Surly Cross Check sizing question

[Gino Zahnd]

For those of you who ride a Rivendell, and also ride a Surly Cross Check or Travelers Check, what are the sizing differences? 

It looks like top tube is going to be the best bet on sizing a Surly, but if you know of any amazing secrets, please let me in!

I'm currently trying to decide whether or not to couple one of my Rivs for all the travel I do, or to just build up a Surly Travelers Check.

Thanks,
Gino

[Seth Vidal]

I don't know of how they fit exactly - but I did run across this the
other day - if you're tall it is a heckof a deal

http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/ZZ282A16-Surly+Cross+Check+Frameset+08-09.aspx

-sv

[Jon Cameron]

Hi Gino,

I own and ride a 55cm Romulus, and a 55cm Bleriot and they fit and
ride beautifully for my five foot six inch body with an 80cm PBH. I
also own and ride a 52cm Surly cross check, and it too fits and rides
very well. The various strengths and weaknesses of the products from
both companies have been well discussed in this group over the years,
so I'll not fan those flames. The data point I'm offering you supports
your premise that Surly's are best sized by top tube length. ( and
Rivendell's remain best sized by PBH ) Hope this helps, Jon Cameron.

[Gino Zahnd]

Thanks Jon.

Yeah, I don't want to get into the strengths and weaknesses. I know them. Just want to know the proper size.  :-)

[Bill Connell]

I have both - i ride a 65cm Redwood and a 62cm CrossCheck, and the fit
is very similar. I have a 2cm shorter stem on the CrossCheck, but same
bars and saddle. I haven't measured precisely, but the contact points
are almost identical between the two, mainly the bars are about 1-2cm
lower on the CrossCheck.

--
Bill Connell
St. Paul, MN

[Mike]

I have a 60cm CC and a 62cm Rambouillet and 63cm Hilsen. The 60cm
Surly feels a tad out of whack because the head tube is short, making
it difficult to get the bars at the right height. I did try a 62cm CC
years ago and it felt way too big but that was before I had a Riv. I
definitely wouldn't get a 62cm CC even now. Because of the higher BB
height the CC feels odd with large tires on it.

If I were going to do it over again I'd get an LHT which has a much
taller headtube.

Why don't you just couple the Bleriot you have?

--mike

On Jun 30, 12:25 pm, Bill Connell <bconn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mike]

Hey Gino, like Jon say, size it by TT, not PBH. That's the answer
you're looking for. Good luck.

Did you see that Gunnar now makes a touring bike?

[Bill Connell]

I agree on the TT sizing. Also, if you can, buy it with the steerer
uncut so you can get the bars where you want them.

--
Bill Connell
St. Paul, MN

[EricP]

Another one for TT sizing. In fact, Eric of Surly told me that.
After seeing me ride a 62cm Cross Check. Way too big for me. Made it
work with Albatross bars.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

> >> > St. Paul, MN- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rcnute]

I had a 54 cm CC that seemed to work. Had a 57 Bleriot and 58 Saluki.

[Christopher Paul]

Why not couple your Ram? Speed and All day comfort. The Surely can't
hold a candle imho.
Cheers,
Chris

P.S. I want to thank whoever directed me to the Hubbub.com web site
for the Mixing Components question. My LBS tried to sell me on a more
costly and less desirable 10 speed Campagnolo solution, and I directed
him to the link you provided. He admitted it could be done and would
do it for me. I have donated some of the money I saved in a local
beer drive in your honor. Really, thanks!

[rwanda]

Hi,

I have a CC 58cm and also a Bleriot 59cm...the Surly has a bit longer
TT and also surprisingly is taller than the Bleriot even though the
specs say this should be reversed.....For me the main difference is
handlebar rise....I am using the fork without the stem cut...and still
it feels short to me...by about 1.5-3 cm....where on the Bleriot I can
use a dirt drop or technomic stem depending upon the height I need.
That being said I like the CC fine and both bikes are set up with
albatross bars.........

