# Surly : Cross check or Long haul trucker



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Hello all

I didn't know where to start this thread to get better opinions, but probably here is the best.

*The situation*

I have a commuter/touring/all purposes bike, built using a Cyclocross frameset form the Swiss brand "Price" these are just taiwanese frames, painted and branded locally so nothing special about it. I got it for a good price and has served well for already 3 and a half years.

The frame is a 54cm, so to get a good enough fit, while keepind the handlebars high enough to ride in traffic, I need to use it with a 130mm stem +6° and 3 10mm spacers.

It fits well rides well, I can fit large snow spike tyres for the winter, 32c touring tyres for the rest of the year.

its geometry is 

53cm 
TT 535 c-c
ST 53cm c-c, 54cm c-t, 56cm c-seapostclamp
STA 73.5°
HT 140 + STACK 4.5 ( headset cap + spacers )
HTA 72.0°

*the wish*

However I have been already since a while wanting to swap the frame for a steel traditional one. I was thinking on something with a more classic look, I do have 2 steel frames but those are racing frames so no clearing for large tyres.

I have set my eyes on Surly and I could get them fairly priced from Germany, specifically the models Cross Check and Long Haul Trucker

*the dilema*

I see their sizing is on the larger side

the smallest Long Haul Trucker is a 56cm which has 
TT 564.5 c-c
HT 152.0
so it is more like a 58cm bike and theoretically I could make it fit using a 100mm stem and one 10mm spacer which sounds good and it has a longer wheelbase 1055.6

a Cross Check 54cm has
TT 559.9 c-c which sounds good
HT 102.0 that seems very small.

so it is more like a 56cm bike but with a shorter headtube and theoretically I could make it fit using a 110mm stem but then would need lots of spacers which doesn't sounds that good and it has a shorter wheelbase 1014.3


well, well, I think I am answering my own question as I type this....

anyhow, who has experience with Surlys LHT or CC as commuters, how do you see the pros and cons of their geometries ?




I have


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I also see the Long Haul Trucker is 135mm on the rear and my wheels are 130 only....


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

hey salsa,

i literally just built a surly cross check to replace my bike that was stolen... and i love it. i "usually" ride a 56 and i got a 56 in the cross check. definitely some funky geometry on the cross check. . . that head tube is crazy short, and at first i thought it would never work, but, i flipped the stem (a bit dorky looking at first, but the way it rides makes up for it, plus, i have also come to terms with the look). here is what i've got:

100mm stem (flipped)
4cm of spacers (i could get away with two, but i intend to use this for a 3 week tour of europe in the summer, so i added the extras as i was falling in love with the "racy" feel of it. although, it is still pretty zippy, just more relaxed!!)

my friend has a trucker, and it could probably withstand a small nuclear missile. an awesome touring rig. but, i chose to build up the cross check because, while the LHT is tours like a champ, it does not have that zip that i look for. the cross was the prefect balance of touring capability and zippiness. 

what sold me on it was when i went into "Rando Cycles" here in paris and saw a cross check built up for touring. i figured, if one of the top touring boutiques in paris (they also carry cyfac, as well as make their own steel frames on site) would carry a cross check for touring, it must be ok.

i have yet to get the cross check loaded down, as my back rack is currently en route from germany, and i am having a solid set of touring wheels built, but i am pretty happy with it's current "racy" set-up, i.e. campagnolo scirocco wheels, rack-less-ness, etc.

for commuting and light-touring, i would say cross check. if you plan to ride to china, the trucker. you will enjoy both, but for me the lighter more nimble cross check does it!

as soon as i figure out how to do picture uploads i will show you Franck.


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

*franck photos*

here they are. and don't mind the bartape job... it was my first ever.
in the photos, i have only 3 cm of spacers, with the 4th on top. but, it still gives you an idea.


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

When considering the LHT, think Suburban. Big, heavy, V8, comfortable, utilitarian, confidence inspiring, able to haul any load without knowing it's there. The main reason I chose the LHT over the CC is the 26in wheels. More winter tire options, and stronger wheels with lower center of gravity when loaded down.


----------



## SlowJoeCrow (Sep 3, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I also see the Long Haul Trucker is 135mm on the rear and my wheels are 130 only....


The Cross Check complete build uses Shimano Deore hubs which are almost certainly 135mm but I read somewhere that the Cross Check and LHT frames are actually built with 132.5mm rear spacing and have enough flexibility to work with either 130mm or 135mm hubs by tightening the skewer (130) or pushing hard (135). Also since they are steel you can always have the frame cold set to your preferred hub width for a better fit.


