Google sponsored links
Allow me to ask a trivial question here, thanks. What's the deal with the popularity of the Surly Cross-Check. Seems like every other thread in this forum talks about it. They pop up really often in threads in other forums and on other bicycling sites. They're all over eBay.
Why? Are they that good a bike? How come other cross bikes aren't making such a ruckus? Is this the new iPod?
Just curious to see what some opinions are here.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
I suspect that most riders who rave about their CrossChecks most likely ordered the frame and built up their own - as opposed to settling for the 'complete' CrossCheck. This allows you to put together a very individual ride for yourself. Of course once you put some miles on it you realize that it is indeed a really nice frame for the price.
DanO
Of course once you put some miles on it you realize that it is indeed a really nice frame for the price.
Really? I was under the impression that $400 is kind of expensive for a 4130 cro-mo frame. Guess I learn something new everyday.
Hmm, let's see...4130 Cromoly frame, horizontal dropouts, rack and fender mounts, lots of mud clearance, snazzy-looking fork crown, and crash-worthy...What's not to love?
Really? I was under the impression that $400 is kind of expensive for a 4130 cro-mo frame. Guess I learn something new everyday.
So you're going against the grain and decided you don't like the Cross-Check. So what?
You can get the kona explosif for $420. but it's a mtb frame. steel is expensive!
shop ebay!
So you're going against the grain and decided you don't like the Cross-Check. So what?
Whoa, sorry. I'm trying to ask a legit question here. I had seen some negative remarks about the Cross-Check that didn't seem to jibe with all the raves here. I've got this annoying habit of listening to a wide variety of opinions before passing judgement on something (or someone). I'll try to be more closed-minded next time.
Hmm, let's see...4130 Cromoly frame, horizontal dropouts, rack and fender mounts, lots of mud clearance, snazzy-looking fork crown, and crash-worthy...What's not to love?
Yeah, I'd imagine horizontal dropouts and rack/fender mounts on a cross-style bike would make the Surly great for commuting. Do many people race them?
You can get the kona explosif for $420. but it's a mtb frame. steel is expensive!
shop ebay!
Funny you should say that. One of my saved searches on eBay is a daily check for Explosif frames. In case a deal should ever present itself. Thanks.
Whoa, sorry. I'm trying to ask a legit question here. I had seen some negative remarks about the Cross-Check that didn't seem to jibe with all the raves here. I've got this annoying habit of listening to a wide variety of opinions before passing judgement on something (or someone). I'll try to be more closed-minded next time.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound so harsh. It just sounded like you've already made up your mind that the Cross Check isn't as good of deal as people are making it out to seem. As for what it is, to me it's a great multi-purpose comfortable ride with lots of options. I know a lot of people who use it as their training or backup rig for cross. It's true that it's going to run a bit heavier than a typical race bike, but other than that I think it fits nicely with a lot of people's needs.
Main reason there's lots of talk about the Cross-Check is that QBP owns Surly, or Surly
is just QBP. This means they have giant market penetration and are their own middlemen, so the profit is much much higher than for any other kind of independent frame builder. The cross-check is good but is IMHO not as good as other steel cross frames I remember. Most 4130, SLX, 631, and 853 Cross frames are lighter, I think. Remember the Cromo Fuji Cross? Now Al. I rode a friends Cross-Check and my positive comments are, it is durable and pleasantly, mildly retro looking.
hot or not? depends. the surly is a great all-purpose cyclo-cross-type bike. it's a fine light tourer and commuter. it is most certainly not a hot race bike. it's tough, but quite heavy, and the geometry is a bit slack for tight handling on switchbacks. you almost never see surly's at races.
I don't race mine. I do ride it though. I selected a cross type bike because I am a clydesdale who wanted a road bike but I ride on rail to trails and such which are hard on the wheels (considering my mass). I could not find many cross bikes available at dealerships. The few dealers who stocked Propads and Fuji Cross had sizes which were inappropriate.
