ThermionicScott 

ISTR Jan Heine or Dave Moulton commenting that where framebuilders used to design some flexibility into their frames for lightness and comfort, now the manufacturers need to design around the heaviest riders they expect to be on their bikes, so forks in particular are stiffer and heavier. I think the only way to go back to that older mindset (short of buying an older frameset) is to find a willing custom framebuilder.

bikemig 

The surly LHT is the perfect MUP bike for people who like packing a six pack in panniers. I see a lot of them on local trails and they're often the party machine on nice days.

If going lightweight touring, it's definitely overkill. I picked up a 1979 Trek 510 recently. That was their touring bike back in the day and I think it will make a fine touring bike for lightweight touring. It has a nice long wheelbase (40 and 3/4inches) and decently long chainstays (17.5 inches). I'm sorely tempted to build this bike up with 650b wheels but I'll try to resist. Nothing against 650b but I want a tire I can find easily. Plus I want this bike to be a parts bin build (which is my favorite way to build a bike, .

RFC

Aw, come on, just kidding you guys a bit.

RFC

Agree about the head tube size. Both my CC and BMC road are 56's. On the CC, the HT is 12cm and on the BMC is 15cm.

The CC TT is square while the BMC has an inch or two of slope, allowing for the longer HT.

My guess is that Surly tries to keep the CC in the tradition of a C&V bike.

50voltphantom

In defense of Surly

EDIT:

I should add that I've been riding my Steamroller as my one and only bike for about three years. I'm 6'0", and ride a 56cm frame with a 110 stem and 20mm of spacer (-6 stem) and it fits me perfectly. I've read lots of comments about fit, but as soon I figured out the stem l needed it's been perfect. I've been riding it on the road as well as gravel, CX, and moderate singletrack with 33mm tires and have had a blast on it. I don't worry about it getting scratched, etc. As a single-speeder on a budget, it's been a great bike.

crank_addict

Interesting comment. Don't own one and no valid reason to comment on the brand but do see many Surly's. That said, borrowed some sort of model that was loaded with racks, lighting, and a weird bar set up. Large stature owner. The Brooks he had on it was heavy sagged, but I thought 'heavily' about this bike and the why's.

In long distance touring, many don't care about the overall weight. Some like the extra comforts and gear-boy junky, got to have the latest camping thing. Its not a race but rather taking ones time, point A to B. If they have to spin more to move it all, so be it.

For my time on that particular bike, it nicely gobbled the rough road and with notably less torsional flex than my '87 Trek 520 Cirrus. I get it.

bulldog1935

bikes are personal, and fitting them is even more personal

Salamandrine 

That's what I ended up doing, sort of. I bought Mercian touring frame. I had looked for a nice vintage Trek or something but nothing was coming up in my size. Going semi custom allowed me to have an old style (relatively) light tourer with some modern features I like.

I don't really blame the manufacturers. Like I said, if in their shoes I'd likely do the same. Another thing is people can be pretty rough on their bikes: going over curbs with butt firmly planted in the saddle, ignoring potholes, etc.

RFC

I think that's the idea or at least what I do on my CC, although I usually stand when I jump a curb.

Salamandrine 

That 510 should be awesome. It is a fine touring bike, even for middleweight touring.

650b makes most sense if you feel the need for fat tires. What's on there now 27" or 700c? No doubt 32c will fit as those were standard then, possibly 35-37 would cram in there. Even 32 is enough for mostly road and an occasional dirt road, IME, but it's a personal preference thing.

bulldog1935

Surly CC ride-out MSRP - $1100
Much of the "competition" brought to this thread is in a different class.

bikemig 

It came with a mishmash of parts and 700 x 28c tires. Agree that 700 x 32c is more than sufficient and I'm confident that this bike can take that wide a tire. I'll build it in the spring.

ThermionicScott 

For sure -- I don't blame them either. Nobody likes it when a bike breaks!

Andy_K 

When you say "similarly sized" are you talking about seat tube or top tube?

Partly the Surly (and particularly the Cross Check/Straggler) short head tube is the inescapable result of combining a high bottom bracket with a level top tube. CX bikes also have longer forks (about 15mm longer), so the shorter head tube doesn't entirely translate to a lower top of the head tube.

But then Surly compounds this problem by using a longer top tube. For instance, a 54cm Cross Check (by seat tube length) has a 56cm top tube while keeping the seat tube angle around 73 degrees. So you end up with a bike that doesn't conform to common expectations for size and fit.

It's interesting to note that between the 50cm Cross Check and the 56cm Cross Check, there is only around 5mm difference in actual reach, so if you don't mind having little to no standover clearance (generally a bad idea on a bike that is meant to be ridden off-road) you can find a size that fits.

I had a Cross Check for a while. At the time I bought it I was still learning the ropes on bike fit and had bought into the dogma that effective top tube length is the best indicator of fit. Based on that belief, I got a 52cm CC which had about the same ETT as the 54cm Kona Jake that fit me well. Unfortunately, that left the bars way too low for me without a bunch of spacers and/or a steep rising stem. If I had instead been trying to match stack and reach, I would have bought a 56cm CC, which has a 20mm longer top tube than the bike I was trying to match but only 10mm longer reach and the same stack. The trouble is that one has about a half inch higher standover than I need to clear the top tube standing flat footed -- not a problem for a road bike, but off road it can be really bad.

