Straggler Geometry - Having Trouble Understanding It- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58

    Straggler Geometry - Having Trouble Understanding It

    I'm really interested in building up a fixed Straggler (rack, fenders, and disc brakes!) to replace my beaten up Rob Roy, but I'm having trouble understanding the Straggler geometry. I must be misunderstanding something because from the charts it looks like it was built for a monkey (short legs and long arms).

    The seat tube to top tube ratios seem way off compared to all the bikes I have, with the TT looking like it's extremely long. Do any other the other measurements somehow compensate for the extra long TT?

    I normally ride between a 58cm or 60cm seat tube center to center, with a TT between 57cm and 58.5. A 58cm Straggler has a effective TT of 59.5cm. Does this somehow compensate for another of the measurements, putting it into balance?

    Thanks for the help.

    Z.

    P.S - There are no Surly dealers in my country, so I'll need to order it, hence no LBS to help or test rides.

    Straggler Geometry - Straggler | Bikes | Surly Bikes

  2. #2
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,479
    Some bikes have longer top tubes than others. It sometimes requires you to order a "size" down, or run a shorter stem than you otherwise might. Keep in mind, it is very similar geometry-wise to the Cross Check, which is a cyclocross bike. If you don't have a cyclocross bike in your stable right now, then nothing will compare particularly well to it.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    Some bikes have longer top tubes than others. It sometimes requires you to order a "size" down, or run a shorter stem than you otherwise might. Keep in mind, it is very similar geometry-wise to the Cross Check, which is a cyclocross bike. If you don't have a cyclocross bike in your stable right now, then nothing will compare particularly well to it.
    Thanks for the input. I've been riding cyclocross bikes for about 20 years now, and love them. I've currently got three in the garage, with one heading to a friends son to make room for a new build. Hopefully the next generation will enjoy them too.

    As for the Straggler, it seems to have a bit lower BB than a CX, which I can live with. Although the TT length is confusing me, as well as the tiny seemingly tiny headtube length.

    My current commuter is 62cm center to top. The Straggler with a comparable TT is a 56 (C-T), which, unless I'm mistaken, would leave a massive amount of seatpost sticking out. This doesn't seem right to me.

    Perhaps this answer is somewhere in stack and reach, which I've been reading about but still feels like witchcraft....

  4. #4
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,479
    Like I said, it's modified, particularly to handle gravel riding and commuting better. And it's not like the Cross Check is a "standard" CX bike, either.

    Post up the geometries of the bikes you're comparing the straggler to. I am curious.

    I pulled up a Ridley X-Fire since my shop carries these, to compare. It looks like at small sizes, the two are more similar than they are at the larger sizes. It looks like reach is closer than TT for 58cm bikes, which leads me to believe that the difference in ST angle is playing a role here. Cyclocross: X-FIRE 10 DISC 1403A
    Have you run through any fit calculators to get a handle on these numbers?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Interesting, thanks.

    I used the Completive Cyclist calculator, but even the French fit seemed to be a bit smaller than I am used to riding. Recommended a 54cm top tube, which seems like it would be cramped to me. I've got a bike with a 56TT and it feels quite small.

    Here's the geometry of the bike I've been riding for the last seven years. I'm quite comfortable on it.

    S/T C-C - 56cm

    T/T Length 57cm

    H/T Angle 73.0

    S/T Angle 73.0

    H/T Length 17cm

    Wheel Base 105cm

    B/B Drop 6.5cm

    C/S Length 42.5cm

    Stand Over 32.5

  6. #6
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,479
    Interesting. How tall are you?

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    Interesting. How tall are you?

    Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
    183cm, which is six feet. I've got shorter legs (32" pants inseam) and longer arms and torso.

  8. #8
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,479
    I'd definitely push you into a larger frame because of your longer torso and arms. I have gorilla arms, but a pretty average torso and inseam for my height, so I can comfortably fit bikes a size larger than usually recommended for me at times.

    Try the calculator at Wrench Science: Custom Bicycle Builder Online - Road, Mountain, Cyclocross, Track Parts also. See how/whether they differ.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Excellent link, thanks! It's almost spot on to what I currently ride and feel comfortable on. Oddly the one measurement I'm most interested in, overall reach, shows up as zero. Strange. I'll try again in the morning to see if I can get some numbers.

    Any guidance on how this translated to the Straggler? The TT on the 58 seems awfully long.