----------



## brewster (Jun 15, 2004)

that is a nice and refreshing take on a CC. I kind of like the robin's egg blue. Your stem and bars must have cost as much as the frame.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I have ridden both and I would have to agree with the posters above. The LHT is for sections of long, long, loaded tours. Gobi Desert... LHT. The Cross Check is more nimble for lighter touring, commuting and dirty roads. When I rode the LHT on a 100 mile local ride, it was just not as satisfying as a lighter, more responsive bike.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

@knightev that is a very nice build.

Indeed those Cross Checks have very short head tubes, which is good for a cross racing bike sure, but to ride in traffic you need to be more upwards, the equivalent frame to mine has 2cm less head tube. well my frame has a very slight slope so probably that is also the reason.

this is a picture of mine from last year when I had a 110mm +17 stem, I changed it now for a 130mm +6 that fits better and has the handlebar height more or less the same

The bike is 15 to 16 Kgs with all the touring equipement on including the lock, lights etc.










I agree with you that this bike is indeed more nimble, however I am leaning towards the Long Haul Trucker, but I do want it on 28" because my 2 set of touring wheels are 28" and well there is no campy freehubs on 135 AFAIK


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

hey salsa, glad you like my cross check. i was very happy with how it turned out! your photo did not show up, however!

@ brewster-- the bar and stem only look expensive. stem was about $35, bars about $30! ribble. killer january sales.

just added a tubus logo carrier back rack to franck-- haven't had a chance to load him down yet, though.

as for the heads up for commuting aspect, i have had no trouble with being too leaned over. i just zip through traffic with no trouble seeing.

have you decided which you will build up, yet, salsa?


----------



## Matt1986 (Mar 19, 2010)

Dajianshan said:


> I have ridden both and I would have to agree with the posters above. The LHT is for sections of long, long, loaded tours. Gobi Desert... LHT. The Cross Check is more nimble for lighter touring, commuting and dirty roads. When I rode the LHT on a 100 mile local ride, it was just not as satisfying as a lighter, more responsive bike.


Agreed. I have just built up a LHT for 4 months of self-supported touring around Europe (which I embark on in a week's time) and while it is both comfortable and reliable, I have found taking it on 'test runs' along my commuting route rather frustrating. 

Admittedly, I usually commute on an old steel racer, but I would still be looking for something a little more lively if it were to be a purpose-built commuter. However, for ambling along at 18kph for hours at a time with a heavy load, the LHT is damn near perfect.


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

Hi All,

I kind of rushed into buying a bike last Saturday after only a few days of research. At my LBS, I rode the trek 8.5 DS (what I went in expecting to buy) and 7.3 FX, and walked out with the 7.3

Since doing more research, I've decided that I, instead, want the Surly Cross Check. So, I too, am looking for opinions / assistance with the fit and geometry. 

I would like to size myself and determine if the geometry of the Surly will fit me well. Combined with the knowledge here, and if anyone can point me to a recommended fitting guide, I should be able to determine if it will fit me or not.

The Surly will be a final sale because it is special order, so I want to be absolutely sure I'm getting the correct frame. I am not able to try it out before-hand, as none of the dealers around here carry them.

Thanks!


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

Jake8078 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Since doing more research, I've decided that I, instead, want the Surly Cross Check. So, I too, am looking for opinions / assistance with the fit and geometry.
> 
> ...


hey jake,

go here and you can check out the cross check geometry for yourself:

Cross-Check | Bikes | Surly Bikes

the dimensions are rather abnormal, so if you provided some of your measurements, i and some others would probably be able to advise you a bit.


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

Thanks knightev, I actually have seen those dimensions, but they're a bit less meaningful to me, being a complete newb (I don't know what would be considered within my range for each feature).

I will take some of my measurements when I get home tonight. Thanks again!

Any specific ones other than inseam? 

I found a fit calculator on competitivecyclist.com (I can't link it because I don't have enough posts under my belt). Maybe those would be the most useful measurements?


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

Jake8078 said:


> I found a fit calculator on competitivecyclist.com (I can't link it because I don't have enough posts under my belt). Maybe those would be the most useful measurements?



yeah those would be good. post those when you get a chance!


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

and if i were you, jake, i would start this under a new thread, so as to let salsa's thread do its thing.


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

knightev said:


> yeah those would be good. post those when you get a chance!


Thanks Knight. Yes, I actually tried initially but I don't have enough posts. I was hoping to keep the discussion such that we could both benefit from the thread, but now we're getting into my specific dimensions, so you're right. It would be more courteous to start my own thread at this point.

Would you mind starting one one for me? I need 3 more posts (including this one) to be able to.

