Cyclocross vs Tourer for Commuting

Pessable

I'm in the market for a new bike on the cycle-to-work scheme. After much rumination I think I've settled on either a tourer or cyclo-cross.

My commute (usually 2 days per week all year round) is 15 miles each way over mainly rural roads and lanes. Road conditions are okay, but often very mucky when it's wet and full of potholes at the moment.

I also do some rides (20~50 miles) at the weekend, usually on my road bike but often (esp. winter) on my knackered old hybrid. I need to replace the hybrid anyway. I hope in the future to do some light touring.

I see more people recommending CX bikes as commuters than tourers. Is there a particular reason for that? I'm tending towards the tourer because I really don't go off road other than the occasional old railway line trail. That could change I suppose so I don't want to close down to many options.

I'm thinking of switching my 2-bike configuration from hybrid+road to singlespeed+tourer. The SS (flat-bar) would be for shorter leisure rides (cafe/pub runs etc.), something I get the impression would be a bit different/fun. And maybe commuting occasionally during the Summer.

Any advice?

MichaelW

Tourers come in light, medium and expedition.
Light/day/audax bikes have clearance for 28mm tyres + mudguards. They make good fast commuters.
Medium (eg Dawes Galaxy) have cantilever brakes for more tyre clearance (35-38mm) and heavier duty frames but are often lighter in weight than midrange hybrid bikes..
Expedition have much more tyre clearance and maybe MTB wheels.

Light or Med are good for daily commuting.

CX bikes in comparison have higher gears, shorter chainstays, higher bottom bracket. CX-race bikes have no braze-ons or threaded eyelets but the more practical ones do.
I dont think CX bikes are any better offroad then tourers, just a sportier design.

Some modern CX style bikes come with disk brakes. In my experience, these are really good in mucky, wet conditions.

RufusA

CX bikes tend to be seen as more fashionable and desireable than tourers. A CX probably being only three rungs below a SS for a fakeinger!

IMHO a light tourer/audax seems ideal for your needs, you'd need to try a few to find the right geometry / gearing for your intended purpose. At the moment Dawes (well regarded in this segment) seem to be running hefty discounts on thier range.

If I was in the same position a Dawes Sportif Comp. would be smiling and winking at me. And if my pockets were deeper it would be rude not to give the Ultra Galaxy a little of your time!

Rufus.

Wallace1492

I got a Specalized Tricross a year and a half ago. It was a compromise for a raod bike and tourer, don't regret at all. It takes panniers and rack and have done long weekends and week tours, daily commiute of 8 miles each way, stuck 25mm tyres on and done Etape Caledonia and Trossach's Ton, both in decent times, so it can shift. Stick on bigger tyres and canal paths and tougher terrain is fine.

If i had very deep pockets I would get a full on road bike as well, but for touring, the Tricross is ace, comfortable, wide range of gears, tough and good fun.

MrChuck

CX bikes will have more room for tire/mud clearance, possibly snappier handling, and they're much trendier. Other than that I don't see much advantage over a tourer for what you want, especially if there's some touring on the horizon.

Chris McG

Something like a Specialized Tricross or Ridley X-Bow will be more than enough for light touring, and will probably handle better and be lighter than a tourer. At C2W scheme price, most 'cross bikes will still have mudguard/rack eyelets too...

snailracer

If you're going to mostly commute on it, a tourer comes with suitable mudguards, racks, possibly dynamos & lights, etc. already fitted. A tourer is just as likely to come with drop bars as flat bars.

You can remove those accessories from a tourer if you think them inappropriate for some riding that you do. You simply put them back on again for the commute.

OTOH, you could buy a cyclocross and then spend ages looking for accessories that (hopefully) fit. Why bother?

jimmypippa

I was in a similar position about a year ago. I've got a Dawes Horizon on the C2W and it' pretty good for my all-year commute from the Peak District to Stockport.

I took the advice of the LS that sold it, especially as he was recommending it rather than the more expensive CX Kona (Jake I think).

It's comfortable (steel), pretty fast, and comes with pannier rack and mudguards, which would cost a fair bit to add on afterwards.

Also it is less trendy, so maybe less attractive to pinch.

tim_wand

The other big issue is braking. Plenty of threads on here discussing the problems of using a CX frame and Canti brakes for road use and touring. Basically very few Canti brakes are up to the speeds and if touring weights involved to stop effectively (especially in the wet)

I ve gone for a Planet X Kaffenbach that does everything well, but I ve had to fit brakes
(Avid shorty ultimates) which cost more than the frame (doh ) but then again I m a 14 stone lump who likes to descend quick.

snailracer

tim wand wrote:

The other big issue is braking. Plenty of threads on here discussing the problems of using a CX frame and Canti brakes for road use and touring. Basically very few Canti brakes are up to the speeds and if touring weights involved to stop effectively (especially in the wet)

I ve gone for a Planet X Kaffenbach that does everything well, but I ve had to fit brakes
(Avid shorty ultimates) which cost more than the frame (doh ) but then again I m a 14 stone lump who likes to descend quick.

OK, why are your Avid Shorty Ultimates better than other canti brakes? Is it not simply rubbish pads and poor setup that makes a poor canti brake?

