Cross Check size 46cm for 5'7" rider?

[Alrocket]

Hi,

I've been trying to get as definitive an answer on this one as is possible with a subject so subjective. I think from looking at the S.O. heights and from the heights and inseam reported on the web that the size 46cm would be the right Cross Check for me.

I'm 5'7" tall with an inseam of 29" (in socks). My LBS suggested 54cm Cross Check. I suspect they're way off the mark, but they have put some doubt in my mind.

I really don't mind playing with a range of different stems and bars to fine tune the ride (I'll probably want them for different riding conditions anyway).

If you're a Cross Check rider or know them can you let me know what you think, especially if you're near my height!

Oh yeah, and importantly, red, green or black? :)

Thanks!
Al.

[seely]

54 is definately too big. I'd be on a 56 and I'm 6'1. The 58 works but doesn't offer me quite enough clearance for cross racing. My friend is about your height and on a 50 or 52 I think, or whatever they have that is close in that range. His girlfriend is about 5'10 and on a 54. Generally the rule for crossbikes is one size smaller than your road bike.

[dobber]

I'm 5'-9" and ride a 54cm. A 52 would work for me also, the 54 was a better overall match, focusing primarily on top tube length. I'm not so sure about the one size smaller scheme, I guess it depends on what you're actually using the bike for.

They have Red Cross-Checks again? Just another nail in my coffin..........


PS: Heres a 46 that just went off on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=002&item=120030433913&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Owner states he was 5'-7".

That just seems small. But then again, my whole perspective comes from what works for me.

[jase1]

I'm 5'6 (30 inseam) and ride a 52 commuter/cyclocross. I think that 54 may be too big, as the same model for me in a 54 too big. check the website for the measurements. I don't have much clearance for stand over on my bike, but everything else is great. I would try different bike with different sizes and geometry. But the cross check looks like a great bike. maybe a 49/50?

[flipped4bikes]

I'm 5'6 (30 inseam) and ride a 52 commuter/cyclocross. I think that 54 may be too big, as the same model for me in a 54 too big. check the website for the measurements. I don't have much clearance for stand over on my bike, but everything else is great. I would try different bike with different sizes and geometry. But the cross check looks like a great bike. maybe a 49/50?

Same here. I think if you go smaller than 52, yeah better standover, but I think you'll find the cockpit too cramped. YMMV

[Alrocket]

PS: Heres a 46 that just went off on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Don't make me cry!
eBay Item Not Won: Surly Cross Check 46cm Fixed Gear Single Speed Cyclo (120030433913)

I stayed up til 3am to nail that auction - placed the winning bid with 15 seconds to go and got beaten out by someone with a faster connection. That would have been a sweet starting position to work from.

[dobber]

Don't make me cry!


I stayed up til 3am to nail that auction - placed the winning bid with 15 seconds to go and got beaten out by someone with a faster connection. That would have been a sweet starting position to work from.


Bummer. But then again, you might have wound up with a bike too small.

[highlyselassie]

Go down the bike shop and test ride some bikes. I think you'll probably need a 52 or 54, a 46cm is for the kind of people that inhabit Willy Wonka's factory.

[Alrocket]

Too small can be dealt with in various ways ... stems, seat manipulations, cranks even, especially if it's not far off. Too big on the other hand, is probably fatal.

I'm still unsure between the 46 and 50, but swinging toward the 46 If Surly did a 47 or 48 I think it'd be perfect...

I tried a 19" CB Levante (that's actual measurement, no virtual seatpost business going on). Nice bike. I was just clearing SO height. Might have been a bit too far upright but it's flatbar. I can't find much info on Levante geometry online but I think it's compact. It was the closest size I could find on the floor in LBS this evening.

I'm going to take a look there tomorrow, try and get a definitive answer. Their ex-road racer is working tomorrow, the other guys got a glazed look when I mentioned "compact geometry" so I didn't get much help.

