Your latest bike purchase?

[dkel]

@cyclingfool 85787 wrote:

You might also want to check out this message and the linked spreadsheet/info from the Surly LHT and CC Owners Google group

This is great stuff. Thanks also NicDiesel, for your advice. The Straggler is still pretty new, so there’s not as much info on it as on the CC and LHT. But I have a top man (in the person of Dirt) working on this for me at Bikenetic. I also made my own spreadsheet to compare geometries on all the bikes I have test ridden, which was instructive. I’ll keep you posted: I’m quite looking forward to actually posting a bike purchase on this thread!

[NicDiesel]

@dkel 85916 wrote:

The Straggler is still pretty new, so there’s not as much info on it as on the CC and LHT.

The Straggler, at least in my experience with the 58cm frame, is the same geometry as the Cross Check. From looking at the Surly site the Straggler is a little longer on the top tube but not significantly so. There should be a Cross Check somewhere for you to test ride to a feel for it.

[hozn]

@Harry Meatmotor 85872 wrote:

…and so it begins.

Full build to include:

Zipp Service Course SL cockpit in ‘beyond black’ w/ white tape

Specialized Romin Pro saddle in white on a Zipp Service Course SL 0mm offset seatpost

Full Force 22 gruppo

November Rail 52’s with Vittoria Open Corsa EVO skin walls

This sounds/looks phenomenal. The new more-subtle Force 22 look will be a great complement to that murdered-out frame (and zipp cockpit). Though I’ll have to see the skin walls to believe it. If you decide against going white on saddle+tape, I have a 143mm Romin Pro in black (and white trim, previous year model) that I’ll probably be looking to sell. I like keeping saddle options around, but I think I have finally settled on the Phenom as the perfect saddle for me.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@hozn 85952 wrote:

Though I’ll have to see the skin walls to believe it.

Rabobank started it – take a look at a bunch of pro tour teams this season, skinwall tires are the hot shoes this season. pm’d you about the saddle.

[hozn]

@NicDiesel 85932 wrote:

The Straggler, at least in my experience with the 58cm frame, is the same geometry as the Cross Check. From looking at the Surly site the Straggler is a little longer on the top tube but not significantly so. There should be a Cross Check somewhere for you to test ride to a feel for it.

I believe that within a one or two cm, most people can “make it work”, but the Straggler really is not the same geometry as the Cross Check. For example, in the 58cm:

– The Straggler is 1.5cm longer effective top tube (that is more than the difference between the 56cm and 58cm in the Cross Check, for example).
– The Straggler has a 4mm longer head tube
– The Straggler has a 72-degree seat tube angle (instead of 72.5). Meaning that the saddle needs to be roughly 5mm further forward on the Straggler (probably not a deal breaker, but this can be a challenge for short-femur people like me. I need a 0-setback seatpost with a 73.5-degree STA for optimum pedal position.)

But really the number that matter for frame fit here are stack & reach:
Straggler 591/408 (Stack/Reach)
Cross Check 576/398

So the Straggler is 1.5cm taller and 1cm longer. So a 58cm Cross Check will be closer to a 56cm Straggler.

But back to the original point, I have bought a number of bikes naively looking at ETT and have been fine. Especially off-road bikes. I shudder now to think about how inaccurate a reference that is to fit (at least it’s better than seat tube length, which is almost completely irrelevant). I might change the stem height a bit or get a shorter/longer stem, but I’ve never obsessed over a handful of mm difference or felt particularly uncomfortable as a result. The body can adapt to quite a bit. I do obsess more on the road bike (or the road-bike-like commuter I ride daily) — especially as I started riding more. If you really want to dial-in the fit, you could start by using online fit calculators like the competitive cyclist one (http://www.competitivecyclist.com/Store/catalog/fitCalculatorBike.jsp); while they don’t give you stack/reach, I find that calculator does a great job getting you in the right place over the pedals. Of course a real bike-fitting is probably the best option (or a way to validate your work), but it can also be a lot of money to spend on something that is likely to change as you ride more (or if you decide the Straggler is only for off-road riding, etc.). And if you want to borrow any stems as you tweak fit, I have a stockpile of stems in 90mm-130mm range. And I’m developing a stockpile of (drop-bar) handlebars too.

[dkel]

@hozn 85959 wrote:

Straggler 591/408 (Stack/Reach)
Cross Check 576/398

So the Straggler is 1.5cm taller and 1cm longer. So a 58cm Cross Check will be closer to a 56cm Straggler.

On my spreadsheet, it seems that the 54 and 55 cm frames from other companies fit me pretty well, but in order to see the same numbers (particularly ETT) on the Straggler, I have to look at the 52! Seems like a big difference, but almost all the numbers translate very closely, which makes me wonder why Surly sizes things the way they do. The major difference is that the head tube length on the Straggler is significantly shorter than other bikes (particularly aluminum bikes), but much of that can be mitigated with spacers; also, the Straggler’s BB drop is greater, but only slightly. I think it’s a little weird that I may end up on a 52, but the scuttlebutt from the interwebs is that people go down a size or even two when getting a Straggler or Cross Check, and even down a size for the LHT (which is a more relaxed geometry).

