Surly LHT compared to Atlantis

[hihi]

I own a 51cm Atlantis and yesterday I took a 50cm Long Haul Trucker
out on a ride. I always read that the LHT is a clone of the Atlantis,
but I was struck by how different the two felt. Of course they were
set up differently. The LHT was the stock bike and it had fatter
tires narrower and slightly lower handlebars than my Atlantis. It
felt longer, more like it wanted to go in a straight line. It might
have just been the build. Anyway, I was curious so I went home and
looked up the geometry charts and by my reading the two bike aren't
the same at all. I don't know much about bike geometry charts and how
to read them and what the numbers mean, but I know they aren't the
same numbers. Clearly the bikes are meant to have overlapping
purposes.

I was just curious to know if anyone who knows more than I do about
bike geometry would weigh in about what the numbers mean and why
people say the two are essentially the same bike.

For the record, I'm not interested in whether one is better than the
other, just how or if they differ. I'm sure they are both great!

[d2mini]

I've never heard that they're the same bike.
They are both Touring bikes... but they are not clones.

[Mojo]

I think the smaller geometry Atlantis and LHT vary by quite a bit. But
up at the larger sizes, Surly did alot of copying.
Riv Atlantis Surly LHT
size (c-t) 61 cm 60 cm
BB drop 8.0 7.8
Standover 85.1 85
ST angle 72 72.5
HT angle 72 72
Rake 4.5 4.5
Top Tube 59 60
Chain stay 45.5 46
Wheel size 700c 700c

With the Rivendell Atlantis, you get lugs, heat treated main tubes,
paint (vs powdercoat), small Japanese shop build (vs Taiwanese
factory), and you buy from the original designer.

[hihi]

Here's an excerpt from a post on the ibob list last week. I see posts
like this all the time...

"I don't think it is a secret although some are not specifically aware
=
that the Surly LHT has geometry and measurements that are exactly the
=
same as the Rivendell Atlantis including the switchover from 26" rims
up =
to size 54 and 700 rims for 56 and above. Atlantis is (to some)
better =
looking and it is lugged (Surly is not lugged), but for about 1/4 of
the =
price for frame and fork (about $420 for LHT vs. about $1600 for =
Atlantis) it is certainly an option worth considering. I just want to
=
point out that the geometry and I believe the ride too is very much
the =
same as Atlantis. The Surly 60cm is a near exact copy of the Atlantic
=
61cm, except chinese welded verses japanese lug brazed. I would not
have =
bought an Atlantis for a touring bike as I will tour only rarely, and
=
the LHT complete cost less than the Atlantis frame. Surly allowed me
to =
have a fun functional bike for cheap, that I feel I can use hard.
Both =
companies are favorites of mine."

[hihi]

I hear you here, but I'm interested in the geometry and how it
differs...

[BrianMcG]

It appears whoever wrote that on the Ibob list doesn't really know
what they are talking about.
The only similarity I see is that they are both touring bikes. I have
a LHT by the way.

So I guess any touring bike that has clearance for wide tires will now
considered to be a clone of the Atlantis.

> > They are both Touring bikes... but they are not clones.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[JoelMatthews]

> I hear you here, but I'm interested in the geometry and how it
> differs...

Geometry is only part of the story. Tubing and welds make a
difference in the way a bike rides.

[hihi]

I guess I'm just interested in if someone who knows more than I do
can say how the differences in geometry are likely to make these bikes
ride differently if they are set up similarly.

[Adrienne]

I've been following this fairly closely, from both the pro-Surly and
the pro-Rivendell point of view. There are good conversations that are
pretty exhaustive, but here's what I can remember off hand:

The Surlys don't have the lugs. That means they're not repairable
(many point out that with the cost being so much lower, who cares?).
Some people say the lugs smooth out the rides. Other people say the
better tubing in the Rivs makes the ride smoother. In any event,
people generally agree that Rivs have a smoother ride.

Surly tends to recommend that you buy their bikes based on the length
of the TT, which makes the most sense to me. For equivalent sizes
(downtubes), Riv tends to be about 1 cm shorter in the top tube--but I
think they run small when compared to most manufacturers. The other
major sizing difference is that the 56 cm Atlantis uses 26" wheels
where the 56 cm LHT uses 700's. So the Surly will stretch you out a
bit more and leave you with a wee bit more standover. Some folks think
that makes for a more squirrely ride.

I ride a Surly Cross-Check for commuting. I have to say my favorite
bikes (I don't have a Riv of my own) sport the heavier style tubing
used in Rivs. I don't know if it's the lugs or what--but the rides are
somehow cushier. I doubt the geometry would be that important unless
you felt strongly that you were between sizes.

So, uh.. anyone want to sell me their 56 cm Atlantis? :)

happy cycling,
adrienne

> > > > factory), and you buy from the original designer.- Hide quoted text -

[Angus]

hihi,

2mm of BB drop (not worth worrying about)
Same HT angle and rake (same front end geometry)
1cm TT difference and 5mm chainstay difference...

I would not consider these differences significant.

IMHO other differences in the bikes you rode like tire size and bar
position could have a larger effect than the small geometric
differences between the bikes.

Angus

> > other, just how or if they differ.  I'm sure they are both great!- Hide quoted text -

[Ethan]

While not a factor for you one thing to consider is that the LHT only
comes up to a 62cm frame. Which at 6' 2" with long legs wasn't
terribly comfortable for me, especially with touring and long days in
the saddle in mind. My 66cm Atlantis felt like it was made for me the
first time I took a test ride on it. So for bigger riders that
limitation is pretty huge.

