russian fighter

Sorry to rehash what appears to be an ongoing (and long) discussion, but the info is so scattered throughout many posts that I thought it might be helpful for me and others to hear thoughts on these three frames.

Intended purpose: commuting/light touring/long day rides.

Cross Check appears to be a wonderful multipurpose bike. How does its frame compare to the Nova? Given that both are "cross" frames, and both steel, any advantages to one over the other (chainstay length, etc.)? And how does the LHT compare to both if one isn't going to be trekking across the Afghan plains? It seems some prefer it for commuting/light touring. Does its frame design make it that much less suitable for such purposes?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts, and for helping me to further (extend?) this discussion.

coconut in IA

I am no expert on all the frames but I do know the big selling point with the LHT was the extended chain stay. What this means to baggers is more room for bags and less chance of your heels hitting the bags while riding. The frame is solid as a rock and rides like a Cadillac. Hope this helps, I can tell you this much I don't think I will even want another type of frame after LHT.

Cheers,

Coco....

Thor29

I've had both the LHT and the Crosscheck. Personally, I prefer the Crosscheck unless the bike was going to be used mostly for long distance touring. The LHT is more stable, but the Crosscheck is still perfectly acceptable for carrying heavy loads. I use a Jandd Expedition rack that allows you to get the panniers far enough back to avoid heel interference problems. The 132.5 hub spacing on the Crosscheck allows me to have 2 sets of wheels - one fancy aero set with 23c racing tires and one beefy set with mountain hubs and cyclocross tires (or touring tires). It's three bikes in one - road, cyclocross, and touring. And there's a fourth bike hidden in there as well (single speed/fixed gear). After switching back to a Crosscheck (long story) from the LHT, the only thing I missed were the threaded holes in the middle of the fork (can't use my way cool Tubus front rack on the Crosscheck) and the better cable routing (I use V-brakes and the Crosscheck has the rear brake cable eyelets on the wrong side and on top of the top tube for carrying the bike in cyclocross racing).

russian fighter

Thanks for your replies. As I expected, no easy answers. It seems like the Cross Check is the appropriate bike for me, assuming I can measure potential heel strike pre-order.

FraAngelico

the crosscheck has a sweet looking fork area where the fork tubes join together

NoReg

I would look at this frame:

https://ucycle.com/bikes/item.php?nam...r&cat=urbanite

I just finished up 1600 Km of loaded touring on this bike yesterday, and I was very happy. I would love to try a Surly LHT, but the places where this bike shines are:

1) Very long stays. I think the Surly is listed as 46 and this one as 45, however my 58 CM version was slightly over 46, so no problem there. Good clearance, which is particularly good with sandals, that need about 1.5 extra inches at the back, it also makes for a cushy ride;

2) the Surly is overbuilt from classic touring beef to incorporate some oversized components. Fine. But you are after a broader spectrum bike that has some response, but will carry paniers, this bike with it's lighter classic form is perfect for that. You have the soace and fittings for all the racks etc..., yet the bike is built for a responsive ride.

3) Different bottom bracket height than the surly for more stable ride. This appears to be the one aspect where Surly differs from the Rivendall orthodoxy, it is often mentioned as copying, at least as far as I can make out. Any views?