Surly LHT vs vintage MTB

[Chris Lampe 2]

Anyone have any thoughts on positives or negatives associated with choosing a 26" LHT versus a 90's MTB, like a Stumpjumper or Rockhopper?  

I'm familiar with the geometry differences between the two and I will be using modern components (except for stem if I go vintage) so I'm interested in things like ride quality, the impact of the tubing used in each, etc....

This will be an all-rounder bike that is primarily ridden on pavement with the option to ride on packed dirt, gravel and even double track.  I have no interest in single-track or "mountain biking" as it currently exists.  

Riv content is that my bike project is directly inspired by the 56cm Atlantis but I don't have the finances to go that route.  I also know there is a vast amount of experience with this type of bike here.  

[Kieran J]

To my knowledge, a vintage MTB from the late '80s would differ from the LHT in terms of having a higher bottom bracket and most likely fairly slack seat and head tubes. Depending on the frame's geometry, it may ride well on the road and it may not. There have been differing reports in both directions.

Many of those older MTBs had fender/rack mount points and clearance for wide tires, so similar to the LHT in that sense. Moving into the 90's, MTB geo started to change towards the compact mountain angles (including front suspension-corrected geo) as opposed to the more touring type of thing that characterized the early Stumps and the like.

KJ

[Tim Gavin]

A vintage MTB is a gamble, it may be a dud or it may be a jackpot.

Pros:

Good steel -- Back when steel was king, the top-end bikes had fantastic tubing, as good as anything today.  (FYI, surface rust and scratches can be blasted out.  Blast and powder coat costs ~$200).

For a lively ride, get a race-intended model (top-end Stumpjumpers, MB-1 or MB-0, Paramount PDG 70/90, Trek 9xx series, etc).  HT Tange Prestige is primo.  

For a stouter ride (like the LHT), get a mid-range model (lower-end Stumpys, Rockhopper, lower MBs, Trek 8xx series, and similar).

Easy to mount racks -- most steel MTBs have tons of eyelets (except some of the raciest models), and the Nitto M12 is perfect for canti forks.

Cons:

High BB -- you'll sit taller on the bike.  The handling will suffer compared to a lower BB like an LHT or Riv.  In my experience, converting the vintage MTB to drop bars helps a lot to move your weight lower, but you'll still notice the high BB.

Weird geo -- Vintage MTBs often have long top tubes and sometimes weird angles.  

The earlier you go (early to mid 80s), the bikes are klunker-inspired and may suck for anything but casual use.  Unfortunately, most lugged MTBs are klunkers.  The lugged era ended around the late 80s, just when they were improving the geometry.

Late 80s to early 90s are a better bet, from NORBA geometry up to (but not including) front suspension bikes.  Bridgestones seem to have the best geo (thanks, Grant), but the good MBs are overpriced unicorns now.  Did I mention that vintage MTBs are a gamble?

Do you want a heavily loaded tourer, and are OK with a stout, less lively frame?  If so, the LHT is hard to beat, since it's ready to go for loaded touring.  Setting up a vintage MTB may involve some headaches and workarounds.

If you get lucky (like I did), you may find a vintage MTB with very high end tubing for little coin.  My KOM is heat treated Tange prestige, my size, and I got it for $75.  With my weight (220#), the frame feels lighter and more lively than most mid-range vintage MTBs.

Keep an eye out for top-end vintage frames.  But it may take a while to score a great one in your size for a nice price.  

There are some primo alternatives between the price of the LHT and a Riv, especially if you have the components and are just looking for a frame.  For example, you can get a wonderful Gunnar frame and fork for the price of the LHT (Gunnars are handbuilt in Waterford, WI, and are almost the same as a Waterford but TIG welded).  Search the list for other reasonably priced builders.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Charlie]

I have used a SURLY CrossCheck with the 700c Bruce Gordon

Rock n' Road Tires  

for a vacation bike that was carried in a truck to use wherever I happened to be, paved road - gravel bike trail or whatever was available where I was to ride on.

 SOMA has a similar frame. 