[hozn]

@dkel 85965 wrote:

The major difference is that the head tube length on the Straggler is significantly shorter than other bikes (particularly aluminum bikes), but much of that can be mitigated with spacers;

Interesting. I’m sure you’re doing this already, but be sure to only compare HT length with other cross bikes — or factor in the fork axle-to-crown length. Cross bikes will generally have shorter head tubes since cx forks are usually ~400mm long (axle-to-crown) as opposed to ~370mm long for a road fork. So ignoring HT angle, a cx frame with a 150mm HT would be more like a road frame with a 180mm HT. At least, I think/hope I’m making the right assumptions there.

(Also, consider that headset type makes a difference: external cups add stack height, so you’ll always have Xmm of “spacers” when using a frame that uses external cups.)

Yes, you can always make a frame taller with spacers, but as you do so you are also decreasing the effective top tube. The stack & reach numbers are for the frame, but if you add 20mm of spacers before your stem you will have effectively decreased the reach. Just something to bear in mind. If you think you’re going to need 40mm of spacers you should consider what that’s going to do to the “ETT”; you may not need to size down after all in that case, for example. (I have no idea.) There are some spreadsheets online for calculating stack & reach, or for calculating stem length etc. working backwards from stack & reach. These are helpful. I would definitely enter in your current bike, assuming you believe it fits you perfectly, and then play around with stack & reach numbers to figure out which Straggler frame would fit best. Or just buy one and go ride it in this awesome spring weather we have here.

[dkel]

@hozn 85970 wrote:

be sure to only compare HT length with other cross bikes

Generally yes, I’m comparing CX frames. The Straggler is still shorter! Weird.

@hozn 85970 wrote:

Also, consider that headset type makes a difference: external cups add stack height, so you’ll always have Xmm of “spacers” when using a frame that uses external cups.

I learned about this yesterday. It’s helpful to know this, as the steel bikes (like the Straggler) tend to differ from the aluminum bikes (which is what I’ve ridden most of).

@hozn 85970 wrote:

There are some spreadsheets online for calculating stack & reach, or for calculating stem length etc. working backwards from stack & reach.

I will definitely be looking these up, as some of the columns in my spreadsheet are missing these figures. One would think all companies would provide this info, since it seems very good to have.

[Harry Meatmotor]

hozn makes about eleventy hundred good points. Stack and reach are the only common measurements between frames really worth paying attention to when determining fit. I will add that one often overlooked dimension, however, is BB height/BB drop. you can set up two bikes identically based on contact points (h-bar to hand, seat to butt, and feet to pedals, i.e. matching stack and reach) and a bike with a taller BB shell is going to feel like you’re “up and over” the bike. I haven’t looked at the differences between the stragler and cross check, but if Surly is going for more stable handling on either bike, they might get the bike to feel that way by dropping the BB shell a cm or two. Changes in BB height will affect things like stack height with most “normal” (71/73-ish frames), too, because of tube fitting and the fact that most steel tubes aren’t as formable as something like aluminum.

[dkel]

@Harry Meatmotor 86005 wrote:

I will add that one often overlooked dimension, however, is BB height/BB drop.

The Straggler’s BB drop is 72: lower than any of the other CX bikes I’ve ridden, and lower than Surly’s CC or LHT. Reviews do say that the Straggler feels very smooth and stable; maybe that’s why (among other factors).

[hozn]

Interesting, my Habanero cycles frame has a 78mm drop, which is probably due to this being more of a touring geometry (?)

[peterw_diy]

@dkel 85965 wrote:

the head tube length on the Straggler is significantly shorter than other bikes (particularly aluminum bikes), but much of that can be mitigated with spacers;

Maybe if you buy the frameset. Surly provides nice, long steer tubes with their unbuilt framesets, but on their “complete” bikes they only leave room for 3-4 cm of spacers. If you want the bars much higher on a “complete” you’re stuck using oddball stems or extenders.

[peterw_diy]

@dkel 86009 wrote:

The Straggler’s BB drop is 72: lower than any of the other CX bikes I’ve ridden, and lower than Surly’s CC or LHT.

Nope. It’s lower than the CC (66), the same as Pacer, and less than LHT/DT (78).

[dkel]

@peterw_diy 86012 wrote:

Nope. It’s lower than the CC (66), the same as Pacer, and less than LHT/DT (78).

Hadn’t looked at the Pacer. I was stuck on the 26″ version of the LHT for some reason; you are correct that the 700c is lower, which makes sense (also makes sense that the 26″ LHT is higher).

[vvill]

@dkel 86009 wrote:

Reviews do say that the Straggler feels very smooth and stable; maybe that’s why (among other factors).

The wheelbase definitely has an impact on this too imo. And of course usually with a shorter wheelbase there’s also more potential for significant toe overlap.

Stack/reach are great reference measurements for fit, but as Harry Meatmotor mentions they don’t cover all aspects of ride quality/feel, which can be almost as important as fit if you’re looking for a “perfect” bike.

[Author]

Posts