[valb...@ix.netcom.com]

Adrienne,

How do you find you Surly Cross-Check?

Rene

valb...@ix.netcom.com
EarthLink Revolves Around You.


> [Original Message]
> From: Adrienne <Adrienn...@gmail.com>
> To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: 8/17/2008 1:41:40 PM
> Subject: [RBW] Re: Surly LHT compared to Atlantis

> > > > > With the Rivendell Atlantis, you get lugs, heat treated main
tubes,
> > > > > paint (vs powdercoat), small Japanese shop build (vs Taiwanese

> > > > > factory), and you buy from the original designer.- Hide quoted

[hihi]

LHT Atlantis Ram
size (c-t) 52cm 51cm 52cm
BB drop 47mm 48mm 55mm
Standover 77.5cm 77cm 76.1cm
ST angle 73.5 72.5 72.5
HT angle 71 72 71
Rake 4.5cm 4cm 4.25cm
Top Tube 53.5cm 53.5cm 53cm
Chain stay 46cm 44cm 43.5cm
Wheel size26in 26in 26in

I'm just askin'.... Do these seem like the same bike? I threw the
Ram. in for reference. The difference in chainstay length alone seems
pretty big. But I don't know a lot about these things. Like I said,
I was just curious b/c I have seen people claim a million times that
they are very similar or exactly the same. The bikeshop guy where I
tried the bike even said that to me.

[JoelMatthews]

The longer chainstay on the LHT provides a more comfortable, less
twitchy ride. It also means the bike will be a little bit less
responsive.

The LHT ST and HT angles seem a mite schizophrenic to me. Touring
bikes generally have lower angle ST and HT which make the bikes more
comfortable and stable (and as with longer chainstays somewhat less
responsive). On the one hand, the LHT ST is creeping closer to more a
faster bike angle, but then the HT is real relaxed. I am no bike
designer, but that seems more a cost/manufacturing consideration
compromise than a feature for the consumer.

26 inch tires on bikes that small make sense.

Again, focusing exclusively on geometry ignores that the thicker
tubing on the Atlantis is going to make them feel different for the
rider.

I would also be interested in the trail on these bikes as that shows
how well they handle loads up front.

[JoelMatthews]

>The bikeshop guy where I tried the bike even said that to me.

By the way, Surly is owned by QBP, a major bike part wholesaler. I
imagine bike shops have a lot more room for mark up selling Surlys
than they do Rivs. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with either
bike. Still, salespeople being salespeople probably are inclined to
push the bike with the higher mark up. They have bills to pay just
like the rest of us.

On Aug 17, 6:39 pm, hihi <silberb...@radicalmedia.com> wrote:

[tarik saleh]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Adrienne <Adrienn...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Surlys don't have the lugs. That means they're not repairable
(many point out that with the cost being so much lower, who cares?).

Bull puckies. I have no idea where this persistent fallacy originated. Tig welded steel bikes are EASIER to repair than lugged frames. Usually.  You cut out the old tube, grind the weld smooth, and tig in a new tube, or fillet braze in a new tube. Easy peasy.

I guess this is mostly true with aluminum frames, but you CAN repair those too, but you need to know exactly what you are doing heat treat wise. But steel tigged frames are repairable. More repairable than lugged ones.   It might not be worth repairing a $400 dollar tigged steel frame, but it is easier to repair than your lugged riv.


Tarik

--
Tarik Saleh
tas at tariksaleh dot com
in los alamos, po box 208, 87544
http://tariksaleh.com
all sorts of bikes blog: http://tsaleh.blogspot.com

[Murray Love]

They're completely different.  Surly really goes in for the (IMO dumb) practice of steepening seat tubes significantly on the smaller sizes, while the Rivs maintain more or less the same seat-tube angle through the sizes.  The practical effect of steepening the seat tube is that the rider will have to shove the saddle back further to get the same position as on the slacker bike, and this results in a longer reach to the bars.  Although the actual top-tube lengths on the 52cm LHT and the 51cm Atlantis are the same, the LHT has about 1cm more reach due to the seat-tube angle.  (This is a particular problem on smaller Surly Cross-Checks, which have looonngg top tubes combined with steep seat tube angles, resulting in some truly impressive reaches to the bar. I speak from frustrating experience trying to fit my normally-proportioned 5'6" wife to a 52cm Cross-Check, and finally getting rid of it when it proved impossible.)

The Atlantis will also be a little quicker-responding, due to the steeper head-tube angle and its shorter chainstays.  Otherwise, the tube diameters are the same and they probably have similar wall thicknesses.  I don't believe welds make any difference whatsoever to the ride, but this is an almost religious point of contention.

However, as mojo already pointed out, the LHT-as-a-clone-of-the-Atlantis meme (which I may be partly responsible for from some 2004 postings) only applies at the larger sizes.  Iirc, they're pretty much identical in the 700C sizes, especially above 58cm.

Murray
Victoria, BC

[Bill Connell]

I haven't ridden a LHT, so this may be a little inaccurate, but I have
to say that i'm about as comfortable on my 62cm CrossCheck as on my
65cm Rivendell Redwood. When i bought the CrossCheck, i sized the
frame, stem and other parts to match the fit of the Redwood as close
as possible. The CC stem is shorter, but the reach is the same. The
bars on the Surly are a cm or so lower, limited by the steerer length
and my choice of a 90 degree (just a slight rise) stem, but the
position works well. The two bikes ride differently, for sure, but
good in their own ways. I guess the point is that the top tube length
does allow taller folks to ride them, as long as the available range
of handlebar height is acceptable.