Ultimately, I think for a cyclocross bike you need to take the hit on aesthetics and use a sloping top tube. The practical benefits are significant. Unless of course, you're using your cyclocross bike as a road/mild gravel bike, which I take it a lot of Cross Check owners are.

Salamandrine 

Yeah, many people like to travel with lots of comforts: laptop, folding chair, etc. And to many, speed doesn't matter. If that's is so, then a LHT or whatever is perfect. Perhaps if going a 6 month trip in a 3rd world country it would also be good.

For a more typical week or so journey, I prefer to travel lighter and go faster and farther. I'd think more people would share this view, especially given the trendiness of ultralight backpacking, but apparently not.

Andy_K 

I've had two Surlys -- a Cross Check and a LHT. I kept them each for around 3 years. I can definitely relate to the overbuilt and dead ride comments, but I think those are really a case of just not wanting the bike that Surly intended to build. I mean, we'd all love a bike that is indestructible AND has a lively ride, but in reality you have to compromise. If you buy an LHT and then complain because it rides like a tank, I'd have to say you just didn't understand what you were buying. You can't blame a mule for not being a race horse.

Jarrett2

Same here. As long as Mike is out there doing his thing (along with Fairdale) Surly isn't really on the radar for me.

noglider 

Yeah, those Surly frames are heavy and not for everyone, but they're great for a lot of people. I had a couple and sold them. The first was a Cross Check, and it was too big, but it rode well because I put on some very lightweight racing wheels on it.

The second one was also a Cross Check. It had heavy wheels and heavy everything on it, and I had other bikes that fit the purpose and weighed less, so I sold it.

A friend of mine does a lot of touring and commuting, so the LHT is perfect for her. She's 5'0" tall, and the small size LHT is built for 26" wheels. We did a fair bit of research and found that nothing else filled all of her requirements. She doesn't mind the weight and doesn't ride fast, anyway.

The prices are truly reasonable. I suspect they are based on cost to produce rather than value. Skilled people in Taiwan weld the frames and paint them, and the prices are probably close to the cost of production with only a small profit margin.

CMAW 

It's true that an unloaded LHT is not a very exciting ride, but the more luggage you throw on it, the better it feels. Great asset for a cyclo-campeur, I would think. I bought mine as a no-nonsense workhorse, unaware of hipster or any other appeal (Europe, though); the LHT is not expensive and can be made into a reasonably light bike. Oh, and I don't like the ultra-slooping TT on many of the modern touring bikes.

ThermionicScott 

Tangentially, my brother gave me an old copy of BQ where they compared frames for stiffness. It turned out that the main tubes of the LHT have the same thickness as 531C, but derive their extra stiffness (and weight) by being a step or two oversize.

ppg677

Sorry to hijack the thread. Just amazed at seeing a leather saddle tilted down. And maybe I should start a thread titled "can anyone explain the appeal of leather saddles". :-P

<rant>
I don't know why I keep trying leather saddles. I've bought 3 Brooks saddles in the last 5 years. Sold two and the other one is currently unused. Admittedly the B17 was the best of the bunch but doesn't work well on a non-touring bike where there is a saddle-to-seat drop. The B17S was an unmitigated disaster for my wife. The Brooks Team Pro was still terrible after 500+ miles.

For some reason I decided to try again-- last week I got a Selle Anatomica. Went for a 45-mile ride on Sunday with several adjustments along the way. On the plus side, significantly (I mean significantly) better than a Brooks Team Pro. The Selle has a hammock from day 1 and has reasonable seat rails (unless Brooks which requires a seatpost with a huge amount of setback...for me anyways).

On the downside, I once again face the same problem I have with all leather saddles-- constant fidgeting with saddle tilt to find the right tradeoff between not falling into the bars and not having the nose tilt so high that it hurts the soft parts. At some point I thought I had it set right. But then I went into the drops on a decent and hit a bump which caused me to yell out "OOOOUUUOOO" from the nose of the saddle hurting something down there.

So this is why I comment on your saddle tilt. Selle has a pretty thorough fitting guide (good on them) and they claim that the nose should absolutely be 1/4" to 1/8" higher. They recommend keep tilting the nose up until you can ride with your hands at your side without falling forward. For me this point was quite a bit of nose-up which led me to the periods of inexplicable pain when going over a big bump while in the drops.

I'm done with leather saddles. For real this time. Not at all a hammock guy.
</rant>

ColonelJLloyd 

Every time I see either of the two Krampus owners around town they are having a really good time. It's the reason I finally bought a MTB.

squirtdad

threadless head set......and ugly stem........but that is my personal quirk nice bike overall

Vintage_Cyclist

Who cares what bikes people like to ride?

Most of my stuff is 70s-80s, but I like my LHT just fine for touring. I got it a few years ago, after looking for months for an 80s era touring rig that was my size, not ridiculously over-priced or requiring significant additional funding to restore. Thought about going more custom, like Mercian, Co-Motion, etc., but decided the LHT was a better bang for the buck with what I wanted it for.

Rapidray

what's not to like...I don't like the fact that it's not in my stable of bikes! Very nice bike!