I'm looking to build up a bike for urban riding and occasional trail riding--probably no real cyclocrossing. I've been looking at the Soma Double Cross and the Surly Cross Check frames. Anybody familar with both and got some good input? They look very similar, I guess I like the Cross Check a little better because it doesn't have a sloping top tube (I'm a retro-grouch at heart)-- although the guy in the cropped t-shirt on their website makes me a little nervous ;-)


Thanks!

the biggest differences between the two are:
- soma has nicer tubes (631 vs. 4130), and is probably lighter.
- surly has semi-horizontal drops for an easy switch from geared to ss/fixed gear. soma does not.
- surly has larger tire clearance.

they are both similar, but do have small differences. your decision should be based upon which of these characteristics are most important to you. they're both nice, cheap frames that will serve you well.

the_dude

I don't see "light" and "Surly Cyclocross" used in the same sentence very often. It's a pretty hefty bike, but they have been clever in marketing it. I'd look at something like a redline or a used aluminium--why ride around on a tank?

I don't see "light" and "Surly Cyclocross" used in the same sentence very often. It's a pretty hefty bike, but they have been clever in marketing it. I'd look at something like a redline or a used aluminium--why ride around on a tank?



what is the actual weight difference between a crosscheck and a conquest? for a non racer, i'm sure the minimal weight penalty makes absolutely no difference. especially if you're commuting on it, and you're carrying a few pounds in gear/clothes/etc. the combination of steel and fatter tires makes for a much comfier ride on crappy city streets.

the_dude

I don't see "light" and "Surly Cyclocross" used in the same sentence very often. It's a pretty hefty bike, but they have been clever in marketing it. I'd look at something like a redline or a used aluminium--why ride around on a tank?

I meant only riding it when it's light outand not a night.....no, actually, I meant "occasional/not very technical off-road riding/no real cyclocross racing/riding down the road and want to veer off it and down a trail" type of cyclocrossing.

I'm...er...."gravitationally gifted"....."a good descender", so a little more weight on the bike is not a big issue. I'm not a big fan of aluminum and prefer steel for a better ride.

Or, to further the atmosphere of civility I always find on the web:
"Aluminum--why ride around on a beer can???"

from experience, i can tell you that it does make a difference if you commute on a tank, rather than a lighter weight bike. over the last year, i've used 4 different bikes to commute on. one bike was a heavy, cromoly gary fisher city bike with a nexus 7 hub. the lightest bike was a trek 7300 hybrid with an aluminum frame and oversized tubing. i could feel a huge difference, based largely on the weight, even though i'm sure there was only a 2 pound difference in frame/fork weight, at most. after about 7 miles, pushing that heavier frame became a chore, one i could feel with each pedal stroke.
i'd go for the lighter-weight soma. i commute on one now and i love it. and i think i use it in the way you appear to want to use your future bike. i've used three different sets of wheels/tires with it, and you can change the way it rides simply by changing wheels/tires. i have it set up with a trekking crank and xt stuff, all around and its a wonderfully versatile bike. i commute 18 miles one way on it, and i've taken it on 80 mile rides. it's comfortable on the shorter rides, but it performs fairly well if i just want to crank it up once in a while on my commute. i've always been mystified as to why the surly cross check has so many fans. i get the fact that it appears to be indestructible, but really, who's ever going to need their frame to be that heavy duty. there's a reason most manufacturers decided that cheap, heavier 4130 cromo wasnt the best choice for frames in that price range. for most riding, the soma, with its 631 tubing, is more than strong enough. and i just think that it is a better frame, for the money. in my opinion.
by the way, in the next day or so, i'll be putting either a 58 or 60 cm redline conquest on auction on ebay. i have one of each, and after i decide which fits me better - based on going through measurements - i'm going to sell the other. i'm going to build it up and ultimately embarrass myself by trying to finish a couple of cross races this fall. they are both brand new, in the box. i dont know which frame size you need, but you may want to check ebay in a day or so for my auction.