Charlie Petry

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 10:44:05 AM UTC-5, Chris Lampe 2 wrote:

[Jim Bronson]

I have a 22" 1992 Cannondale M500 that I have thought about converting
to an all-rounder (and 650b) but it's definitely not steel. I bought
this bike new when I was in college. I think it's 130 frame spaced
which helps. It already has a nice silver crankset. Needs a
periscope stem and drop bars, oh and a new wheelset, what the hey it's
only money right? Can re-use 7 speed indexed drivetrain probably,
although thumbies have to go.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down!

[Montclair BobbyB]

While I love the Stumpies, I also love the LHT 26" disc version, and built one up for my brother.  This is such a cool bike that you can do so much with... This one is a 2x8 all internal-geared commuter.  Solid as a rock,wide gear range and hydraulic discs; this is one seriously capable bike. 

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 10:44:05 AM UTC-5, Chris Lampe 2 wrote:

[Chris Lampe 2]

The plan right now is to go with the LHT but I want to cover all my bases and make sure I don't miss anything in an older bike.  

I would set mine up similar to this one:

[Bill Lindsay]

## agonizingly forced metaphor sequence INITIATE ##

It's like picking a restaurant in an unknown city.  

If you find a Chipotle, you know exactly what you'll get and it'll be pretty good.  

If you pick a restaurant at random, you might get total crap, and you might get the meal of your life

A 26" LHT is Chipotle.  A vintage mountain bike is a roll of the dice.  

## agonizingly force metaphor sequence TERMINATE ##

[Montclair BobbyB]

That's HOT!!!  

[Bob Cook]

I have an LHT with 26" wheels. It is indeed a capable bike. You can load it like a mule and it will ride fine. I've ridden mine on packed dirt, gravel, packed sand, and grassy, pot-holed double-track. No problems, though it's not my first choice—or my second, or my third—for those surfaces if load-bearing isn't required.

Why? It rides like that mule. It's a pain for climbing and riding into a stiff wind. I'd rather ride my Pugsley into a 25-MPH headwind than my LHT. (I'd rather ride my Homer than either, but Homer does not see winter road salt.)

If the numbers I've gathered from various sources are correct, the tubing dimensions of the Atlantis are more like the Cross-Check (9-6-9 28.6 mm TT) than the LHT (8-5-8 31.8 mm TT). If you want something that rides more like an Atlantis, I imagine an old MTB with skinnier tubes, or at least with a skinner TT than DT, would be your best bet.

--

Bob Cook

[Chris Lampe 2]

Bob, 

Good information.  I've ridden one 26" LHT but it was one size too small and stock (ie, skinny tires and drop bars) so that ride really didn't tell me a whole lot about the bike as I would set it up.  Your comment about choosing the Pugs over the LHT is interesting.  I would love to test ride a Pugs with the Black Floyd street tires on it.  I'm torn between a lively bike and a comfortable bike.  Right now I'm riding a 90's Trek Multitrack converted to 26" wheels and I find myself wondering how it compares to an LHT.  The front-end geometry is the same and the chainstays are 3cm shorter.  However, the top tube is smaller than the other main tubes so the ride may be totally different than the LHT.  I'm worried that I'll buy an LHT and then not like it.  I will say my 92 Rockhopper has an oversized top tube and I liked the ride of it but who knows how that compares to an LHT.  

[Tim Gavin]

FYI, the Surly Black Floyd semi-slicks apparently aren't much faster than Knards.  The 3.5" Vee Speedsters are faster.  I have a friend that rides a SS fat bike on those tires all summer, and I ride a related tire (Mk2) in 2.1" on my Schwinn KOM.  

--

[Bob Cook]

I was thinking about tubing differences between the LHT and the Pugs last night and this morning as I rode the Pugs into some blistering wind. I haven't measured diameters of tubes on the Pugs, but it looks to me like the usual configuration, i.e., DT has a larger diameter than TT. The LHT has 31.8 mm DT and TT. BQ's study of frame stiffness a few years back suggested, among other things, that the usual difference in diameter between DT and TT contributes to a more responsive ride. The LHT's same-diameter DT and TT make it less responsive.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't say the Pugs is "lively," but it is just a little more responsive to my pedal stroke than the LHT.

