Fit and function: Redline Classic vs LHT vs Surly CC vs ??

[lindah]

Hey All. I hope some of you wonderful women will take the time to help me out! I'm excited about the possibility of discovering a new passion.

I'm 5' 4", 29.5" inseam, arm length = 24.5" (armpit to fingertip), 123 lbs, 49 yo. Skate skier, runner.

Am new to all of this but hoping to ride lots. I live in a small mountain town. Will ride many steep paved roads (state highway) plus dirt roads and trails. Some touring.

A DREAM: a long dist. bike trip with my now 7 and 10 yo boys within the next 1-3 yrs. Not sure if this will happen and don't need to buy a bike now for that purpose...but this is something I think about.

Concerned about fit and comfort. I prefer a more upright position - not too long of a reach. Will I have trouble finding a good fit in a non-WSB?

My small LBS only carries Kona Jake - and not one in my size (47?). I would love opinions on the following bikes for someone my size.

Redline Conquest Classic (44 cm)

Surly LHT (46 cm)

Surly Cross Check (42??)

Bianchi Volpe (46?? - can't find standover on this one)

Kona Jake (47)

THANKS TO ANYONE WHO CAN HELP ME SORT THIS OUT!!

[zoom-zoom]

I have a 2011 Conquest (not the classic, but I'm thinking the geometry is probably pretty similar), 44cm. My inseam is about the same as yours and I'm maybe a half inch shorter than you.

I actually find that I'm a little TOO upright, but I like to ride a bit with a bit more aggressive position. We're trying to figure out how to tweak my stem angle without it conflicting with the brakes, actually.

I rode a friend's 44cm Surly Cross-Check. Nice bike, but HEAVY!!! She actually did cyclocross for a while on that bike, but now has a custom Seven in titanium. She earned it, as she rides about 10k miles/year.

I would say the two bikes fit pretty similarly. I don't think you'd want to go smaller with the Surly.

[Catrin]

I am 5'3 and the 46cm LHT fits me fine - but only because I have a very short reach. I can't seem to find my fit measurements - but if we only went by my leg length then I would take a 51cm bike. You also need to assess any flexibility issues - my back isn't so flexible so that is also part of the equation.

[zoom-zoom]

I rode a friend's 44cm Surly Cross-Check.

Huh...I just looked at Surly's site. I thought her bike was a 44, but I see that they have 42 and 46. Given the standovers I'm thinking hers must have been a 42. I think her inseam is just a hair shorter than mine, so I can't imagine that hers would have been a 46.

[Sky King]

The conquest and the cross check are not going to offer the advantages of the LHT. The LHT will give you the ability to be more upright. I don't know about the others. I would go with the Surly LHT, hands down. Have many friends on LHT's with a variety of handlebars - drop, moustache and swept back. Read the Bike Hermits post on bike fit that will help you out re size. Of course also go to the Surly owners forum. In the long run, I think you will be super happy!

[lindah]

Thanks for your comments. I'm delighted to be able to have this conversation.

From what you all have said, I feel more confident that a non-WSB will work for me size-wise and that I'm looking at the right models more or less.

One thing I didn't mention is that I test rode a redline conquest classic recently (prior to my voluminous online research) and found it to be a looong reach. I was told that that could be mitigated by shortening the stem - but I have since read that this makes a bike squirrelly. What do you think?

FWIW..My current bike is a 1992 Specialzed Rockhopper MTB that I only fit into because I put those handle bar extenders on to shorten my reach and allow me to be probably unnaturally upright.

I have to say that I like the concept of the Redline CC best - lighter, quicker, versitile. The geometry on the LHT seems more suitable to what I'm looking for though, alhtough I'm concerned that it will be heavy and not as much fun for a lightweight like me to ride unloaded over the mountain passes near here. Zoom Zoom and Sky King voiced both ends of that spectrum. Now I need to find out where I fall, eh?

Will the LHT feel slow and/or heavy to me for daily (unloaded) rides?

Will the Redline CC feel too stretched out and never fit quite right?

We can throw Bianchi Volpe in the mix, though I understand its very similar to the Redline.

Where can I find actual weights on the above bikes?

