# Surly Cross Check Sizing - 56 or 58?



## braston

Okay, here’s another Surly sizing question for all of you almost 6’ tall Cross Check owners out there. 

I'm ready to order a new Cross Check frameset and am torn (as usual) between a 56cm and 58cm frame. I haven't been able to find one built up to try out and I'm sure that either will work for me... but I still want to make the best choice. I'll be riding this bike for many years and thousands of miles... so it's gotta' feel right.

I plan to build it up with Ultegra SL, compact crank, cyclocross drop bars and 35c - 40c tires (smooth rolling with side knobs like Ritchey Speed Max). I live in the Phoenix area, so fenders won't be necessary. The bike will be for commuting (38 miles round trip), long training rides, and having fun on primarily smooth hard-packed dirt trails and canal roads and some pavement (probably 50/50 mix). I don't plan on racing cyclocross or doing technical single track (I have an MTB for that) so massive standover is not an issue. I typically prefer larger frames to get the bar height up higher -- to within an inch either way of saddle height -- while still getting a bit stretched out over the top tube (at 40-something I'm not as flexible as I used to be). I also want to follow the Rivendell fitting method for this particular bike but maybe not quite as extreme as Grant Peterson at Rivendell espouses. When complete, I expect this bike will be the one that I ride the most so it needs to be comfortable.

I currently ride a Cervelo R3 58cm, which I will be keeping for group rides and centuries (see photos), Specialized Epic Large, and Trek Fuel 19-1/2" -- all three of which I'm totally comfortable on. I've also owned a Cervelo Prodigy and Renaissance, both 56cm, which I eventually sold because I just felt a little too cramped and the bar height was too low prior to using a high rise stem. I've always felt a 57c-t frame with a 570 to 575 c-c top tube with parallel head and seat tube angles and a long head tube would be my ideal road or cross frame in traditional geometry -- they're just hard to find. I know, the Lemond Poprad almost fits this bill but its kinda’ boring and overpriced for what you get. 

Okay, so with that said, here are my numbers:

Height: 5' 11.5" (tall torso, longer than average arms)
Weight: 205 (varies 190 to 215 but I’m fairly fit!)
Pubic Bone Height: 33.75" to 34" (85.7 to 86.4 cm)
Pants Inseam: Typically 32"
Preferred Saddle Height (Road & Cross Country MTB): 29.75" (75.6 cm) 
Crank Length: 175mm
... I think that's it.

I'm leaning towards the 58 based on Rivendell guidelines and because adding the spacers needed on the 56 for a taller bar height will effectively shorten the top tube up and give me that cramped feeling again. With a standover height pushing 33" on the 58 and wearing my Sidi Dominators, I'll be barely touching the top tube flat footed but will still be able to pull the bike up an inch or two before it's uncomfortable (I know, too much info). According to Grant, that's still plenty of standover clearance. What I really want is the 58's size with the 56's standover. If only there was a 58 cm Cross Check with a sloping top tube (like a Gunnar Crosshairs but with a Surly price tag).

So, what do you suggest 56 or 58? What sizes are you riding? Thanks for your help and sorry if I rambled too much.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath

It sounds like the only issue you have with the 58 is the standover which seems adequate even if it isn't optimal.


----------



## OperaLover

*Consider going one size smaller*

or check the TT length. I normally ride a 54, but went with the 52 because the TT length was very close to the TT on my road bike(s). The Surly BB is higher too, so the standover is affected. I bought the stock bike and the stem length was fine, too. 

Enjoy the Surly!


----------



## blackhat

get the 58.


----------



## flanman

I am 6' tall and have a 56 cm frame. It's a bit too small. I recommend the 58 cm. 

btw, if anyone wants to swap a 58 cm for a 56 cm, let me know.


----------



## mshaw99

I'm 6'2" with almost a 34" inseam and have 2 crosschecks, both 60cm. One is my cruiser, a single-speed with albatross handlebars, and the other is my cross bike. As a cruiser this size was perfect, for a cross bike I would prefer size smaller, ideally 58cm. Compared to my 60cm road bike the TT on crosscheck is slightly longer, which I've heard from other people too. Actually I'd really prefer a different bike for racing cross now, but it was a great "first" cross bike but the weight and lack of snappy-ness has me looking at new frames before next season.


----------



## pretender

Standover is a non-issue. You could also look at the Soma Double Cross, probably in the 56 size, because it has sloping top tube.


----------



## flanman

mshaw99 said:


> I'm 6'2" with almost a 34" inseam and have 2 crosschecks, both 60cm. One is my cruiser, a single-speed with albatross handlebars, and the other is my cross bike. As a cruiser this size was perfect, for a cross bike I would prefer size smaller, ideally 58cm. Compared to my 60cm road bike the TT on crosscheck is slightly longer, which I've heard from other people too. Actually I'd really prefer a different bike for racing cross now, but it was a great "first" cross bike but the weight and lack of snappy-ness has me looking at new frames before next season.


