Heavy Surly Crosscheck
07-12-15, 04:31 PM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Middle Earth (aka IA)
Posts: 20,439
Bikes: A bunch of old bikes and a few new ones
Mentioned: 178 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5892 Post(s)
Liked 3,477 Times
in
2,081 Posts
Tough to beat the surly for an all around bike. I'd keep it and start looking for a road bike to ride with your fast friends. Racing bikes are not hard to find on craigslist.
07-12-15, 06:01 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Posts: 1,218
Bikes: Breezer Uptown 8, Jamis Renegade Expert
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
We're saying the same thing, but using different meanings of the word stage.
Yes, Onoda did beat Imaizumi to the top of Minegayama to claim the polka-dot jersey, and he abandoned the race there too. Imaizumi went on to win the race by out-sprinting Naruko. -- Episode 9 of the first season of the anime, Full Power vs Full Power. I don't recall which chapter of the manga.
The problem is in nomenclature and translation. These days, a stage race's stages are the full day's race in a multi-day race. A mountain stage is a day's race through the mountains. It is not a single climb in a day's race that starts and ends in the flats. YP loses the definition there.
There is the possibility that in Japan, they do use the word stage to refer to a portion of a race--my Japanese isn't good enough yet to research this.
It happens with borrowed words. We've narrowed the use of the borrowed word anime to refer only to the one specific style of animation, whereas the original term in Japanese refers to all types of animation in general. The Japanese may have narrowed their use of the borrowed word stage to mean a portion of a day's race, rather than one day in a multi-day race.
So while you were using stage in the context that YP uses it, I was using stage in the context of the UCI. Either way, we're both saying Onoda took the KOM, but Imaizumi won the day.
Yes, Onoda did beat Imaizumi to the top of Minegayama to claim the polka-dot jersey, and he abandoned the race there too. Imaizumi went on to win the race by out-sprinting Naruko. -- Episode 9 of the first season of the anime, Full Power vs Full Power. I don't recall which chapter of the manga.
The problem is in nomenclature and translation. These days, a stage race's stages are the full day's race in a multi-day race. A mountain stage is a day's race through the mountains. It is not a single climb in a day's race that starts and ends in the flats. YP loses the definition there.
There is the possibility that in Japan, they do use the word stage to refer to a portion of a race--my Japanese isn't good enough yet to research this.
It happens with borrowed words. We've narrowed the use of the borrowed word anime to refer only to the one specific style of animation, whereas the original term in Japanese refers to all types of animation in general. The Japanese may have narrowed their use of the borrowed word stage to mean a portion of a day's race, rather than one day in a multi-day race.
So while you were using stage in the context that YP uses it, I was using stage in the context of the UCI. Either way, we're both saying Onoda took the KOM, but Imaizumi won the day.
Later on during the 1000 km training camp even though there's no official recognition or other reward, you see the five boys sprinting hard for the finish line, with Naruko edging Imaizumi.
The beginning of Ep. 8 is where we see a recap of the choice that Onoda makes: 1. Finish the entire Welcome Race but in 3rd place. 2. Take the peak but drop out afterwards. When he decides on #2 , he's told to raise his cadence by 30 rpm, which would use up all his remaining stamina but allow him to pass Imaizumi.
Also, in Ep. 8, Imaizumi wonders if the switch from mommy bike to road bike is what allowed Onoda to catch up with him and Naruko, but then realizes that Onoda's improved pedaling, not the road bike, is the reason.
Last edited by GovernorSilver; 07-12-15 at 07:25 PM.
07-13-15, 03:42 AM
#28
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vegemite Island
Posts: 4,130
Bikes: 2017 Surly Troll with XT Drive Train, 2017 Merida Big Nine XT Edition, 2016 Giant Toughroad SLR 2, 1995 Trek 830
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1916 Post(s)
Liked 312 Times
in
220 Posts
Hey all -
I have been the proud owner of a 2012 Surly Cross Check that I have been using for commuting and light touring for the last couple of years. I really love the bike for picking up groceries, running errands, and everyday commuting. However, recently, I have started doing some weekend rides with a bunch of friends who have some decent road bikes. I have never been a road biker, but I really enjoy the rides. The issue here, is that my cross check weighs 31 lbs. It is currently stock, with an upgrade to a triple chain ring (for touring), a rear rack, brooks saddle, and some super heavy marathon plus tires.
I truly love the bike, but am not afraid to say that the weight does hold me back a little on these rides. The way I see it, I have two options. Either slim down the Surly, or add to my bike collection and eventually give the Surly to a family member or sell it. Anybody have any suggestions. I went and checked out the Trek Crossrip and Trek FX today. I had an FX a while back and liked it before going to the Surly, however I am not sure I can go back to a flat bar. The only cross-rip they had was too big for me, but the bike also felt very weird. Very different from the Trek FX (despite the different bars). Also, I'm really not sure how much I can shave off the surly, i think the frame is meant to be a tank...