[hairlessbill]

I don't think you can get a red one in this year's model. Only black or green. I ride a 54 Cross-check and I am 5'8" with a 29-30inch inseam. But I don't plan on doing any Cyclocross with it. Mostly roads with some fireroads riding. The frame fits great. I was going to go with a 52 but my bike shop recommended staying with my road size so I did. I test-rode an older (Red!) used 50cm but it was way too small for me. I would have had to use a wicked long stem to fit it to me (like a 14cm) and that seemed dangerous. It was a sweet deal though ($500.00 for a single-speed setup) so I had to try. And the post would HAVE had to be a 350mm+ to get enough length for me.

Hope that helps.

Here's what it looks like, fitted for me:
http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/riding/surly_right.jpg

[dobber]

I don't think you can get a red one in this year's model. Only black or green. I ride a 54 Cross-check and I am 5'8" with a 29-30inch inseam. But I don't plan on doing any Cyclocross with it. Mostly roads with some fireroads riding. The frame fits great. I was going to go with a 52 but my bike shop recommended staying with my road size so I did. I test-rode an older (Red!) used 50cm but it was way too small for me. I would have had to use a wicked long stem to fit it to me (like a 14cm) and that seemed dangerous. It was a sweet deal though ($500.00 for a single-speed setup) so I had to try. And the post would HAVE had to be a 350mm+ to get enough length for me.

Hope that helps.

Here's what it looks like, fitted for me:
http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/riding/surly_right.jpg

Nice

Heres my opther Check outfitted for commu-touring. Just goes to show, similar height but different inseams can change the setup (looks like I got a bit more seatpost exposed, my inseams a 31")
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/7866/img04784wd.jpg

[Alrocket]

This reply from the ebay seller of the 46cm fixie mentioned earlier (5'7 same as me):


The top tube on the 46cm may be a tad short for someone of our size depending on personal preference. Iliked it shorter for off road use as it was very easy to maneuver through the tight twisty stuff. If I were to use it more for a touring or commuting bike,I would probably go for the 50cm,but definitely not the 52cm.I would recomend measuring a bike you know you like (Top tube length, not standover height),and judge it based on that.I hope that helps you out and email back if you need any more info.Good luck!

It'll see trails, but I'm probably less hard core than this rider (I have XC specced MTB), and I will definitely be commuting and touring on this one. I think that does it for me... looks like the 50cm is the one... unless my visit to LBS and a few phone calls to UK frame builders turn up anything interesting :)

[hopperja]

I'm 5'9" and the 54cm Cross Check fits me perfectly. I test rode a 56 with short tires and it worked as well. I decided on a 54 because I want the option to run fat tires. My advice to you: go to http://www.wrenchscience.com/WS1/Secure/Fitting/Height.asp to get an accurate size. This calculator told me a 55 would fit perfect. Of course, Suly doesn't make a 55.

[highlyselassie]

Too small can be dealt with in various ways ... stems, seat manipulations, cranks even, especially if it's not far off. Too big on the other hand, is probably fatal.

Sorry, what?

How are you going to make a 46cm, which is quite possibly a full 8cm too short in top tube, ride anything like a 54cm(which is certainly far nearer the size you should be riding). I know what you're thinking, it is possible to manipulate a siginificantly smaller frame, but that is called a fudge.

Too big=fatal....where did you pick up that nonsense?. Please try to justify that comment, because quite frankly I think you've just fallen foul of some scare mongering.

[Alrocket]

"Too big=fatal", far from being nonsense, is plain common sense. I can go and buy a new seat post, stem and bars, no problem. What am I going to do with a frame that's too big - hacksaw off a section (4 cuts) and get it re-welded?

Back to the 46cm. I have good reports from several CC riders same height and inseam riding 46s. Some 5'8 guys riding 50s. That was the purpose of this thread :)

Surly says standover height for 46cm SO 29.6", 50cm SO 30.3", 52cm SO 30.6", 54 SO 31.2". With an inseam of almost exactly 30" myself (I remeasured, more "aggressively" - ouch) I'd just fit the 50 and maybe the 52 with thin tyres on, *barely*. A 54 with fatties? Unlikely.

