Touring - Surly Cross Check VS Long Haul Trucker

I'm new to this, I hope these questions don't sound to odd. I have read a lot about these 2 bikes. I want to build one. I have an old 8 speed LX mt bike that I can use for some parts . I want a bike to mostly ride around town that I can also use for touring. They both seem great.
How would a Cross Check with a trailer be for touring, that way I don't have to worry about heel strike and I get a little more nimble bike at home.

Also concerning the 26" LHT. Would I size it like a Mt Bike? Or is the 26" for someone smaller than me? I'm 5'11" with 34.5" inseam.

Thanks,

Jack

If you look back on page three, there is a very similar question. Why get a trailer to reduce heel strike... Just get a rear rack with a longer top. I use a mountain bike with short chain stays and a short rack and by fiddling with my panniers, I can get no heel strike. I believe with your height, you would be getting a 700c model. In any case, the geometry is designed to size according to road bike sizing rules (some one please correct me if neccessary).
This is definately a well asked question, so by doing a search of the forums, you should get a lot more information,
Scott

As ncscott said, a search will turn up pages on this question but I will opine
here for the sake of breivity....Im almost your exact size and my 58c crossCheck
is a BIG 58c. I like bikes big so it doesnt matter to me but if you like small
you might want to try a 56 or 54. I have a rack on mine so I cannoot answer
about the heal strike but it has been addressed in another forum very recently.
Good building and lets see pix when your done, OK ? :D

Thanks very much guys. I'm pretty new to using forums. Sizing is one of the problems I've had with these bikes. Lots of LBS around here, not one that is even partially fluent in Surly, although they can order the frames. They sound like they all want to make them expensive builds. Only one person in one LBS new anything about touring. They are all about expensive road bikes. So, how big is BIG in 58. The Rivendell site opinionates that big is a good thing for an everyday bike.

Thanks

If this helps...I bought my Surly for 899.00 complete.
I researched it thoroughly when I decided to ditch all my
gas powered conveyances. In the end, after looking at
the PopRod(niiiice), The Redline (ehhhhh.....) and the
Trek (aluminum, NEVER!) I went with the Surly because of
the old school steel frame, bar end shifters which are
soooooo comfortable for commuting and the rims which
I feel where the best stock spec rims of all of them.
I can say I love this bike ! I commute 14 to and 14
from my job over very hilly, crappy roads here in Pa.,
and the only minor complaint I might have is the 'Cross
gearset is sort of hill unfriendly but that is taking care of itself
the stronger I get. I could write more boorish stuff but at
899.00 the complete version could hardly be considered expensive
relative to what an LBS might want to build up for you. Also,
I cant really put into words what large means to me but I agree with
Rivendale that big is good for an all-day rider. At your size, I
dont think you would go wrong with a 56 or 58. The only thing I did, as a 5'11",
34" inseamer was change the supplied stem(loooong) with one that was
about an inch shorter and a little more rise and the fit is now perfect.
The top bar is about 1" below my nether regions.
On the off chance that you are anywhere near Pa. you could come
and ride mine for a mile or two. Pa needs more Surly riders !!!!

Thanks, I've been thinking about the Cross Check Complete and it's very tempting even though I have 5 year old ( hardly used ) LX components. By the time I got some wheels, tires, bar ends, new headset, handlebars, etc.and they built it I don't think there wouldn't be much difference in price (maybe even higher ). Plus, it would still be an 8 speed. Is yours built like the one at Harris?

Thanks
Jack

Is yours built like the one at Harris?
Thanks
Jack


Mine is exactly like the one shown there except its black and has Salsa
chainrings (stock on mine), not the ones listed. All I did was add a rack on the back
a little mirror and a shorter 3T stem. I pulled it out of the box, built it and threw
some cr@pp-0 MTB toeclip pedals on it and ride, ride, ride ! I emailed them about
some stuff and they got right back to me with a long email if that is any indication of
thier customer service.
It is not light but I dont care about that stuff.....its comfortable and I routinely
spend hours on it. If I sound like I work for them I dont, I just really like my bike ! :D

Be sure the check the geometry differences between the Crosscheck and the LHT. Since a 56cm was suggested above lets look at those measurements.