i've always been mystified as to why the surly cross check has so many fans. i get the fact that it appears to be indestructible, but really, who's ever going to need their frame to be that heavy duty. there's a reason most manufacturers decided that cheap, heavier 4130 cromo wasnt the best choice for frames in that price range. for most riding, the soma, with its 631 tubing, is more than strong enough. and i just think that it is a better frame, for the money. in my opinion.



the crosscheck isn't as heavy as people think. the listed manufacturer weights for the soma and surly for a size 54 frame is 4.2lbs and 4.65lbs, respectively. (i understand manufacturer weights may be slightly off, anyone with actual real-world data feel free to chime in). a half of a pound isn't a big deal, especially on frame. if we were talking about wheels, tires or other rotational weight, i would agree, but we're not.

as i said before, they are slightly different frames, and what are important features to me (bigger tire clearance and semi-horizontal drops), may not be for you. the crosscheck has a huge fan base because of it's versatility, not because it's an uber-lightweight racing machine. which, of course, the soma is not as well.

the_dude

EDIT: the soma only has 631 tubing on the front triangle, i believe, and 4130 for the rear.

I'm looking to build up a bike for urban riding and occasional trail riding--probably no real cyclocrossing. I've been looking at the Soma Double Cross and the Surly Cross Check frames. Anybody familar with both and got some good input? They look very similar, I guess I like the Cross Check a little better because it doesn't have a sloping top tube (I'm a retro-grouch at heart)-- although the guy in the cropped t-shirt on their website makes me a little nervous ;-)


Thanks!

i ride a cross check, no experience with the soma.
the surly rides VERY well. i got it as a temporary replacement for a damaged bianchi, but have not seen the need to upgrade.
looks good, very versatile, and really not that heavy for a steel bike. you could go lighter, but it would cost a ton and be less durable.
the tire clearance is useful in that mounting 35c tires and fenders for winter is very easy, while it can be a tight fit on other bikes. and these frames are very affordable.

I cant justify dropping the additional cash on something marginally better. You would have to go major bucks on something super nice to get a big difference, and I have tried many bikes.

Get 2 wheelsets. One with slick tires the other with big fat knobbies. that way switching is not a hassle. my only problem is that I have destroyed my fenders when venturing offroad.

and i have done a few cross races and sucked balz. but still fun.

about its versatility. i just think that the soma is almost as versatile and it uses better material for its frame. i've run 40mm tires on my double cross. i guess the surly accepts 45mm tires, and there are a couple of other differences, and those can be important factors for each buyer/rider. but i just think that unless you're going to run a single speed or fixed gear the soma is just objectively a better product. i rode a built up surly before i got my soma and while the ride was ok, i just didnt think it rode as smoothly as the soma. dont get me wrong, i appreciate what surly is doing - and any manufacturer that still makes steel frames is ok in my book! - but if someone is looking to spend $350-$400 on a frame i just think soma makes frames that work better for more people. though both frames will build up into nice bikes.
btw, i'd be somewhat skeptical about the alleged weight of that crosscheck frame. not to say that surly would fib, but, i've held both the bare soma and surly frames and the surly feels as though it weighs about a pound - at least - more than the surly. of course, i havent put them on a scale and i'd be interested to hear from someone who has done their own weight test.

The SOMA is more agile and better built.

The SOMA is more agile and better built.

they're both fabricated in Taiwan. I'm not denigrating Taiwanese produced frames but I don't think there's alot of difference between the 2 in terms of quality of build.

as for agile...
soma 54cm

72 deg ht angle
73 deg st angle
425mm chainstays
1026mm wheelbase
66mm bb drop

surly 54cm
72 deg ht angle
73 deg st angle
425mm
1014.4mm wheelbase
66mm bb drop

I doubt steel really makes a difference in the way a bike rides. If I had to guess, the tendency for steel bikes to have longer chainstays might contribute the most to this myth.