These reviews of the Surly Long Haul Trucker bike keep popping up for me. One thing struck me in this video. He said something to the effect, "You can ride longer without pain." That can be an enormous selling point for a bicycle.
You can't win 'em all! I personally also love bar-end shifters but a lot of people (probably more) seem to really not get along with them. Good news is its not terribly hard to switch over if just a couple hundred bucks in parts and you can likely get it just how you like it!
Frame wise- the Disc Trucker is thru axle and a little more traditional meaning a shorter reach designed around drop bars. The bridge club is quick release and more like a mountain bike - longer reach (toptube) for flat or alt bars and has larger tire clearance for off road. These tendencies are also echoed in the stock builds too.
My only comment is the availability of 26" tire options are not near as plentiful as the 700c world. You mentioned sizing and to generally size down if in between. I'm 5'-11" with a 33" PBH. Surly's size guided puts me in between a 54/56. By your suggestion a 54 with the 26" wheel would be the better choice and up from there as needed e.g. longer stem etc?
Your best bet is always a test ride to verify. But yes you can lengthen a stem easily but there is a logical limit to how short a stem can go. There are exceptions to going smaller but typically on a loaded touring bike being able to comfortably stand above the top tube is important. If someone has exceptionally long limbs proportionally for their height and is in between sizes - that is the exception to going smaller.
@@urbane-cyclist I ended up buying a Pea Lime Soup 54 cm and swapped the stem to something a little shorter and a little taller. The fit is awesome. It's fairly upright but my 55 year old back/neck don't mind. I still have the drops if I need to get low. It's wonderful to ride - ver comfy and very stable. The Pea Lime Soup colour has really grown on me. It's not near as "neon" as it appears in some photos.
Not sure if there's an objective "better", since it does boil down to preference at the end of the day. If you have strong feelings about whether you'd like a 2x10 drivetrain like you see on the Kona Sutra, or a 3x9 drivetrain like you'd get on the Disc Trucker, there's one easy way to decide! There's also the different wheel sizes available. KS has 700c wheels, whereas with the DT you'll get either 26" or 700c. So those are two major things to consider. Other things like the included saddle, rack, and fenders on the KS might sway you, or the DT's wider size range. These are two super popular bike so they're oft-compared if you do a little digging! You won't go wrong either way.
I'm 5'11'', ~180cm, and I feel like the 56cm would be too big. But I don't want 26inch wheels. Does anyone have experience who's around my same height?
Sizing down is usually a good call so if you are really stuck on wheel size preference it might not the best bike for you if you might need a 54cm you would be stuck with 26s. I would recommend doing a test ride regardless to determine whatever works best for you.
I'm 5'10" barefoot and I went with the 56 because I wanted the 700C wheels. I feel like the bike fits me fine. I do have long arms and legs for my height though.
I would think that one would want a slightly more aggressive position (nothing crazy, but a little more lean) when doing long distance touring. More aero=more efficient and energy spent is everything. Also, a bike that doesnt weigh half a metric ton.
The most important factor is comfort so you can *keep riding*. The majority touring cyclist tend to choose a more "slow and steady" approach. More aero... can mean "faster", but can also lead to more strain which may hinder your overall performance and speed for longer trips. Riding faster also burn more calories so you'll need to fuel harder which can also drag down your average speed. So if you are talking long haul riding "more aero" or a more aggressive position wont always be a considerable improvement (obviously super upright positions catch more wind and will be slower but most aero dynamic advantages are not significant under 25kms\h which most touring cyclist would not be averaging above).
@@urbane-cyclist I appreciate the response. I would like to push back a little on a couple of points though. More aero (less drag) does indeed mean faster, but it's also more efficient. Youre expending fewer calories to travel the same distance, faster. Not more calories. Also, there seems to exist this idea aerodynamics only "kick in" above certain arbitrary speeds, which is absolutely untrue. The degree to which it is effecting the rider scales obviously, but to say that under 25kph (16 mph) it isnt significant is so ridiculous I'm wondering if it was a typo. At that speed aerodynamic drag is by orders of magnitude the greatest force of resistance the cyclist is fighting against. I think youre thinking of aerodynamics as "speed" when it might be helpful to instead think of it as "fuel economy". And as far as comfort goes, thats so subjective it's impossible to base anything on. The people who ride the most miles every year generally do it on race bikes, with comparatively aggressive riding positions. Theyre not uncomfortable in doing so.