I had the Performance Bike Store in Naperville, IL build my bike for me. Mine is built up for trail riding and light touring. I have a 105 Triple setup and heavily spoked wheels. I had the shop leave the stem relatively tall because I have a bad back and can't lean all the way into an aero position. I also have it setup with a Brooks B17.
My Cross-Check is a great all around bicycle that does what I ask of it.
I was under the impression that $400 is kind of expensive for a 4130 cro-mo frame.
I looked at Surly once and you're right, that is exactly what held me back. It is a nice versatile frame for DIY custom builders but at the end of the day it remains a rather heavy frame made with ordinary steel. I don't buy into or see the Surly "mystique" but if you're a Surly fan, more power to you, it's just not my thing.
If I was in the market for a cyclocross bike, I think a much better value than a Cross-Check is the Jamis Nova (http://www.jamisbikes.com/bikes/05_nova.html#). For about $1,000 you get a 631 frame with carbon fork, Shimano 105/Tiagra mix triple, cantilever brakes, Mavic wheels and Crank Bros. eggbeater pedals, and rear eyelets. There is no way you can custom build a Cross-Check with all those goodies for under $1,000. The Nova really is a bargain IMHO.
I think velocipedio has it right, what makes the Cross Check a great bike is that it is very good at a lot of things. The trade off is that it isn't the best cyclocross racer.
Like a lot of people, I use mine for commuting. It can handle Nokian studded 35's tires plus fenders (the specs claim it can handle 45's with fenders), but it also can work with much narrower road tires when the weather is better. I also have a rack and saddlebags on it. Few road bikes could handle the adverse commuter riding conditions (potholes, snow, ice, etc.). No mountain bike has the dropped handlebars and decent gear ratios.
If you want to do serious cyclocross racing, the Surly may not be your first choice. But if you want one, great all-around bike, it's worth taking a look at.
I don't know enough about the Nova to make a complete comparison, but can anyone say what kind of tire clearance does it has? It might have as much as the Surly, but I can't find anything that says one way or another. From what I can tell from the manufacturers' websites, the Nova's fork is part CF, part steel, the Surly's is all steel. Whether that's better or worse, I leave for others. All in all, the Nova looks like a good bike.
As to price, in Fall 2003, I paid $750 for a Cross Check Complete (LBS marked it down from $850 list). The Tiagra parts work just fine for commuting.
hot or not? depends. the surly is a great all-purpose cyclo-cross-type bike. it's a fine light tourer and commuter. it is most certainly not a hot race bike. it's tough, but quite heavy, and the geometry is a bit slack for tight handling on switchbacks. you almost never see surly's at races.
What? Yeah, that's why Canadian national cyclocross champion Wendy Simms chose to race a Surly Cross Check at the cyclocross world championships for the past two years in a row.
I love my Surly CrossCheck. I had mine retro-fitted with S&S Machine's frame couplers, such that the frame splits apart and packs into a large suitcase for travel. I have mine built up with a Shimano Ultegra triple group and use the Bontrager RaceLite wheels from my road racing bike. This gives a good touring/training bike that weighs just under 20# for the 46cm frame. It's comfy and rides nice. Remember that almost all steel bikes use 4130 Chrome-Moly steel - the difference is in the shaping and the butting. The steel in the Surly is thicker than most steel road racing frames. This gives a highly durable frame that's very stiff, although 1-2 pounds heavier than thinner-walled steel tubing. Compare the cross check to the Gunnar cyclocross bike. The Gunnar is about twice as much, but weighs a little less. I'll take the exta weight and spend the money on other things.
[...] It can handle Nokian studded 35's tires plus fenders (the specs claim it can handle 45's with fenders), [...]
Hi, I'm quite particular about tire sizes and clearance. Can anyone really certify that actual 45's can be fitted to these frame stays? Any pictures of bottom bracket rear side to see actual clearance would be greatly appreciated.
