Cynikal 

I have told sseveral new riders to get a Surly for several reasons, especially if they are just transportation minded and not racing. They are relatively inexpensive and fit larger tires. They are some of the most versitile NEW bikes that someone can buy. Surlys basically mass-produces the bikes that bike shop mechs build for themselves, fun versitile bikes, out of old frames.

sleepy

The days of finding that magical $40 vintage bike no longer exist from the looks at Craigslist and Ebay.
And after going through two broken vintage frames from hard riding puts a hamper on that as well.

Surly's are fine, versatile sturdy bikes. They're freaking heavy, and not go-fast, but they'll always be that practical bike. Some of them have gotten a little pricy, but they do their job well.
I've had my Crosscheck forever, it's been a 'cross bike, a singlespeed, and a flat bar hybrid style. It takes big tires, and I have lugged my kids around it.

They use standard parts, none of this BB## or integrated that.
Good solid bikes.

Andy_K 

For me, this is one of the big things that sets Surlys apart from craigslist finds. Even if you are lucky enough to find an old bike with a good frame at a bargain price, it's likely to have a 1" threaded fork (not that there aren't advantages to that), non-standard rear spacing, maybe an uncommon seat tube size, maybe even an obsolete bottom bracket threading. Plus, you have to do some research to figure out whether the tubing on an old bike is even as good as the generic 4130 that Surly uses. Most (by quantity) of the 70's bike boom bikes weren't that good.

And, as sleepy indicates, this also sets Surlys apart from many new bikes on the market. For most non-racing uses BB30 and the related standards are a major step backward. Internal headsets? I could go either way on these. They're at least not necessary.

Tire clearance is a great thing and Surly has nailed it.

Craptacular8

I frequently see weight touted as one of the big negatives on the Surly's. My own LBS that is a dealer has steered me away from a LHT because "it is a tank." I've seen another poster state that he weighed his LHT frame when it arrived for his build up, and it came in at 7 pounds. Having no point of reference, what pray tell, do most steel bike frames that are lighter and faster weigh in at before all components are added on if you know? I think I'd have to be a heck of a lot better rider before I'd notice something less than a 10 pound difference in the riding...I'd probably notice it when I pick it up to stuff it in the back of my vehicle, but that's about it at this point.

10 Wheels

They good bikes..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXcj03dd-r4

Andy_K 

The LHT is a tank. It's designed to be a tank. As I mentioned earlier, it makes no sense to criticize a mule for not being a race horse.

The LHT frame weighs about 5 pounds and the fork weighs about 2 pounds. As a point of comparison, Soma claims their Saga frameset (also designed for touring) weighs 4.9 pounds while their Double Cross (CX) weighs 4.2 pounds and their Smoothie (road) weighs 4.0 pounds -- all for a selected size. In short, the LHT weighs about the same as other steel touring bikes and about a pound more than other basic steel road and cyclocross bikes. I've got a Reynolds 853 steel road bike that weighs about 3.4 pounds. That's getting into the high end range. Throw in a carbon fork and you might save two and a half pounds in frameset weight.

Apart from the frame weight, the LHT (if you get the complete build) is also built up with components that are appropriate for touring, which is to say durability is favored over weight. The weight in a heavy bike is always distributed all over the bike. My LHT, built with components I chose rather than the stock build, weighs about 35 pounds with rack and fenders before I even start loading it up. My LeMond Buenos Aires road bike (with the Reynolds 853 steel frame mentioned above) weighs about 20 pounds (no rack and fenders on this one). I can't even begin to tell you how different it feels to ride these two bikes.

While less than 10 pounds isn't going to make a difference in the time it takes to get where you are going, you can definitely feel the difference. A lighter bike handles differently and responds differently when you start pedaling.

That said, I wouldn't steer clear of a Surly because of its weight. I might steer clear of a touring bike if touring were not my purpose, but that's a different story. Apart from the weight, a touring bike is designed to be ridden (relatively) slow and steady while carrying a heavy load. If you aren't going to be doing that, the bike will be fighting you in ways it doesn't need to.

Ask your LBS if they think you should consider a Pacer or a Cross Check. If they say those are tanks too, I'd take their advice with a grain of salt. The Pacer and Cross Check are maybe a pound or two heavier than similar bikes with similar components, but they have utility features that generally make up for that for most purposes. They aren't built like tanks in quite the way that an LHT is.

sleepy

I've been eyeing the Pacer lately. Nice decently priced traditional road bike. Not too many of those around these days.

If I didn't have the Crosscheck, the Straggle would've been on the must have list. Looks like fun times.

IthaDan 

QBP shop vendor coverage. PBR swilling party brand image on weekends, but serious during the week. Bombproof, though not the lightest by a long stretch, frames. Fat/29+ tires. Cheapeat point of entey to wild and weird tires schemes. Braze-ons for anything you can conceive of. Very comfortable geometry.

Jeez, I just dont know why.

If I had to limit myself to one bike, it'd probably be a crosscheck. Or a krampus.

Andy_K 

...except a rear brake hanger on the Cross Check!