So for clarity - nothing I said is untrue - you are taking some generalizations and tendencies I've noted and tried to make them absolutes which will make them "incorrect". This is a shades of grey situation not black and white. Aero *does mean less drag* but *riding faster means more physical effort and yes that means you burn more calories* - this is well known and documented in ultra endurance racing as well and randonneuring. The extra physical effort to go faster is not in perfect balance with being more aero - *you will burn more calories riding faster*. And touring bikes tend to weight considerably more (when on tour self supported) vs high milage roadies. And a weekend warrior roadie usually take time off between large efforts vs touring cyclists that tend to ride back to back continually. Before you want to continue to discuss this in the comment section *aero discussion on touring bikes is frankly kind of silly* and you probably are not looking at the right bike if these are the things that you are considering when shopping.
@@urbane-cyclist I guess what Im trying to say is that aero discussion on touring bikes *shouldnt* be silly. It should be (and i think will be in the future) an important consideration for any serious touring cyclist or randonneur. Im just trying to introduce that discourse.
There are no rules - The UCI doesn't have any say in touring bikes spec. Anything can be a touring bike (you can do whatever you want). Buying a recumbent with a compound gearing and a fairing will be the way to get what you are after if #aeroiseverything for you.
These reviews of the Surly Long Haul Trucker bike keep popping up for me. One thing struck me in this video. He said something to the effect, "You can ride longer without pain." That can be an enormous selling point for a bicycle.
My disc trucker is the most comfortable and easy riding bike I have. Riding it is like being on cruise control. I like to refer to it as my Cadillac.
My Long Haul Trucker has served me well for thousands of loaded touring miles. A Disc Trucker in on my short list.
Right on!
My touring bike has high bars like yours. Sooooo comfortable, and you can enjoy viewing so many more things in the scenery.
This was great. Thank you. I'm building a MS, but this was my intial 1st choice. Love the Dt and Surly especially
A fan fave! A popular choice!
0:36 Obligatory "I would have eaten shit" comment. Hats off to Owen's handling skills.
Love everything about the new bike minus the shifters. I would rather have friction for the front.
You can't win 'em all! I personally also love bar-end shifters but a lot of people (probably more) seem to really not get along with them. Good news is its not terribly hard to switch over if just a couple hundred bucks in parts and you can likely get it just how you like it!
How does this bike compare to a bridge club?
Frame wise- the Disc Trucker is thru axle and a little more traditional meaning a shorter reach designed around drop bars. The bridge club is quick release and more like a mountain bike - longer reach (toptube) for flat or alt bars and has larger tire clearance for off road. These tendencies are also echoed in the stock builds too.
My only comment is the availability of 26" tire options are not near as plentiful as the 700c world.
You mentioned sizing and to generally size down if in between. I'm 5'-11" with a 33" PBH. Surly's size guided puts me in between a 54/56. By your suggestion a 54 with the 26" wheel would be the better choice and up from there as needed e.g. longer stem etc?
Your best bet is always a test ride to verify. But yes you can lengthen a stem easily but there is a logical limit to how short a stem can go. There are exceptions to going smaller but typically on a loaded touring bike being able to comfortably stand above the top tube is important. If someone has exceptionally long limbs proportionally for their height and is in between sizes - that is the exception to going smaller.
check the standover height. The medium DT has an 800 mm standover. Which is taller than most large and some extra large bikes
@@urbane-cyclist I ended up buying a Pea Lime Soup 54 cm and swapped the stem to something a little shorter and a little taller. The fit is awesome. It's fairly upright but my 55 year old back/neck don't mind. I still have the drops if I need to get low. It's wonderful to ride - ver comfy and very stable. The Pea Lime Soup colour has really grown on me. It's not near as "neon" as it appears in some photos.
