Carbon - Road Frame / Cyclocross Frame Differences?

[Manc33]

What are the differences between carbon road frames and carbon cyclocross frames?

I keep trying to list every difference and have only found these differences up to now:

- Road rear dropout is typically 130mm.
- Cyclocross rear dropout is typically 135mm.

- Road frames have their front mech cable pulling from the bottom.
- Cyclocross have their front mech cable pulling from the top.

- Road frame's traditionally have side pull brakes, although they are gradually also using disc brakes.
- Cyclocross frames tend to nearly all have disc brakes but there may be ones with side pull brakes.

- Road frame tyre clearance is narrow.
- Cyclocross frame tyre clearance is wider.

- Road frames don't usually have mounting points for mudguards.
- Cyclocross frames usually have mounting points for mudguards.
(mentioned by Brucey)

Apart from the above points I am struggling to see any other differences, maybe things like the geometry might be slightly different, but I wouldn't consider that a major difference with it not being all that different. I am talking about differences where you'd need to buy different components to build up the bike, or where something works on one, but not the other.

I would list a tapered head tube (1.125" top / 1.5" bottom) but those are on road and cross frames these days.
I would list a fatter seat tube (34.9mm) on cross frames, but a lot of road frames are also that size these days.

One other difference might be weight and a road frame could be lighter, I saw one China frame (around £400-£500) that said it weighs 850g for the frame, I nearly feinted! That is really light and I thought bikes that weight cost a fortune, maybe 10 years back eh.

Apart from what's listed above are there any other major differences?

I can't wait to get a frame like this as a do everything go anywhere (within reason) bike.

[Brucey]

CX frames traditionally have cantis, not side pull brakes. Newer ones are also likely to come with through axles and disc brakes, rather than standard QRs.

FWIW they do make good 'do it all' bikes. A cheap experiment is to buy something like a planet x London road frame; not perfect but they are not expensive either. If you choose carefully most of the parts will transfer over to another frame later if you like the whole concept.

A problem is that if these frames include bosses for racks and mudguards, they are dismissed as 'heavy touring frames' (whether they are or not) and if they don't, you can't easily make them into practical bikes...

cheers

[Manc33]

A problem is that if these frames include bosses for racks and mudguards, they are dismissed as 'heavy touring frames' (whether they are or not) and if they don't, you can't easily make them into practical bikes...

cheers

Brucey them having those bosses is another reason to go CX to me.

I forgot it on the list.

[iandriver]

What are the differences between carbon road frames and carbon cyclocross frames?

I keep trying to list every difference and have only found these differences up to now:

- Road rear dropout is typically 130mm.
- Cyclocross rear dropout is typically 135mm.

- Road frames have their front mech cable pulling from the bottom.
- Cyclocross have their front mech cable pulling from the top.

- Road frame's traditionally have side pull brakes, although they are gradually also using disc brakes.
- Cyclocross frames tend to nearly all have disc brakes but there may be ones with side pull brakes.

- Road frame tyre clearance is narrow.
- Cyclocross frame tyre clearance is wider.

- Road frames don't usually have mounting points for mudguards.
- Cyclocross frames usually have mounting points for mudguards.
(mentioned by Brucey)

Apart from the above points I am struggling to see any other differences, maybe things like the geometry might be slightly different, but I wouldn't consider that a major difference with it not being all that different. I am talking about differences where you'd need to buy different components to build up the bike, or where something works on one, but not the other.

I would list a tapered head tube (1.125" top / 1.5" bottom) but those are on road and cross frames these days.
I would list a fatter seat tube (34.9mm) on cross frames, but a lot of road frames are also that size these days.

One other difference might be weight and a road frame could be lighter, I saw one China frame (around £400-£500) that said it weighs 850g for the frame, I nearly feinted! That is really light and I thought bikes that weight cost a fortune, maybe 10 years back eh.

Apart from what's listed above are there any other major differences?

I can't wait to get a frame like this as a do everything go anywhere (within reason) bike.

My Kinesis Pro 5 CX frame is designed as a proper CX frame. Not only does it not have rack mounts, it has no bottle cage mounts either as CX races at 1 hours max is deemed too short to need water. The cables route under the frame so that it is easy to shoulder. The top tube is flattened underneath to aid this.

Be very wary with what is labelled a CX frame. My Kinesis 5T makes an excellent do it all bike. My Pro 5 is a long way from it.

These two are very different beasts in practice, but at a first glance would seem very similar:
https://www.kinesisbikes.co.uk/Catalogu ... ht/5T-DISC
https://www.kinesisbikes.co.uk/Catalogu ... ght/CXRACE

I think this whole adventure market has come about from the bike industry have seen people doing to CX bikes for years. Basically we want a road bike without stupidly tight tyre clearances.

Quite a few CX bikes designed for CX now will have completely inappropriate chain sets for most of us, with daft 46 36 front setups (see http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/shim ... -prod70118). Read the small print very carefully.
These aren't carbon but the differences you see are relevant regardless of frame material.

[scottg]

[snip]

My Kinesis Pro 5 CX frame is designed as a proper CX frame. Not only does it not have rack mounts, it has no bottle cage mounts either as CX races at 1 hours max is deemed too short to need water

Correct, no bottle mounts on a cyclocross bike.

[Manc33]

Basically we want a road bike without stupidly tight tyre clearances.

It's as if bikes are merging into one type of bike.

I predict full suspension on CX bikes next, with the added weight being "justifiable"

[iandriver]

Basically we want a road bike without stupidly tight tyre clearances.

It's as if bikes are merging into one type of bike.

I predict full suspension on CX bikes next, with the added weight being "justifiable"

I must admit, some are starting to resemble what we once termed a "bicycle".

[Rossco8854]

Geometry would be the main thing, cx bikes tend to have a shorter top tube allowing a more up right position. I've a vitus gravel bike, cannondale synapse and a dolan e'tape, the difference in ride portion between the 3 is crazy.