Many cross bikes feature a longer top tube (compared to road bike) as a deliberate design. This means that the rider isn't so far forward over the front wheel on steep downhills and might provide more control when cornering. The stem is expected to be reduced correspondingly, compared to the stem on road bike.

There's another school of thought that says top tube should be shorter on a cross bike. I guess surly is in the first camp.


----------



## cocoboots

looking at your cervelos i'd suggest the 58 because of the taller headtube


----------



## braston

Thanks for all the comments so far. I'm fine with the 58 cm top tube, especially if the bar is close to saddle height. My Cervelo has a 58 cm effective top tube as well and it's comfortable. My biggest concern is the standover height and it sounds like that's probably a non-issue. I'll probably order the 58 tomorrow but would still love to hear more comments.


----------



## pretender

braston said:


> My biggest concern is the standover height and it sounds like that's probably a non-issue.


There are just so few times when you are straddling the bike with both feet on the ground, and the bike is straight up and down. And in the case of, say, unclipping by accident while out of the saddle, a lower top tube just gives you farther to drop before landing (ouch). Cyclists had ridden for years and years with just a fistful of seatpost, and somehow their nuts survived.


----------



## pretender

P.S. Do look at the Soma, though. It's a nice frame, not too much more expensive than the Surly. IMO to get a better steel frame than the Soma requires a big price jump up to Gunnar. The Soma sizes are in between the Surly sizes, because of the sloping top tube. (Look at the top tubes.) I'm 6'0" with 35" PBH and ended up with the 58 frame and 100mm stem, fits good.


----------



## braston

pretender said:


> P.S. Do look at the Soma, though. It's a nice frame, not too much more expensive than the Surly. IMO to get a better steel frame than the Soma requires a big price jump up to Gunnar. The Soma sizes are in between the Surly sizes, because of the sloping top tube. (Look at the top tubes.) I'm 6'0" with 35" PBH and ended up with the 58 frame and 100mm stem, fits good.


Thanks, Pretender. However, I've noticed several Soma reviews mention the paint is very delicate. Have you had any problems with the paint on your Double Cross? Was it maybe just a bad batch of frames? I emailed Soma about the paint several weeks ago and never got a response. The Tange Prestige tubeset on the DC is definitely nicer than Surly's 4130 CrMo. Not to change the subject, but have you seen the new lugged Soma Speedster? It's sweeeeet!


----------



## pretender

braston said:


> However, I've noticed several Soma reviews mention the paint is very delicate.


Hm, I've noticed there's a bit of paint wear where the shifter cable housing touches the headtube. So maybe there's something to that.


----------



## roseyscot

cocoboots said:


> looking at your cervelos i'd suggest the 58 because of the taller headtube


agreed. you have very little drop and the shorter headtube on the 56 will require a lot of spacers and an upward angled stem. i am 6'1" and had a 58 that still required a 105 stem for comfortable commuting (of course i only had room for one spacer so that was part of the problem.


----------



## single1x1

IF YOUR not racing the 58cm would probably work. I'm 6ft with 34in inseam and ride a 56cm cross check, I bought it in the 56 size cause it had the same tt length as the trek road bike I had at the time which was a 58cm. I also wanted more stand over height so I went with the 56cm and ran the same 110size stem, but I've used mine for cross racing, I could easily set up a 58cm to be comfortable if it was used as a commuter/rain bike and didn't get trail ridden or raced as much. I have one of the older bean grean cross checks and I have found the paint to be pretty tough, I have one decent piece of cable rub on the head tube but I never put a sticker or anything their to combat it and it's been ridden and raced SS since 01'. I will be rebuilding it as a geared rain bike in soon since I now have a nicer SS race bike.


----------



## Doggity

Braston:I coulda written your post; our proportions appear to be almost identical. Like you, I like the shorter TT of the 56, but need the bars higher. I'd go with a 58; you can always fix it with a slightly shorter stem. My current roadie has a 56.5TT, and a 100mm stem. To get the bars in the same place with a 58cmTT, I'll just go with an 85cm stem. Remember, you're not going to be riding yer CC barefoot; shoes add at least 2, if not 3cm or more to your PBH. Lemme know what you get, how you build it, and how it feels, as I'm cogitating on doing the same thing.


----------



## braston

*I Ordered the 58!*

Thanks for all of the comments. I ordered the 58cm frame from speedgoat.com (they include free frame prep) and it shipped yesterday. It'll take about 6 days to arrive here in sunny AZ. I'll be ordering an Ultegra SL build kit from Colorado Cyclist with a few cyclocross-worthy substitutions. Should have it built up within a month or so. I'll post a few pics and let you know how it fits. Thanks again!!!