THANK YOU ALL AGAIN. THE INTERNET IS AMAZING B/C OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

[Velocivixen]

I just bought my Surly Cross Check size 52 6 days ago! I'm 5'6" with a 32.5" inseam. Going by inseam alone one would rx a size 55 or 56, however I have short arms, so the 52 was fine. I got a slightly shorter stem (90mm) with a slight rise (107 degrees). I found a shop that does not cut the forks, therefore the handlebars are up high! If you want the handlebars lower, they will gladly cut them down for you, as most shops do it that way from the start, but it's nice to have options.
Someone mentioned weight, but my Cross Check is lighter than my aluminum Trek 7.3 FX!
I did not test ride the Long Haul Trucker as I'm not going to be doing any heavy touring. It's a bike that's meant to be loaded down. It has a lower bottom bracket and longer wheel base. Some would say it drives like a station wagon.
One can do light touring, commuting, or cyclocross on a Cross Check, but it's a bit more nimble and responsive vs a touring specific bike. I removed the decals with just regular masking tape (put the tape on and pulled off).
I haven't ridden any of the other bikes you mentioned, although seriously considered the Kona Honky Inc. It was $550 more than the Cross Check and it was a tiny bit too big for me (the 53 & the 49 was obviously too small).
On my Cross Check the shop removed the SpeedMax knobby tires and used Panaracer Pasela 700x32c and they look and feel great!
Here's a photo:

[Velocivixen]

Okay. Let's try again. Here's a photo:

[Catrin]

I love my LHT, it rides as smooth as butter. I wouldn't advise you purchasing a bike you already know is too large for you - I did that - there is only so much that can be done, and only so many stems available. Better to take more time and find something that comes closer to fitting you.

My LHT isn't the fastest bike out there, but it is all-day-long comfortable. I will eventually put lighter wheels on it and reserve the stock wheels for actual loaded touring.

This is the 46cm 2010 LHT, with 2-inch riser bars and Titec bar-ends.

[Owlie]

The LHT, position-wise, might be best, but it's designed for heavily-loaded touring and handling under the weight that goes with it. Unloaded, it's probably not terribly responsive.

I'd take a closer look at the Cross-check. It'll do paved, unpaved bike path-type things, and light touring--just swap out the tires if you want. There are fit tweaks for a more upright position that can be done. It's probably heavier than a bike specifically to race CX, but that's not a big deal, provided that you can still lift it. (That's all I ask for in a bike, really.)

[zoom-zoom]

One thing I didn't mention is that I test rode a redline conquest classic recently (prior to my voluminous online research) and found it to be a looong reach. I was told that that could be mitigated by shortening the stem - but I have since read that this makes a bike squirrelly. What do you think?

Any idea what length stem was on the one you tested? Mine has a 90mm stem, which is shorter than my road bike's 100mm stem. I think that ended up making the reach maybe 15mm shorter. But it didn't feel at all squirrely. I think I could easily go 70-80mm and feel well in control, since the bike is already a lot less responsive/aggressive/stiff than my road bike. I had actually contemplated putting a longer stem on my Conquest, but we think flipping the existing stem will get me the reach and position that I prefer.

[Catrin]

The LHT, position-wise, might be best, but it's designed for heavily-loaded touring and handling under the weight that goes with it. Unloaded, it's probably not terribly responsive.

No, it is very...stable. With the stock wheels unloaded probably overly-stable. Different wheels would likely change that. If the OP happened to run across a used one it would be worth checking out.

[lindah]

How do you think the Cross Chk compares to LHT in terms of allowing an upright position?

Also, how does Cross Chk compare to Redline CC in terms of allowing upright position?

THANKS AGAIN.

[Savra]

I'm just jumping into the conversation. I have a similar inseam and was told the 46 was best for me. I love my LHT! I just finished an eight day tour and really found my bike comfortable. The reach was perfect, my Brooks Flyer S saddle was awesome!! It is heavy but I kept up with two guys going 15 - 18 mph a lot. The LHT was very stable - I road down some hills going 34mph without feeling at all unstable and when I got out of the seat for some hill climbing it was good. Of course, I don't know anything about the other bikes. I do know I was thinking of a LHT or a Crosscheck and decided on the LHT because with my size it was the best fit.
Good luck.

[moderncyclista]

I'll chip in my two bits as well.

I love my LHT. One of my favorite bikes ever. I have a lovely and very customized 520, but I just keep pulling the LHT out to ride - all. the. time.

Riding position is very upright but I find that extremely comfortable. No hand pain with the bars up as high as they are. I ride a 46cm and I'm 5'3'' with a 28 inch inseam. Perfect fit and smiles the whole time. They are just that type of bike, I guess. Best of luck!