Surly frames look like a workhorse capable of standing up to the requirements of any good racer.
All the best for everybody and cx'ers en particular.
VERSATILITY.
because there are very few other frame options to setup a fixed/SS/geared/crosser/commuter/budget racer/grocery getter/townie beer bike/coffee cruiser without going for custom. the surly and a few others like it are the only non custom options to come to mind. buy the frame cheap, set your fixed/SS groove on with some nice parts. ride. replace frame when $$$$ or inclination strikes.
i use mine to commute (with rack and fenders)
i use mine on trails (rack and fenders off in 5 minutes or less)
i use mine to grocery get.
is it nice and bling bling? no. does it work? yeah. hot or not? who cares? it does what surly advertise it as, nothing more or less. it's just a bike. eventually, i'll likely replace mine with an on-one il pompino frame. a little bit lighter, and i like the aesthetics much more. and i'll still have the rack/fender options, plus still be able to run SS/fixed.
did i buy it because it was a Surly? no, i bought it because it was one of very few options at that price point, to give me that versatility. oh yeah, i'm one of those "bought as a frame, built it up" guys.
anyone who has their sense of self worth tied up into what brand of frame they ride has some insecurity issues to deal with.
read carefully, lunacycle. i didn't say that the cross check could not be raced, but that it was not a hot race bike. i know about ms. simms and her hot pink surly. she's an amazing athlete, but she's the exception and not the rule.
The rear spacing is 132.5mm, which is right between road and mtb hub spacing. This means you can use either a road (130mm) or a mtb (135mm) hub. Combine that with rack and fender mounts, ample tire/fender clearence (Fatties Fit Fine), and semi horizontal dropouts for a singlespeed/fixed option and you get a jack of all traits, but a master of none.
Really? I was under the impression that $400 is kind of expensive for a 4130 cro-mo frame. Guess I learn something new everyday.
Have you shopped for a steel frame for $400, let alone cheaper, to build your own with lately? Except for the Soma's there's really nothing else out there except the really inexpensive aluminum frames from the super.com shops. Anyone else selling cyclocross or road frames made from fancier steel are asking two or three times the price.
DanO
I see your point, velocipedi.
My point was that the Surly is raceable, as demonstrated by Ms. Simms. I don't want folks to get the impression that the Cross-Check should be overlooked as a capable cyclocross bike, and regarded merely as a practical commuter vehicle. I have seen a plethora of Cross-Checks at cyclocross races back in Minnesota, especially in the single-speed class, but also in the A, B, and C races. Maybe it's a regional thing -- with Surly based in the Twin Cities and all.
. . . merely as a practical commuter vehicle. . . .
I guess you could say other bikes are merely good racers, not suitable for practical uses like commuting. ;)
Besides the 4130 CrMo, the other bummer about the Surly (and Soma) is that the rear triangle tubes are not butted; hence the heafty weight. Of course, it's probably more rugged and that's why they call it Surly! But, for 'only' $200 more, you can get a LeMond Poprad frame made from Reynolds 853 & fully butted. But, you lose fender/rack mounts, rear spacing options, etc. My LBS called for me the other day, and LeMond still has a few 2004 frames left.
One major issue for me is that if you are planning on running single speed, you'll have to spend another $135 or so for an eccentric hub on most other bikes. Surly's horizontal dropout makes it that much more versatile.
Besides the 4130 CrMo, the other bummer about the Surly (and Soma) is that the rear triangle tubes are not butted; hence the heafty weight.
Funny, my CrossCheck feels pretty friggin' light once I pull 15 lbs of water bottles, lights and panniers off. What I'm saying here is that for the average commuter the half pound - maybe - that you gain with a butted rear triangle is pretty inconsequential in the overall equation. It is also figuratively outweighed by the aforementioned niceties such as hub spacing, semi-horizontal dropouts and rack and fender mounts. Sure, I'd like to start with a titanium cyclocross frame... but for the guy or gal on a budget, the extra money is better spent elsewhere.