--
Bill Connell
St. Paul, MN

[JoelMatthews]

> Otherwise, the tube diameters are the same and they probably have similar wall thicknesses.

I always thought the Atlantis was the heavier bike. But then I am not
overly familiar with Surly products.

[Richard]

Here's the trail for the two bikes, calculated using the geometry
numbers from the previous post, and with a 310mm tire.

Long Haul Trucker - 59.2
Atlantis - 58.7

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[hihi]

So what does this mean? Seems like a small difference. Is it?

[Murray Love]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:34 AM, hihi <silbe...@radicalmedia.com> wrote:

So what does this mean?  Seems like a small difference.  Is it?

On Aug 18, 8:40 am, Richard <rsv...@netzero.net> wrote:
> Here's the trail for the two bikes, calculated using the geometry
> numbers from the previous post, and with a 310mm tire.
>
> Long Haul Trucker - 59.2
> Atlantis - 58.7
>
>

Uhh, hard to say.  The trail being almost identical means that both bikes will have an almost indistinguishable self-correcting tendency in the steering.  However, the steeper head-tube angle should give the Atlantis a slightly smaller turn radius, so it may react a little more quickly to steering inputs. This is a notoriously complex interaction, so it's probably prudent not to speculate too much on the differences when the two bikes are so similar in this regard.


Murray
Victoria, BC

[hihi]

Thank you! This is a great answer.

I had a 50cm Cross Check before I got an Atlantis and I always felt
extremely stretched out on it. Of course, I think it was too small
for me and I could never get the bars high enough. One of the main
advantages of the LHT seems to be that the stock bike comes with an
uncut steerer tube.

When I was visiting the bike shop this weekend their was a guy trying
out a LHT. They did not have a cross-check in his size and bike shop
guy was suggesting that he wait and try one since he might want
something a bit more "aggressive" if he was going to do most of his
riding in NYC. I thought that was an odd comment for all kinds of
reason (though I know what he meant) and somehow it inspired me to try
a Long Haul Trucker. I was struck by the fact that it felt kind of
sedate and like it wanted to go in a straight line compared to my
Atlantis. Like I said above, the LHT had 1.5 inch tires and my
Atlantis has 1.25. The LHT also had narrower bars that were set
lower. My sense, based partly on the fact that I used to have fatter
tires on my Atlantis, is that they account for some of the difference
in feel, but not all. My only other basis for comparison is my 53cm
RB1 w/ 28 tires which is definitely another thing entirely. Even with
the bars almost as high as the saddle I have a lot more weight on my
hands on that bike and I would describe it as more "aggressive." This
probably has a a lot to do with the skinny tires and the gearing as
well as with my position on the bike. It generally feels less stable,
but it also feels more like I turn it by leaning my whole body and so
in this sense it can feel slower turning than the Atlantis. I think
this is because the greater weight on my hands means that my weight is
more evenly distributed across the bike. I like riding the RB1 in
the city but only on short trips. For my everyday commute, and for
most other things, I'd much rather be on the Atlantis. Riding in NYC,
there tend to be lot of asphalt bumps in the road which I think can
give 26inch wheel, springy steel frames and under-inflated tires a
disadvantage. For whatever reason, I can definitely say that my main
complaint about the Atlantis in the city is that the pleasant
springiness it has on flatter streets can almost bounce me right off
the bike in certain situations.

Anyway, I guess this is all a very long winded way of saying how
really hard I find it to figure out what it is about a bike that makes
me like it or not like it. Between the fact that it's almost
impossible to try most of the bikes I like, that I'm no expert in bike
geometry, and that reading the tea leaves of collective wisdom on the
internet can be misleading (that's why I made this post), buying a new
bike can be a confusing experience.

[Mojo]

hihi wrote:
> Anyway, I guess this is all a very long winded way of saying how
> really hard I find it to figure out what it is about a bike that makes
> me like it or not like it.  Between the fact that it's almost
> impossible to try most of the bikes I like, that I'm no expert in bike
> geometry, and that reading the tea leaves of collective wisdom on the
> internet can be misleading (that's why I made this post), buying a new
> bike can be a confusing experience.

The more you learn, the more confusing it gets. For instance Jan Heine
in the most recent Bicycle Quarterly has a blind study testing his
concept of 'planing' that shakes (get it?!) the whole stiff frame
philsophy that many of us pursued for decades.
http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/currentissue.html

Position can make a huge difference on how a bike feels. Raising or
lowering the handlebars an inch can be significant.

Maybe most important though are tires. The size of the tire will
effect handling (trail). But also the construction of the tire and the
PSI used can radically change how a bike feels. Along with the frame
and saddle, that is why I think tires are the most important
component; and why I now am more willing to spend more money for nice-
riding tires.