ST ( C- T) TT ( C- C) * TT ( Effec. ) HT Angle ST Angle BB Drop CS Length
Size
LHT 56 cm 22.0 560.0 22.2 564.4 22.4 570.0 72.0 73.0 3.1 78.0 18.1 460.0
CC 56 cm 22.0 560.0 22.4 570.0 22.4 570.0 72.0 72.5 2.6 66.0 16.7 425.0


Wheel ze Wheel Base S. O. Height* * HT Length FK Length FK Rake

LHT 56 cm x 41.6 1055.7 32.0 812.2 6.0 152.0 15.4 390.0 1.8 45.0
CC 56 cm 40.1 1019.8 31.9 810.7 4.8 121.0 15.7 400.0 1.7 44.0

There are substantial differences in bottom bracket drop, chainstay length, and headtube length. What effect would these geometry diffences have on the bike riding characteristics? Comments?

I don't know??? I hope someone can clarify the differences.

Jack

There are substantial differences in bottom bracket drop, chainstay length, and headtube length. What effect would these geometry diffences have on the bike riding characteristics? Comments?


Hmmmm...........I know very little about this stuff but overall one of the parameters the
CrossCheck is marketed as is a quasi-racebike and the LHT is marketed as an intercontinental
cruiser. Globally I would imagine the LHT is going to be long and lax in angles and the CrossCheck
a little shorter and taller, more condusive to CycloCross racing. To add some confusion to
the thread, maybe even a Pacer would be a consideration(?)

Surly Crosscheck has a cyclocross frame. The LHT has a touring frame.

Here's some information from Sheldon Brown's website:

Touring Bicycle
A touring bicycle is designed for comfort, durability, efficiency and, in most cases, load-carrying capacity. Touring bicycles fall into two major groupings:
Loaded-touring bicycles, the classic "touring" bicycle is intended for self-supported travel, including camping and, in some cases, cooking equipment. A loaded-touring bicycle has:

A fairly laid-back fork angle for comfort and stability.
Long chainstays, for stability, and to provide clearance between the rider's heels and the rear panniers

Cross Bicycle
The term "cross" bicycle is used to refer to two distinct types of bicycles, which have a few similarities, but many differences.

Cyclocross or "'cross" bicycles are built for cyclocross racing. They typically have drop handlebars with barcons. Because they must often be lifted up and carried while running, they are light and usually use tubular tires. Cyclocross tires are fairly plump, and have knobby tread for better traction. Cantilever brakes are normally used to provide better mud clearance. Traditional cyclocross bicycles were based on road-racing frames that had outlived their usefulness, but modern cyclocross riders normally use purpose-built 'cross frames, or sometimes mountain bikes.

Hybrid bicycles are also sometimes referred to as "cross" bicycles, because they are a cross between a mountain bike and a road bike.

What effect would these geometry diffences have on the bike riding characteristics? Comments?


bottom bracket drop,
Lower center of gravity=more stable with a load.




chainstay length
Longer wheelbase=steadier handling and more room between heels and panniers.




headtube length
Longer headtube=less headset spacers to acheive desired handlebar height.

Longer headtube=less headset spacers to acheive desired handlebar height.

And in my opinion, a horrible idea, and the one thing that really turns me off about the LHT.
Don't get me wrong, I've ordered one and it should be here the coming week, but having such a tall headtube really pisses me off!
There's no reason not to have a shorter HT and use spacers instead, and thus allowing those who want a more "aero" position to set the handlebar lower.
You can add or remove spacers in minutes, but you're not very likely to be able to do anything about the headtube length!

