phughes

I said nothing about the way they rode, nor did I insult you. I just offered a clarification of the facts, that is all. It is basic physics and math. However, if the OP wants a new bike, then who cares. Sometimes that is all that matters.

Barchettaman

Motobecane Fantom Cross Titanium? Bikesdirect.com

tjspiel

On a car or on a full suspension bike you are correct. On rigid framed bike not so much. Basically imperfections in the road surface slow the bike down and additional weight contributes to that effect. However, the weight of the suspended portion of a bike (or other vehicle) doesn't have the same impact as the weight of the unsuspended part. On a rigid framed bike, the frame (along with pretty much everything attached to it) is on the unsuspended or unsprung part of the bike.

The tires act as limited suspension which is why sometimes wider, higher volume tires can be faster depending on road conditions. More importantly your legs, waist, and arms also act as a suspension since they flex. Depends on how you ride and the geometry of the bike though. For that reason a good portion of the weight of your body can be "sprung weight" and therefore doesn't slow the bike down as much as the same weight on the frame would.

It's easy to feel this effect by going over railroad tracks or any other rough surface. If you make yourself "light" by getting off the saddle and keeping your arms and legs bent (and allowing them to flex), your bike will travel more smoothly and faster over the tracks than if you sit on the saddle with your arms locked. Not getting "light" while traveling over a pothole could be enough to bring your bike to a complete stop or cause a flat.

Wheels can make a big difference but the just like overall bike weight the performance benefits of lighter wheels is often overstated.

Don't get me wrong. While I think it's possible to get a similar bike that's a few pounds lighter than the crosscheck, I don't think that's going to translate into a significantly faster commute. It might be a bike that's more responsive and fun to ride though depending on what you like.

RubeRad

Wow, that's a big budget!!

Not sure if this is really all that much like a CrossCheck, but maybe take a look at Volagi Viaje.

It's steel, it has disc brakes, it is lighter than CrossCheck (XL CroMo frame ~ 2400g, can be built sub 20lb, if you really want light go for the SL frame, but that might blow your budget), it has tire clearance up to 42mm, rack and fender mounts. Really, I think it's a Rando bike, not a Cyclocross bike.

$1595 for the XL frameset, play around with their builder, lower-end buildup with 105, BB7 and their 'cheap' 32H wheels comes out at $2645. Plenty of dough left to send me a finder's fee of $100, or upgrade from there, maybe you have your own wheelset, etc.

Best of all, it's beautiful.

Here's a review of commuting with a Viaje.

dvald001

+1 on the Soma DC. My Soma is 25 lbs right now but is still capable of touring and off-road riding with a nice front rack, fat tires, and low gearing. It was originally 32lbs with all the commuting gear but lost a lot of weight when I changed to a tubeless wheel set, started using lighter and more supple tires, and switched to a carbon fork. I was looking at ways to lose more weight off the bike but I really can't without severely detracting from its abilitiess or spending obscene amounts of money.

phughes

Your body IS "sprung" weight as you term it, as is the frame. Unsprung weight is the wheels. Yes, a rigid bike doesn't have suspension, but losing weight on the wheels still give more payoff than losing weight on another part of the bike because you are losing rotational mass, which affects acceleration and lessens the gyroscopic affect making it feel lighter when cornering. It is easier to flick from side to side. Your body and the bike has a total weight, all of it affects your perpormance. If you want to lose weight to improve handling/performance, other than the wheels, then a pound of weight lose is a small percentage of the overall weight, so there is a small effect on performance.

tjspiel

"The "sprung" weight is the weight of the part of the vehicle and its payload which is held up by the springs. In the case of a suspension-equipped bicycle, the sprung weight includes most of the frame, and the rider. In the case of a rigid-frame bicycle, the "sprung" weight consists of the rider's trunk and head while the rider is off the saddle, carrying his or her weight on bent knees/elbows." - Sheldon Brown

So the frame is part of the "sprung" weight only on a full suspension bike. Otherwise it's unsprung. In the latter case of a rigid framed bike, losing a pound of weight off your gut doesn't help as much as losing a pound of weight off your frame and components.

How much of a difference does it make? I don't really know. I've used seven different bikes for my commute over the years and at least a few of those bikes saw some radical equipment and tire changes. For awhile I was doing some semi-serious time comparisons between different tires on the same bike or just different bikes. The bike I've been riding recently is a fixed gear conversion and probably lost a good 3 or 4 lbs. not only in stuff I took off, but in stuff I replaced like wheels, handlebars/stem, and seat post. It feels radically different, - not just because it's a fixed gear, but also because of the weight loss.

Do I get to work any faster on it? Probably not but I enjoy riding it more in this incarnation, - now. And the "now" is a key point because when I first put it together, I used whatever parts I had lying around and the fit was not great. A handlebar swap, along with a new seat post/saddle and a decent front tire has made all the difference.

So my advice is heavy or light, just make sure it fits and has decent tires.

iluvnoise

Two more bikes to consider:
https://www.planet-x-bikes.co.uk/i/q/...frame_and_fork
https://www.singularcycles.com/shop/i...peregrine.html

I own the Singular and love it. It's great as a commuter and all-day rider. Not the quickest bike in the world but fast enough and very comfortable.

Andy_K 

If this has been asked/answered I didn't see it. What are the characteristics on the Cross Check that you like?

fietsbob

There are even liter steel tube-sets to have a Frame built out of .. full Custom ..

brbbiking

I like the wide tire clearance, fender and rack mounting holes, comfort, and looks

I guess I'm looking mostly for frame suggestions. I can build up the rest..

