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, 06:24 PM   #1
adam12
Cyde
Thread Starter
 
adam12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Liberal, Ks
Bikes: Surly Karate Monkey, Old 94 GT Tequesta, Fetish SAC with Campy components
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anyone use cross check as main ride?

I've heard it said several times that if someone could only have one bike it would be a cross check.

So here's my story. I caught the bug in late '94 on mountain bikes. I had always ridden mountain bikes. So when It came time to take it up again I bought a mountain bike. However I bought a Karate Monkey because it seemed so versatile. Now that I've had it for awhile. I'm beginning to think the cross check may have been the better way to go. Due to my limited trails around here I ride mostly road, and the occasional trail. I have personal restrictions limiting me to one bike. So I'm asking if anyone uses their cross check as their do it all ride? Commuter, road bike, mountain bike, touring ride.
adam12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-07, 06:40 PM   #2
Raiyn
I drink your MILKSHAKE
 
Raiyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Bikes: 2003 Specialized Rockhopper FSR Comp, 1999 Specialized Hardrock Comp FS, 1971 Schwinn Varsity
Posts: 15,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've encountered several people who use the CC as all those things and more. Some simple part swaps and it can do almost anything
__________________
Raiyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-07, 09:53 PM   #3
Bottomfeeder
Mr. cost-benefit analysis
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Agua Dulce, CA
Bikes: Surly Crosscheck Single Speed, Novara 9 speed commuter/runabout
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My main ride is a Crosscheck. And like Raiyn said, it's versatile enough to be nearly anything to anybody. This is especially true because it's generous clearances and semi-horizontal rear dropouts allow it to run just about any drive train you wanna try. So if you find you didn't quite nail the spec' the first time out you can reconfigure it till your hearts content.

I first built up my Crosscheck commuter/all-arounder with a Sram 7 speed hub. (Yea, I'd heard they were heavy, but I had to go find out for myself!) Once I got tired of lugging that around, I modified it into a single speed. When I wanted just a bit more I made it a 2 speed by fitting 2 rings up front with a Paul's Melvin tensioner and a cheap front derailleur. I've also run it with a single ring up front and an 8 speed cassette in the rear with a cheap twist shifter. Recently I broke the spindle of my bottom bracket and the spare I had on hand was only wide enough to support the single speed set-up. Thats OK. It'll do fine for a while.

If I'd bought just about any other frame - say, a road frame with fixed rear dropouts that won't take a tire bigger than a 23 - I would've had to either sell it if I wanted to change much, or just settle. Instead I can make it anything I want.

I could go on. But you get the idea.

DanO
Bottomfeeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-07, 04:37 AM   #4
Joe Dog
One Hep Cat
 
Joe Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: N 44.91577 W093.25327
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check (commuter), Lemond Sarthe (sports car), Schwinn fixed gear conversion (for fun)
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cross-Check is my main ride. Mine is outfitted as a commuter (rack, fenders, 700c x 32 Conti Top Touring tires). I have done some limited trail riding with it using the CrossMax tires that came with it. For me it's ideal, but if I rode a lot of trails I think I would want a true mountain bike. For commuting and running errands it's hard to beat, though.
__________________
BikeLove

Website
Joe Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-07, 06:03 AM   #5
CBBaron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cleveland
Bikes: Pugsley, fixie commuter, track bike
Posts: 1,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have a Cross Check that I use for commuting and various other rides. I am considering doing some cyclocross or light trails later this year with the same bike. It is very capable but probably not a great trail bike.
However if I was in your position I would probably stay with the KM. Put some Big Apple tires for daily road use on the bike and keep a set of good knobbies for really hitting the trails. I'm not a fan of flat bars so I would probably use some dirt drops or moustache bars. I almost got a KM for my commute but decided I prefer more of a road bike with narrower cranks.
Either bike will work well it depends on your goals. The CC will take a rack an fenders easily and is a good daily commuter, and errand runner, not a bad road bike, and capable of light trail duty. The KM will take a rack and fenders with a little work, is a good daily commuter, a great trail bike, but a little slow for long road rides.

Craig
CBBaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-07, 03:23 AM   #6
rextwelve
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maui, HI
Bikes: Schwinn 754 Al Paramount 1990; Litespeed Teramo/SRAM Rival 2006; Surly CC/Rohloff 2006
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I recently built one up with a Rohloff ... and I LOVE it (and yes, I might just marry it!). I originally intended it for commuting, but it is becomming my favorite for most purposes. But, I don't think it would be a good replacement for a mountain bike off road.