[J. Burkhalter]

I suppose I could chime in here, having put ample miles on both an
Atlantis (54.5") and a LHT(54cm), loaded and unloaded, on- and off-
road, although I'm not going to get you any closer to an answer to
your original question regarding what all those lengths and angles
mean on the geometry charts. There are definitely people on this list
who understand how a degree change in head tube angle or an addition
of length to the chain stays will affect the ride of a bike. And one
may read to one's heart's content on trail here, and elsewhere on the
interweb. The delicate dance of compromises that go into the design
of a bicycle is just too overwhelming for my lil' brain. And in
addition to the geometry of the frame and fork, the rider has control
over so many variables including stem length, handlebar width and
shape, crank length, seat setback, tire volume and pressure, and
distribution of loads (rider and gear), all of which affect the ride
of a bike. And we can't forget about tubing diameter, thickness,
weight, connection choice, and material.

This ability to juggle so many inputs is what amazes me about Grant
and all the other great bike designers out there. Coming up with a
great design for a frame in one size is incredible enough, but then
maintaining that design and ride quality over a range of sizes from
47cm to 68cm... just mind boggling.

While I'm on a roll and not really answering your questions I'll just
add that both the Atlantis and Trucker ride great with a load, front
and/or rear, on- and off-road. I threw 20lbs of weight into some
front panniers on the Atlantis on a mixed terrain ride the other day.
I hadn't really ridden the Atlantis with weight for any real distance
since our big tour last winter, and boy o' boy, had I forgotten how
well she handles it. My GF commutes everyday with the Trucker (setup
with Albatross bars, fat marathon tires, and front basket full of
stuff) and I regularly make grocery and farmer's market runs with it.
Feels great, too. I will admit that the Atlantis is more lively and
fun to ride unloaded than the LHT. Why is this? You got me.
Probably has something to do with the metal head badge though.

[It Depends]

You're right -- the difference in chainstay lengths is pretty big.
And the LHT's steeper ST angle pushes that rear wheel even further
behind the rider, relative to the Atlantis. I would argue that the
Atlantis pushes back the rear wheel far enough to get all the "comfy"
points there are to be gotten there, and the additional "pushback" on
the LHT serves only to slow and dull the bike's handling (and to lower
production costs, of course).

At the same time, the LHT's steeper ST angle also shifts rider
position in such a way that is likely to lead to relatively more
weight on the handlebars -- this is not the direction you want to go
when the rear wheel is already way the heck behind the rider. And the
bikes' respective ST/HT angle relationships mean that, notwithstanding
identical top tube lengths, the LHT's handlebars will have to be lower
than the Atlantis's to generate the same reach (assuming identical
extensions and handlebars).

Taking all that into account, I would expect the LHT to be less
comfortable than the Atlantis, and to feel more twitchy even as it
actually reacts more slowly.

(Please note that I don't have it in for the LHT -- I actually ride a
60cm LHT and like it very much -- I just think Surly made some
unfortunate design compromises on the smaller versions of the LHT
frame.)

As to the differences between tubing and joints, no way it even moves
the needle. Both frames are too stiff to flex at all unloaded unless
you're a Big Mig level monster, and even Grant concedes (as he must)
that lugs don't affect ride quality. (IIRC, he wrote in one RR or
another that ride quality is determined 80% by rider position, 15% by
tires, and 5% something else that I can't remember, but I'm pretty
sure it wasn't frame material.)

[EricP]

I'm not Adrienne, but I also have a Cross Check (62cm) and an
Atlantis(56cm). Neither is set up "normal". My Atlantis is
considered by many to be way too small for me and the Cross Check is
way too big. Both are set up with Albatross bars and I've attempted
to get the bar-saddle distance about as close as possible. Photos of
both bikes can be found in my Flickr account - http://tinyurl.com/5vnfmm

The Cross Check does not ride like a Rivendell. The more I ride it,
the more I personally believe it has a lot to do with the threadless
stem setup. While the height and reach can be made the same as a
quill stem, the attachment process is different enough that, to my
mind, it affects the handling. This does not take into account the
many other factors of the two bikes that are different. Including the
way the forks are raked.

Will admit to a love of the Cross Check (heresy, I know). With 37s
on, it's a big ride. But still comfortable. Getting grouchy in my
middle age and starting to believe that 35s are the smallest tire I
can tolerate these days. Both for ride comfort and for serious hand
issues. I also do admit to feeling more stretched out on the Cross
Check. As I said before, the handlebar saddle distance is pretty
close to identical on the two bikes. But even then, the Surly "feels"
longer. Not sure why. Although at that point, the fork rake and
trail probably come into play. I want to say the Surly feels
"sportier" than the Atlantis, but that's not right. Currently set up,
the Surly is probably the heavier bike. Plus, the higher bottom
bracket of the Cross Check does make the bike lean and corner
differently. Not an issue to me (was used to old mountain bike
handling). But not low slung and stable feeling like a touring bike
(such as the Atlantis).

The biggest difference, and this is just my own experience, is the
Surly feels more "solid" with my 240 pounds. The Atlantis is designed
to handle that weight. But I feel more sure of myself on the Surly.
At least today<grin>. The CC is my current commuting bike. However,
if the building were to allow bikes indoors (i.e., near my cube) then
the Atlantis would be the main ride. At least until the bad weather
season.

They feel fundamentally different, but would hate to have to give up
either one. Especially in the current configurations.

Does that say anything at all?

