# Soma Double Cross vs Saga



## planetjag

I have a small decision to make and I'd willingly accept any opinion (informed or otherwise), conclusive evidence, or vague hand waving.

I was about to buy myself a Double Cross frame but then I noticed the new Saga with it's beautiful blue colouring. That got me wondering about whether it might be a better option. I've had very little experience with road bikes I'm not completely sure how the different geometries will affect me.

The bike will be mainly used for commuting, towing a kiddie trailer (currently weighing about 45kg with both kids in), general cruising around & to the shops, and with the possibility of an occasional light tour (overnight camping, or B&B hopping).

I am planning to run my on-one Mary bars but am also thinking about grabbing some North Roads to see what their like. I'll try for a reasonably upright position.

Any thoughts on which (if either) is a better option?


----------



## StageHand

I wouldn't worry about not knowing much about road bikes. Are you a mountain biker now? Do you have any biking background at all? For many of us, "upright" means something like the way many mountain bikers ride in their normal set up, for others, it means gripping the bar tops, rather than hoods. It will be most effective if you could compare it to something you have ridden, or are riding.

Offhand, I'd say that the Saga is better suited for upright riding, because of its extended head tube. On the other hand, the top tube is really short, especially compared to most XC mountain bikes and most road bikes. How short is too short? I don't know, and I couldn't begin to say. It really depends on how and what you ride, and how and what you want to ride this new frame. 

Good luck.


----------



## tarwheel2

Personally, I would get the Saga because I ride almost exclusively on the road. Get the Double Cross if you plan to ride offroad as well, but the Saga would be better if you plan to ride roads and particularly if you would like to tour. The Saga would be much better suited for carrying gear because it's a touring frame. I commuted for 2+ years on a racing frame until I got a touring frame last winter, and a touring bike is much more practical for commuting, touring and carrying gear in general.


----------



## FatTireFred

def go for the better color


----------



## buck-50

THe saga might be overkill, but it sure is pretty.

Personally, I'd go with the Stanyan. It's got all the rack eyelets you'll ever need and if you aren't planning on going cross country, why get the saga?

I can say from personal experience that you can stop a trailer just fine with single pull road brakes. Get some decent dual pivot brakes and you'll be fine.

Oh, and the stanyan will fit 32s. if you aren't gonna tour, that's probably all you'd ever need.


----------



## DrRoebuck

I love my Double Cross. I do pretty much everything you're talking about and it does the job perfectly.











Note: Have since changed the saddle, bottle cage and pedals, and added a genuine hula girl.


----------



## e39540is

I have been wanting the Double Cross DC for a while for light touring, and because you can run disc on it. I love disc, especially when wet or snowy. I do like the paint on the Saga but I would still go for the Double Cross DC. Thats just my $.02


----------



## planetjag

*Thanks*

Thanks for the responses.

stagehand - All my previous bike experience is MTB hence my slight uncertainty about sizing & position. I had thought the same thing about Saga being more suited to upright and I presumed the shorter top tune was in line with this.

tarwheel - I expect to me either on road or smooth unpaved rouds/trails. I figured the Saga would clearly be better if I planned some loaded touring but can't see that happening. Any touring I do will be lightish, but I guess it can't hurt to have more carrying capacity than I need.

FatTireFred - you've hit the nail on the head. I probably wouldn't have started down this track if the Saga wasn't so pretty.

buck-50 - how dare you introduce another bike? But, it's a pretty one too, with those lugs & all. Can it fit fenders with 32s on?

I figure I'll probably be happy enough with whatever I end up with. Should just bite the bullet.


----------



## hepcatbent

<drool> Wow. 

Sorry I've got nothing meaninful to add to the OP's dilemma... but this is gorgeous!

Roger



DrRoebuck said:


> I love my Double Cross. I do pretty much everything you're talking about and it does the job perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Have since changed the saddle, bottle cage and pedals, and added a genuine hula girl.


----------



## planetjag

*interesting geometry comparison*

So I've been having a closer look at the numbers for both frames and the 56cm Saga is very similar in size to the 54cm Double Cross. Similar top tube. Slightly lower stand over. Longer headtube (which I presume maans it will be higher). Longer chainstays of course.

I've ruled out the Stanyan suggestion based on price. 

The other deciding factor may be as simple as whether I can even get hold of a Saga here in Australia.


----------



## FatTireFred

planetjag said:


> So I've been having a closer look at the numbers for both frames and the 56cm Saga is very similar in size to the 54cm Double Cross. Similar top tube. Slightly lower stand over. Longer headtube (which I presume maans it will be higher). Longer chainstays of course.
> 
> I've ruled out the Stanyan suggestion based on price.
> 
> The other deciding factor may be as simple as whether I can even get hold of a Saga here in Australia.




don't forget to compare a-c fork length, if different it will affect whether a longer ht actually results in higher bars or not


----------



## planetjag

FatTireFred said:


> don't forget to compare a-c fork length, if different it will affect whether a longer ht actually results in higher bars or not


Good point. They don't include those numbers so I might have to ask them. \

Having said that, it doesn't really matter. I'm sure I can manage a comfortable height on either bike with the right stem/spacers.


