so... cyclocross bikes

[Ben M]

So my tour mentioned in a previous thread is now going to be from Bristol to strasbourg, around 500 miles of cycling.

After a fair bit of research, the three of us are going to go for cyclocross bikes.

One of the other two has got a LBS to order in a Genesis Vapour for him to have a ride of:
http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/series/vapour
For £850 + discount on accessories + 4 services a year for life

Now £850 is a bit much for be to spend right now, I'd be happier around the £700 mark, where I've seen this:
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/pinnacle/expede-00-2009-cyclo-cross-bike-ec018116

I saw one in the local Evans today and liked the look of it.

I have also seen a vapour available online for the same price as the Pinnacle. Do any of you guys know anything about the two bikes? Or have any comments on the components, and differences between the two.

One thing that I noticed about the pinnacle was the lack of mounts at the top for the panniers, the bottom ones by the rear axle are there, but none at the top, I was told that the solution to this is a simple jubilee-clip style thing, which isn't much worse than a proper mount, as the bottom is the load-bearing point.

Oh and tyre-wise, I know that we'll have to take off the cyclo-cross knobblies, I was thinking of some SCHWALBE Marathon Plus, as mentioned on this forum in a few places. Am I on the money when I say that those tyres are the ones to go for on a ~500 mile trip (we will have spare inner tubes as well obviously)

Cheers guys.

 

[Big T]

Why do people insist on touring on cyclo-cross bikes?

it's a bit like buying a 4x4 car when a family estate is what you need.

Why not get a touring bike?

Ridgeback Voyage or Dawes Horizon can both be had for £700 or less and you wouldn't have to change the tyres or buy a rack or worry about whether a rack will fit.

 

[Ben M]

Because it's durable and comfortable enough for the tour, and more fun for general cycling fun. And I'm not worried about whether or not racks will fit, I know that they will.

It's more like buying a hot hatch than an estate car... the dogs will fit in the back of both, but overall the estate is slightly more practical, and the hot hatch is a lot more fun =]

 

[vernon]

Because it's durable and comfortable enough for the tour, and more fun for general cycling fun. And I'm not worried about whether or not racks will fit, I know that they will.

It's more like buying a hot hatch than an estate car... the dogs will fit in the back of both, but overall the estate is slightly more practical, and the hot hatch is a lot more fun =]

If you say so.....

 

[Isla Valassi]

ContinentaL Travel Contact tyres are worth considering. They come with very nice inner tubes to boot! http://www.evanscycles.com/products/continental/travel-contact-tyre-ec004867

 

[chris667]

Because it's durable and comfortable enough for the tour, and more fun for general cycling fun. And I'm not worried about whether or not racks will fit, I know that they will.

It's more like buying a hot hatch than an estate car... the dogs will fit in the back of both, but overall the estate is slightly more practical, and the hot hatch is a lot more fun =]

The man in the shop has obviously been doing his work. I'd hesitate to describe anyone I had never met as a fashion victim, but you're not making it easy.

You'll be able to do the trip on these, but frankly a touring bike would run rings around either of them. The route you've described is exactly what a dedicated touring bike was designed for, and it's only after you've spent a few days doing 70+ miles that you'll realise what I mean.

 

[beancounter]

I commute to work on a Cannondale cyclocross bike fitted with Marathon Plus tyres. I chose the cross bike because it's quite robust (the cycle paths I use are poorly surfaced) and I chose the Marathon Plus tyres because I absolutely, positively do not want to puncture on my way to work, or back.

Not sure I'd want to tour on this combo, though. I'm sure I could ride it all day but I don't think I'd want to - the tyres are SO heavy, and rather sluggish.

I don't have a dedicated touring bike so can't comment on those.

bc

 

[Big T]

I've got a cross bike - Kinesis Crosslight Pro4 - with Campag groupset. It's great fun for riding around the woods, but I wouldn't want to tour on it.

Horses for courses.