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

On Aug 17, 5:16�pm, "" <valbu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Adrienne,
>
> How do you find you Surly Cross-Check?
>
> Rene
>

> valbu...@ix.netcom.com

> EarthLink Revolves Around You.
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]

> > From: Adrienne <Adrienne.Hel...@gmail.com>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[JoelMatthews]

> The more you learn, the more confusing it gets. For instance Jan Heine
> in the most recent Bicycle Quarterly has a blind study testing his
> concept of 'planing' that shakes (get it?!) the whole stiff frame
> philsophy that many of us pursued for decades.http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/currentissue.html

I think I have read just about everything Jan has published about
planing. I am not certain I fully understand what he is trying to
say. To the extent I do, I don't think planing is something one
necessarily needs on a bike made for loaded touring.

On Aug 18, 11:07 am, Mojo <gjtra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hihi wrote:
> > Anyway, I guess this is all a very long winded way of saying how
> > really hard I find it to figure out what it is about a bike that makes
> > me like it or not like it.  Between the fact that it's almost
> > impossible to try most of the bikes I like, that I'm no expert in bike
> > geometry, and that reading the tea leaves of collective wisdom on the
> > internet can be misleading (that's why I made this post), buying a new
> > bike can be a confusing experience.
>
> The more you learn, the more confusing it gets. For instance Jan Heine
> in the most recent Bicycle Quarterly has a blind study testing his
> concept of 'planing' that shakes (get it?!) the whole stiff frame

> philsophy that many of us pursued for decades.http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/currentissue.html

[JoelMatthews]

> As to the differences between tubing and joints, no way it even moves
> the needle. Both frames are too stiff to flex at all unloaded unless
> you're a Big Mig level monster, and even Grant concedes (as he must)
> that lugs don't affect ride quality. (IIRC, he wrote in one RR or
> another that ride quality is determined 80% by rider position, 15% by
> tires, and 5% something else that I can't remember, but I'm pretty
> sure it wasn't frame material.)

I have read that as well, but do not accept it. From my experience,
and from what I have read about steel fabrication, I believe different
grades of steel and tubing does make a difference in the ride and
performance.

Certainly not as much as the different chainstay length and st/ht
angles, but a factor.

[Rene]

EricP,

Thank you very much.

Now, I hope it is still okay in this forum to ask to compare the SOMA
Double Cross with the Cross Check and Altantis.

Rene

On Aug 18, 5:42 pm, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm not Adrienne, but I also have a Cross Check (62cm) and an
> Atlantis(56cm).  Neither is set up "normal".  My Atlantis is
> considered by many to be way too small for me and the Cross Check is
> way too big.  Both are set up with Albatross bars and I've attempted
> to get the bar-saddle distance about as close as possible.  Photos of

> both bikes can be found in my Flickr account -http://tinyurl.com/5vnfmm

[Horace]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare the Double Cross and Cross
Check with the Legolas? After all, the first two are designed as
cyclocross bikes, and the Atlantis clearly isn't.

Horace.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I am not much for comparing frame angles and tube lengths and drawing
sweeping conclusions from tiny differences between one model and
another. We sell both bikes at the shop. The LHT is our best selling
model, and I ride my Atlantis (58 cm) daily. To me, the LHT feels more
stable than my Atlantis, or, if you prefer, my Atlantis is more
responsive. Either way, the difference is slight and less than my own
human variability one day to the next. Both are great bikes, and I
wouldn't feel I was suffering any functional compromise if I was
forced by circumstances to ride a LHT instead of an Atlantis. For most
people who are deciding whether to purchase one or the other, I'd
suggest considering price and cosmetics only. The Atlantis takes a
slightly fatter tire/fender and can more easily be retrofit with S&S
couplers, so these factors should also be considered where
applicable.

I find claims that Surly copied the Atlantis to be a little odd.
Touring bikes have had similar geometries since the 70s, if not
earlier. While the Atlantis is revolutionary in terms of having MTB
tire clearance on a road bike, Grant didn't invent 72 degree seat
tubes and long chainstays. Grant is a smart, iconoclastic designer,
but so are Dave Gray and some of the other characters at Surly. Surly
brought us the Pugsley and Big Dummy, not to mention the 1x1 and the
Karate Monkey, so I think it's unfair to suggest that they are
unimaginative copycats because their smart touring bike resembles
another smart touring bike.

Someone speculated that bike shops make a higher margin selling LHTs
compared to Atlantises. This is commonly believed, but not true. We
make a lot more profit selling a $3000 bike than we do selling a $1000
bike. Since the Atlantis is sold as a frame and a bunch of parts and
labor, our margin is usually higher, too. If you come into our shop
and ask for an Atlantis, I will not try to talk you into a LHT. Of
course, if you want a solid touring/commuting/all-rounder bike and
don't want to spend $3000+ and/or wait a year to get one, I won't feel
like I took advantage of you if you ride out on a LHT. To me, the main
benefits to the shop in selling the LHT are that (1) most sizes are
available most of the time, (2) the bikes are easy to sell (great
parts and a low price), and (3) I don't have to spend a lot of time
walking the customer through a lot of mostly irrelevant component
choices because the LHT has a nearly unimprovable component spec,
right out of the box.

[EricP]

I'm not Jim, and am not replying for him. But I can add my own
experience on a couple of areas -

As to why the CC over the LHT? When I went shopping for this bike,
QBP was out of the LHT. And wouldn't have it in stock for a number of
months. The Cross Check was what was available. Secondly, the CC has
semi-horizontal dropouts. Before making this purchase, was thinking
about converting it over to internal gearing for winter riding. My
preference was for semi-horizontal dropouts rather than an external
chain tensioner to do this. In fact I liked it so much with that
setup that I've kept the bike this way.