ARGH!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

And in my opinion, a horrible idea, and the one thing that really turns me off about the LHT.
Don't get me wrong, I've ordered one and it should be here the coming week, but having such a tall headtube really pisses me off!
There's no reason not to have a shorter HT and use spacers instead, and thus allowing those who want a more "aero" position to set the handlebar lower.
You can add or remove spacers in minutes, but you're not very likely to be able to do anything about the headtube length!

ARGH!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad:

If you can't get low enough using a stem with a good drop, you ceartainly can do something about the headtube length...cut it! Notice that it sticks up past the top tube a bit. Be very careful however to make it square or the headset will never seat properly. If you are too gun-shy to do it yourself take it to a framebuilder or other skilled metalworker.

Yeah, of course, I can always take it to a framebuilder. I suppose there's one in every corner...
The fact is that there's almost certainly not a single one in the entire country!
And unlikely anywhere within 500-600 miles from where I live. Closest would probably be somewhere in Germany, I guess...

But I certainly wouldn't go cutting down a frame anyway.
It's a serious design flaw, and nothing less. With such an outstanding design in most other respects, it's unbelievable that they've made such a huge mistake in the design of the HT.

Yeah, of course, I can always take it to a framebuilder. I suppose there's one in every corner...
The fact is that there's almost certainly not a single one in the entire country!
And unlikely anywhere within 500-600 miles from where I live. Closest would probably be somewhere in Germany, I guess...

But I certainly wouldn't go cutting down a frame anyway.
It's a serious design flaw, and nothing less. With such an outstanding design in most other respects, it's unbelievable that they've made such a huge mistake in the design of the HT.

Ouch! with such a strong negative opinion I am suprised that you still ordered one.

I bet you'll find a stem and bar configuration that will suit you just fine.

Another way to insure a more aero position would be to order a smaller frame and use more seatpost.

If people tour on a mt bike with a trailer, it seems like the Cross Check would be a better ride than that. MAybe not as good as LHT but more fun to ride if not touring.

Ouch! with such a strong negative opinion I am suprised that you still ordered one.

I bet you'll find a stem and bar configuration that will suit you just fine.

Another way to insure a more aero position would be to order a smaller frame and use more seatpost.

Well, I don't think I personally will need to go lower, but I'm always extremely angered by designers taking away the free choice, for no valid reason AT ALL!
Not just when it comes to bikes, but everything.

If I had Bill Gates's funds, I'd re-design half the objects I come across in my life!
Some things are so crappy in design that I wonder if all the engineers were out to lunch, and the floor sweeper designed the damn thing in half an hour...

But I certainly wouldn't go cutting down a frame anyway.
It's a serious design flaw, and nothing less. With such an outstanding design in most other respects, it's unbelievable that they've made such a huge mistake in the design of the HT.

Most people would want to minimize the number of spacers they've got stacked under the headset. The fact that you want something different doesn't make it a design flaw.

Why would they want that? It doesn't make a difference!
The functionality is the same, but without the excessive HT length, people who want a lower position have that option!

I should also point out that I still think the rest of the LHT frame is really thought out and nice, which is why I ordered one!
My only other, minor, issue is that the fork doesn't have a disc brake mount.
I really wanted to have both disc and V-brakes, but I'll have to give up that dream.

Why would they want that? It doesn't make a difference!
The functionality is the same, but without the excessive HT length, people who want a lower position have that option!

Asthetics if nothing else. Nothing looks goofier then a mile high stack of spacers.

And a mile-high HT doesn't look goofy? It's so ugly words can't begin to describe!

Well, unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about it, and the rest of the frame is really cleverly designed, so...

You might think about ordering another of Surly's forks then? Maybe the LHT frame with a Crosscheck fork? To throw in a little more confusion to this thread, I really don't think the Crosscheck classifies as an out and out "cyclocross" bike, I think that was a "for lack of a better word"-type maketing decision. It's more akin to the old "sport-tourers" in days of yore. Both of these are fantastic bikes, and incredible deals, in my opinion.

