Surly v. Salsa anyone?

Discussion in 'Bike buying advice' started by Muskrat23, Jul 23, 2010.

  1. Muskrat23

    Muskrat23 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Been road biking on aluminum for years but am looking to try a steel cross. Any thoughts on Surly Crosscheck vs. Salsa Casseroll (both geared)? Trying to stay in the $1K range. I'd sure appreciate any opinions, including any other suggestions. Not racing cross, just looking for a comfortable commuter (30 miles a day), and something a bit more versatile than my Jamis road. Thanks.
     
    Tags:


  2. Froze

    Froze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    377
    I have never rode either bike, so I went to each website to take a look. Just on looks alone my personal opinion and choice would be the Surly, only because I like lugs and they lugged the fork. Other thing is that the Surly accepts both road and mtb hubs while the Salsa doesn't mention that. Also the Surly accepts tires up to 45mm wide and still fit fenders while the Salsa only takes up to 32 with fenders. So all around due to looks, tire clearance and hub choices I would buy the Surly.
     
  3. alfeng

    alfeng Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,723
    Likes Received:
    126
    OR, you could get the base model JAMIS CODA ($550 MSRP ... should cost ~20% less, now, due to the transition between 2010 & 2011 bikes) ... and, convert it to a Drop Bar bike.
     
  4. Froze

    Froze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    377
    The Coda is a heavier bike then either of the two the OP is looking at; and the tire max size is 32 with no mention as too whether or not a 32 can go on with fenders. But I agree, it is cheap.
     
  5. alfeng

    alfeng Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,723
    Likes Received:
    126
    Maximum tire size IS a valid consideration ...

    FWIW. I suspect the difference in frame/fork weight is less than 8 ounces, and probably much less ...

    Regardless, any-or-all of the heavier/inexpensive components can be removed and resold ... $500+ goes a long way toward buying some pretty good components if the shopper is selective and knows what s/he is doing.
     
  6. Froze

    Froze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    377
    But you still have the problem with tire size and fender clearance. I guess if he needed the larger tire ability and or use fenders, he could sell the components as you suggested, and then sell the frame and fork and get a better frame and fork that would fit the larger tires and or fenders if the shopper selective and knows what he's doing.
     
  7. alfeng

    alfeng Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,723
    Likes Received:
    126
    Well, FWIW, I think that very few people want to use a tire which is larger than 700x32 for riding on pavement ...

    So, the Surly's ability to use up to 700x45 tires with-or-without fenders may be moot.

    BTW. I can easily fit 700x52 tires in an old GIANT (light touring) frame [see first two attached pics] with apparent clearance for fenders!

    Does the greater tire clearance mean that you would consider the particular vintage Giant frame to be an even better bike frame than the Surly which you seem enamoured with?!?

    Maybe, so ... but, I would guess not.

    As I said, "Maximum tire size IS (as you pointed out) a valid consideration ..."

    But, I sure wouldn't hang my hat on a frame's maximum tire capacity as the principle criteria when choosing a touring/commuting frame.
     
  8. Froze

    Froze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    377
    Your right, I'm not arguing about your points, their all valid. But what if the OP wants the versatility of having the option, either now or in the future, to be able to put a larger tire on? It is a cross bike, and cross bikes are suppose to be versatile to cover a wide range of riding. With the Surly he could put narrow width wheels of for fast riding, medium width for commuting and light touring, wider for light offroad or heavy touring. Not to mention hub choices from road to mtb.

    Thus going with the Salsa would limit his choices...assuming he wants those choices; but going with the Surly he would not have to later buy another bike because he failed to plan for single track riding or heavy touring...just a thought.

    By the way, I'm not enamored with the Surly, the OP wanted an opinion on 2 bikes, I gave him an opinion on those two, not a bunch of other bikes he didn't ask for.
     
  9. alfeng

    alfeng Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,723
    Likes Received:
    126
    Okay. My bad for misunderstanding why your attention was so focused on the SURLY.
     
  10. Froze

    Froze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    377
    It's all good. Your Giant is a nice looking bike by the way, I too have a Giant but not as good as the one you have, but I got mine with the intention it was going to get beat up, and beat up it's gotten! The weird thing about mine is that the Rincon model as you know is heavy thus cheaper, but the bike shop had it with XT components but cheap rims and hubs. I think the Rincon originally from the factory had cheap Shimano components, not sure why mine came with XT.
     
Loading...
Loading...