The only thing I can see about the SO issue is that it's from the middle of the top tube, and that means I've got some more space to work with.

Here's some pics from the 46cm setup for a 5'7" rider. Gonna be some TO, but that's life.

http://i2.ebayimg.com/03/i/08/56/e4/9f_12.JPG
http://i23.ebayimg.com/01/i/08/4f/e0/c8_12.JPG

[highlyselassie]

"Too big=fatal", far from being nonsense, is plain common sense. I can go and buy a new seat post, stem and bars, no problem. What am I going to do with a frame that's too big - hacksaw off a section (4 cuts) and get it re-welded?

What's common sense, that if a person 5'7 glances, let alone stands over a 54cm frame it can cause sudden death?.

You talk as if someone's telling you to go with a 64cm frame

Back to the 46cm. I have good reports from several CC riders same height and inseam riding 46s. Some 5'8 guys riding 50s. That was the purpose of this thread :)

To convince yourself that a tiny frame was the one to go for, why start a thread in the first place?

You want a 46cm frame, fair do's, it's your ride. But to propogate utter bs about frames being "fatal" and then being unable to quantify why is pathetic, please think before you type, someone might be watching...

[Ziemas]

"Too big=fatal", far from being nonsense, is plain common sense. I can go and buy a new seat post, stem and bars, no problem. What am I going to do with a frame that's too big - hacksaw off a section (4 cuts) and get it re-welded?

Back to the 46cm. I have good reports from several CC riders same height and inseam riding 46s. Some 5'8 guys riding 50s. That was the purpose of this thread :)

Surly says standover height for 46cm SO 29.6", 50cm SO 30.3", 52cm SO 30.6", 54 SO 31.2". With an inseam of almost exactly 30" myself (I remeasured, more "aggressively" - ouch) I'd just fit the 50 and maybe the 52 with thin tyres on, *barely*. A 54 with fatties? Unlikely.

The only thing I can see about the SO issue is that it's from the middle of the top tube, and that means I've got some more space to work with.

Here's some pics from the 46cm setup for a 5'7" rider. Gonna be some TO, but that's life.

http://i2.ebayimg.com/03/i/08/56/e4/9f_12.JPG
http://i23.ebayimg.com/01/i/08/4f/e0/c8_12.JPG
Check out how much seatpost that 5'7'' rider has. Do you really think that frame is the best fit? In my experience cross bikes fit more like road bikes than mountain bikes. So much seat post showing leads me to beleive that top tube is way to short, unless he has some bizzare body that is all legs and no torso.

Why's he selling it anyway? Perhaps it's too small for him.....

[Alrocket]

After talking with my LBS I think 50or 52 looks like the one to go for. We talked about effective TT and SO clearance on the 52 and 50 and some other stuff.

----

What's common sense, that if a person 5'7 glances, let alone stands over a 54cm frame it can cause sudden death?.

Regarding use of the word "fatal", I usually use the English language the way I speak. Just like when someone says "that's cool", most of the time they don't mean "that's of a lower relative temperature". A "fatal mistake", in my country of native English speakers (sadly), means a really bad mistake, usually unrecoverable. If you want to use OED definitions you're in the wrong thread. I'm concerned about bike sizes here.

To convince yourself that a tiny frame was the one to go for, why start a thread in the first place?

I started the thread with the intention of exploring whether it was suitable or not. Why? Because some anecdotal evidence suggests it was, and I wanted to discuss and confirm or deny it.

please think before you type, someone might be watching...

The Thought Police are on my case. Apparently they're working with Interpol, the Grammar Nazis and the Frame Size Secret Police.

[Alrocket]

Check out how much seatpost that 5'7'' rider has. Do you really think that frame is the best fit? In my experience cross bikes fit more like road bikes than mountain bikes. So much seat post showing leads me to beleive that top tube is way to short, unless he has some bizzare body that is all legs and no torso.