I agree about the Cross Check not being a "real" CycloCross bike. That's why I looked at it in the first place. I want to be part of an already in progress cross country and then ride it everyday at home. No question the LHT is a better pure touring bike. But I didn't want a tank to ride at home. Also, I didn't know whether or not I could size the 26" LHT just like I would if I were buying a mt bike ( I still don't know why I couldn't). That way I could use the 26" wheelset that I already have. These threads are fun, this one seems to have moved off in a direction of it's own.
I am new to this, but would someone explain to me why the 26" LHT couldn't be sized like a mt bike. I hear that Bruce Gordon always reccomends smaller frames

Thanks,

Jack.

You might think about ordering another of Surly's forks then? Maybe the LHT frame with a Crosscheck fork? To throw in a little more confusion to this thread, I really don't think the Crosscheck classifies as an out and out "cyclocross" bike, I think that was a "for lack of a better word"-type maketing decision. It's more akin to the old "sport-tourers" in days of yore. Both of these are fantastic bikes, and incredible deals, in my opinion.

I don't understand how he would benefit from using the Cross Check fork on the LHT.

I don't understand how he would benefit from using the Cross Check fork on the LHT.
I misunderstood his post. Carry on. :)

I am new to this, but would someone explain to me why the 26" LHT couldn't be sized like a mt bike. I hear that Bruce Gordon always reccomends smaller framesIt's just a matter of making things proportionate. Especially as you get into tiny road bike sizes, it's impossible to make them take 700c wheels without making some sacrifices elsewhre in frame geometry. Companies like Surly and Rivendell make their smaller sizes with 26" wheels because of this, and I personally like this. I plan on buying one of each, eventually, and I fall in the 26" category. Mountain stuff is a WAAAAY better bang for your buck and is WAAAY more durable. Go to Nashbar and look at the price of MTB and roadie wheelsets, huge difference, both in durability and price. BTW, I've not seen a road frame with 26" wheels that LOOKED disproportionate, in my opinion.

It's just a matter of making things proportionate. Especially as you get into tiny road bike sizes, it's impossible to make them take 700c wheels without making some sacrifices elsewhre in frame geometry. Companies like Surly and Rivendell make their smaller sizes with 26" wheels because of this, and I personally like this. I plan on buying one of each, eventually, and I fall in the 26" category. Mountain stuff is a WAAAAY better bang for your buck and is WAAAY more durable. Go to Nashbar and look at the price of MTB and roadie wheelsets, huge difference, both in durability and price. BTW, I've not seen a road frame with 26" wheels that LOOKED disproportionate, in my opinion.

Don't forget on a smaller frame (52 cm) it's nearly impossible to put three water bottles with 700c tires.

So at 5"11" with a 34.5" inseam could I ride a Surly LHT with 26" wheels in the frame sizes they make?

So at 5"11" with a 34.5" inseam could I ride a Surly LHT with 26" wheels in the frame sizes they make?
Here (http://www.surlybikes.com/longhaul.html) you go, scroll down to the bottom of the page to get standover height as it relates to frame and wheel size.

I know this is like easy for you guys BUT... when I size a bike for myself with 26" wheels isn't the distance between me and the top tube supposed greater than on a 700c bike. In other words isn't a 26" bike frame for me supposed to be smaller than a 700c. Like the difference in a road bike and a mt bike?
Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question.

Jack

I know this is like easy for you guys BUT... when I size a bike for myself with 26" wheels isn't the distance between me and the top tube supposed greater than on a 700c bike. In other words isn't a 26" bike frame for me supposed to be smaller than a 700c. Like the difference in a road bike and a mt bike?
Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question.

JackNo. MTBs are sized this way because if you huck over a cliff or something, you won't rack those nutz the way you would on a roadie-sized frame. Since you won't be putting your road bike through this,(hopefully,) you need not worry about it.

SlowlY, Slowly... I know, but I finally get it about frame sizing, thanks