Originally Posted by
rschreck
When I look at complete Surly bikes, it seems like I am paying a lot of money for mediocre parts and a good frame. An example could be the Surly LHT vs the Trek 520 vs the Salsa Fargo 3. In comparison, the Fargo 3 and Trek 520 come with better parts. I understand you are getting a great frame with the LHT, but it seems to me that the 520 or F3 would last longer before I have to replace parts.
Opinions?
I bought a LHT in 2008, and I'm still riding it every day, about 80-100 mi/week, sometimes quite a bit more when I'm touring. It is without a doubt the highest quality bike I've ever owned. It's a bicycle version of a Volvo: not flashy, certainly not high performance, but very trustworthy and durable. It came with a Tiagra FD, XT hubs, and a Deore XT RD. These weren't absolute top of the line components, but they were respectable, and they've held up incredibly well. The derailleurs still function quite well to this day, and, several chains later, I've only recently, after four years, replaced the chain ring and cassette. The original rims didn't last long, but given the wet, hilly environment in which I ride, rims are pretty much a disposable commodity anyway. The saddle that came with the bike was appalling, but that's probably true for any bike you get.
In short, yes, I think Surly is worth the money, if you want high-quality steel frames with decent components.