I will say that V-brakes are easier to setup and maintain consistent braking with pad wear, compared to any canti brake.

g00se

With CX bikes, they range from 'real' CX bikes with aggressive geometry and very hard ride - to more 'cross-style' bikes which are more relaxed with mountings for guards and racks (like the Genesis Croix de Fer). A true CX bike - like a Specialized Crux Elite - could be a bit unforgiving and twitchy for long distances but the Croix de Fer has gone around the world. http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/news/03/09/10/vin-coxs-round-the-world-record-is-official

A tourer is designed to carry a lot of weight on front and back panniers for a long distance, but an audax/sportive is aimed more for the solely long distance with a bit of luggage and weather protection (Tifosi CK7).

To try to roughly predict how a bike will behave just looking at the specs, the longer the wheelbase and the lower head-tube and seat-tube angles, the more stable and relaxed. Higher angles and shorter wheelbases will make the bike more 'squirty' and 'pointy' (if you know what I mean).

tim_wand

My fondness for Avid Ultimate Shorty's is just a personal preference having ridden quite a few different canti's and mini v set ups on my own and mates bikes.

Its ridiculous the cost of these brakes but the hardware , fittings , ease of adjustment and power especially in narrow profile setting is better than anything else I ve come across this side of single pivot brakes.

They work best with SRAM levers (no suprise as both Avid and Sram are hotlines products)

It does feel odd riding a bike where the frame cost less then the brakes, I try not to be a kit whore but these just work for me.

I ve read ( not experienced) good things about shimano bbr 550's and the point you make about set up and pad type is valid. Most people recomend swiss stop, but I havent felt the need to change my pads yet, and the Ultimates are by far the easiest to adjust I have had.

The Rookie

Unless you have to retain Canti's for some wonderful reason, I see no point to not use V-s as they are so markedly superior, near BSO V-s out perform all but the stupid price canti's by a big margin, easier still on flat barred bikes as you just use MTB levers.

Simon

Pessable

I'm enjoying the discussion - just the kind of experienced-based stuff I was after.

Interesting mention of the Croix de Fer - one of the bikes on my short-list is the Day One, mainly because I'm quite tempted by the Alfine version. Are there any tourers out there with Alfine hubs or is the gear range considered too small for touring?

I can certainly see the advantage of buying a tourer which comes with mudguards and rack. OTOH I can maybe use the full value of the C2W limit better on a more basic but better quality bike and upgrade it.

I'm also pretty certain that I'm persuaded as to the advantages of a steel frame, although I've never ridden one! I err on the side of comfort rather than less weight. My current hybrid is around 16kg before I put my loaded panniers on, so a 12-14kg tourer will still be an improvement.

Pessable.

walkingbootweather

Thorn do some very good hub-based tourers http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/models.html using the expensive but very good Rolhoff hubs. They have some useful literature on their website which might also compare gear ratios between hubs and deraillieur set ups. They also advise steel over any other material for non-racing bike frames.

There are many advocates of CX bikes and the differences between these and traditional tourers have been well documented here already. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but if you want to ride pretty big distances, at fairly fast speed, in comfort and carry some gear then this is just what tourers are designed for.

Spa cycles http://www.spacycles.co.uk/ are better able to advise on touring bikes than most general dealers.

Happy hunting

snailracer

Pessable wrote:

..
I can certainly see the advantage of buying a tourer which comes with mudguards and rack. OTOH I can maybe use the full value of the C2W limit better on a more basic but better quality bike and upgrade it.

I'm also pretty certain that I'm persuaded as to the advantages of a steel frame, although I've never ridden one! I err on the side of comfort rather than less weight. My current hybrid is around 16kg before I put my loaded panniers on, so a 12-14kg tourer will still be an improvement.

Pessable.

Also note that tourers have longer chainstays so you can mount panniers without clipping your heels, not just to make the steering slower.

surreyxc

imo I would go for CX. Why? They tend to be lighter, upto mid level they come with braze ons for racks. A more aggressive and involved riding position. I tend to use the bike regularly on bridal ways and unmade paths. Currently run 35mm but the frame could easily handle 40mm or down to 25mm wide.

Now the ban has been lifted on discs I would definitely want a bike with discs, but not cable discs, but I reckon we will see some hydraulic discs for drops soon. That said I would still want it light so that is expensive. I would not want a CX heavier than 19lb.

Depends how you will use the bike, but I really dislike racks, and prefer to travel uber light with a pack, so I can still get a lively ride.

That said the difference between a tourer, cx, or a 29er can be slight depending on set up.

jedster

I ride a planet-x uncle john on my commute. It's a CX bike but has guard and rack mounts. I considered an audax/light-tourer at the same time. I really don't think there is much to choose between the two types of bike but given that 95% of the mileage I do on the bike is on rides of less than 40 minutes I thought something a bit more sporty (while still being able to 28mm tyres and guards) would be more fun. Works for me. If I thought I was going to do some touring as well as commuting then I would definitely have gone for a tourer...

BTW, I'm just thinking about buying a planet-x (or should that be on one?) drop-bar pompetamine. Which is basically something between a CX and a tourer with an alfine hub and disc brakes for less than a grand... IMO it's the optimal commuter bike.

J