79pmooney

My 1974 Raleigh Carlton International has missing braze on a minor extra and very sloppy brazing on some of the lugs. (A Friday afternoon bike?) I have had fail: A UO-8 chianstay JRA (just riding along), a Fuji Pro seatstay (that run of bikes had that issue; broke the first year and I received a gorgeous replacement frame) and a fork blade broke midway up on a Sekine of unknown history (JRA). Having that fork blade break on a gravel grinder going down a steep washboard stretch would be BP raising at the very least. My Raleigh Carlton is a superb gravel bike (great ride from a different era and takes huge tires) but I have going to have a framebuilder inspect it, strip the paint, inspect it again and document it completely (geometry and tubing thicknesses) before I do serious gravel with it.

I lost years of me life to a frame failure -that one is off topic here - and know all too well what the consequences can be.

Ben

Henry III

Their not racing bikes and they work. While working in a shop I saw alot of mechanics that rode and liked Surly. One guy in the shop rode nothing but Surly but also remember we get them at cost so most Surly frame and forks are under 300. Also a good portion of mechanics use their bikes as their only mode of transportation so that also says something about the brand and their reliability. I actually have my eye on their new 650b straggler as it checks all my needs.

I see Surly as Chevy and Salsa as Cadillac for QBP brands. They both offer similar bikes but Salsa offers their frames in Ti and Carbon instead of just steel which isn't a bad thing if you don't need it. Not sure I ever viewed Surly as a hip brand but more a no frills gets the job done type of brand. Bland paint and Tig welded high end steel frame don't scream out oooh aaaah.

Henry III

If your riding a bike that was never intended to be ridden aggressively then you get what you deserve. It doesn't matter how old the frame is. A frame builder is only going to be able tell you what they can see on the outside even if it's stripped. Please everyone stop riding old bike except to the dumpster to dispose of these rolling death traps.

Now buying a second hand carbon bike I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole...let alone a new carbon frame for that matter. You sound like most newer mechanics who see any bike ten years or older as heaps and not worth the metal their made from. Them tell the customer the work needed to get their bike they've had for years isn't worth the labor and parts and for the price of everything they could just buy a new bike they have on the floor or could order.

79pmooney

Huh? I do have two bikes that are newer than 10 years old (only because they are custom bikes that could never have been found used), but I also have bikes 36 and 32 years old. I trust both of those virtually anywhere. Though the 32 yo bike has seen a frame repair, cracked seatstay cap; very common on older Treks and a straightforward repair.

And that Carlton was built as a club bike for the roads of the early '70s in England. Gravel grinding isn't far from what it was designed for.

Ben

ThermionicScott 

Your "poor quality" examples are actually the best-suited to survive that kind of abuse. It's not surprising that you couldn't break an 80's BMX or EF Schwinn since the tubing was so amazingly thick.

corwin1968

As an added nod to Surly's versatility, they still offer canti mounts on their Ogre 29'er and Troll 26'er. That's huge for people like me who have no need for disk brakes.

Hypno Toad

Have you ridden a Surly? I'm guessing not...
I have one Surly, the Pugsley. My family has four Q brand bikes, but I live in Minneapolis; we are ruled by all Q bikes.

Surly had been bringing bikes to market that no other company is making. For example, the Pugsley was the first mass produced fatbike, now every bike brand has a fatbike.

I'll use my my good friend Jon and his LHT as an example of why a biker would love a Surly. He rides for transportation, he rides 1,000s of miles per year, he rides year-round. For winter, he adds studded tires. No rust, none. The bike is bomb-proof and for Jon, that's what he wants and needs since he lives car-light (one car for a family of four). The LHT is the only bike he's bought complete and new, after buying it, he sold all other bikes (expect the classic 3-speed). Jon never races, but has done gravel centuries with the LHT. & pretty is, as pretty does.

You don't want one, don't buy one. Cool? Cool.

jtbadge

That's pretty much all there is to it. People are going to like what they like.

Me? I dig Surlys. I have never ridden one without having a huge grin on my face.

dgodave

One thing I dont like about Surly is the name. Who wants to promote being a jerk?

And the logo sucks too.

nick779

Inexpensive to produce or inexpensive to buy?

Most Surly's in my LBS are over a grand IIRC

Craptacular8

Thanks Andy_K for the response. Very good information.

flargle

https://aussiememes.com.au/media/crea...ND-DOLLARS.jpg

flargle

Here's an excellent interview covering the history of the brand which answers a lot of people's questions and points.

Phoresia.org » interviews phoresia.org social responsibility » Surly Bicycles: the Andy Corson Interview

justin1138

No idea how they're produced, but I would think at this point Surly has their production game down. The only thing that changes on their frames is the paint.

Yes, inexpensive to purchase. You're not going to find a lot of new, ready to go, dependable steel bikes with rock solid parts and the kind of versatility a Surly is known for at their price points. Don't get me wrong, I think $1000 is a lot of money and if I had that to spend it certainly wouldn't be on a Surly. No disrespect to the brand or anything, but their appeal went away for me a long time ago. And I already have a vintage steel death trap of uknown origin that the LHT basically mimics.



ahaha!

sleepy

I recommend listening to Circle Jerks "Group Sex" and Angry Samoans "Inside My Brain" nonstop for a week.

Mr IGH

Here's an exciting failure on a vintage English bike:
The Smut Pedaller: Braking... Bad: Part 1