 

[andym]

I tour on a Planet-X Kaffenback which some people use for cyclocross - so it doesn't seem like that crazy a decision.

Oh and tyre-wise, I know that we'll have to take off the cyclo-cross knobblies, I was thinking of some SCHWALBE Marathon Plus, as mentioned on this forum in a few places. Am I on the money when I say that those tyres are the ones to go for on a ~500 mile trip (we will have spare inner tubes as well obviously).

In my personal opinion, no you're not on the money. The Marathon Plus Tyres are beloved by people who have the overriding objective of not getting punctures. Now OK no one likes getting a puncture, but in this world you don't get something for nothing: the 5mm thick anti-puncture belt adds extra weight to the tyre. Extra weight on the tyres means extra effort cycling - according to an article I saw on Wikipedia a 1g of extra rotational weight is equivalent to two kilos on the frame. On a trip like Bristol to Strasburg you'd be very unlucky if you got two punctures, so the question you need to consider is whether the extra effort of pushing those tyres around every mile of the way is really worth the saving of say 15 minutes for the occasional puncture.

My personal recommendation would be for Continental Gatorskins. I've ridden these through broken glass with a full load on the back so they have a reasonable degree of puncture resistance.

 

[John the Monkey]

I get the feeling that the "Cross Bike" is being pushed as the new "do it all" bicycle.

A true crosser isn't really, as they can have quite tight, racy geometry, no bottle cage mounts, etc etc. Others are basically road bikes of different stripes that can take big tyres.

My understanding is that the Kaffenbach isn't really a cross bike - (Planet X sell the Uncle John frame as their cross bike, I think).

 

[andym]

My understanding is that the Kaffenbach isn't really a cross bike - (Planet X sell the Uncle John frame as their cross bike, I think).

Indeed it isn't a crossbike (although the geometry isn't a million miles from the Uncle John) - hence my deliberate choice of words. I think the designer called it 'cyclocross-lite'.

You only need to avoid bottle bosses on the top bar - which has the advantage for touring that it makes it easier to pick the bike up and carry it.

 

[Ben M]

Continental Gatorskins.

Cheers for that, will definitely look at them then, I hadn't considered how big a difference in riding a small difference in tyre weight would make.

 

[chris667]

I hate to sound like the cackling old man dishing out unsolicited advice....but here's some more.
Weight is not the be all and end all with a touring bike. Durability and comfort over long distances is. By the time you've added a pannier rack, panniers, luggage, stove, tent etc. 5 grams of weight on the tyres is no difference at all. In fact, wider beefier tyres generally make a bike more comfortable, which is **much** more important in reducing fatigue than slightly reduced resistance while pedalling. The reason you have gears is to cope with harder resistance.
I must confess, I didn't look at either of the links in your OP, but if you're talking about the Planet X Kaffenback/Uncle John, they're both OK bikes. Still not as good as even a cheap tourer for actual touring, but if have your heart set on something that's got more exciting stickers than a tourer and no uncool mudguards, maybe it's the way to go and they aren't too dear.

 

[andym]

I must confess, I didn't look at either of the links in your OP, but if you're talking about the Planet X Kaffenback/Uncle John, they're both OK bikes. Still not as good as even a cheap tourer for actual touring,

Erm why exactly? He wasn't considering either a Kaffenback or a Planet-X but maybe you could explain why either is inferior to a cheap tourer.

I hate to sound like the cackling old man dishing out unsolicited advice....but here's some more.

Some reasoned opinion might useful.

 

[John the Monkey]

I'd hate to pre-empt Chris' reply, but cross bikes and tourers are bikes for very different jobs.

Crossers get ridden for fairly short amounts of time, need to be shoulderable, responsive etc.

Tourers get ridden for far longer amounts of time, and need to be stable under load.

This tends to mean that they have fairly different geometries and "feel". The line is blurring because of "do it all" cross type bikes currently popular as commuters, light tourers &c, but I suspect for serious load hauling and time in the saddle, a dedicated tourer remains the best choice.