[James Warren]

Great info from Tim! One minor detail I'll add regarding the Bridgestone MB's:

 

From '91 to '94 and I believe1990 as well, all Bridgestones had the same frame geometry. The MB-6 had the same geometry as the MB-1 or zip. The differences from high end to low end MB's were in the brands and weights of the tubing and in the components. Any Bridgestone MB from '90 through '93 is an excellent frameset. (In '94, some came with a suspension fork, so you got an excellent frame but maybe not so great a fork.) The MB-4's were especially good in '90 through '93, because they were mostly lugged and/or made with Ritchey tubes, but they were very affordable.

 

Funny sidenote: In the '92 or '93 catalog, the MB-3 is described as a "no-nonsense" bike. Check out the corresponding language in the '94 catalog, 4th word of the bike's description:

 

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/bridgestone/1994/pages/33.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Gavin
Sent: Jan 9, 2015 8:44 AM
To: "rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com"
Subject: Re: [RBW] Surly LHT vs vintage MTB

A vintage MTB is a gamble, it may be a dud or it may be a jackpot.

Pros:

*Good steel* -- Back when steel was king, the top-end bikes had fantastic

tubing, as good as anything today. (FYI, surface rust and scratches can be
blasted out. Blast and powder coat costs ~$200).
For a lively ride, get a race-intended model (top-end Stumpjumpers, MB-1 or
MB-0, Paramount PDG 70/90, Trek 9xx series, etc). HT Tange Prestige is
primo.
For a stouter ride (like the LHT), get a mid-range model (lower-end
Stumpys, Rockhopper, lower MBs, Trek 8xx series, and similar).

*Easy to mount racks* -- most steel MTBs have tons of eyelets (except some

of the raciest models), and the Nitto M12 is perfect for canti forks.

Cons:

*High BB* -- you'll sit taller on the bike. The handling will suffer

compared to a lower BB like an LHT or Riv. In my experience, converting
the vintage MTB to drop bars helps a lot to move your weight lower, but
you'll still notice the high BB.

*Weird geo* -- Vintage MTBs often have long top tubes and sometimes weird

[Chris Lampe 2]

I hadn't heard of the 3.5" Vee Speedsters.  I'll have to check those out.  A Pugs is still lurking in the back of my mind as a future bike.  

[dougP]

Chris:

"All-rounder" covers a lot of sins.  I consider my Atlantis an all rounder because it's my daily ride, goes off road well enough for my purposes (like you, no single track gnarly MTBing) and I can toss 40 lbs of junk on it (and another 10 psi in the tires) and take off on tour.  But there's a ton of bikes that'll do all that quite competently.  The LHT is a known quantity that should be a competent all rounder. 

As to the differences between a pre-sus MTB and the LHT, I can offer my experience with my Atlantis & '90 Fisher HK-II.  The two most noticeable differences in handling come from the higher BB on the Fisher and the shorter chainstays.  The Atlantis is more comfortable, stable, predicable, etc., BUT one needs to keep in mind it's easier to strike a pedal off-road.  The higher BB on the MTB translates into more responsive handling with more ground clearance; desireable qualities off-road.  OTH, the longer chainstays on the Atlantis mean far less fussing around when mounting panniers.  I've used a rear rack with panniers on the Fisher, and the bags definitely get shoved as far back as possible for foot clearance (size 11 feet, not an unusual size). 

The Fisher is clearly a stiffer ride, as one would expect from a bike designed to bounce down Mt Tam, etc.  With 2" Schwalbe Marathon Supreme tires, it still has gobs of clearance.  There are a fair number of braze-ons & I've had front low riders on as well as a rear rack.  Recently I discovered it has an odd-ball headset size (1-1/4") so replacement parts may be a future issue.  It's TIG welded steel, with no tubing stickers, and cost around $500 when I bought it in 1990.  It has decent parts but I'm certain there were a gazillion similar bikes produced at the time. 