Why's he selling it anyway? Perhaps it's too small for him.....

I don't think he was selling it due to bad fit, but your point about the seatpost is dead on the mark. I'm coming from a MTB user perspective and like a lot of standover there. The only thing I'd say is that I've seen people talking about going a size down for cross bikes in order to have niftier handling and more standover. How much more size is the matter for debate. There is the old "fist of seatpost" rule of thumb for roadies, but that was in the 60s and 70s geometries, no?

I think I'll get my drawing square and some squared paper and try comparing the frame sizes on paper. Old school but should help.

[42x16]

Too small can be dealt with in various ways ... stems, seat manipulations, cranks even, especially if it's not far off. Too big on the other hand, is probably fatal.

A longer stem is only going to buy you so much before the steering is effected. If you push your seat too far back you are going to loose power. Those are the kinds of changes you make when you are one or two sizes too small, you are better off getting a bike that fits you than making too many compromises to force the issue with one that doesn't.

[jase1]

i agree with 42x16. I went through a standover dilemma with my bike but the ride and reach is great. I don't feel cramped on it. However I did consider a conversion to 650B rims/tires to "lower" the bike, but with my bike I was advised that it would not be a reasonable option. Maybe look into a bike that would accomodate the smaller wheels or look at other bikes such at the Jake or the X-ray. Also, those bikes are are cheaper than the cross-check if price is a concern.

[seely]

I would first worry about reach and leave standover out of the equation. I have noticed that there are bikes that on paper should be too big for me (IE, a 58cm Pacer) based on SO clearance, but in real life (even with 35c tires), the bike fits me PERFECTLY. Two things to take into account is that SO is generally measured at the bike's highest point or thereabouts, and you wear shoes when you ride. My riding shoes add an inch since I wear mountain shoes all the time. Top tube length and reach is probably the most important measurement as it affects your control, posture and steering. Too long or too short of a stem will alter your handling negatively. My advise would be to go to the LBS you are ordering the Crosscheck from and find other CX bikes or even road bikes with a comparable top tube length to the various Surly sizes and try them out. Thats how we generally size someone for a Surly and its always served us well.

[Alrocket]

I've had fairly extensive discussion in my LBS with the really experienced guys. They reckons 46 is the size based on SO mainly I think, not excluding unquantifiable "experience". They reckoned 50 would be too big. I tried some bikes with similar geometry, but we weren't happy with the comparison.

Is there any site with more info on Cross Check geometry than the Surly page? They wanted more extensive data on spec.

My next trick is to ask them to order both frame sizes in so I can try both. That one needs to pass the boss though :/

[dobber]

I've had fairly extensive discussion in my LBS with the really experienced guys. They reckons 46 is the size based on SO mainly I think, not excluding unquantifiable "experience". They reckoned 50 would be too big. I tried some bikes with similar geometry, but we weren't happy with the comparison.

Is there any site with more info on Cross Check geometry than the Surly page? They wanted more extensive data on spec.

My next trick is to ask them to order both frame sizes in so I can try both. That one needs to pass the boss though :/


No offense, but I don't think your LBS guys have a clue what they're doing. Why not contact the guys at Surly directly? Ask em thier opinion, they're a right helpful bunch of guys (they're all at the expo / vegas love in this week, so any response will be slow).

[Alrocket]

No offense, but I don't think your LBS guys have a clue what they're doing.


None taken, I'm a bit concerned that they weren't as knowledgable about sizing as I'd hoped. They're the biggest LBS in the city and I'd guess that 90% of messengers, roadies and MTB guys buy their bikes there, it's often difficult to get served there they're so busy. Mind you, once he was free, that guy spent an hour talking to me about my intended purchase and even asked to look at my build price comparison spreadsheet (http://amdsoft.com/surlyccbuild.html) and gave advice on what to do if I decided not to buy from them, no bullsh!t.

