Bike advice - Cyclocross or Touring Bike?

[badger76]

Hello,
Currently I own a hybrid bike and a road bike, but due to space restrictions I'm looking to sell them both and buy a new bike. I use my hybrid for my commute to work (quite a short distance - only about 3 miles each way) with a pannier rack and bag to hold my stuff, general errands and shopping trips, and when I cycle round the New Forest on the off-road (generally gravel) paths. The road bike is used for general fitness and for day rides, normally between 50-60 miles.

I'm not into mountain biking so don't need anything that will cope with extreme conditions, just a good quality bike which would suit my general needs. I'm looking at spending between £800-£1000. Any advice/recommendations would be gratefully received!

[cycleruk]

Cyclocross normally has different chainset gearing than a tourer. Otherwise not a lot of difference really. You may consider the option of a spare pair of wheels with different tyres for your weekend riding. ie lighter?
A cyclo bike might not have rack eyes or even mudguard eyes either.

[Vantage]

I've never had a cyclocross rig so can't comment on them, but there are very few places where I've not been able to take the tourer. Fitting bigger and nobblier tyres has helped immensely and the benefit of having mudguards is well, a huge benefit

[mattsccm]

Most modern CX bikes are really general purpose things. ie they have rack and guard mounts. Just ignore anything without. A modern CX type bike may well have room for wider tyres although this is not a given.
Many modern CX type bikes have disc brakes. a personal thing but they do give solid braking, in my experience in a different league. this is a personal thing to which not everyone agrees. I like them as they are near nigh maintenance free ie. I am still on one set of pads after 6 months whereas rim brakes would have eaten 2 or 3 sets of brake blocks by now. As I said it a personal choice.
Try Planet X and look at the Kaffenback for example.

[531colin]

There is a world of difference between a bike made to be competitive in cyclocross races and a bike made for touring.
However "touring" is just not sexy enough for the marketing men, it conjures up images of cloth caps and baggy shorts, a gentle club run with a stop for tea in the afternoon.
So now we have a bike invented by the marketing men....its a cyclocross bike (honest, guv. it really is!) but magically its "ideal for" touring, commuting, day rides, club runs, set it to program No. 14 it'll wash your smalls, too.......
What you need is a "light tourer" ....that's a bike designed pretty much like a tourer, but not over-engineered to handle all the baggage for an unsupported winter wild camping trip.
Don't you mean an audax bike!!!.....Well, no, actually, not an audax bike as the fashion dictates them, all close clearance frames, narrow tyres, dual pivot sidepulls and compact double chainsets......another triumph of form over function, for those who can't bear to be seen with a granny ring.

We've been here before.......

[Brucey]

mm yes, a 'faux cx bike' so 'faucx bike' then...

BTW if they still did them, I'd suggest a Pompetamine Versa as a good all-rounder for commuting and light touring.

cheers

[Yellowbike]

I've almost converted my old Cannondale Cyclocross bitsa into a tourer. Just need to sort the shifters and its complete. Thread here:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=76467

I changed the drivetrain for a triple and added a lot of weight in a stronger rear wheel, racks and mudguards. It had a reasonable amount of fixing points and I've bodged a few bits with cable ties. There seems to be plenty of room for wider tyres should I get the urge... I imagine newer bikes would be a bit more focussed to start with though...

I doubt it would be very good for going round the world, but for short tours, the school run towing a trailer and two under 5s and general bombing about its been great so far.

[Big T]

The Specialized Tricross is marketed as a CX bike, but it's not really. Go to a cross race and you'll see hardly anyone riding one. It's really just an alu road bike with cantilever brakes (or discs) and generous clearances. It has the mounts for a rear rack.

Such a bike would make a reasonable allrounder, especially with a spare set of wheels with narrower tyres.

I commute on my tourer and do long rides on an audax bike. I rode the audax to work last Monday and noticed how much less comfortable it is than the tourer on potholed roads. They're both steel, so it must be the tyres and/or geometry that make the tourer a more comfortable ride.

[meic]

We've been here before.......

Havent we just.

I tour and Audax on a Cyclocross bike (which is classified as a Cyclocross/light tourer). I also bring home 20Kg of shopping on it.

Audax bikes are great for covering long distance with enough luggage to keep you riding, at minimum effort, which tends to mean up to 28mm tyres and mudguards. I am quite happy to light tour on them as well.

The tourers being able to take wider tyres and carry more weight than the Audax bike but soak up a bit more of your energy.

The Cyclocross can take even bigger tyres than the tourer but are not meant to carry extra weight, though mine very happily does.

As you will not be commuting with a tent and cooking gear why have a bike built to carry the extra weight?