For a built-up bike, I'd recommend the Long Haul Trucker over the
Cross Check as the stock parts are better (IMO much better) on the
former.

Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, the Cross Check will take a wider tire
than the Long Haul Trucker. Currently have Schwalbe Marathon Cross
38s on my Cross Check and they fit with quite a bit of room to spare.

Hopefully Jim will chime in on your questions.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

On Aug 19, 11:14�am, hihi <silberb...@radicalmedia.com> wrote:
> I agree that for most folks who don't obsess over bikes on internet
> lists, its just not worth worrying about. �When the bike shop guy
> recommended that the guy test riding bikes (see post above) hold out
> for the more "aggressive" bike, I piped up and said that the LHT was a
> great bike and he could be plenty aggressive on it if he wanted to.
> Getting a decent bike that's nice enough to resell if you don't like
> it and that puts you in a comfortable position for what you want to do
> and riding it a lot is the best thing most of the time. �I also told
> the guy to make sure he got an uncut steerer tube which, as someone
> who has made that mistake, is a key thing that lot of beginners don't
> know about. �It is also hard when you buy bikes under 53cm as I do and
> you start reading that all the designs are screwed up to fit the
> tires.
>
> I also agree that it's goofy to suggest that anyone stole a bike
> design. �I was actually interested in how similar the two really are,
> but that's in the context of these list where I feel like people are
> interested in scrutinizing all the minutiae for fun. �If folks are
> deciding which to purchase by reading these lists, in my opinion they
> should understand that all this stuff is kind of minutiae. �It's easy
> to loose that context around here. �Just make sure the bike fits, and
> that you can move the bars higher or lower if you want.
>
> I am curious though, Jim, to hear how you help people decide between a
> LHT and a Cross-Check. �Or for that matter between the Atlantis and
> Saluki / AHH. �The same bike shop guy said that he generally advised
> people get the Cross Check as a do everything bike but that in the
> last year, demand for the LHT had gone through the roof people touring
> bikes are popular now.
>
> I guess this gets into the question of what makes a good all-round
> bike. �Is it the ability to do everything you could possibly ask of
> it: �commuting, touring, carrying lots of groceries, fat tires, skinny
> tires, road riding that's not racing? �Or is it being more perfectly
> tuned for middle of the spectrum stuff: riding fast on the road, light
> loads, gravel and light trails? �If you take the first view, then the
> LHT or Atlantis is the bike to get. �If you take the second, the Cross
> Check or AHH / Saluki is best. �Presumably the bike that can do
> everything well is going to do some things worse that the more
> specialized bike. �It's interesting that if you compare the current
> description of the Atlantis on the Riv site to the old copy, it
> presented much less as an all-around bike than it used to be and more
> as a touring one. �The bike hasn't changed, it's just that there are
> these other bikes in the product line that are supposed to be the do-
> everything bikes. �And that's cool. �It's a more interesting market b/
> c the folks over at Riv are chasing versions of the perfect bike like
> a lot of other people. � But I still remember many years ago when I
> stumbled across a pic of the Atlantis online and thought, Holy cow,
> it's like my old mountain bike but all mixed up with a road bike, I
> want that. �I thought it was the perfect bike.
>
> On Aug 19, 1:58�am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com>

> > right out of the box.- Hide quoted text -

[PATRICK MOORE]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM, EricP <eric...@aol.com> wrote:

 

m

The Cross Check does not ride like a Rivendell.  The more I ride it,
the more I personally believe it has a lot to do with the threadless
stem setup.  While the height and reach can be made the same as a
quill stem, the attachment process is different enough that, to my
mind, it affects the handling.  

You don't seem to have a full broadside view of the Atlantis, but the Surley looks nicely set up and, from the photos, not too big at all.

Regarding handling and threadless stem: I confess to being very, very skeptical that this is the cause of any noticeable difference. After all, any decent quill is going to clamp to the steerer and to the bars far more solidly than the average rider can flex them. Please rebut or explain.

[EricP]

Patrick,

There are some profile shots of the Rivendell, but I will try to take
another (or two) and show how it's currently setup.

This is just my own theory and idea - a quill stem grabs the steerer
from the inside. A modern stem from the outside. Also the modern
steerer is wider. Maybe flex is not visually noticable, but would
love to see a deflection test to see if it actually exists on a really
small level.

Maybe this is another theory I have that's all hooey. Wouldn't be the
first time. But in the past 3 years since getting back into cycling,
I have noticed there is a
difference in ride quality between bikes that have quill stems and
those that don't have them.

It's also possible (probable?) that my heavy weight (240 pounds now,
370 when I started biking again) is enough to put stress on these
parts where flex becomes noticable. Not strength, but sheer mass
(a.k.a. fat).

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

On Aug 22, 6:10 am, "PATRICK MOORE" <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > m <http://tinyurl.com/5vnfmm>

[Big Paulie]

On Aug 22, 1:02 pm, EricP <ericpl...@aol.com> wrote:
.  But in the past 3 years since getting back into cycling,
> I have noticed there is a difference in ride quality between bikes that have quill stems and
> those that don't have them.

Hi Eric,

Could you five us your observations?

Thanks,

Paul

[EricP]

Let's see if I can do this without sounding too stupid. Difficult for
me at any time. This is also too rambling.

Mainly these are observations I've made over the last year in
searching for more comfortable bikes. Have had a serious flare up of
the hand and wrist pain that made giving up biking necessary in the
early '90's. Do not want to go down that path again.

