[Agwan]

I actually wanted to use the Spyres on my build, but they went to Recall the day I ordered them, I made do with the Shimano CX-77's, which are lovely until I upgrade to hydraulic.

Yeah, it is set up for bottom pull, there are cable stops made for the downtube shifter bosses. thats what most people use.

 

[Bikenanigans]

The FD is bottom pull right? I'm thinking the Shimano cx-70 should be fine for me. Is there any benefit of the "CX" model over 105 or Tiagra? Anybody hate it on their stock build?

So far I've only been doing commuting but haven't had any issues with the CX-70.

 

[kai_ski]

I actually wanted to use the Spyres on my build, but they went to Recall the day I ordered them.

I picked up a set on ebay cheap that were brand new recall replacements.

So far I've only been doing commuting but haven't had any issues with the CX-70.

Cool. I actually just found this thread, which makes it look like a pretty good component for non-standard cranksets.

 

[dfltroll]

TT lengths.

So there's now plenty of Stragglers out there being configured and ridden. Are the TT lengths posted on the Surly website accurate? Does a 60cm Straggler really have a 61cm TT? That seems so long. It's a whole cm longer than the same size CC. Are people finding some advantage to the longer TT?

 

[kai_ski]

Most people are sizing down. The head tubes are so short, I think you can look at these frames as compact geometry with a level top tube.. I'm getting a 54. I've never been a 54 in my life, but it's a 56.5 TT. I ride a 19" MTB and my road bike is 57. I did find that with the 41c tires, the stand over was only slightly less than my road bike.

 

[dfltroll]

I certainly wouldn't size down. My 60cm CC already has a lot of post showing. That combined with the short head tube make for an odd looking bike. I have a longish pubic bone height--90.5cm--for my height--6'.

 

[GTscoob]

So there's now plenty of Stragglers out there being configured and ridden. Are the TT lengths posted on the Surly website accurate? Does a 60cm Straggler really have a 61cm TT? That seems so long. It's a whole cm longer than the same size CC. Are people finding some advantage to the longer TT?

Get the same size bike you would normally and size down on the stem to make up the reach.

Unless you want it to feel like a road bike, then get a top tube length that matches your road bike and a stem length that matches your road bike. But then you're really missing out on what makes this geo so gnarly and special.

 

[Meat Foot]

Yeah it's totaled.....frame, forks, both wheels, brakes, bars, calipers...even the discs!

Well, sh!t!! :eekster: Man sorry to hear, hope you heal up!

 

[big_papa_nuts]

So there's now plenty of Stragglers out there being configured and ridden. Are the TT lengths posted on the Surly website accurate? Does a 60cm Straggler really have a 61cm TT? That seems so long. It's a whole cm longer than the same size CC. Are people finding some advantage to the longer TT?

IMO this is the biggest advantage to the Straggler, mostly because I hate drop bars and plan to build one with Jones Loops as a gravel bike. On other frames I would have to size up to the point where the standover would make the bike almost unuseable, or use a LONG stem (like the 150mm I have on my Voodoo).

 

[Agwan]

on a normal road bike I'm a 54. I ordered a 52 because I wasn't sure whether I wanted drops or flats, I hated the drops (my shoulders were too wide to make 46cm bars comfortable) and now have flats. for flats the 52 is perfect, if I were to order it for drops, I'd probably have gone down to a 50 if not a 48.

but this bike is a commuter, not something racier. so I set it up differently from the start.

 

[kai_ski]

I certainly wouldn't size down. My 60cm CC already has a lot of post showing. That combined with the short head tube make for an odd looking bike. I have a longish pubic bone height--90.5cm--for my height--6'.

Yeah, so sizing totally depends on your riding goals. Are you going to ride road/cx style drops, dirt drops, flat bar, or alternative (mary, loop, etc)? How do you have the cockpit setup on your CC? At only 6' tall, the 60 seems very large, but if that's what you're used to and that's what you like, go for it.

Not to turn you away from the Straggler, but maybe take a look at the Singular Peregrine. It has a 59cm TT and 61cm ST. On paper it looks like a mix between the Gen 1 Fargo and Straggler, given its larger tire clearance. The All-city Macho Man disc has 60.5cm ST and 58.5 cm TT -- possibly an ideal fit for your body type, if you're after a more traditional cx like the CC.