BTW, have any other CC riders found that it fits on the big side? I normally ride a 56cm frame, but I ended up with a 54cm and even it feels a bit big.
rextwelve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-07, 05:02 AM   #7
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)
I have a Crosscheck as well. For urban riding on the roads it can't be beat.

Between the KM and the Crosscheck, the Crosscheck is better for road riding.

My experience would say the Crosscheck is great for road, commuting and touring.

As for as trails, I wouldn't know. I have skinny tires and a dedicated bike for the asphalt.
__________________
Would you like a dream with that?
georgiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-07, 05:22 AM   #8
BigDave
Biking Gunslinger
 
BigDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indy
Bikes: 62 cm Surly Cross-Check
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My only ride is a 62 cm Cross-Check. I ride road, but I also ride on the LBSs alley ride on the east side of Indy. Everything from good pavement to bad, sand, gravel, potholes big/small/shallow/deep - there's even some singletrack. Good rig.

However, if I had a 2nd choice it would be a KM. Why not just put some skinny semi-slicks on it and go nuts? I would think that you have more options on the KM than the CC.
BigDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-07, 05:42 AM   #9
adam12
Cyde
Thread Starter
 
adam12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Liberal, Ks
Bikes: Surly Karate Monkey, Old 94 GT Tequesta, Fetish SAC with Campy components
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDave
My only ride is a 62 cm Cross-Check. I ride road, but I also ride on the LBSs alley ride on the east side of Indy. Everything from good pavement to bad, sand, gravel, potholes big/small/shallow/deep - there's even some singletrack. Good rig.

However, if I had a 2nd choice it would be a KM. Why not just put some skinny semi-slicks on it and go nuts? I would think that you have more options on the KM than the CC.
That's what I've done, I was just thinking that the cross check might be better suited to do all things, but the more I think about it I might need both.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg monkey.jpg (56.7 KB, 244 views)
adam12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-07, 07:03 AM   #10
dgossett
Commuter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DC
Bikes:
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rextwelve
BTW, have any other CC riders found that it fits on the big side? I normally ride a 56cm frame, but I ended up with a 54cm and even it feels a bit big.
I've just come back from vacation, and found 3 different threads on cross checks -- yeah! Because I'm picking up mine today!!! (I ordered the complete one, though I'm planning on swapping many things out over time -- I'm going to go to an internal hub, though may not be able to justify the Rohloff...)

But as to size, I'm hoping I ordered right... I'm 5'9, and ride a 54 cm Trek 5200 road bike -- but it feels a bit big. I sat on a 54 cm CC in my LBS, and it was *huge* -- so on their advice, I've ordered a 50 cm CC... We shall see; I was worried that I should have gotten the 52, but given these discussions I'm cautiously optimistic that the 50 cm was the right choice. (And I'm cautiously optimistic that if not my LBS will swap me out for a 52.)
dgossett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-07, 10:53 AM   #11
FRANKIEJ
Senior Member
 
FRANKIEJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus, Indiana
Bikes:
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgossett
I've just come back from vacation, and found 3 different threads on cross checks -- yeah! Because I'm picking up mine today!!! (I ordered the complete one, though I'm planning on swapping many things out over time -- I'm going to go to an internal hub, though may not be able to justify the Rohloff...)

But as to size, I'm hoping I ordered right... I'm 5'9, and ride a 54 cm Trek 5200 road bike -- but it feels a bit big. I sat on a 54 cm CC in my LBS, and it was *huge* -- so on their advice, I've ordered a 50 cm CC... We shall see; I was worried that I should have gotten the 52, but given these discussions I'm cautiously optimistic that the 50 cm was the right choice. (And I'm cautiously optimistic that if not my LBS will swap me out for a 52.)
I think you probably made the correct choice. I bought a 56 cm cross check, because that is what I normally ride, and it is actually too big for me. I am around 5'9", and there is about 3-4" of post showing, and I had to put a 60 mm stem on it to compensate for the long top tube.

One thing I didn't realize until after I got my CC and took it on a couple of rides is that Surly measures from the center of the BB to the top of the TOP tube, not to the top of the seat tube. I conveniently found this info in the owners manual that came with the bike after I measured my 56 frame after using it a couple of times. It measures about 59 cm to the top of the seat tube. I was ready to take it back, thinking that they had ordered the wrong size, but after finding the frame measurement graphic and measuring it as they do, sure enough it's a 56.