----------



## braston

*Here's a pic of the new beast...*

Here's a picture of the final build. I've been riding the new Cross Check now for several weeks and have a few hundred miles on it. The 58 was definitely the way to go for the type of riding I do. It's in the upper end of my size range, but the 56 would have been too cramped. The standover is just fine and the top tube stretches me out. The 44cm Bell Lap bar is much wider than typical bars and extends the reach a bit. I'm glad I went with a 100mm 10degree rise stem. Anything longer would have been too much. 

I went with the WTB Interwolf 700-38c tires with the new kevlar bead. They roll smooth and quiet on pavement, have plenty of traction and air volume in the dirt, and fit and handle fine with the fairly narrow road rims they're mounted on -- I highly recommend them. My average speed on the pavement is only about 1 mph slower than my Cervelo R3 with 700-23c GP 4000s. So far my rides have been about 60% on hard pack dirt canal roads and trails and the bike is extremely comfortable and fast over the bumps.

I did switch out the new Selle Italia Flite saddle for the previous Flite model. The old one is much more comfortable. Found a good deal on it at Wheelworld.com.

If your looking for a great do-it-all bike, the Cross Check is the only way to go. My other bikes are getting a little jealous. Happy trails!


----------



## vanjr

sweet! i think that any similar bike (soma, propad, etc) would also be great. sounds like a perfect bike for those arizona canals. i wish i had some/one (both the canals and a cross check!)

edit: i forgot to ask but about how much was the whole build? guessing I'd say 2K, kinda depending on the fork. Is it the steel one? approximate total weight as pictured? tia.


----------



## braston

The frame and fork (yes, it's the Surly steel fork) were $400. I bought a full Ultegra SL build kit from Colorado Cyclist for just over $1100. After substituting a few parts with CC, picking up a few others online and ebaying off the ones I didn't need, I estimate the total was around $1600 to $1700. Believe it or not, I never put this one on the scale. It's fairly heavy... probably in the low-to-mid 20 lb range. If I remember, I'll weigh it and let you know.

Yeah, the AZ canals are great. I live in Gilbert, work in Tempe, and can ride almost 15 of the 19 miles to work on canals and dirt trails. It's much more enjoyable to ride when you don't have to deal with cars!


----------



## haikalah

Very nice. But that rear brake cable looks mighty long.


----------



## Mootsie

haikalah said:


> Very nice. But that rear brake cable looks mighty long.


+1 Slice that sucker about 3 inches and you'll probably get better performance.


----------



## braston

Yeah, I agree. I'm installing some different straddle carriers and plan to lop off a couple of inches of housing at the same time.


----------



## CurbDestroyer

With all those spacer and the riser stem I don't see how you could have gone with a 56cm. Nice build . . . Looks like the Do-All-Too-All.


----------



## braston

Vanjr, I put it on the scale this week. The weight as pictured is just shy of 24 lbs. That includes gold Mr Tuffy tire liners, bar top levers, cages, heavy M520 pedals, and my trusty commuter mirror. You could probably build one of these to around 22 lbs, but not much less. But hey, this thing is tough as nails and loads of fun... I'm not worried about the weight.


----------



## braston

I cut the rear brake cable housing down this weekend. It looks much better!


----------



## pretender

Very nice build. I agree that the 58 was the right choice, the fit is classic fistful of seatpost. Looks like a lot of fun to ride.


----------



## vanjr

very respectable. enjoy!


----------



## suede34

I'm building up a 56cm cross check with 650mm wide lo-rise bars but can't decide whether to use a 100mm or 110mm stem w/ a six degree rise. I've read a bunch of forums on frame sizing such as rivbike.com before choosing a 56cm frame for my 5'-10" frame (long torso/shorter legs). Anyhoo, any advice on using either 100mm or 110mm stem...will I even notice a difference?


----------



## reyesjames

6'1" 32 inseam cervelo r3 sl 58 cm = 58 cm soma double cross? I would love a tighter ride but the 56cm could end up being to small? 

any thoughts


----------



## StageHand

reyesjames said:


> 6'1" 32 inseam cervelo r3 sl 58 cm = 58 cm soma double cross? I would love a tighter ride but the 56cm could end up being to small?
> 
> any thoughts


56 would definitely be too small. The DC sizing is pretty close to traditional road bike sizing, IME. Also, the DC has an extended head tube that shortens the cockpit a little bit. At a little over 6'2", the 60cm fits me perfectly.


----------



## reyesjames

thank you... any one have any experience with s&s couplers?


----------



## gentryp

Im just a hair over 6foot and bought the 60cm and wish i had the 58 because i bought simply based on stand over. After I took off the fat 45c tires and put on some 23c for a century it fit great and wouldnt have it any other way but with 45c its a stretch. Im going to try the salsa woodchipper bar for all the hand positions and the shallow drop and just awesome shap in general for my offroad adventures and long century rides. 
Im goofey though with really long limbs and not much of a torso.
I hope this helps... i know i didnt address anything you wanted me to but i enjoy talking about my bikes. :thumbsup:


----------



## yo mamma

Never mind, after having read the entire thread, I see you've already bought the 58.


----------