Thanks!

brbbiking

Also, probably can't do custom, as I need to order through a bike shop which I have credit with

Andy_K 

Having "looks" in this list probably rules out most aluminum and carbon CX bikes. In that case, I'd have to say that the Double Cross is a good option, though I personally don't like having the canti studs on the frame when they won't be used. The Habanero looks very nice.

RubeRad

Oh, well then my suggestion is quite simple: Volagi Viaje XL, $1595.

phughes

I am aware of the difference between a bike with suspension and one without as it relates to sprung or unsprung weight. The point remains the same, a pound of difference in bike weight is a minor percentage of the overall body/bike weight so it will make a minor difference, unless it is from the wheels. Yes, I know, on a bike with no suspension there is no "unsprung" weight, but there is rotational mass, which acts as a gyroscope, when there is less mass, it feels lighter, you can change direction quicker and easier because a gyroscope resists a change in the orientation of its spin axis. When the wheel is lighter, it has less gyroscopic action and therefore it is easier to overcome making it feel lighter with respect to steering. It also acts as a flywheel. A flywheel resists changes in rotational speed, this means it will take more energy to accelerate with heavier wheels, but they will coast well. A lighter wheel allows you to accelerate quickly, making your bike feel lighter.

This is why losing wheel weight has a greater effect that losing the same amount of weight elsewhere. I suspect fit and wheel weight is why your bike feels radically different.

The only reason I posted anything on this thread is to steer the OP in a direction that would give them what they were looking for, a bike that feels more responsive and quicker. As others have said, I believe geometry and frame stiffness would better achieve that. Simply losing weight won't unless it is from the rims, or is a drastic, and three pounds isn't drastic enough to make the same difference lighter wheels will make. I often lose 5-10 pounds off my bike, by removing things from my bags, and I really don't notice much difference in the way it accelerates. The load is placed well though so I really don't feel it much when I ride. Of course when I strap the propane tank to the top of the rack and also load up with groceries it handles differently, but still the acceleration isn't that much different. Wind resistance affects me as much or more than any added weight does.


You advice is probably the best out there, make sure it fits and has good tires. Ride safe.

chaadster

What the OP said they wanted, twice, in fact, was a lighter bike (see posts 1 and 7), disc brake equipped, with a full complement of braze-ons. I don't see where the OP said anything about responsiveness or quickness.

phughes

Okay, off topic. He wanted a lighter bike for purposes of carrying. But you are correct, the OP said nothing about responsiveness or quickness. Those things were assumed by me.

I often envy my wife's bike since it is much lighter than mine, but usually that is when I am lifting it to the bike rack. lol

modernjess

As a long time cross check rider for my commute I would like to add my $.02 of experience FWIW.

It is a very comfortable daily rider that is versatile in set ups and strong enough to do most anything. I do love that bike. BUT I would argue that for me the weight is not an issue in terms of responsiveness or speed it is the frame flex. What makes the cross check comfortable is the steel, but the flex in the bottom bracket and rear stays is an huge energy suck far more significant than the weight of the bike. It's a noodle, and it's a trade off for sure. Truth be told I would like a titanium version of the CC with all the versatility features and disc brakes. It would have tubes shaped and spec'd to allow for a comfortable rider and a stiff power transfer. That would be my ultimate set up, of course YMMV.

I think the easiest way to achieve that combination of performance can achieved with carbon fiber because of the infinite ways the frame can be designed using the material. My Ridley road bike is a perfect example, It's just as plush as my CC but is ridiculously stiff and fast. With that said, it is not at all versatile, it's a road race bike, and it would not be a material I would want to use as a daily year round commuter.

phughes

I agree completely, it is the same with the LHT. I love my LHT but it flexes. It is very stable with heavy loads and is comfortable, that is why I bought it, but the bottom bracket and stays flex as you say. My old steel mountain bike does the same. This is why I have been suggesting looking at frame material and construction more than weight alone.

I was also considering a Cannondale touring bike when I got my LHT. I loved them, they were stiff but still rode nicely. There were none available locally when I was looking and I definitely liked the LHT. It is a shame they stopped producing the Cannondale touring bikes.

brbbiking

Ahh, yes, that's a good point. Titanium CC would be pretty sweet

chaadster

I just don't understand how a bike can be flexible (esp. at the BB and stays) yet be "very stable with heavy loads". Those things seem to be, per force, at odds.

I'm also confused by your statement about "looking at frame material and construction more than weight alone," both for the fact I don't understand it's relevance to the discussion, and for the fact that I cannot see how a diamond frame, TIG welded steel frame could not be constructed to meet any demand, whether for light weight, stiffness, durability, speed or whatever. It seems to me that some of the most sought after road bikes, touring bikes, mountain bikes, or really any kind of bike, are TIGed steel. I might have balked to say TT bikes, but then I remember someone like the British National TT champ Andy Wilkinson's rides steel and, well, I'm left at a loss trying to understand what you're getting at.

phughes

The bottom bracket flexes, just as so many bottom brackets on steel bikes like the CrossCheck and LHT. The LHT is very stable loaded. And I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to someone else's post who specifically posted about power transfer and bottom bracket flex on the CrossCheck. I was making not point for your benefit, nor would I expect you to understand.

chaadster

So, it's a "noodle" yet "very stable under heavy loads"? You're gonna go with that, huh? Okaaaay...good to know. Dodging the material/construction question is definitely a good call in that case!

phughes

Who said it is a noodle? And what is wrong with you? if you don't have anything to contribute, go away.

markg

You really should realize that those 2 things are NOT mutually exclusive. "Very stable under heavy loads" is as much overall geometry as anything else. The "noodle" feel comes from the shape, size and material properties of the individual components, especially in the area of the bottom bracket.