If I'd have known this before my purchase, I probalby would have ordered a 52, but I tend to like my bikes a bit on the large size. Just not this large! I have it where it's comfy now, but I wouldn't want to do much off roading with it, on account of the fact that I have zero standover.
FRANKIEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 07:52 AM   #12
dgossett
Commuter
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DC
Bikes:
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKIEJ
I think you probably made the correct choice. I bought a 56 cm cross check, because that is what I normally ride, and it is actually too big for me. I am around 5'9", and there is about 3-4" of post showing, and I had to put a 60 mm stem on it to compensate for the long top tube.
Well, I got it -- the 50cm. So far I'm not 100% sure yet of the size, but the bike shop folks think it is right, and I expect with some playing I'll be convinced, too. My one problem so far has been that with a bike this size the rack they had at the bike shop -- a fairly typical one -- is too small to mount my briefcase pannier (the Arkel) far enough back that I don't have heel-strike issues... But I just ordered an OMM Red Rock, which is 3" longer, and am hoping that will solve the problem... Has anyone else had this problem with a smaller CrossCheck, and if so how did you deal with it? Thanks!
dgossett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 08:50 AM   #13
MrCjolsen
Senior Member
 
MrCjolsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Davis CA
Bikes: Surly Cross-Check, '85 Giant road bike (unrecogizable fixed-gear conversion
Posts: 3,957
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Check out mine

I've used it on a century, and put about 3500 commuter miles on it since last summer. It's gotten me across the Yolo Causeway in searing heat, torrential downpours, and even in the dark. With 28mm tires, I'm as fast on it as I'd be on just about any road bike. Best of all, I'm only one tire change away from being able to ride fire roads on Angel Island. I've never tried, but apparently it will take really fat tires.

And it has horizontal dropouts, so I could make it a fixed gear if I ever so desired. As far as I know, it's the only cross bike made like this.

I wouldn't say that the Crosscheck is the only cross bike for all-purpose, utility use, or the best one for that matter. But the frameset is affordable and all the sizes are standard, so you really can do just about anything to it.
MrCjolsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 09:46 AM   #14
xB_Nutt
Get on your bikes & ride!
 
xB_Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lextown
Bikes: See signature (it varys day to day)
Posts: 1,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you are never going to ride it as mountain bike then I think the Crosscheck is the way to go. However the KM will do it all and allows the use of disc brakes or cantis. Here's how I have had my KM set up (so far)




__________________
Litespeed Classic
Soma Double Cross DC
xB_Nutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 10:13 AM   #15
hubcap
One Man Fast Brick
 
hubcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Bikes: Specialized Langster, Bianchi San Jose, early 90s GT Karakoram, Yuba Mundo, Mercier Nano (mini velo), Nashbar Steel Commuter, KHS Tandemania Sport
Posts: 1,121
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgossett
Well, I got it -- the 50cm. So far I'm not 100% sure yet of the size, but the bike shop folks think it is right, and I expect with some playing I'll be convinced, too. My one problem so far has been that with a bike this size the rack they had at the bike shop -- a fairly typical one -- is too small to mount my briefcase pannier (the Arkel) far enough back that I don't have heel-strike issues... But I just ordered an OMM Red Rock, which is 3" longer, and am hoping that will solve the problem... Has anyone else had this problem with a smaller CrossCheck, and if so how did you deal with it? Thanks!

I had the same problem with my Langster which has very short chain stays (405mm) and solved the heel strike issues the with Red Rock rack. I use the locking tab on my Arkel Bug to push against the support near the back of the rack to keep it from sliding forward. Some people wrap some duct tape around the rack tube that the pannier attaches to just in front of where they want the pannier hooks to sit on the rack to keep it from sliding foward. I imagine that works just as well.
hubcap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 10:28 AM   #16
JeffS
not a role model
 
JeffS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Bikes:
Posts: 4,659
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam12
That's what I've done, I was just thinking that the cross check might be better suited to do all things, but the more I think about it I might need both.
Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to spend more money.
JeffS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 01:45 PM   #17
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKIEJ
I think you probably made the correct choice. I bought a 56 cm cross check, because that is what I normally ride, and it is actually too big for me. I am around 5'9", and there is about 3-4" of post showing, and I had to put a 60 mm stem on it to compensate for the long top tube.

