Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Commuting Bicycle commuting is easier than you think, before you know it, you'll be hooked. Learn the tips, hints, equipment, safety requirements for safely riding your bike to work.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-25-07, 09:09 AM   #1
tch
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ashland, Oregon
Bikes: 07 Sulry Cross-Check, 05 Giant Reign
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cross Check vs Pacer

I posted this thread a few months ago classic 1st post bike question . . . and have come to a decision between the cross check and the pacer, but I'm stuck with what frame I want to build up.

Has anyone ridden each that could give some comparative information?

The assumed pros to the Pacer on my paved MUP commute is that it will be a bit faster and lighter than the CC. The negative is that it only allows for 28's and I don't know of any studded 28's. I'd most likely want the studs during the winter commutes.

Looking forward to getting the build started as I move on Wednesday and I want to start the commute in the next few weeks.
tch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-07, 10:42 AM   #2
modernjess
ride for a change
 
modernjess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Bikes: Surly Cross-check & Moonlander, Pivot Mach 429, Ted Wojcik Sof-Trac, Ridley Orion. Santa Cruz Stigmata
Posts: 2,225
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The Cross Check is definitely a more versatile bike in terms of set up options. The extra tire clearance is one reason I went with the Cross Check. I run 35mm Nokian 106 studs in the winter, and 25mm Ultra gatorskins the rest of the year. Also I run single speed, and the Cross Check has long semi horizontal drop outs and the Pacer has verticle drop-outs, which are not ideal for a SS/FG.

I'm pretty sure you're right, the Pacer may be a bit faster and lighter due to it's road geometry, but the Cross Check is no slouch, it's very a comfortable road bike and it's ability to be built in practically any configuration really apealled to me. I know that if I want to change stuff as the years go by, it'll be ready.
modernjess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-07, 10:52 AM   #3
mwrobe1
Code Warrior
 
mwrobe1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South suburbs of Chicago, Illinois
Bikes: Schwinn MTB/Raleigh Marathon
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh man...hands down...go with the Surly.

Pacer's are ooogly.



__________________
Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, 1/2 a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.

Jake: Hit it.


mwrobe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-07, 01:15 PM   #4
georgiaboy
Retro-nerd
 
georgiaboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Morningside - Atlanta
Bikes: 1991 Serotta Colorado II, 1986 Vitus 979, 1971 Juene Classic, 2008 Surly Crosscheck, 1949 Riva Sport
Posts: 1,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tch
I posted this thread a few months ago classic 1st post bike question . . . and have come to a decision between the cross check and the pacer, but I'm stuck with what frame I want to build up.

Has anyone ridden each that could give some comparative information?

The assumed pros to the Pacer on my paved MUP commute is that it will be a bit faster and lighter than the CC. The negative is that it only allows for 28's and I don't know of any studded 28's. I'd most likely want the studs during the winter commutes.

Looking forward to getting the build started as I move on Wednesday and I want to start the commute in the next few weeks.
Sounds like you should get the Crosscheck so as to make sure you can use the studded tires for winter. The weight difference is a moot point if you will be carrying cargo. They are both great frames.

Crosscheck 56cm = 4.88 lbs (2.2 kg)

Pacer 56cm = 4.45 lbs. (2.02 kg)

Difference of .35 lbs. Basically 1/3 of a pound.
__________________
Would you like a dream with that?
georgiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:57 AM.