I'm coming off a Gen1 Fargo (non-sus corrected), set up with Woodchippers, which I never got comfortable with. It road great off-road, very much like an XC MTB. However, it was just painfully sluggish for me to put in long road miles, to commute or tour on. I'm looking forward to the Straggler as my CX bike, which should fit (IMHO) similar to a standard road bike, but the geometry should have more stability and better off-road manners.

Good luck!

 

[jcaino]

I went with a 54 and glad I did. I have a 54 cross bike that is great for cross...but a bit short in the TT for road (worked fine for years, though) and when I pulled the trigger on the Straggler I went with the size that stretched me out just a bit more. Hopefully your LBS has a complete to try out.

That said, I've now started the process of collecting pieces to update my build so I can swap parts back to my cross bike.

What I've got so far:

Shimano 105 34/50 172.5 crankset & BB
Sram Force brifters
New cables & housing (yes, that even swapped from my cross bike with the exception of 1 cable)

Whats left to acquire:
Sram X9 type 2 long cage derailleur
New FD
pg1070 11-36 cassette
wheels - verdict still out on the direction to go here..

 

[pursuiter]

The problem with the Straggler/Cross Check fit is a common issue with Surly designed frames. They change the seat tube angle progressively but don't account for it in the ett.

Look at the reach spec for the Straggler frame in various sizes, it bunches up in pairs by seat tube size. If the reach is the same length, it follows the frames have the same fit, and the stem is the same. 4mm is inside the granularity of stem choices (usually 10mm increments at best).

For example, the reach for the 42cm, 46cm and 50cm is within 3mm, almost no difference despite the ETT jumping in ~10mm increments (because the STA is changing too). I suppose it could be due to toe overlap prevention on these smaller sizes but in any case, the frames are almost the same fit except for standover.

Same issue for the 54/56 and 58/60, only ~4mm difference in reach for the 54/56 and the 58/60. So the only difference between the 54 and 56 is standover, same for the 58/60.

Here's why:
Note that the difference in ett for the 54/56 is 15mm, but the seat tube angle on the 56 is relaxed by 0.5*. Using a little trigonometry shows that difference of 0.5* for the seat tube length translates to ~10mm of shift in reach.

Short story is that Surly added 15mm of ETT between the 54 and the 56 but gave back 10mm of reach when they relaxed the STA.

 

[RMcjd]

I'm about to pull the trigger and order a frame for SS use with Woodchipper bars. I'm 5"9 and my grinder bike is a 53 cm Ibis Hakkaluggi Disc. I'm leaning towards the 50 cm Straggler because that seams closest in ETT. The only straggler in my neighborhood is a 54 and it's too big. This sizing is really confusing for a guy like me who can't try before buying.

 

[pursuiter]

...my grinder bike is a 53 cm Ibis Hakkaluggi Disc. I'm leaning towards the 50 cm Straggler because that seams closest in ETT. The only straggler in my neighborhood is a 54 and it's too big. This sizing is really confusing for a guy like me who can't try before buying.

A 53cm HAL has a 542mm ett with 73* STA
- A 54cm SS has a 565mm ett with 73*STA, that's 23mm more reach/longer stem than a 53cm HAL.
- A 52cm SS has a 550mm ett with 73.5* STA, that's about ~15mm more reach/longer stem than a 53cm HAL
- A 50cm SS has a 535mm ett with a 74* STA, that's about ~3mm more reach/longer than a 53cm HAL.

50cm SS seems to be closest reach compared to a 53cm HAL, you would use the same stem length for either frame. Do you like the stem length and fit on your HAL?

Also, the HAL has a 145mm head tube, the SS is 91mm. That's a drop in stem height of over two inches. For the same fit you'll need a long steerer tube sticking up on the SS fork or a riser stem. That's why the Vaya is popular, sloping top tube with longer head tube gives a higher stack.

 

[pursuiter]

...Does a 60cm Straggler really have a 61cm TT? That seems so long...