One thing I didn't realize until after I got my CC and took it on a couple of rides is that Surly measures from the center of the BB to the top of the TOP tube, not to the top of the seat tube. I conveniently found this info in the owners manual that came with the bike after I measured my 56 frame after using it a couple of times. It measures about 59 cm to the top of the seat tube. I was ready to take it back, thinking that they had ordered the wrong size, but after finding the frame measurement graphic and measuring it as they do, sure enough it's a 56.

If I'd have known this before my purchase, I probably would have ordered a 52, but I tend to like my bikes a bit on the large size. Just not this large! I have it where it's comfy now, but I wouldn't want to do much off roading with it, on account of the fact that I have zero standover.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I was just about to pull the trigger on a 58 cm LHT frame, but was a bit worried about top tube length (which seemed too long for a 58 cm). Now I'll have to take another look at the sizing and probably go with the 56 instead (I'm 5' 11", with a 34.5" inseam).

No wonder people often say the Surly frames "run large".

Given that the sell a lot of bare frames to enthusiasts, you'd think they would provide the "standard" seat tube measurement (BB to top of seat tube). And to further confuse the issue, they list their seat tube measurements as "ST C-T", which I read as "Seat Tube - Center of Bottom Bracket to
Top of Seat Tube. Unless you look carefully at their diagram, it's not obvious that they're using a non-standard frame sizing.
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 02:00 PM   #18
matthew_deaner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Spencer, IN
Bikes: Trek 5200
Posts: 689
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSP
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

I was just about to pull the trigger on a 58 cm LHT frame, but was a bit worried about top tube length (which seemed too long for a 58 cm). Now I'll have to take another look at the sizing and probably go with the 56 instead (I'm 5' 11", with a 34.5" inseam).

No wonder people often say the Surly frames "run large".

Given that the sell a lot of bare frames to enthusiasts, you'd think they would provide the "standard" seat tube measurement (BB to top of seat tube). And to further confuse the issue, they list their seat tube measurements as "ST C-T", which I read as "Seat Tube - Center of Bottom Bracket to
Top of Seat Tube. Unless you look carefully at their diagram, it's not obvious that they're using a non-standard frame sizing.
I am 6'0" with a 34.3 inseam, and my 58-cm LHT is slightly too big for me, even though my 58-cm Trek 5200 fits perfectly.
I think you'll be happy with the 56-cm.
You'll love the LHT... it's not light, but is tough, versitile, and stable under load. I bought the LHT complete bike and couldn't be happier with it.
matthew_deaner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-07, 07:29 PM   #19
adam12
Cyde
Thread Starter
 
adam12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Liberal, Ks
Bikes: Surly Karate Monkey, Old 94 GT Tequesta, Fetish SAC with Campy components
Posts: 79
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Haha...that's exactly what my wife said. I've decided the KM is suiting my needs right now and if I switch I'll probably end up getting another mountain bike. So I'm just gonna buy a few different parts for the KM, and stick with it. If it's not broken why fix it right.
adam12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-07, 08:23 PM   #20
sbuitend
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKIEJ View Post
I think you probably made the correct choice. I bought a 56 cm cross check, because that is what I normally ride, and it is actually too big for me. I am around 5'9", and there is about 3-4" of post showing, and I had to put a 60 mm stem on it to compensate for the long top tube.

One thing I didn't realize until after I got my CC and took it on a couple of rides is that Surly measures from the center of the BB to the top of the TOP tube, not to the top of the seat tube. I conveniently found this info in the owners manual that came with the bike after I measured my 56 frame after using it a couple of times. It measures about 59 cm to the top of the seat tube. I was ready to take it back, thinking that they had ordered the wrong size, but after finding the frame measurement graphic and measuring it as they do, sure enough it's a 56.

If I'd have known this before my purchase, I probalby would have ordered a 52, but I tend to like my bikes a bit on the large size. Just not this large! I have it where it's comfy now, but I wouldn't want to do much off roading with it, on account of the fact that I have zero standover.
Frankie:

I looked on Surly's website and didn't see any pictures regarding how they measure the seat tube, but that makes sense. I have a 62 cm Trek road bike with pretty straight lines, and my Trek's actual stand over height and top tube length are closer to the Surly Cross Check 60 cm size than the 62 cm. I know based on Trek's website that they measure their bikes from center of bottom bracket to the actual top of the seat tube. Thanks for the info! I'll feel more confident ordering the 60 cm Cross Check instead of the 62 cm (no real LBS stores in the area that could give me better sizing information than I can research on my own).
sbuitend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-07, 10:31 PM   #21
fat_bike_nut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Francisco!
Bikes: 2010 Surly LHT (main rider and do-everything bike), 2011 Bike Friday NWT (back-up bike and multi-modal)
Posts: 909
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rextwelve View Post
BTW, have any other CC riders found that it fits on the big side? I normally ride a 56cm frame, but I ended up with a 54cm and even it feels a bit big.
Really?