And obviously, all bikes are different. So what I feel is a
difference between stems could just as well be minute differences in
head tube angle, fork rake, individual tires, rim and spoke
differences, etc. My main reason for making the stem argument is my
two main bikes at present are set up so the stem-saddle relationship
is as close to identical as I can make them. Both in height and
distance.

The bikes I've ridden with a quill stem all have good handling.
However, at times, out on the road, at my slower speed, the handling
seems, well, "fuzzy". As if I'll input a steering correction and it
takes just the smallest little bit of time before the turn is carried
out. On the bikes I've owned with a threadless stem, this seems
eliminated. In fact, it's what led me to purchase a different bike
over a Bleriot last fall. The steering just seemed much more
assured. Both bikes had the same tires and handlebars.

However, on my longer rides, and in this case that means 30 or more
miles, a bike with a quill stem (specifically my Atlantis), seems to
absorb road shock better. Not refering to big bumps, but the small
stuff. The hum of the road so to speak. Again, it could be the
tires. Even with 37s on my Surly, the buzz is transmitted more to the
hands. This was most evident on a 63 mile ride on a different bike
with a threadless steerer. Even with 37mm tires, by the last third of
the ride, had no feeling in the left hand. It was also that ride that
convinced me to go for the Atlantis. And also to go away from drop
bars completely.

Lastly, let me again state, this is all my own opinion. No scientific
testing. The closest to a test I've done is to ride my Cross Check
and an A.N.T. Boston Roadster one after the other. Both bikes are set
up nearly identical. However, my observations as to comfort and
turning still hold true. At least to my hands.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

[Atlantean]

Sometimes I think these discussions are all about finding just where
the limits of the "princess and the pea" effect lie. I confess I don't
have a better idea about most of it than I did years ago, before I
decided it would be fun to learn as much about bikes as I could. I
still do not like the ride of aluminum framed mountain bikes with no
rear suspension. I am comfortable with the possibility that it's just
my imagination, but they do not feel friendly to me.

Threadless stem systems have huge advantages for serious mountain
biking. The biggest one in the ride department is flex. Different
threadless stems feel different when riding. I took a Thomson stem off
of my big "all mountain" 5" travel bike because I wanted to try a
shorter one, and I immediately noticed more flex in the front end even
though I did not expect to feel any difference. I weigh 230 and use a
28" wide downhill bar on that bike, so there are relatively huge
forces at work at times. (Yes, it looks a lot like a motorcycle. I
think that's cool, partly because I rode in the dirt a lot with my dad
35 years ago, on Japanese trail bikes. Many of the skills I learned
then easily transferred to mountain biking. But I digress.) With front
suspension and a quill stem, the steering precision can be intolerably
low. Of course a 1-1/8" steel steer tube with a threaless type stem
clamped on it is immensely strong, which is good with all that
leverage working on it. You get back some of the steering precision,
but not the shock and vibration because the suspension fork eats
nearly all that up.

Quill stems vary a lot in flex. Nearly all my road bikes are now
equipped with Dirt Drop or Periscopa stems from Riv, since they flex
less than any forged aluminum quill stem I have tried. Some stems that
look just about like those fine Nitto products flex a lot. Some are
downright unnerving. As someone pointed out already, some of that flex
is beneficial. I have an old Bridgestone moustache bar on my Atlantis,
the one that takes mountain bike levers, and it flexes quite a bit. I
don't mind, though, because the fork and stem are very solid and I
think the bar adds comfort without doing anything bad. Too bad no one
has gotten around to knocking off that design. I love it, but boy are
they hard to find! If someone does do a clone, they need to ream the
ends for bar end shifters. That take a long time with simple tools.

Having said all that, I still don't know if I would choose a touring
frame based on what kind of steer tube it has. Once again, tires seem
to make a lot more difference than any other variable, given similar
geometry. Fortunately for us, that's about the easiest change to make
on any bike.

> > Paul- Hide quoted text -

[PATRICK MOORE]

Interesting responses, Eric and Paul. I shall restrain my skepticism, since you both seem to have observed the flexy stem phenomenon carefully enough to articulate your experiences clearly, which surely counts for something.

I personally have never experienced stem flex, and I do ride one bike with a 1.125 steerer and stiff clamp on stem, but I expect that your additional 60 to 70 lb (I weighed myself yesterday at 170) could very well account for what you experience.

Nashbar has its own moustache bar, and I've owned at least one non-Nitto clone that may have been a Nashbar or may have been made by yet a third party.

[Mitch F.]

Let's not forget the obvious.  Quill stems are more easily adjusted for height.  The modern stems are fixed unless you buy another one.  I had this problem with my Bianchi track bike.  I had to go to every bike store around until I found the right size stem with the right angle--and I still had to swap my track handlebars for my ancient Cinelli deep drops. Thirdly, at least on the ubiquitous titanio/carbonio racer lookalikes, since the top part of the handlebar is relatively low presumably to look like a racer, the drops are overly shallow.  This look is repulsive to me. Finally, quill stems just look better.  They run parallel to the top tube and steering tube so the angularity of the frame remains intact from an aesthetic standpoint.  For someone like me, who could sit and stare at his Romulus for hours on end, this is important. I have to admit, on the other hand, that a quill stem might look ridiculous on a modern carbon race replica. --- On Sat, 8/23/08, Atlantean <softlysoftly...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Atlantean <softlysoftly...@gmail.com> Subject: [RBW] Re: Surly LHT compared to Atlantis To: "RBW Owners Bunch" <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com>

[Atlantean]

Not to derail the thread, but none of the M bar knockoffs I have seen
use the 7/8" tubing of the old B'stone bar like on my Atlantis. That
particular shape suits my favorite position very well, looks terrific,
and allows me to use V brakes with bar end shifters. An upside-down-
whatever might come close functionally, but I've tried a few and they
just don't get it. I have not seen any of the 7/8" M bars on eBay, or
anywhere else, for a long time. I recall reading somewhere that Grant
didn't want to have them made for Riv because he did not like the
flex. There is a very noticeable difference, especially when hammering
out of the saddle.