My dims, with the instructions used on competitivecyclist.com are (inches followed by cm):

Inseam 31.375 inches
79.69 cm

Trunk 24.00
60.96

Forearm	12.75
25.5

Arm 24.75
62.87

Thigh 22.88
58.12

Lower Leg 20	
50.8

Sternal Notch 54.5
138.4

Total Height	66.56
169.06


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

No problem for me, this is on topic, discussion about surly as a commuter.

Currently I am tending to wait a while, my commuter in fine like it is, but a specific touring build on the long haul trucker is on my mid term plans


----------



## box handler (Nov 8, 2010)

Honestly, Cross Check is one of those "instant classic" frames that you can't go wrong with. It's also a much faster bike than the LHT. Not that you're planning to race with it, but no one likes to be demolished in the annoying sport we call "commuter cross." This is without sacrificing any comfort, of course. The LHT is just made to haul a load, like its name suggests.


----------



## Nerdsftw (Mar 29, 2012)

Get the cross for cx or get the trucker for touring


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

Jake8078 said:


> My dims, with the instructions used on competitivecyclist.com are (inches followed by cm):
> 
> Inseam 31.375 inches
> 79.69 cm
> ...


with salsa's blessing we stay here!

do you have a long torso and long arms, jake? i am 183cm tall, 88cm inseam, and we have the same length arms! well, almost. a smidge over 63 for me.

once i get a chance i will look a bit more closely.

i now have a back rack on my cross check (tubus logo carrier) and even with one pannier on, it still zips around like a champ. touring wheels currently being built...


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

box handler said:


> Honestly, Cross Check is one of those "instant classic" frames that you can't go wrong with. It's also a much faster bike than the LHT. Not that you're planning to race with it, but no one likes to be demolished in the annoying sport we call "commuter cross." This is without sacrificing any comfort, of course. The LHT is just made to haul a load, like its name suggests.



I am totally sold on the CC. At this point it's just a matter of figuring out which frame size to get. :thumbsup:



knightev said:


> do you have a long torso and long arms, jake? i am 183cm tall, 88cm inseam, and we have the same length arms! well, almost. a smidge over 63 for me.
> once i get a chance i will look a bit more closely.


I'm guessing that maybe I do, unless I measured incorrectly, but I tried my best to follow the instructions in that video. I'm, at this point, thinking the 50cm frame may be my best best, with the 46 on the small side and the 52 maybe a bit large. All speculations for me, since I'm so new to this.

If I were to lean more to one kind of stance with the fit, I'd say a slightly more relaxed upright stance would be preferable for my commuting.


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

Jake8078 said:


> I'm guessing that maybe I do, unless I measured incorrectly, but I tried my best to follow the instructions in that video. I'm, at this point, thinking the 50cm frame may be my best best, with the 46 on the small side and the 52 maybe a bit large. All speculations for me, since I'm so new to this.
> 
> If I were to lean more to one kind of stance with the fit, I'd say a slightly more relaxed upright stance would be preferable for my commuting.


looking at your measurements, it seems to be between 50 and 52 for the cross check. it is hard for me to point you towards either one with 100% confidence, however, as those arms of your seem as thought they could handle a longer top tube just fine. and since the head tubes on the cross check is so short, from what i see with most cross check builds, the stems are flipped, effectively shortening the reach and raising the bar height at the same time. . . i would be leaning towards a 52 [edit: forgot to finish my thought]

could you tell us what size trek 7.3 you had decided on so we could compare a bit?


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

knightev said:


> could you tell us what size trek 7.3 you had decided on so we could compare a bit?


Thanks Knight. I have the 17.5 trek 7.3, which has an ETT of 54.8cm. While in a reasonably upright position on the 7.3, my arms are almost fully extended when on the its handlebars. Since the hoods of drop handlebars would probably be placed further forward, I would think that would be too much reach (any further forward and I'm almost hyper extending my elbows).

Since the ETT length of the 52cm CC is just about the same (1mm off), is it reasonable to assume that the hoods would be too much reach and I'd be better off with the 50cm?

I also found this wonderful Google Group on CC owners, where they have posted a spreadsheet of people's opinions on their frame's fits, along with their PBH and total height.

I can't hyperlink due to my low post count, but I'll try to get around it here (i put a bunch of spaces before "google":



knightev said:


> could you tell us what size trek 7.3 you had decided on so we could compare a bit?


Thanks Knight. I have the 17.5 trek 7.3, which has an ETT of 54.8cm. While in a reasonably upright position on the 7.3, my arms are almost fully extended when on the its handlebars. Since the hoods of drop handlebars would probably be placed further forward, I would think that would be too much reach (any further forward and I'm almost hyper extending my elbows).

Since the ETT length of the 52cm CC is just about the same (1mm off), is it reasonable to assume that the hoods would be too much reach and I'd be better off with the 50cm?