If you want to have the ability to fit fatter tyres than 28mm then a cyclocross will allow you to do so, otherwise the Audax bike is the way to go.
If you are buying standard bikes then unfortunately they will try and sell you Audaxers and Cyclocrossers with double chainsets, personally I fit mine with triples but plenty of other riders just dont need the extra gearing.

I would say that the gears and wheels that you put on the bike make more difference than the differences between these frames.

I am a bit confused by mattscm's comment that the added tyre space was not a given, I thought it was. My bike is probably 29er compatible.

If you use an Audax bike you will not be able to use ice-tyres for winter commuting, I think you want a min of 35mm plus studs for that. Which may be pushing some tourer's limits too. You can fit nice light wheels to any of the bikes.

The boundaries between the types of bikes are ill defined and varied. I agree that you should look at the bike's spec not its marketing name.
The Dawes Audax for example was fitted with pannier braze-ons on the front forks making it a very versatile and useful light touring machine, almost the same bike was later called a Sportive.

Some of the differences are so subtle that those of us who own and ride the bikes can not even detect them.

[fatboy]

Given that one of your requirements is commuting you need rack and mudguards....so buy the style of bike that comes with those, a touring bike. Until Xmas and Santa decided that I'd been good (got an audax bike) I only had a tourer and it's great for commuting, day rides, aidax and even sportives (I got asked how I went that fast on that bike). They are not sexy and not well understood and even when people want a bike to go touring they won't be offered a touring bike.

[meic]

Given that one of your requirements is commuting you need rack and mudguards....so buy the style of bike that comes with those,

I would agree with that

a touring bike.

and Audax bikes and Cyclocross bikes.

If you find one that doesnt, it had better have something really remarkable to make up for the lack.

[loafer]

Cyclocross normally has different chainset gearing than a tourer. Otherwise not a lot of difference really. You may consider the option of a spare pair of wheels with different tyres for your weekend riding. ie lighter?
A cyclo bike might not have rack eyes or even mudguard eyes either.

mine has boardman cx team great all rounder

[LuckyLuke]

Hi,

I have / have had a couple of Tourers, (Long Haul Trucker, 1990s 531 Raleigh) and a couple of Cyclocross bikes (Planet X Kaffenback & early 1990s Barron 531c).
Just to echo what others have said, they can be very different. Which is best for you depends on your priorities, and also your weight & riding style.
A Cyclocross bike designed for racing may lack bosses for mudguards / racks, and even bottle cages (my Barron fits this mould).
Cyclocross bikes will have geometry similar to road bikes. Some are essentially just road bikes with clearances for bigger tyres. E.g. chainstay length is shorter than a tourer (say, 420mm vs 440-460mm). This may affect your ability to mount panniers, depending on your model of rack / feet size. With a Tubus Fly rack on a Kaffenback I'd suffer heel strike with stuffed panniers.
Tourers can allow clearance for bigger tyres. I think Cyclocross rules spec up to 32mm wide tyres, so many are built accordingly. (You might squeeze a 35mm road tyre on though.)
Frame materials can differ. As a general rule tourers tend to be stiff and overbuilt to permit load carrying, e.g. 531ST or oversize Cro Mo. Fine if load carrying is your intention, or if you're a strong, heavy rider. I'm quite light (~66kg) and a spinner, and I find touring frames a little stiff and 'dead' for unladen riding.
My personal preference is for a tourer for commuting / shopping, and a cyclocross bike for unladen riding / Audax. The problem with a 'Jack of all trades' bike is somewhere compromises have to be made.
You could fit drop bars / bar end shifters and V-brake road levers to your hybrid, and use this as a commuter / tourer? The clearances, bosses and low gearing should all be in place already? You could then have another bike, road / audax / cyclocross for 'best', which I feel would be more fun to ride. All IMHO of course!

Best of luck, let us know how it goes.

Best wishes,

Luke

[cycleruk]

Cyclocross normally has different chainset gearing than a tourer. Otherwise not a lot of difference really. You may consider the option of a spare pair of wheels with different tyres for your weekend riding. ie lighter?
A cyclo bike might not have rack eyes or even mudguard eyes either.

mine has boardman cx team great all rounder

bike stable.jpg

Obviously not a proper Cyclo bike.
Cyclocross is a race. Why would you need a rack and mudguards?
I wouldn't fancy slinging that over my shoulder and running up a hill or bunny hopping over logs with it.
Good for touring on if it had lower gears.

[badger76]

Thanks for all the ideas and advice! I think a few trips to my local bike shops are going to be in order to see exactly what is available, as the boundaries between the naming of bikes by the manufacturers seems to be getting blurred!

I'll definitely get something with a rack/mudguards as I view these as essential for the main use of the bike, but I'll also aim for something which isn't too heavy, so it looks like a lightweight tourer or something like the Boardman cx team!