----------



## StageHand

FatTireFred said:


> don't forget to compare a-c fork length, if different it will affect whether a longer ht actually results in higher bars or not


Also note the angles, the Saga will fit a little bit longer than it measures because of its lower angles. Don't know how much, as I haven't ridden it.


----------



## planetjag

StageHand said:


> Also note the angles, the Saga will fit a little bit longer than it measures because of its lower angles. Don't know how much, as I haven't ridden it.


Actually, the angles are the same. I'm comparing the 54cm double cross with the 54cm saga and they're both 72/73


----------



## intheways

I love my doublecross, but I got it because if the disc mounts. The Saga in these pics (http://somafab.com/sagamore.html) looks really nice.

They both (well all three) look like nice bikes


----------



## rmsmith

planetjag said:


> The bike will be mainly used for commuting, towing a kiddie trailer (currently weighing about 45kg with both kids in), general cruising around & to the shops, and with the possibility of an occasional light tour (overnight camping, or B&B hopping).


The purpose built touring bikes usually have a low bottom bracket dimension making them ideal for riding with family where you'll find yourself stopping frequently, needing to reach the ground easily. They also usually have a taller head tube, so you'll have an upright riding position, which makes it easier to turn your head to see behind you. The longer wheel base makes the bike more stable at slower speeds too.


----------



## planetjag

rmsmith said:


> The purpose built touring bikes usually have a low bottom bracket dimension making them ideal for riding with family where you'll find yourself stopping frequently, needing to reach the ground easily. They also usually have a taller head tube, so you'll have an upright riding position, which makes it easier to turn your head to see behind you. The longer wheel base makes the bike more stable a slower speeds too.


Thanks for pointing out the BB height, I hadn't really thought much about that.

is there any downside to the lower BB? I can see it being a problem if riding off road needing to clear obstacles, or perhaps if I wanted a more nimble bike to be thrown around a lot. 

But neither of those apply to me, so I'm beginning to lean more toward the Saga. It doesn't have the disc option, but I wasn't going to run discs anyway. I like the colour, and it's even a bit cheaper.


----------



## planetjag

*Bit the bullet*

For anyone curious, I went with the Double Cross. Can't tell you exactly why for sure, figured it was much of a muchness for my riding.

Have started the build and really happy with how it's looking. Pics to follow.


----------



## ElvisMerckx

*Soma Double Cross Commuter*

Interesting thread. I recently bought a Soma Double Cross to use as a commuter too. I just finished building it up today (well, almost, I still have Brooks leather tape and a silver rack on order).


----------



## planetjag

My build is almost complete, but I'm having trouble getting a front mech on as there's so little room between seat tube and fender


----------



## ElvisMerckx

planetjag said:


> My build is almost complete, but I'm having trouble getting a front mech on as there's so little room between seat tube and fender


Try adding a few spacers between the fender and the chain-stay bridge. It makes the fender follow the line of the tire better, and it opens more space between the seatpost and fender. Remember, the Double Cross has more tire clearance than a typical touring frame, so you'll need to mount the fender away from the frame and closer to the tire to keep the lines right.


----------



## planetjag

ElvisMerckx said:


> Try adding a few spacers between the fender and the chain-stay bridge. It makes the fender follow the line of the tire better, and it opens more space between the seatpost and fender. Remember, the Double Cross has more tire clearance than a typical touring frame, so you'll need to mount the fender away from the frame and closer to the tire to keep the lines right.


You're right, I do have a little room to move the fender back. I'm going to try that on the weekend, along with a low clamp mech. The high clamp mech I had left only about 5mm clearance to the 35mm tyre even before I added fenders.


----------



## Apathizer

Sorry to resurrect such an old thread, but I'm weighing the same issue. I have an older Trek cyclocross bike that needs a new drivetrain. I'd like to transfer the hardware to a bike I'll be using for light to moderate touring.

The Double-Cross looks like a better general-purpose frame, while the Saga would be better for serious loaded touring. Right now I'm inclined to go with the Dbl-X because I probably won't be carrying more than about 30pds or so. It would also be better on mixed terrain.

The geometry of the Saga seems like it would make it less nimble and fun for light-touring, commuting, and recreational riding. Since it's designed to work best when loaded, it might actually be a bit less stable unloaded or with a light load.

I'd love to get input from persons who are familiar with either or both bikes - particularly those who have used the Dbl-X for touring: How much can it safely carry, etc.

Note: I'm 5'9", with a 31" inseam, so heal and toe strike probably isn't much of a concern. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Birddog

I just got off my DC an hour or so ago after my morning 31 mile ride. When I was on the bike I was thinking to myself what a great all rounder this thing is. I love to ride it. I have not toured with it, but there is no reason it can't be loaded down. The longest rides I've completed were just shy of 100 miles and were gravel paved mixes. The SOMA works well for that, and that's the main reason I bought it. I have had the bike on singletrack that I shouldn't have been on, but I didn't know any better. It performed admirably esp. in light of it's limitations. I think the SOMA is one of the best all purpose bikes a person could buy. Yes I'm biased, but look how long the frame has been around and they still sell a fair amount. They haven't had to fiddle with the design either, it just keeps truckin'. I also get a fair amount of compliments on how good the bike looks (in a traditional sort of way) it'll never be mistaken for a lightweight racing machine the way I've built it.


----------