But you're right, they weren't on the mark when it came to sizing this. That's why I'm thinking about getting the 2 ordered in. Aside: one of the part-time staff, messenger (it was Saturday) said "I've spent less time buying a house" :)


Why not contact the guys at Surly directly? Ask em thier opinion, they're a right helpful bunch of guys (they're all at the expo / vegas love in this week, so any response will be slow).

I did.


Toe overlap: this skirts on the sizing issue, so it's a good starting
place for size discussion.
My guess is yes, you will have a certain amount of T.O. There are
design limitations that make T.O. more of a problem on any smaller frame
that uses larger wheels, limits that simply cannot be avoided. You
can't make the bike too long or add too much rake to the fork because it
will not fit or handle well. Also, there are a lot of other issues that
go into determining T.O.: foot size, foot placement on the pedal (using
platforms vs. clipless for example), tire size, fenders, and crank arm
length all make a big difference in how much T.O. any person
experiences. My personal opinion about T.O. is that although annoying,
it is almost never dangerous. First, your foot and wheel have to be in
the right position, and steering angle while riding is usually shallower
than the T.O. angle. Also, most riders choose some sort of freewheeling
drivetrain, which means you can stop your feet momentarily if you really
need to. The only time I have ever found T.O. to be both unavoidable
and potentially problematic is riding fixed gear offroad. And even so,
I have never crashed or even come close, at least due to T.O. That
said, I'd like to reiterate that T.O. will be more pronounced on smaller
frames using larger wheels.
Size: there are 3 main things that are true or any sizing theory.
>Effective top tube length. Not true TT, but effective, sometimes
called virtual TT (see attachment). Compare the ETT of a bike or two
you find comfy to the the specs of same for the Crosscheck. This will
give you a good idea which size is closest to that you already find
comfy.
>Standover height. Know your true pubic bone height (crotch to floor in
socks). This is the minimum clearance you need to be able to stand over
the frame, and is listed in our specs also. Use in conjunction with
ETT.
>Personal preferrence. There are a lot of things that make a person
feel the fit is right or not, and this is not an absolute. I prefer
longer top tubes, for instance. Think about wat position feels most
comfy to you. If you like to be stretched out, perhaps a larger frame.
Keep in mind that component choice plays a big role in this. Pick the
closest frame size and change the stem or bar if necessary.


Not as helpful as I had hoped. Here's the attachment he mentions.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8537/toptubelengthcp9.th.png (http://img96.imageshack.us/my.php?image=toptubelengthcp9.png)

[flipped4bikes]

Not as helpful as I had hoped.

Seems very helpful to me, IMO. You want good SO, but not so much that your reach is severely compromised. Seems that a 52" or 50" is a better frame size than 46" ever will be.....

[isotopesope]

fwiw, my wife is 5'6" and we wanted to get her a cross-check. i typically fit bikes for myself mainly based on top tube length... however, with much too much scrutinizing on the SO height compared to her inseam, we went with the 42. she didn't want it to be a "koochie krusher". ha!

the smaller sizes are VERY compact. more than we thought. we got her 42 and built it up, but it was too small. especially the top tube. we probably could've used a longer stem and lots of seatpost, but it really was just too small. the standover must be measured up at the headtube, where the top tube is the highest... also where you're not really going to be standing. so it's the actual standover, but not really an "effective" standover.

we're going to get her another frame, either the 50 crosscheck or the 48 soma doublecross, but we're going to focus on the effective top tube length of around 53 to 54cm, and worry less about the standover, as both makers have compact geometry on the smaller frames.

[hamr22]

Alrocket: Just pick a size, ride the crap out of it. If you can't make it fit with adjusments and adaptation, figure out what size would work better and sell the frame on ebay. People scarf up CC's all the time for darn near reatail price.

[Alrocket]

Seems very helpful to me, IMO.

Might be helpful if I was starting off with zero information. As you can see from the extended discussion in the thread, I've been thinking a lot about it.


the smaller sizes are VERY compact. more than we thought.