    WS Recommended Road Sizes
    Frame Size center-to-center: 57 cm
    Frame Size center-to-top: 58 cm
    Overall Reach: 0 cm
    Saddle Height: 76.82 cm
    Handlebar Width: 42 cm

  10. #10
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,479
    Damn. 76.82cm seat height? You do have short legs. I'd get the size with the appropriate TT length regardless of what the "size" is labelled. My shop sells Pinarellos and many of those have longer TT's than other bikes we carry of a comparable size, so when someone buys one, they usually buy a size smaller than they'd ride in a Cannondale, for example.

  11. #11
    Positively negative
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,284
    Pop over to the straggler thread in the surly sub-forum, there was a pretty in depth discussion about the geo in there. Personally I think surly knew that a lot of people would build it with mtb bars and wanted to accommodate us, other companies do this too (Soma). Others think surly was going for some kind of new school cx geo.

    Either way I just buy bikes based on ett and ignore listed sizes.

  12. #12
    I'd rather be on my bike
    Reputation: TenSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziemas View Post
    183cm, which is six feet. I've got shorter legs (32" pants inseam) and longer arms and torso.
    This is me, but am a bit shorter in the inseam. I was on a 56cm Specialized TriCross, and I hated the fit of the bike. I had a hard time, wasn't too small, or too big, just didn't feel right to me.
    The pedals turn, not just the left one, but the right one too.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    Damn. 76.82cm seat height? You do have short legs. I'd get the size with the appropriate TT length regardless of what the "size" is labelled. My shop sells Pinarellos and many of those have longer TT's than other bikes we carry of a comparable size, so when someone buys one, they usually buy a size smaller than they'd ride in a Cannondale, for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by big_papa_nuts View Post
    Pop over to the straggler thread in the surly sub-forum, there was a pretty in depth discussion about the geo in there. Personally I think surly knew that a lot of people would build it with mtb bars and wanted to accommodate us, other companies do this too (Soma). Others think surly was going for some kind of new school cx geo.

    Either way I just buy bikes based on ett and ignore listed sizes.
    Thanks guys. I've usually buy based on ETT, but there is just something odd about the Straggler that I can't get my head around. It's as if it's sized like compact geometry, but it isn't compact geometry. It's a real head scratcher from me, and of course having to buy sight unseen a difficult one.

    Also, I fear having way too much seatpost sticking out. Maybe I'm showing my age, but it just doesn't feel right to me.

    I've been reading the Straggler thread, but I'll give it another go. Thanks.

  14. #14
    jrm
    jrm is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,301
    Surly geometry is so out dated and 1/2 assed. The problem with the surly geo is that even as the ETT proportions are longer than the ST lengths the stupid HT remains the same so youre getting increased reach without any height. Meaning in order to achieve a descent fit youll be using a bunch of post and tons of steertube spacers to compensate for the stupid geometry. Time to look elsewhere like city, on one, rotac if you want

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Thanks for the suggestions. Having way too much seatpost and spacers is one of the things I'm worried about as I like my bars and seat at thesame height.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by jrm View Post
    Surly geometry is so out dated and 1/2 assed. The problem with the surly geo is that even as the ETT proportions are longer than the ST lengths the stupid HT remains the same so youre getting increased reach without any height. Meaning in order to achieve a descent fit youll be using a bunch of post and tons of steertube spacers to compensate for the stupid geometry. Time to look elsewhere like city, on one, rotac if you want
    I've looked at All-City and On One, but I can't seem to find anything on Rotac. Do you have a link or a frame name perhaps? Thanks.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    9,788
    Quote Originally Posted by big_papa_nuts View Post

    Either way I just buy bikes based on ett and ignore listed sizes.
    and know if the ETT is going to work for you with drop bars, or flat/mtn bars. any bike that fits you with a drop bar is going to probably have a much shorter ETT than a bike that fits you when equipped with a flat/mtn bar. just sayin.

Similar Threads

  1. Surly Straggler
    By brdpkns in forum Surly
    Replies: 3163
    Last Post: 2 Weeks Ago, 03:05 PM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 09:28 AM
  3. help understanding geometry numbers
    By jacksonpt in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-17-2013, 03:47 PM
  4. NEW! surly straggler
    By x3speed in forum Cyclocross
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 07:53 PM
  5. Understanding frame geometry
    By yzfrider in forum Frame Building
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 02:14 PM

Members who have read this thread: 6

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.