I mean, I heard that the Cross-Check (like all Surlys) was sized larger than normal compared to other bikes of their frame sizes. However, I normally roll on 54's, and when I test rode a 54 Complete, it felt perfect (except for that darn cut-too-low steerer tube).

I generally don't look at Seat Tube size much, but I am noticing that a lot of bikes that fit me generally have seat tubes around the same area. I tend to look at Top Tube measurements a lot more, so that it's easier to fit the right size stem on them. And stand-over heights 'cuz I feel uncomfortable with a top tube that pushes up into my nads when I stand-over it
fat_bike_nut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-07, 10:37 PM   #22
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB
Posts: 4,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbuitend View Post
Frankie:

I looked on Surly's website and didn't see any pictures regarding how they measure the seat tube, but that makes sense. I have a 62 cm Trek road bike with pretty straight lines, and my Trek's actual stand over height and top tube length are closer to the Surly Cross Check 60 cm size than the 62 cm. I know based on Trek's website that they measure their bikes from center of bottom bracket to the actual top of the seat tube. Thanks for the info! I'll feel more confident ordering the 60 cm Cross Check instead of the 62 cm (no real LBS stores in the area that could give me better sizing information than I can research on my own).
Spec's for all Surly bikes can be found on this web page:
http://www.surlybikes.com/downloads.html

Spec's for the Cross-Check (including frame size measurements), can be found here:
http://www.surlybikes.com/files/Cross_Check2010.pdf
SSP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-07, 11:31 PM   #23
Jeffbeerman2
Senior Member
 
Jeffbeerman2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wichita KS USA
Bikes: Surly Crosscheck w Nexus 8 drivetrain set up as a commuter/tourer. Old and quick '89 Trek 1200. 08 Fisher Cobia 29er
Posts: 486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A bike that could be built into anything? Cross Check

but...


They each have options the other doesn't. You can get fatter tires and disc brakes on the KM. You can get a rack on the cross check (rear only, and the chainstays are a bit short so you will likely have heel strike issues with many racks/panniers). There are places to mount fenders, but you will tangle your toes+fenders if you ride the fattest tires that will fit on there (I've learned not to pedal when turning sharply).

If you are considering a second bike get the long haul trucker. I think a KM+LHT would be the ideal combo if you are just going to own two bikes, CC is ideal if you can only have one
Jeffbeerman2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-07, 01:27 AM   #24
pj7
On Sabbatical
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 1,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Attack of the necroposting.
this is the 4th thread tonight I've seen brought back from the dead, cool!
pj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-07, 03:05 AM   #25
Schwinnrider
Mirror slap survivor
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sunny Florida
Bikes: Gunnar Sport, Surly Pacer, Access MTB, Ibex Corrida, one day a Simple City
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgossett View Post
I've just come back from vacation, and found 3 different threads on cross checks -- yeah! Because I'm picking up mine today!!! (I ordered the complete one, though I'm planning on swapping many things out over time -- I'm going to go to an internal hub, though may not be able to justify the Rohloff...)

But as to size, I'm hoping I ordered right... I'm 5'9, and ride a 54 cm Trek 5200 road bike -- but it feels a bit big. I sat on a 54 cm CC in my LBS, and it was *huge* -- so on their advice, I've ordered a 50 cm CC... We shall see; I was worried that I should have gotten the 52, but given these discussions I'm cautiously optimistic that the 50 cm was the right choice. (And I'm cautiously optimistic that if not my LBS will swap me out for a 52.)
My height is what kept me from buying a CC. I'm 5'6" so if I size the CC like a road bike I'm on a 52. Combining suitably fat tires and fenders would result in unacceptable(to me) toe overlap. So I ride a Surly Pacer and a Gunnar Sport. The Surly is unfendered with 700x28s, and I have no overlap. The Gunnar has the same tires and fenders and overlap is a bit of an issue. I believe that smaller bikes which are capable of being fendered would benefit from smaller tires. Why more manufacturers don't do this as a matter of course is beyond me.
Schwinnrider 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 06:29 AM.