So all of that said, looking for suggestions on whether to slim down my Surly (which I'm currently doubtful of), or if any other bikes meet my criteria. I really don't want a racey road bike. I guess I'm looking for a semi-light road/commuter, preferably drop bars, that can have a rear rack attached.
Thanks!
I have been the proud owner of a 2012 Surly Cross Check that I have been using for commuting and light touring for the last couple of years. I really love the bike for picking up groceries, running errands, and everyday commuting. However, recently, I have started doing some weekend rides with a bunch of friends who have some decent road bikes. I have never been a road biker, but I really enjoy the rides. The issue here, is that my cross check weighs 31 lbs. It is currently stock, with an upgrade to a triple chain ring (for touring), a rear rack, brooks saddle, and some super heavy marathon plus tires.
I truly love the bike, but am not afraid to say that the weight does hold me back a little on these rides. The way I see it, I have two options. Either slim down the Surly, or add to my bike collection and eventually give the Surly to a family member or sell it. Anybody have any suggestions. I went and checked out the Trek Crossrip and Trek FX today. I had an FX a while back and liked it before going to the Surly, however I am not sure I can go back to a flat bar. The only cross-rip they had was too big for me, but the bike also felt very weird. Very different from the Trek FX (despite the different bars). Also, I'm really not sure how much I can shave off the surly, i think the frame is meant to be a tank...
So all of that said, looking for suggestions on whether to slim down my Surly (which I'm currently doubtful of), or if any other bikes meet my criteria. I really don't want a racey road bike. I guess I'm looking for a semi-light road/commuter, preferably drop bars, that can have a rear rack attached.
Thanks!
07-13-15, 06:02 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
I'd argue that for a lot of people shaving the weight off the bike is quicker, easier, and cheaper. The cycling industry in the US makes about $6 billion worth of sales annually. The weight loss industry? $60 billion.
I'm not advocating that people that could lose a few pounds shouldn't try, just saying that you can always work on losing weight AND get a lighter bike.
Last edited by tjspiel; 07-13-15 at 08:02 AM.
07-13-15, 06:16 AM
#30
Bike rider
I have a 53 lb surly cross check loaded with food,water and tools. I ride it everyday and the extra weight will make my legs stronger.
07-13-15, 10:14 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094
Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you want to find out how much weight makes a difference, take a look at bike calculator.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
07-13-15, 10:15 AM
#32
GATC
07-13-15, 10:52 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 5,981
Bikes: 2015 Charge Plug, 2007 Dahon Boardwalk, 1997 Nishiki Blazer, 1984 Nishiki International, 2006 Felt F65, 1989 Dahon Getaway V
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1364 Post(s)
Liked 1,686 Times
in
830 Posts
07-13-15, 11:28 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094
Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1131 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
07-13-15, 11:34 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
).So I say to the OP: get a lighter bike if you want one and consider an upper-end aluminum one or even a low-end carbon bike!
07-13-15, 11:37 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
If you want to find out how much weight makes a difference, take a look at bike calculator.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
A surly crosscheck configured identically to my A commuter would weigh ~7 lbs more. I definitely notice 7 lbs of additional weight when I climb. (It's not just about speed.)
07-13-15, 12:04 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington DC Metro Area
Posts: 1,218
Bikes: Breezer Uptown 8, Jamis Renegade Expert
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Well I'm a veteran rider who has over the years gravitated towards lighter bikes. For example, both my commuters weigh less than 20lbs and they are wonderfully utilitarian bikes. They do anything the crosscheck can do so at a huge weight savings (not so much cost ).
So I say to the OP: get a lighter bike if you want one and consider an upper-end aluminum one or even a low-end carbon bike!
).So I say to the OP: get a lighter bike if you want one and consider an upper-end aluminum one or even a low-end carbon bike!
Last edited by GovernorSilver; 07-13-15 at 12:08 PM.
07-13-15, 12:50 PM
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 157
Bikes: They have two wheels!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 16 Times
in
7 Posts
The suggestions of lighter, suppler tires are those to which I gravitate. Try that first. Some light, soft 28mm tires will transform the way your bike feels. Maybe swap the rack to a lightweight jobber like a minimal axiom or tubus option. If the bike feels lighter it might make all the difference.
07-13-15, 01:07 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
If you want to find out how much weight makes a difference, take a look at bike calculator.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
For the same amount of effort on my 16.8 mile round trip, there's a difference of approximately 3 minutes between the 2. So in reality, the greater convenience and significantly less maintenance of the Dutch bike means I dedicate less overall time and effort to commuting with it. That said, I still enjoy fair weather commuting on my road bike too, so it's not a big deal.
When you get down to it, personal preference is far more important then anything more quantifiable, and will always call for some compromises.