Is the Kona sutra a better bike?
Not sure if there's an objective "better", since it does boil down to preference at the end of the day. If you have strong feelings about whether you'd like a 2x10 drivetrain like you see on the Kona Sutra, or a 3x9 drivetrain like you'd get on the Disc Trucker, there's one easy way to decide! There's also the different wheel sizes available. KS has 700c wheels, whereas with the DT you'll get either 26" or 700c. So those are two major things to consider. Other things like the included saddle, rack, and fenders on the KS might sway you, or the DT's wider size range. These are two super popular bike so they're oft-compared if you do a little digging! You won't go wrong either way.
I'm riding a 56 cm DT. It tracks like its on rails.
I'm 5'11'', ~180cm, and I feel like the 56cm would be too big. But I don't want 26inch wheels. Does anyone have experience who's around my same height?
Sizing down is usually a good call so if you are really stuck on wheel size preference it might not the best bike for you if you might need a 54cm you would be stuck with 26s. I would recommend doing a test ride regardless to determine whatever works best for you.
I'm 5'10" barefoot and I went with the 56 because I wanted the 700C wheels. I feel like the bike fits me fine. I do have long arms and legs for my height though.
I would think that one would want a slightly more aggressive position (nothing crazy, but a little more lean) when doing long distance touring. More aero=more efficient and energy spent is everything. Also, a bike that doesnt weigh half a metric ton.
The most important factor is comfort so you can *keep riding*. The majority touring cyclist tend to choose a more "slow and steady" approach. More aero... can mean "faster", but can also lead to more strain which may hinder your overall performance and speed for longer trips. Riding faster also burn more calories so you'll need to fuel harder which can also drag down your average speed. So if you are talking long haul riding "more aero" or a more aggressive position wont always be a considerable improvement (obviously super upright positions catch more wind and will be slower but most aero dynamic advantages are not significant under 25kms\h which most touring cyclist would not be averaging above).
@@urbane-cyclist I appreciate the response. I would like to push back a little on a couple of points though. More aero (less drag) does indeed mean faster, but it's also more efficient. Youre expending fewer calories to travel the same distance, faster. Not more calories. Also, there seems to exist this idea aerodynamics only "kick in" above certain arbitrary speeds, which is absolutely untrue. The degree to which it is effecting the rider scales obviously, but to say that under 25kph (16 mph) it isnt significant is so ridiculous I'm wondering if it was a typo. At that speed aerodynamic drag is by orders of magnitude the greatest force of resistance the cyclist is fighting against.
I think youre thinking of aerodynamics as "speed" when it might be helpful to instead think of it as "fuel economy".
And as far as comfort goes, thats so subjective it's impossible to base anything on. The people who ride the most miles every year generally do it on race bikes, with comparatively aggressive riding positions. Theyre not uncomfortable in doing so.
So for clarity - nothing I said is untrue - you are taking some generalizations and tendencies I've noted and tried to make them absolutes which will make them "incorrect". This is a shades of grey situation not black and white. Aero *does mean less drag* but *riding faster means more physical effort and yes that means you burn more calories* - this is well known and documented in ultra endurance racing as well and randonneuring. The extra physical effort to go faster is not in perfect balance with being more aero - *you will burn more calories riding faster*. And touring bikes tend to weight considerably more (when on tour self supported) vs high milage roadies. And a weekend warrior roadie usually take time off between large efforts vs touring cyclists that tend to ride back to back continually. Before you want to continue to discuss this in the comment section *aero discussion on touring bikes is frankly kind of silly* and you probably are not looking at the right bike if these are the things that you are considering when shopping.
@@urbane-cyclist I guess what Im trying to say is that aero discussion on touring bikes *shouldnt* be silly. It should be (and i think will be in the future) an important consideration for any serious touring cyclist or randonneur. Im just trying to introduce that discourse.
There are no rules - The UCI doesn't have any say in touring bikes spec. Anything can be a touring bike (you can do whatever you want). Buying a recumbent with a compound gearing and a fairing will be the way to get what you are after if #aeroiseverything for you.
Wow. No more microshifters. Sora brifters instead.