On Jun 30, 3:25 pm, Bill Connell <bconn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jay Sinn]

Riv builds a bike around and individual, I suspect , taking into
account the torso.
With a Surly you try to fit yourself around the bike. I used similar
PBH ideas to match
myself to a Surly K.M. only in inches.
My PBH is right at 32 until I add shoes which makes it about 32 1/2. I
*should* have gone with the smallest K.M. frame to my size (16) but I
did'nt want so many toe jam issues so I went with a size 18 frame.
(Knowing that I could use an Albatross to fine tune the torso issue.)
It turns out that this was the most comefortable ride I've ever owned.
When I stop I do have to sort of hop down but
I don't feel that that sort of Cadallac comfort of an "oversized"
frame should be compromised.
I used the same idea for the Surly Inst. and got a frame slightly
smaller for more controlled winter riding. The kind where you might
have to perform controlled bailouts on ice yet still get that sort of
"snowplow" effect in lower gears.

That said I can only imagine what sort of critter the Bombidel would
be like :)

[Dan Abelson]

I have a 54cm Quickbeam and ride a 52cm Crosscheck.  The top tube feels a bit shorter on the Crosscheck but both fit.

[GeorgeS]

I ride a Rambouillet and a Traveler's Check. They're both good bikes
and they are approximately the same size. I ride a 56cm frame and
when I bought the Surly I ordered the closesst frame to that size: BB
to top of seat tube. This is a dumb question but I'm going to ask it
anyway. How does one size a bike by the length of the top tube?
Don't you always have to measure the seat tube or the stand-over
height?
Seeking enlightenment.
GeorgeS

> > Gino- Hide quoted text -

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Buy one size down on the Cross-Check. The standover clearance in any
given size is less generous than it would be on a Riv of the same size
(higher BB, different measuring scheme, etc)

However, I would encourage you to add couplers to a Riv. The
Traveler's Check is a nice deal, but it's easier to pack a bike that
has a threaded steerer. The threadless steerer is necessarily longer,
and sometimes causes problems in packing. Not that it can't be done,
but it's easier with the threaded style.

[JoelMatthews]

> This is a dumb question but I'm going to ask it anyway. How does one size a bike by the length of the top tube?

While I suppose there is some value to stand over height, TT length by
far is more important. For the most part when using a bike, the rider
is not standing but rather reaching forward to the handle bars. If
the reach is too far or too close, it will not be comfortable riding
the bike. Some bodies will be different of course, but for the most
part if TT length is right, the rider is not going to have any trouble
mounting and dismounting (which seems to me the only time standover
really matters)

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

It's not quite that simple. Since head tube and seat tube angles vary,
it's possible to have, say, a longer TT on a certain bike, yet have a
shorter/easier reach to the handlebars, or vice versa. On a custom
bike I received awhile back, I asked that the TT be a tiny bit shorter
than that on my Atlantis. When I got the frame, I measured and was
horrified to see that it was actually about 1.5 cm longer! Turns out
that even with a slightly longer stem, I feel less stretched out on
the bike with the longer TT. Why is this? Well, I haven't bothered to
do the trigonometry or even take detailed measurements. The bike works
great, and I am happy.

TT length is best taken as a ballpark frame sizing measurement, and I
think many folks put too much emphasis on this single measurement.
Like saddle height, it's essentially an adjustable measurement - you
get a frame size that's close, and get a stem that gives a comfortable
position. In this case, Surly frames come in 2 cm increments, and for
those of us who have some idea of what works already, it's pretty easy
to determine between which two frame sizes we fall. But Cross-Checks
are taller than Rivendells, in any given size. So if someone had, say,
a 58 cm Rambouillet with tight-ish standover, then a 58 cm Cross-Check
may be downright uncomfortable in the standover area. Put 42 mm tires
on it, and it's going to be even bigger.

[Aaron Thomas]

For those who may have missed it, there was an article in the last
Rivendell Reader on the subject of top tube length with some useful
explanatory illustrations.

On Jul 3, 7:25 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com>
wrote:

[JoelMatthews]

I guess I never got around to reading the article. GP does discount
TT length, although not in favor of stand over. He focuses on seat
tube angle, saddle and handlebar height.

I remain unconvinced that stand over is a more significant measure
than TT. I put 60 Big Apples on a bike that is already a bit taller
than my other bikes. Sure, getting on and off the bike is awkward.
But the only difference I notice in the ride and handling is the cush
feel that are BA's call to fame. Which would seem consistent with
GP's theory, as seat tube angle and relative saddle and handle bar
height have not changed.