RFC

Come on, what's not to like . . . .

bulldog1935

Steel. Surly is one of the few brands you can walk into a LBS, pay your money, and ride away on a great bike.

While their marketing has crossed the weird line (Racing Sucks), they've hit the price niche correctly and made their way into LBS everywhere.

bikemig 

Soma tends to spec their bikes with a bit higher quality steel like tange prestige in the main triangle.

I think Surly is like all the fine 4130 steel bikes that used to come out of Japan back in the day except they're tigged, threadless, unicrown, modern spacing in the rear, etc. and obviously don't come from Japan.

If you wanted something "better" (whatever that means), you'd probably go custom back in the day and probably go there today as well.

corrado33

I bought a CC (2 years ago) because I wanted a steel commuter that wouldn't have any problem mounting a rack and I could put 35-38s on with fenders. Now, I'm sure there are many C&V bikes I could have done that on, and MANY more that could do 2 or 3 of those 4 things but I was impatient and wanted a new bike NOW.

Basically what everybody said here is what I knew about them before I bought one. Solid bike that's not the lightest but will likely never break and often comes in cool colors. (Mine is "Tangerine.")

Besides, which major manufacturer was offering steel bikes at anything but a premium? Most steel mountain bikes are priced hundreds of dollars higher than their aluminum equivalents.

So, for me, the appeal is relatively cheap, solid, easily accessible, steel bike that rides OK.

So, you know, the Toyota or Honda of bikes...

fender1

As stated previously, I see a lot of Cross Checks & LHT's actually being ridden. They are workhorses that don't require much in the way of thought and excessive worry. Most of the people I know who have owed a Surly usually did not have more than one bike. In many instances, their Surly was the "gateway drug" to customs/C&V etc.


I have not owned one but I would and not have any issue with it.

andr0id

I looked into getting a Steamroller and almost bought one, but ended up getting a Gunnar instead.

A few reasons...

The Surly is a lot squarer geometry than I like and I was able to get the Gunnar with a shorter top tube.

Everyone said they built up to a over a 20lb fixed, which seemed too heavy even for a steel frame and fork. I think they just use heavy tubes. My Gunnar came in at about 18lbs which seems more reasonable for a steel fixed road bike.

No idea when it would get here. There was another post a while back about how delayed Surly was getting containers here from China. The Gunnar took about 8 weeks from order to receipt.

And the Gunnar had more paint colors to pick from.

Yeah, it cost more, but I'm glad I spent the extra bucks. It's a great bike.

bikemig 

Agreed. Gunnar fills an interesting niche between surly/soma and custom built. Certainly if looking for a new road bike, Gunnar would be near the top of my list as well.

ThermionicScott 

I like the car analogy. Almost to a person, everyone I know with a Surly loads theirs down with so much stuff that the frame weight isn't a concern.

ppg677

How is that saddle tilt on a B17 not pushing your weight forward into your hands/wrists?

corrado33

Seems like you could have gone a size up with the amount of seatpost (and spacers on the stem) you have showing? Any reason for buying your particular size? I bought a 54 instead of a 56 on mine because I read that surly has long TTs.

bulldog1935

around here, with that challenge, someone will find something not to like...

RFC

Aw, the saddle police! How I've missed you!

First, all photos are subject to some distortion.

Second, I set up Brooks saddle to take into consideration the droop in the leather where you actually sit. When I'm sitting in the hammock, my position is level and below the hard front of the saddle.

What I don't understand are Brooks riders who tilt their saddles so far back that they must be crushing their balls.

RFC

LOL! Here we go!

RFC

Now the fit police! A twofer!

Won't get into it and those who prefer to jam their balls when they stand over their bikes. About 1 1/2 inch of stand over. Fits just fine.

John E

I have never test-ridden a Surly, but a long top tube could be a deal-killer for me. This has been an issue with the larger-framed Peugeots I have owned. The descriptions in this thread do sound a bit like my UO-8, which gets a lot of use as basic transportation, but certainly is less fun to ride than the other bikes in my collection.

Kobe 

If the Cross Check or Straggler had come with a taller head tube I may have have bought one over my BMC Cross. Not the prettiest frames, but modern stuff will work on it without any kludges.

KonAaron Snake 

Are you sure that your saddle angle is correct for your preferences? The angle looks different than I like, and maybe you should change it based on internet comments.

corrado33

Hahah! To each their own. Seems like nobody likes how you have your bike setup, but it's only your opinion that matters! I was merely curious.

Love the saddle bag... or.. trunk? It's HUGE! Thinking about making myself something similar.

corrado33

I always wondered why the head tube on my Surly was so much smaller than my similar sized C&V bikes. Any insight on that? Is that something specific to cross bikes in general?

KonAaron Snake 

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that more people like his bike setup than your post.

lostarchitect 

I don't like anybody or anything.

Salamandrine 

Yeah, the SOMA frames seem a bit more appealing to me for this reason.

I considered the Surly LHT when I was shopping for a new touring bike late last year. They look like a nicely spec'd heavy duty touring bike for a fair price. I think part of their success is that they filled a niche for a serious touring bike that had been largely abandoned by others.

For me, they are too heavy. It seems to be the trend these days. The Trek 520 and REI Randonee are also similarly heavy bikes at about 28-29lb and sell for around the same price. I am accustomed to the lighter weight touring bikes of the 70s and 80s, like my old Univega Specialissima, etc. They are enough for me. I don't want to go back to the feeling of riding my Super Mirage when I was 14.

The elephant in the room is that bikes today are heavier than in the 80s because people are heavier. There isn't really a subtle way to say that. Also, the trend seems to be to pack a lot of gear - everything but the kitchen sink. If I was spec'ing a touring bike for a bike company today, I'd assume that a 250# man is going to ride it with 50# or more of gear. Given those parameters, the LHT and it's competitors are the perfect touring bike.

The Golden Boy 

???

You ask "what's not to like" and get testy when people answer.

IMO, those are legitimate issues, not people being "the police" or being a dick to you.

corrado33

Why the need to go on the attack? I was making an observation of the above half dozen posts where he is both defending his bike setup and the seeming attack on said setup in the posts previous to that. (Where in everybody was pointing out something wrong with it...)

It was a joke. You must have missed the context. My initial post had nothing to do with not LIKING his setup, I was simply wondering if he bought a smaller size do to surlys generally running long, leading to a longer than normal seat post exposure.

It was curiosity, no disrespect intended. Quick to judge you are.

shoota 

I've always wondered the same thing. They're too expensive. BUT, like someone already mentioned, they have new features like FFF (Fatties Fit Fine; big tire clearance), also they're availability is good.

Pic? Link?

edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the other BMC.