DanO
. . . Sure, I'd like to start with a titanium cyclocross frame... but for the guy or gal on a budget, the extra money is better spent elsewhere.
DanO
Good point. As someone who frequently commutes at night, lighting is a priority. I'm much, much better off with a Cross Check and an HID than with a lighter frame and an LED.
Others will have different priorities. Cyclists should put their money where they get the biggest bang.
Actually, I just did some double checking, and the Soma (at least the current version) does have a butted rear triangle; it also has the 132.5mm spacing like the Surly. But, at $400 the Surly includes the front fork while the Soma does not (an extra $110). So, at $500 for the Soma frame and fork, the $600 LeMond with True Temper/Reynolds and alloy fork looks a lot more attractive. Maybe that's why the LeMond's sell out every friggin' year. Still, the flexibility of the Surly/Soma's is great. I'll never decide.... :)
it's interesting, though. i only think of cyclo-cross as racing -- in fact, cyclo-cross is only racing -- so i tend to think of a cyclo-cross bike as a race bike. while i agree that, as much as i would like one, a ti bike probably isn't reasonable for me, i do look for a bike i can race. and wendy simms notwithstanding, i don't think of the surly in those terms. having said that, i've seen some surly's and they're pretty funky rides. if i was looking for a solid commuter, i'd certainly consider it.
it's interesting, though. i only think of cyclo-cross as racing -- in fact, cyclo-cross is only racing -- so i tend to think of a cyclo-cross bike as a race bike. . . .
You might not say that if you took your fully loaded cross bike along bumpy, icy paths. A cross bike is great for commuting for many of the same reasons it's great on a cross race course--a fanatastic balance between speed and the ability to handle adverse conditions. No road bike could handle the worst parts of my commute. No MTB could give me the speed I want.
it's interesting, though. i only think of cyclo-cross as racing -- in fact, cyclo-cross is only racing -- so i tend to think of a cyclo-cross bike as a race bike. while i agree that, as much as i would like one, a ti bike probably isn't reasonable for me, i do look for a bike i can race. and wendy simms notwithstanding, i don't think of the surly in those terms. having said that, i've seen some surly's and they're pretty funky rides. if i was looking for a solid commuter, i'd certainly consider it.
I don't think that I have ever seen it argued that mountain bikes are strictly for riding in mountains. (Illinois bike dealers would have a real problem marketing here.)
mreworm... cyclo-cross, as a sport, is racing and nothing else. if you're not racing, you're not doing cyclo-cross. you might be riding a cyclo-cross bike, but it's not the sport of cyclo-cross. the sport is the race.
"mreworm... cyclo-cross, as a sport, is racing and nothing else. if you're not racing, you're not doing cyclo-cross. you might be riding a cyclo-cross bike, but it's not the sport of cyclo-cross. the sport is the race."
Contains double and triple negative statements, so it is a bit confusing.
Lets bring in an example other than mountain bikes.
Football is a sport. A football is also a thing.
To confuse matters more, the definition of the sport "football" or the object "football" depends pretty much on which continent you reside.
According to your definition, someone playing a game resembling the NFL game is not really playing football unless they have clocks, chalk line fields, referrees etc. A father tossing a ball to his son would not be playing football. A 5 man team, scrimmaging in the dirt would not be playing football.
mreworm. cyclo-cross is a sport in the same way that triathlon is a sport and biathlon is a sport. you might have a triathlon bicycle or biathlon skis, but you are not actually doing the sport unless you are racing. it doesn't have to be a sanctioned race, but it has to be a race. there is no such thing as non-competitive cyclo-cross. if you are not in a cyclo-cross race, then you are not doing cyclo-cross, even if you happen to be riding a cyclo-cross bike.
is that simple enough for you?
having said that, bikes designed for the sport of cyclo-cross are quite versatile machines. they are fine light tourers, commuters, light trail bikes and early/late season road bike. however, when you are riding a cyclo-cross bike while touring, commuting, etc., you are tgouring and commuting. you are not doing cyclo-cross.
i know that there are a lot of guys who buy the bike and would like to believe that this makes them a "cyclo-crosser." there actually seems to be some romance associated with the sport. but to be a cyclo-crosser, you gotta race, just as to be a marathoner, you gotta race marathons.