Yeah that's what I'm thinkin.


the standover must be measured up at the headtube, where the top tube is the highest... also where you're not really going to be standing. so it's the actual standover

I read somewhere (probably Surly CC page) that the SO was measured at the 1/2 way mark on the (real!) TT.

Alrocket: Just pick a size, ride the crap out of it. If you can't make it fit with adjusments and adaptation, figure out what size would work better and sell the frame on ebay. People scarf up CC's all the time for darn near reatail price.

I did better than that - I got the LBS to order the 50 with the proviso that if it doesn't fit they order in the next instead. Don't even have to go as far as ebay, although you're dead right - I've been watching CC auctions and they go like hotcakes.

Thanks guys, hopefully my 50 is the business :)

[highlyselassie]

Is there not something of similar dimensions you can try out at the LBS?

[Alrocket]

We couldn't find anything suitable that was built up. I did try a Claude Butler Levante in the other shop, but CB aren't interested in putting detailed specs online from what I can see.

Anyway I want to see the CC geometry in reality. And if the 50 is too small, no worres, I'll be ordering a 52 instead. They're treating me good cos I'm a regular, nothing to do with my plan to get an Ultegra groupset which made the $$ signs appear in their eyes :)

[hairlessbill]

I thought that last bit of advice from the Surly guy was pretty insightful. Your personal preference and riding style go a long way into ultimately determining which size/geometry frame you choose.

When I first started seriously riding, I rode a 50cm Peugeot Triathlon which had a pretty aggressive geometry (it was the 80's) - high seat, low stem. It was great for young knees and a young guy who was a wanna-be racer.

For offroad riding I like the smallest frame I could fit into because northeast singletrack tends to be very technical so I had in succession; 15.5" Fisher, 16" Bridgestone, 17" Klein. All pretty small bikes which I also used on the road extensively. I toured for 14 days on the Fisher, centuries/commute on the Bstone, MS150's on the Klein (http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/riding/1995klein.htm). I could make all of those bikes work for whatever I needed by swapping the stems/handlebars and messing with seat setback because the effective top tubes were long enough for these options.

Over the years I acquired a 52cm Radac, a 53 Paramount (http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/sold/paramount.left.jpg), a 56 RB-1 (http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/selling/rb1.left.jpg), and a 42cm XO-1 (http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/riding/burley_xo1.jpg). The only bike I couldn't get to fit me correctly was the XO-1 because it was too small and I everytime I had enough stem to make it fit it felt like I was so far over the front wheel that I looked and felt ridiculous. Riding offroad with that much weight on top of the front wheel would have been suicidal.

So in the space of 20 years or riding I went from a 50cm frame where there was significant height difference between seat and stem (it looked so cool!) and gearing for younger knees (42/52 with 13-21 freewheel) to my current 54cm frames (my RB-1 and Surly - triples on both with 13-32 rears) and gearing/position for battered knees and less-limber back. Those bikes are used for long rides where there is usually a long climb (welcome to Colorado!) followed by a long descent. Anything smaller and I always felt a little crimped for air. The 56cm RB-1 (http://www.indra.com/homepages/hairless/bicycles/selling/rb1.left.jpg) was great for climbing but felt a little too stretched out on the flats and descents. I made that bike work for me too with a short stem but that's how I settled on 53/54cm being the right size for me and my riding.

You can make practically any bike within your range of sizes work but within that range I think you have to decide how this bike will primarily be used and how you are going to ride it. The guys who recommended that I stick to my road size based that on the fact that I told them I was not planning on doing races or serious offroad riding, just road riding and some local fireroads.

[halfro]

Just curious what size frame you ended up with. I'm 5'6" so I'm thinking a 50 or 46. Thanks...

[Elisdad]

I'm 5'6 with a 29 inseam and I ride a 49cm Jake the Snake. I've not raced it yet, but it seems to work well for me as a trail/road bike.