As a counterpoint, one of my touring buds has a late 90s rigid fork Stumpjumper that he has used for touring all over the world.  He's not much for off-roading but declares the bike "perfectly adequate" for daily riding and fully loaded touring.  He tours frequently with a couple that both have LHTs & love'em dearly.

If you don't plan on a lot of load carrying (but somehow that sneaks up on you when "it can be done") you might compare the Cross Check to the LHT. Of course, right now the coolest all rounder is the Sam Hillborne.....used ones come up for sale here from time to time.  Food for thought.

dougP 

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 7:44:05 AM UTC-8, Chris Lampe 2 wrote:

[Eric Platt]

Ordered the 26" LHT in a 58cm frame before they were even out.  Wanted a modern bike that somewhat duplicated the mid 80's Stumpjumpers I used to own.  It is a competent bike, but like others have mentioned, it's not the most inspiring ride.  Especially into a headwind.  For some reason, it has never inspired me.  Have had 4 or 5 different cockpit setups and may once again switch the bike over this winter.  If I don't sell it and buy a fat bike.

How does it compare to the old stuff?  Generally agree with the others, you will notice a higher bottom bracket on an older mountain bike.  And the really slack angles.  I used to enjoy riding mine as a commuting bike and all-rounder.  But it was not that good on things like single track.  And today's trails would be even more of a challenge, IMO.  

The other thing I would argue is, unless you get lucky the LHT will probably have components that will last longer.  Just because they are newer.  Of course, like everything that would depend on whether the LHT is new or modified and what type of parts are hanging on the older mountain bike.  Also, a lot of the lower level mountain bikes from the mid to late 1980's had high tensile steel in part, if not all of the frame.  This is not in and of itself that bad, but something to consider in the price.  My first mountain bike was a 1984 Ross Mt. Hood and the entire bike was hi-ten although it was labeled cro-moly at the time. (This was the black bike, not the chrome version.)  Even a ca. 1990 Specialized Hardrock only had a cro-moly main triangle. 

Oh, and to pile on what Doug just said - I live not too far from the ACA northern tier route.  Each year usually see a number of bikes that are heading across the country.  The most common might be the LHT.  Followed by older mountain bikes.  Not scientific, just my observation.

Eric Platt

St. Paul, MN

--

[Tim Gavin]

Chris-

Intense Tires Systems was a short-lived US design house that seemed centered around BMX type bike tires.  They designed a fast tire for dirt they called the Micro-Knobby, and eventually the Speedster (an even lower profile design).  I love the 26 x 2.1" Micro Knobbies on my KOM, they make a great tire for my 3-season riding on streets, gravel, and dirt.

Intense contracted Vee Rubber from Thailand to manufacture the tires, and when Intense closed shop a couple years ago, Vee got the designs and have introduced updated versions of them at the same time as they've been increasing their US distribution. 

Unfortunately, they no longer make a 26" Micro Knobby, but they do make the Speedster in that size as well as 26 x 3.5" fat bike size (designed for Pugsley-class "4 inch" fat bikes).

Used Pugsleys can be found for less than $1k, and make a great intro to fat bikes.  They're durable and usually have good mid-range Deore components.  There are lots of new fat bikes this year; they've finally achieved "critical fat".  There are also great USA builders; 616 seems like a great shop as well as the Alaskan outfits.

Now that Iowa is firmly entrenched in the 4th season, what I affectionately call "Hoth", I turn to my 4-season bike, a Specialized Fatboy (with 4.5" studded Dillinger tires).  I chose that one since I started working at a shop that carries them, and I'm a big guy (#220) who can appreciate the "5 inch" tires.  It's a blast and appreciably lighter than the Surlies, and cheaper than their "5 inch" bikes.

I'm about to go out on my first real snow ride; we're back above 20 degrees F since our first substantial snow.  It was -5 F with 30 knots of wind a couple days this week!

Tim

(who is really, really excited to finish and show pictures of his lovely lugged KOM)

at the ice planet of Cedar Rapids, IA