# Cross Check or Double Cross, Surly or Soma ?



## Imashaghen (Aug 25, 2007)

I 've been lurking in the forums for some time now, I must admit my interest for road cycling has really increased (I 've been riding mtbs for the last years). The time has finally come to build a cyclocross - do-it-all bike. The main choices in my price range are the Surly Cross Check and the Soma Double Cross. I 've read alot about the pros and cons of each :

*Pros for Cross Check :* SS ability (don't care about it), takes slightly larger tires (42vs38), it is slightly cheaper (350vs450Eurro frame and fork)

*Pros for Double Cross :* Better (?) Steel (Tange Prestige front triangle vs 4130 CroMo), slightly lighter, Disc mounts (from 2008 onwards, which I don'y know if I care about), like the colors better

I must point out that I cannot try either of the frames (there isn't even a distributor in Italy), so choices must be made based on research rather than feel. The questions are :

1. As far as geometries go the only differences I noticed, is the horizontal top tube of the Cross Check (vs slightly slopped of the Double cross) and the shorter wheelbase of the Cross Check (1030mm vs 1042mm) for the 58cm frame I 've been looking. The headtube of the Surly is shorter. How do they handle, which one needs less spacers over the headtube for the bars to reach the same height (I cannot stand spacers).

Soma Geometry :










Surly Geom :










https://www.surlybikes.com/crosscheck.html
https://www.somafab.com/geometry03.html

2. In your experience which of the two has a better paintjob (from what I see the Soma, but I could be wrong).

Thanks for answering and happy new year to all!


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

I was in your boat about a year ago, and I think you've laid it out pretty well. Since my bike was going to be for cross racing, road training, and the possibility of light touring, but not commuting or heavy-duty mountain riding, I went with the Soma. I easily could have gone with the Surly.

Note the Soma has a slightly sloped top tube, so the 58 is a slightly larger bike than the Surly 58. (Note the longer ETT and HT.) I wouldn't obsess too much about geom differences between the two makes, just get the right size frame and you won't need tons of spacers. One nice thing about the Soma is the headtube extends pretty far up.


----------



## Imashaghen (Aug 25, 2007)

Thanks for the answer. The real dilemma is about the size. I am 6' (185cm) with a 33" (84cm) inseam and somewhat long arms. From what I read the 58cm Cross Check should fit fine, I have my doubts about the 58cm Soma though.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

I am 6'0" with a pubic bone height of 35". (The term "inseam" is ambiguous. I suspect your PBH is nearer 35" than 33".) I got the Soma in 58 and use a 100mm stem. I suspect I could use a 120mm with no problem. (This winter I'm going to experiment with a slightly more aggressive bar setup.) The LBS guy tried to convince me to get the 56, because of the ETT, but I'm glad I went with the 58. (A top tube of a given length will feel longer on a smaller frame, because you'll be using more seat post and thus moving your butt away from the handlebars.) When I was bike hunting, it was very helpful to use Zinn's frame size calculator: http://zinncycles.com/FitIntro.aspx Take very careful measurements (he has specific instructions). The recommendations I got on my own were very close to the recommendations I got at the LBS using the bikefitting.com system.


----------



## Imashaghen (Aug 25, 2007)

That's awesome, thanks for helping out. I too feel more comfortable on a larger, longer bike and I agree 58 is the way to go. Another off-topic question, regarding cantilevers, should I opt for the shimano R550 or the Cane Creek scx-5, they both take v-brake pads, but I couldn't find any info on the cane creeks, on the other hand running discs on the soma should be a better solution, altough not the most aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

I use Cane Creek headset, brake levers, interrupter levers, and cantis on my bike, am happy with all of it. The brakes are fully adjustable, including toe-in, and came with kool-stop pads.


----------



## pinepig (Dec 24, 2004)

This may be late, but just this week I made the same decision between these two bikes and I went Surly. The clincher for me was the fact that the Soma uses a very short fork, while the Surly's 400mm fork is close to most aftermarket cross forks (usually are 395). I called Soma to get the spec, but I don't remember what it was exactly. Even if you never plan to upgrade the fork, the shorter length would tend to have less shock absorption, everything else being equal.

I also like the long TT of the Surly, as I wanted to switch to a flat bar setup (which turned out very nice).