Last edited by kickstart; 07-13-15 at 01:18 PM.
07-13-15, 05:26 PM
#40
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vegemite Island
Posts: 4,130
Bikes: 2017 Surly Troll with XT Drive Train, 2017 Merida Big Nine XT Edition, 2016 Giant Toughroad SLR 2, 1995 Trek 830
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1916 Post(s)
Liked 312 Times
in
220 Posts
If you want to find out how much weight makes a difference, take a look at bike calculator.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
Bike Calculator
Hint, it's not that much unless you're doing multiple hour rides very quickly.
But thank you for this thread. I was debating buying a cross check as a commuter. Considering the overwhelming positive attitude toward Surlys here, I think I'll go with it.
Yet they are probably 1-2lbs heavier than a titanium frame that most people would say was "light".
At times it is all very confusing to a noob like myself.
07-13-15, 06:56 PM
#41
Senior Member
1-2 lbs is a very substantial difference between frames. And reducing the appeal of lighter weight to speed is missing the point.
07-13-15, 08:43 PM
#42
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vegemite Island
Posts: 4,130
Bikes: 2017 Surly Troll with XT Drive Train, 2017 Merida Big Nine XT Edition, 2016 Giant Toughroad SLR 2, 1995 Trek 830
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1916 Post(s)
Liked 312 Times
in
220 Posts
How much from the frame?
How much from the fork?
How much from wherever else?
07-13-15, 08:44 PM
#43
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vegemite Island
Posts: 4,130
Bikes: 2017 Surly Troll with XT Drive Train, 2017 Merida Big Nine XT Edition, 2016 Giant Toughroad SLR 2, 1995 Trek 830
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1916 Post(s)
Liked 312 Times
in
220 Posts
I'm genuinely seeking to build up my biking knowledge, so what other things are you referring to besides the weight aspect of the lighter frame?
07-13-15, 10:22 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 119
Bikes: 2017 Giant Trance 2, 2016 SOMA Wolverine, 2015 Diamondback Haanjo Comp
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I also suggest trying new tires, and maybe removing the rack before going on group rides. Point of reference - my adventure/exploration bike (2014 DB Haanjo Comp, with 40c Happy Medium tires) weighs about 3 pounds less than my roadish/commuter bike (2014 Novara Zealo, with 25c Conti Grand Race tires). I am sooo much faster on smooth pavement on the Novara than I am the Haanjo, and they have almost identical gearing and comparable stock wheelsets. I chalk it up to the lower rolling resistance of a smaller, lighter, smoother tire. I remember taking the Schwalbe Marathons off the Novara and feeling like I awoke the beast in that bike - it was literally a night and day difference. Find some good tires and try it out - you will notice a HUGE difference.
07-13-15, 10:57 PM
#45
GATC
As I have said I have a 32# crosscheck and when I wanted to lighten up I got a 22# steel roadbike which, when commuter-ized, wound up at about 28#, and felt a lot better than the CC (both during and after rides) but didn't really change speeds (maybe 3 minutes over an hour, maybe not). Not too different from the CC in some reductionist measures, but definitely better (during weather conditions that suit it). However, I have also added a <16# CF roadbike, have not commuter-ized it in the tiniest (no saddle bag, all spares in backpack w/ rest of commuter gear) and I got to say that is another freaking world. Again, during weather conditions that suit it. I go from ~14mph average (this is an actual average according to my phone, not the 16-20mph staring at me on a computer during the flat straight parts) to >18mph average, and I do it over longer distances with less post-ride sense of anything having happened. If you think you can ride faster, a nicer bike can definitely help you do it.
07-13-15, 11:03 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
I suppose too that it depends on what you call a fast group ride.
I've never been on any group ride of any sort that didn't have to stop at intersections and such. All but the slowest riders in my club can catch up at a stop sign waiting to cross a state highway. I'm in New York State, after all, and there's a lot of traffic even in "rural" areas. Plus, cycling three miles without a stop sign is cause for celebration. (And it explains why I find the MUP such an attraction that I commute on it daily. There's a five-mile stretch with no stops.)
In any event, I've never been on any group ride of any sort that didn't stop at least once an hour to regroup, snack, or have a pee.
In those circumstances, three minutes per hour isn't a hill of beans--or even a small pile. It's 5%, or the difference between a 20MPH average and a 19MPH average.
Put another way, 5% is the approximate difference between each of the gears on my cassette, in the 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19 range (I ride a ten-speed 12-23.) One shift. Not a huge difference.
Maybe I just ride with the "wrong" groups. Or have the wrong idea of what constitutes a huge difference in speed.
I still maintain that if you put Chris Froome on my bike, yes, he'd lose the jersey, but he'd still make the time cut. Me? I'd never even make the time cut on his bike.