Yes, but if you compare a frame with 73* Seat Tube Angle (as is the case for most frames) to a frame with a STA of 72* (as in the case of the Straggler) the difference in reach for the same ett is ~15mm on a 60cm frame.

Another way to look at it is if you have a frame with 73* STA and 595mm ett, it's the same reach/stem length as a Surly's 60cm Straggler with 72* STA and 610mm ett.

 

[MrBiggs]

The problem with the Straggler/Cross Check fit is a common issue with Surly designed frames. They change the seat tube angle progressively but don't account for it in the ett.

Look at the reach spec for the Straggler frame in various sizes, it bunches up in pairs by seat tube size. If the reach is the same length, it follows the frames have the same fit, and the stem is the same. 4mm is inside the granularity of stem choices (usually 10mm increments at best).

For example, the reach for the 42cm, 46cm and 50cm is within 3mm, almost no difference despite the ETT jumping in ~10mm increments (because the STA is changing too). I suppose it could be due to toe overlap prevention on these smaller sizes but in any case, the frames are almost the same fit except for standover.

Same issue for the 54/56 and 58/60, only ~4mm difference in reach for the 54/56 and the 58/60. So the only difference between the 54 and 56 is standover, same for the 58/60.

Here's why:
Note that the difference in ett for the 54/56 is 15mm, but the seat tube angle on the 56 is relaxed by 0.5*. Using a little trigonometry shows that difference of 0.5* for the seat tube length translates to ~10mm of shift in reach.

Short story is that Surly added 15mm of ETT between the 54 and the 56 but gave back 10mm of reach when they relaxed the STA.

Hmm. Yeah i see that. But reach is an oddball measurement to me, since it seems to affect actual "reach" less than your body angle at the seat. Meaning, the bigger the bike is, the more the bottom bracket moves forward, more or less.
The reason I throw this out there is that I just went from a 54cm Cross Check to a 56cm and the difference is very noticeable. I don't feel cramped like I did in the shoulders and arms, and I don't feel like I'm hanging over the stem and bars any more with my face. It really does feel closer to the difference stated in the ETT.
Not scientific, I know, but I've never really understood what that reach measurement was supposed to say.

 

[pursuiter]

...Meaning, the bigger the bike is, the more the bottom bracket moves forward, more or less.
The reason I throw this out there is that I just went from a 54cm Cross Check to a 56cm and the difference is very noticeable....

The bottom bracket is the point of reference. You set your seat at the exact same point, angle/distance from the bb (for the same length cranks) no matter where the seat tube is or what angle it is at.

Same for the stem, you set your bars at the exact same point, angle/distance from the bb no matter what the ett/STA/head tube height.

The idea is the fill in the frame tubes with the best dynamic range of fit for a given size. You move the seat post up and down and the saddle on the rails back and forth to make a rider fit on the bike the same for all frames. Same thing for the handlebars, you choose stem length and height to put the bars at the same point relative to the bb, no matter what frame is being used.

 

[MrBiggs]

Same for the stem, you set your bars at the exact same point, angle/distance from the bb no matter what the ett/STA/head tube height.

So, you're advocating if the Reach is, for example, 10mm longer than a previous frame then you get a stem that is 10mm shorter?

If so, what's the advantage there? If a 54cm seems too compact for me, I want to get a bigger frame to stretch out some, no?

 

[pursuiter]

...If so, what's the advantage there? If a 54cm seems too compact for me, I want to get a bigger frame to stretch out some, no?

No advantage whatsoever. It's about proper fit. If the frame you have doesn't fit, figure out what you want different and buy a frame that fits you. If you want to stretch out, your present frame isn't fitted correctly for you.

Once you have proper fit, you can easily transfer your fit to another frame by understand what is really going on. ett is meaningless without STA because the real measure is reach. Reach includes STA and ETT to give the rider understanding of what is required to fit on that frame.

And yes, if you fit a frame properly and another frame has 10mm more reach then, for the same fit, you use a stem that's 10mm shorter.

BTW, I didn't invent the concept of reach and stack, I'm not advocating anything. I am attempting to add understanding here. There's a reason why good frame manufacturers give out reach and stack, I'm attempting to help members understand why. It's clear from this thread that there's confusion, I hope this helps.