I also found this wonderful Google Group on CC owners, where they have posted a spreadsheet of people's opinions on their frame's fits, along with their PBH and total height. However, I can't hyperlink it due to my post count.


----------



## knightev (Sep 22, 2011)

Jake8078 said:


> Thanks Knight. I have the 17.5 trek 7.3, which has an ETT of 54.8cm. While in a reasonably upright position on the 7.3, my arms are almost fully extended when on the its handlebars. Since the hoods of drop handlebars would probably be placed further forward, I would think that would be too much reach (any further forward and I'm almost hyper extending my elbows).
> 
> Since the ETT length of the 52cm CC is just about the same (1mm off), is it reasonable to assume that the hoods would be too much reach and I'd be better off with the 50cm?
> 
> .


hmm, yeah, that seems as though the 52 might be a bit big. . . one thing i have read a lot is that often 2 sizes of cross check will fit a person, sometimes people have even reported being comfortable on 3 (!!) different sizes.

check into that google group thing and pick their brains.

then, once you've informed yourself some more, email surly directly! i did that, in the end, and they pointed me in the right direction.

one thing to keep in mind is that you can always play with the length of your stem to help fit a top tube!


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

Thanks Knight, yes the other thing I have read several times is that if you are considering between 2 sizes, you are, in many cases, better off with the smaller one. (Of course, everyone's geometry is different). I think the 50 is what I'll end up getting.

I also did e-mail Surley yesterday. Haven't heard back yet, but hope to before Saturday when I have to make the order. I'm very excited about this bike.

I started to look at the Salsa Vaya, but I called the LBS today and they are unable to get it so it's not really an option. I don't feel disc brakes are necessary anyways, but I wondered if I would have liked the slightly more upright position better.

What I'd really like to do is keep customization as open as possible in selecting a frame size.

EDIT: I've seen some complaints about the stock mechs, are they really that terrible or people expecting too much?


----------



## predictive (Aug 8, 2009)

I've owned and commuted on both a Long Haul Trucker and a Cross Check. If you're not putting 30+ pounds on the back and going the distance, the Cross Check is the right choice. It's way more fun for commuting on a regular basis than the LHT was. I ride a Cross Check complete with platforms as my do-it-all commuter now, and I ride all kinds of stuff I wouldn't try on my other bikes (sand, dirt, you name it). 

Having said that, I'll be buying another LHT in the future for touring. It's a great, great bike. I've also built a Troll, and will probably pick up a Pacer in the near future.


----------



## otherself (Aug 25, 2006)

I'd get the LHT


----------



## Jake8078 (Mar 27, 2012)

I ordered the 50cm, will report back when it arrives (shop told me ~10 days).


----------



## b0bsag3t (May 25, 2012)

Wanted to reopen this, and ask your opinion: I'm trying to choose between a CC and LHT. I'm a grad student without a car, and want something that I'm going to be able to ride to Costco (~10 miles) and stock up (gallons of milk, few pounds of chicken, and produce...heavier stuff) and ride home. Also looking for something I can take out on country roads and not carry too much but go on a longer ride. I don't for see doing any "official" touring as my schedule will not allow me to, but maybe in the future. Currently, I have a Steamroller I use to commute to campus and around town, so I wouldn't be using this bike on a daily basis/short rides. Your thoughts are appreciated.


----------



## Pacer1 (May 21, 2012)

*Cross Check*

It sounds to me that the CC would be a better option for you. The LHT rides much better when fully loaded for touring. I have a Pacer and got it with an uncut tube and have all the spacers I can get on it and have had no problem. You'll love the ride of a Surly. Good luck. 
Paced1.


----------



## b0bsag3t (May 25, 2012)

What I'm worried about are my trips to Costco, and loading it up too much. Does anyone know how much will be too much when it comes to loading up a CC?


----------



## Pacer1 (May 21, 2012)

*Loading up*



b0bsag3t said:


> What I'm worried about are my trips to Costco, and loading it up too much. Does anyone know how much will be too much when it comes to loading up a CC?


I think the total weight is some place in the area of 400 pounds including rider weight.


----------



## surly boy (Sep 8, 2011)

The LHT is a pure touring frameset. As such it handles very well when heavily loaded, but it would not be a particularly good bike for road rides as it is not meant to be a quick handling bike. The CC however is close to being a do everything bike. It handles well under load and is a pretty quick handling bike when unloaded.


----------



## b0bsag3t (May 25, 2012)

So, if I load it up with panniers and lug around a lot of groceries, it should be good? The issue of heel clearance is something I'm also worried about (I've read about this in reviews). Is this a huge issue?problem?


----------

