lbs (2.34 kg)
Fork - uncut = 2.25 lbs (1.02 kg)

Hardly any difference.

There's a 0.5" BB drop difference.

The tire clearances seem similar.

ST & HT angles identical.

TT length identical.

The only real difference is the CS & wheelbase lengths:
425 v. 460 & 1020 v. 1056.

People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

On Jan 24, 2:35*pm, Big Jim wrote:
Why would he have to stick with surly? *They are fine but are just a
house brand likely produced in some asian factory. *A Cannondale (or
many others) 'cross bike with a carbon fork will weigh less. *be fast
as many road bikes with skinny tires and handle light off road with
cross tires. *Handling will be quicker and comfortwill be similar..

A Cannondale costs $400 more for the base cross model with lesser spec
shifters, mech, crank, and wheels. It also does not have proper
provisions for a rear rack and mounting fenders is tight and awkward
due to there being no chainstay bridge. Forget about ever mounting low-
riders. Can't see why misusing a cross bike is smart, especially one
that's no value in any way.