I have a couple of the regular M bar clones, by different
manufacturers, and they are very similar to the Nitto bar. The Nashbar
M bars seem like a mistake. The 56cm one in particular looks
cartoonish on a bike. I have one in the basement, not on a bike.
Fortunately, I only paid $10 for it when I was ordering tires or
something. Those use 24mm road size tubing, too.

> > other, just how or if they differ.  I'm sure they are both great!- Hide quoted text -

[David Estes]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Mitch F. <mfri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Let's not forget the obvious.  Quill stems are more easily adjusted for height.  The modern stems are fixed unless you buy another one.  I had this problem with my Bianchi track bike.  I had to go to every bike store around until I found the right size stem with the right angle--and I still had to swap my track handlebars for my ancient Cinelli deep drops.

Not necessarily.  If the steerer was left long, you can use spacers to move the stem up and down it.  Not as much as a quill stem, but still an inch or so pretty easily.

Thirdly, at least on the ubiquitous titanio/carbonio racer lookalikes, since the top part of the handlebar is relatively low presumably to look like a racer, the drops are overly shallow.  This look is repulsive to me.

Agreed.  Looks awful, feels even  worse.

--
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA

[David Estes]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Mitch F. <mfri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

I sent the other to fasts, here's more illumination...

Finally, quill stems just look better.  They run parallel to the top tube and steering tube so the angularity of the frame remains intact from an aesthetic standpoint.  For someone like me, who could sit and stare at his Romulus for hours on end, this is important.

 

Agree, mostly.  Tall quills with long extensions (a big "7") look kind of silly.  Especially on a bike sized too small.   I think a Dirt Drop type stem looks better in that situaion.

I have to admit, on the other hand, that a quill stem might look ridiculous on a modern carbon race replica.

But chances are, the mcrr bike already is ridiculous... what could the quill hurt?
 

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 05:10 -0700, EricP wrote:
> Let's see if I can do this without sounding too stupid. Difficult for
> me at any time. This is also too rambling.
>
> Mainly these are observations I've made over the last year in
> searching for more comfortable bikes. Have had a serious flare up of
> the hand and wrist pain that made giving up biking necessary in the
> early '90's. Do not want to go down that path again.
>
> And obviously, all bikes are different. So what I feel is a
> difference between stems could just as well be minute differences in
> head tube angle, fork rake, individual tires, rim and spoke
> differences, etc.

And IMO almost to a certainty is due to those differences, rather than
to quill vs threadless stem. It's just possible you could feel the
difference, but I think you'd have to be thrashing all over the front
end of the bike (e.g., as in a sprint) to do so. Under "normal"
conditions, with the sort of normal light touch you use when cycling,
there's just no way.

> My main reason for making the stem argument is my
> two main bikes at present are set up so the stem-saddle relationship
> is as close to identical as I can make them. Both in height and
> distance.
>
> The bikes I've ridden with a quill stem all have good handling.
> However, at times, out on the road, at my slower speed, the handling
> seems, well, "fuzzy". As if I'll input a steering correction and it
> takes just the smallest little bit of time before the turn is carried
> out.

Unless you're inputting that steering correction in a violent manner,
there's no way you'd generate any kind of lost motion or flex in the
stem/steerer interface.

> On the bikes I've owned with a threadless stem, this seems
> eliminated. In fact, it's what led me to purchase a different bike
> over a Bleriot last fall. The steering just seemed much more
> assured.

You mean you test rode both bikes and the steering was different? Or do
you mean you felt more secure because you had this theory about quill
stems vs threadless?

> Both bikes had the same tires and handlebars.
>
> However, on my longer rides, and in this case that means 30 or more
> miles, a bike with a quill stem (specifically my Atlantis), seems to
> absorb road shock better. Not refering to big bumps, but the small
> stuff. The hum of the road so to speak. Again, it could be the
> tires. Even with 37s on my Surly, the buzz is transmitted more to the
> hands. This was most evident on a 63 mile ride on a different bike
> with a threadless steerer. Even with 37mm tires, by the last third of
> the ride, had no feeling in the left hand. It was also that ride that
> convinced me to go for the Atlantis. And also to go away from drop
> bars completely.
>
> Lastly, let me again state, this is all my own opinion. No scientific
> testing. The closest to a test I've done is to ride my Cross Check
> and an A.N.T. Boston Roadster one after the other. Both bikes are set
> up nearly identical. However, my observations as to comfort and
> turning still hold true. At least to my hands.

I don't doubt you feel a difference, and if it makes you happy to use
one kind of stem over another, that's the one you should use. But as
for your theory, I'm just not buying it.

[Big Paulie]

The only reason Eric addressed any of this is because I asked him to.
And, he qualified his observations as subjective opinion several
times. Both those points should be taken into consideration.