. . .
having said that, bikes designed for the sport of cyclo-cross are quite versatile machines. they are fine light tourers, commuters, light trail bikes and early/late season road bike. however, when you are riding a cyclo-cross bike while touring, commuting, etc., you are tgouring and commuting. you are not doing cyclo-cross.
i know that there are a lot of guys who buy the bike and would like to believe that this makes them a "cyclo-crosser." there actually seems to be some romance associated with the sport. but to be a cyclo-crosser, you gotta race, just as to be a marathoner, you gotta race marathons.
And I could say that until you've ridden your cross bike on a dark, snow and ice covered path, at 0F, with loaded panniers, and no one to rely on but yourself, you haven't done cyclocross. Going around in circles with support waiting seems, well, not as tough. ;)
In all seriousness, cyclocross racing and cyclocross commuting have done a lot for each other. As a result of racing, a fast, versatile bike has been developed that commuters can use. And cyclocross commuters are a new source of cyclocross racers and race fans. The racers should be careful not to dis' the commuters.
tough or not, riding "your cross bike on a dark, snow and ice covered path at 0F with loaded panniers and no one to rely on but yourself" is not cyclo-cross. cyclo-cross is a specific sport with specific rules. you can ride to waork on a time-trial bike, but that doesn't make the ride a time-trial.
i'm not being a snob here. i ride my cyclo-cross bike all the time for training and fun, but i know that what i'm doing is training and fun, and not cyclo-cross. it's important to know the difference.
if you want to do cyclo-cross, then do cyclo-cross.
I guess we disagree on the definition of the word. You think you do "cyclocross." I think I do "cyclocross." You use it narrowly. I use it broadly. I don't think another round of yes-it-is-no-it-isn't is going to resove this.
hey... if you want to think your commute is cyclo-cross, that's okay. i guess you think of your after-dinner walk as a marathon, too? that's okay, too.
my problem is that, when we loosen definitions of words to eman whatever we want them to mean, the words have no meaning.
hey... if you want to think your commute is cyclo-cross, that's okay. i guess you think of your after-dinner walk as a marathon, too? that's okay, too.
my problem is that, when we loosen definitions of words to eman whatever we want them to mean, the words have no meaning.
I thought going in circles with support all around was more like an after dinner walk, while commuting was more like a marathon, but heh, to each his own. ;) MrEWorm has it right with the football analogy. Doing a sport is more than the competition day.
I think "cyclocross" means riding a bicycle with dropped handlebars off road. It does not necessarily mean competition. If competition were part of the definition, no one would say "cyclocross race" because that would be redundant. But my Google search for "cyclocross race" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="cyclocross+race") came up with nearly 10,000 hits. Clearly, many, many people think that "doing cyclocross" is not limited to competition.
Why do you think it means only competition?
mreworm... cyclo-cross, as a sport, is racing and nothing else. if you're not racing, you're not doing cyclo-cross. you might be riding a cyclo-cross bike, but it's not the sport of cyclo-cross. the sport is the race.
So if I'm on the local singletrack on my mtb, I'm not mountain biking? Only if I'm entered in a race?
