Totally agree that ETT isn't the end-all-be-all, but for something a bit 
more racey/fastish don't you want more weight on the front of the wheel so 
a longer stem? 

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:08:05 PM UTC-4, Richard Rios wrote:
> I'm with Grant sizing wise 100% on this one about not letting top tube 
> length lead you around to much by the nostrils. My experience with the top 
> tube length has been it is pretty easy to adjust for with a shorter / 
> longer stem and depending on how high your bars are much of that length can 
> be easily eaten up. Also if you do happen to look at the geometry chart on 
> surly's website you will notice that the ETT lengths in the 56 58 sizes of 
> cross check and pacer are very similar. Doesn't really make sense to 
> compare the smaller sizes to middle and larger range. Bikes grow taller 
> much more than they grow longer as sizes go up. Also surly did a little 
> write up about how smaller frames will end up with longer top tubes due to 
> a number of factors. It's worth the read. So again IMHO either frame should 
> have you close enough depending on what you are looking for. Sportier 
> clubish fastish rides 56, bit more distance / comfort oriented but still 
> spirited 58... If I were you I'd personally lean toward the 58. Again just 
> my .02 and I still think the 60 would be worth considering !)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to