which road bikes...

[elk]

Okey Dokey

Lisa. No. I mean low enough to get the right bend in my knee with foot on the pedal...and it had ZERO standover height...to my mind, if you're standing over the bike and you're touching the tt...it's high.
My 53" Globe is a step through and we had to swtch out the post so I could be comfortable on the saddle. Fit me on the top...had to mess around to get the bottom to fit.
I don't expect to be able to touch the ground from the saddle. And I like being up high...I just don't want to bang myself on that tube if I need to jump off.

Silver...thanks for the tip...if I see a used one in my size...I'll try it! ( $$)

Eden...I'll check out the trek and Kona...if you mean that the Kona has a little MORE SO room. (the Jamis 50 was too big)

KNot... I think i'll go find the Surlys next. The woman at the shop explained that high bottom bracket deal to me...Touring sounds good.
There is a a sage green 46cm (which is my guess for size for the LHT ) all decked out for touring on the craigslist in alaska....( what have YOU been doing, elk???) I'll try to find one maybe tommorrow to try.. apparently they sell out fast.

and the Casseroll has a sloped top tube which might help. I read somewhere that the Casseroll is the closest you can get to a Riv for the money...

But the sad part is that when I got home and went out for a ride..I thought my bike was kind of....gulp...dull. That slim steel frame felt so strong and light...

[Eden]

yes - the Kona has a smaller stand over height (the top tube is lower) than the Jamis

FYI- the thing about cyclocross frames- It isn't really the fact that the bottom bracket is high that makes the top tube any higher - what it really does is make the seat tube measurement smaller...... so a "bigger" bike measures out to a "smaller" size. A 44cm cross bike is really about the same size as a traditional geometry 48cm bike if you are looking at stand over and TT length.
Seat tube is just kind of a convenient thing to measure a bike with, but it causes a lot of confusion..... compact frames and cross frames tend to measure smaller than traditional geometry frames. Which is why I have a 47cm bike, a 44cm bike and a 48cm bike that all fit me.....

[elk]

eden
makes sense....I LIKE that Trek 520...I'll check it out..Plus I love shiny black bikes...

[KnottedYet]

shiney black bikes like this one?



My Surly Cross Check. For what it's worth, I ride a 52 cm Cross Check, 53 cm Waterford, and 56 cm Kona Dew. Sizes do vary!

Edit: Hmmm, I just took a look at the 2008 Trek 520. I see they noticed how popular the Surly color scheme was last year. One year the 520 looks like a Jamis, the next year it looks like a Surly... sigh. (but my Surly was a lot cheaper than the 520) http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/520/520/

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

OK, I get it now....sort of.

The Jamis Aurora *is* a touring geometry. But maybe the Kona will have a lower top tube like Knot said. There are road bikes that have slightly slanted top tubes (which would give you more standover clearance) but which are not "mixtes". ...Anyone can suggest these? And yes, I would try the Casseroll too.

[KnottedYet]

If you have an REI nearby, maybe check their touring bike out:
http://www.rei.com/product/744804

[elk]

Yes..like that Knot. I like that Cross Check.

What made you get the CC instead of the LHT?

I studied the numbers (what else can you do at 2am?!?!?!) of the LHT and the CC. The CC has a longer reach and a higher SO and a less angled head tube... I need to try the 2 smallest sizes...and it seems like the 42CC is about the same as the 46LHT...close anyway.



The Sutra has a sloped top tube and so does the Casseroll. Both are more than the Surlys. But I get that it's it's all moot (haha) you gotta ride 'em....

[Skierchickie]

Elk,

I hear ya. I'm 5'-6 1/2", with about a 30" inseam, and WSD bikes (well, I've only tried Treks) do not fit me (okay, I don't fit them). My last 3 road bikes have been 50cm Treks, in order to get adequate standover clearance, with the stems swapped out for longer ones. And I can see the front hub in the wrong place, so I think the top tube is too short. But I am comfy. The WSD versions always make me feel extremely cramped. There may be a better-fitting bike out there for me, but my LBS sells Trek, and I'm kinda hooked on them. I did go to a Trek demo that they hosted a couple of weeks ago, and while talking to the WSD lady, she noticed me ogling the Madones. She wanted me to try a 54, and I said "I ride a 50! I'm sure I can't ride a 54!". She said "50?! That's way to small for you!" So she pulled out a 54 and had me stand over it - I was touching. Then she pulled out a 52, which seemed good, but I didn't actually ride it. They do have a slightly sloping top tube, so that would work to my benefit. However, since I can't possibly buy a new road bike yet (my 5200 would be soooo angry!), I had showed up in jeans to avoid riding anything I might fall in love with, so I resisted her pleas to put pedals on so I could ride it. In a couple/few years, when she comes back, and the time is right, I'll try a big variety.

Anyway, this summer I did buy a 520 for touring. They had a 21" in stock (about 53cm), which I did end up buying, even though I have pretty much zero clearance - on a touring bike, all my friends who have toured said it didn't matter, because you aren't exactly doing any quick maneuvers, hopping logs, etc while loaded! I was afraid it was just too big, but when I rode it, it felt great. The reach feels pretty good - I may even end up putting a shorter stem on. Overall, it is very comfy, and rides as smooth as butter. I vote for the shiny black bike!