----------



## Imashaghen (Aug 25, 2007)

pinepig said:


> This may be late, but just this week I made the same decision between these two bikes and I went Surly. The clincher for me was the fact that the Soma uses a very short fork, while the Surly's 400mm fork is close to most aftermarket cross forks (usually are 395). I called Soma to get the spec, but I don't remember what it was exactly. Even if you never plan to upgrade the fork, the shorter length would tend to have less shock absorption, everything else being equal.
> 
> I also like the long TT of the Surly, as I wanted to switch to a flat bar setup (which turned out very nice).


Great info on the fork. There were some users over at mtbr asking about the dimensions of the Soma fork, I 'll inform them.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pinepig said:


> This may be late, but just this week I made the same decision between these two bikes and I went Surly. The clincher for me was the fact that the Soma uses a very short fork, while the Surly's 400mm fork is close to most aftermarket cross forks (usually are 395). I called Soma to get the spec, but I don't remember what it was exactly. Even if you never plan to upgrade the fork, the shorter length would tend to have less shock absorption, everything else being equal.
> 
> I also like the long TT of the Surly, as I wanted to switch to a flat bar setup (which turned out very nice).


You realize how tiny 5mm is, right? Not to mention the fact that there is no telling whether that 5mm is in the legs, where it might make some infintesimal difference, or in the crown where it could make the fork stiffer.

We have one of each in the household, and the difference in weight and quality is negligible at best. If the SS and upcoming disc options don't matter, it really comes down to fit first, the cost, then aesthetics IMO.


----------



## pinepig (Dec 24, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> You realize how tiny 5mm is, right?


Yes, I realize that is tiny! I said that it's close to the standard 395mm size - I consider the two sizes interchangeable. The Soma, on the other hand, was somewhere in the 460-465 randge (I don't remember exactly).


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pinepig said:


> The Soma, on the other hand, was somewhere in the 460-465 randge (I don't remember exactly).


I'm confused. The Soma/IRD lugged fork is 395mm.


----------



## pinepig (Dec 24, 2004)

We'll, I guess I'm confused as well. I emailed them about the Double Cross fork, and they responded with the spec I listed. They said it could accept a longer fork (in the 395 range), but of course that throws the geometry off.

I dug through my emails to see if I could find it, but it's gone.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pinepig said:


> We'll, I guess I'm confused as well. I emailed them about the Double Cross fork, and they responded with the spec I listed. They said it could accept a longer fork (in the 395 range), but of course that throws the geometry off.
> 
> I dug through my emails to see if I could find it, but it's gone.


It sounds like Soma is confused! Maybe they were looking at the Smoothie (road bike) spec.

At any rate, either the Soma or the Surly is a great frame for the money.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

I just measured my Soma fork, it's somewhere around 400mm. Plenty of clearance.

I always thought it was the Tange T-2402, is that the same as the IRD lugged cross fork? It has a decal that says it uses Tange Infinity tubing. Pretty fork.


----------



## StageHand (Dec 27, 2002)

pretender said:


> I just measured my Soma fork, it's somewhere around 400mm. Plenty of clearance.
> 
> I always thought it was the Tange T-2402, is that the same as the IRD lugged cross fork? It has a decal that says it uses Tange Infinity tubing. Pretty fork.


IRD makes the forks (sold separately) for those frames. They also make a carbon fork with the same measurements, IIRC. 

EDIT: IRD lists the fork as 395 mm A-C. The carbon fork is only 390 mm.


----------



## mayan (Oct 5, 2005)

This may be a bit late, but I thought I'd chip in with my comments.

I went with the Soma (the older 2006, reynolds model) and it's great. Its the dark green, which I dont think is available anymore, but its very good quality and after 18months or so shows very little wear or tear.

I'm 6 ft, 32inch inseam and went for the 54cm size. Its a tiny bit small on road and a tiny bit big off road, which i guess means its the perfect size??!! I've come from MTBs rather than road bikes, and I'm much happier on smaller frames.

I've used it for pretty much everything, except racing. Its a commuter, shopper, road bike, singletrack etc etc etc. I've got it set up with a layback seatpost and a 100mm stem and its great for road riding, in the saddle for long distances, and then out of the saddle off road its very predictable and easy to handle.

I've also got the shimano BR550's and they're great, no squeals or judders (need to toe them in) and they'll lock the wheels easily.

Also heard a lot of good stuff about the surly, so I dont think you'd be dissapointed either way.
Hope this helps!


----------