I've never been on any group ride of any sort that didn't have to stop at intersections and such. All but the slowest riders in my club can catch up at a stop sign waiting to cross a state highway. I'm in New York State, after all, and there's a lot of traffic even in "rural" areas. Plus, cycling three miles without a stop sign is cause for celebration. (And it explains why I find the MUP such an attraction that I commute on it daily. There's a five-mile stretch with no stops.)
In any event, I've never been on any group ride of any sort that didn't stop at least once an hour to regroup, snack, or have a pee.
In those circumstances, three minutes per hour isn't a hill of beans--or even a small pile. It's 5%, or the difference between a 20MPH average and a 19MPH average.
Put another way, 5% is the approximate difference between each of the gears on my cassette, in the 12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19 range (I ride a ten-speed 12-23.) One shift. Not a huge difference.
Maybe I just ride with the "wrong" groups. Or have the wrong idea of what constitutes a huge difference in speed.
I still maintain that if you put Chris Froome on my bike, yes, he'd lose the jersey, but he'd still make the time cut. Me? I'd never even make the time cut on his bike.
On some rides with technically the same group, I've been that guy, or one of those guys. I deliberately chose to ride with a group that would really push me. On other days I can easily keep up. It all depends who shows up and how I'm feeling.
There's more than one day where I'd have really loved to be able to add 1 mph to my average speed without having to work any harder. To me that's a pretty significant difference in that context even though it's not at all significant while commuting. On a 40 mile group ride, someone averaging 20 mph vs 19 will be two miles ahead when they finish. They're going to be enjoying their waffles before I even get back to the shop.
I do agree that you're not going to jump from a B rider to an A rider by going from a Cross Check to a performance road bike. But if you're a marginal A/B rider with a Crosscheck on a hilly route, you might fit a little more comfortably into the A/B category with a lighter bike.
Last edited by tjspiel; 07-13-15 at 11:26 PM.
07-13-15, 11:04 PM
#47
GATC
I got comfortable with the kind of bike that would fit me and bought my frame 2nd-hand on ebay, so dollar-wise I still don't know if I was penny-wise/pound-foolish.
Obviously 5# of frame difference doesn't get a 32# bike down to 16, but it is harder to spring for 13# of everything else for an 8+# frameset vs a ~3# one.
07-13-15, 11:15 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,230
Bikes: 2007 Giant Cypress DX, Windsor Tourist 2011
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Before you do anything else, try changing the tires. Marathons are great for touring and commuting, but I find them to be very slow. As in up to 2 mph slower for the same effort as high tpi supple road tire. Maybe something in 28mm would be good for that Cross Check.
07-14-15, 07:55 AM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
Light Ti frames are definitely still heavy compared to modern CF, I am looking at 3# for frame+fork+headset for my CF bike. That is less than a Ti frame (never mind fork and headset). My crosscheck actually measured ~8# before I cut the steer tube down (and before I added a headset).
I got comfortable with the kind of bike that would fit me and bought my frame 2nd-hand on ebay, so dollar-wise I still don't know if I was penny-wise/pound-foolish.
Obviously 5# of frame difference doesn't get a 32# bike down to 16, but it is harder to spring for 13# of everything else for an 8+# frameset vs a ~3# one.
I got comfortable with the kind of bike that would fit me and bought my frame 2nd-hand on ebay, so dollar-wise I still don't know if I was penny-wise/pound-foolish.
Obviously 5# of frame difference doesn't get a 32# bike down to 16, but it is harder to spring for 13# of everything else for an 8+# frameset vs a ~3# one.
By deciding on a Cross Check frame you've already made the decision that weight isn't of the utmost importance. The priorities will not likely change as you're choosing components. You won't care that one derailleur is a few ounces heavier than another. Same with cranksets, headsets, cassettes, hubs, rims, seat posts, saddles, brakes, shifters, stems, handle bars, bottom brackets, tires, etc.
A few ounces extra for individual parts is going to add up to a few extra pounds at the end of the day. That's on top of a frame and fork that's already a few pounds heavier.
07-14-15, 08:09 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,101
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 17 Times
in
13 Posts
By comparison, my winter bike is more massive. It's a bit of a beast with larger semi-knobby tires on 700c wheels. It's got platforms pedals with pins. It also has a gear hub. I honestly don't know what it weighs. I'm mildly curious but obviously not enough to actually weigh it. I like this bike a lot. I've spent far more money and time on it than I have the road bike. But riding it is a very different experience. It's definitely a bike I ride "on". I don't get the same sense of "freeness".
I would compare it to running with a solid, sensible pair of running shoes vs. running barefoot on a field of grass. I spent 80% of my summer days barefoot as a kid. I'm comfortable barefoot on lots of surfaces.
Not everyone is going to enjoy a light bike. They will want something more substantial between them and the road.
Last edited by tjspiel; 07-14-15 at 08:22 AM.