Guess I should quit lying to myself and leave the trails to the real athletes.
this is actually pretty funny. by this standard, rolling a baseball along the ground would be "playing baseball," and sitting on a surfboard would be "surfing." and riding a mountain bike in city traffic would be "mountain biking." perhaps floating on you back in the pool while listenikng to music is synchronized swimming and any day that you've swam cycled and run or walked is a triathlon?
look, there are specific rules for cyclo-cross (http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/5cycl-E.pdf), just as there are rules for hockey, rugby, triathlons, shot put and any other sport you'd care to mention. these rules define the sport. if you are rididing you bike in a context governed by these rules, you are doing cyclo-cross. if you are not, you are just cycling.
you can ride a cyclo-cross bike in a crit, but that doesn't make what you're doing cyclo-cross, and you can ride a mountain bike in most local cyclo-cross races, but that doesn't make it mountain biking.
none of this is really all that difficult to understand.
having said that, i can understand why you'd like to glorify just riding as the sport of cyclo-cross. it's a cool sport and a lot of fun. but there's nothing wrong with just riding, noi matter what kind of bike you ride. i do it most of the year -- i only do six or eight cyclo-cross races a year. just riding a bike is nothing to be ashamed of.
slopvehicle... let me see if i can explain this by analogy... i'm an off-season runner. if i run 21 km -- which is not uncommon -- i will have covered the distance of a half-marathon. however, if i do not do it in the context of a half-marathon event, it is not a half-marathon, it is a run of a "half-marathon distance."
the principal difference between mountain biking and cyclo-cross is that the former did not begin as a competitive sport -- that was added later -- whicle cyclo-cross has only ever been a competitive sport. mountain biking means riding off-road on a mountain bike. cyclo-cross does not even require a cyclo-cross bike. indeed, specific cyclo-cross bikes did not even exist for the first few decades of the sport. indeed, the sport has always meant a short-track multiple lap event over a variety of terrain and road surfaces with obstacles requiring dismounts and running [this latter, incidentally, is the "cross" in cyclo-cross]. the cyclo-cross bike evolved to enable the sport. on the other hand, the mountain bike preceded the emergence of moutain bike racing.
. . .look, there are specific rules for cyclo-cross (http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/5cycl-E.pdf), just as there are rules for hockey, rugby, triathlons, shot put and any other sport you'd care to mention. these rules define the sport. if you are rididing you bike in a context governed by these rules, you are doing cyclo-cross. if you are not, you are just cycling. . . .
Your source proves my point. It talks about "cyclo-cross races." By your definition, it should just say "cyclo-cross" because the word "race" would not be needed.
So, to be more precise. There are no rules for "cyclo-cross," but there are rules for "cyclo-cross races."
daily commute... i guess you can believe what you want. i'm not offended, but i do find it absurd. if cyclo-cross is anything done on a cyclo-cross bike and virtually any bike can be a cyclo-cross bike [since regional races permit everything from unicycles to tandems], then anything and everything is cyclo-cross. if you like living in a world where nothing actually means anything, then that's great.
me? i laugh.
velocipedio,
Any chance you could let it go? Or possibly start a new thread to discuss it?
"This has to be the most physically intense sport ever invented. It's high speed bicycle racing on a short off road course, riding racing style bikes! Learn more about this sport here."
daily commute... i guess you can believe what you want. i'm not offended, but i do find it absurd. . . . me? i laugh.
I laugh too. I showed you nearly 10,000 examples when people added the word "race" to "cyclo-cross," which means that they believed the word "cyclo-cross" did not, itself, include racing. And as your own example shows, even the UCI believes it's necessary to add the word "race" to "cyclo-cross" when talking about racing.
If widely held, an attitude like yours would turn people away from your "sport." Fortunately, it seems you are isolated in your views.
As I said above, my definition of "cyclo-cross" is riding a bicycle with dropped handlebars off road (and off paved path). What you are talking about is "cyclo-cross racing."
"mreworm... cyclo-cross, as a sport, is racing and nothing else. if you're not racing, you're not doing cyclo-cross. you might be riding a cyclo-cross bike, but it's not the sport of cyclo-cross. the sport is the race."
Sigh
http://img139.exs.cx/img139/6923/replyfunctiongeneric3ph.jpg
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.