so... cyclocross bikes

[Crackle]

If I had a crosser I'd tour on it, after all you can tour on anything but if I was buying something for a tour I don't think it would be a crosser. Geometry too tight, too racelike a position and awkward to fit guards and racks to (not all though). Comfort is much more of an issue touring and I think that's where the crosser fails, OK for short 'uns but not longer. Gearing is another thing, whether you're going to have enough gears in the right range.

 

[willem]

I agree with much that has been said, but want to add my thing about tyres. I would never want to tour on the Marathon Plus. I might just consider it for a commuter bike, but certainly not for touring. It is not only slow, but also stiff. An ordinary Marathon is much faster and more comfortable, and to be honest, they too really puncture only rarely. We have a household with a fair number of seriously used commuter bikes, and nearly all of them on ordinary Marathons: one puncture in I think about six years - a nail. If you like fun riding, and don't take too heavy loads, I would even gamble a bit more, and fit Panaracer Pasela's. Their ride is even more fun, but with a slightly larger chance of a puncture. I have just been touring with camping gear for 500 kms on a new set, and no puncture yet. In all cases I would fit relatively wide tyres, as for touring they are as fast, but are far more comfortable, and give better handling on rough roads, gravel roads etc.
Willem

 

[chris667]

^^what he said^^
Cyclocross and touring are very, very different tasks, and call for different bikes. The Planet X ones have sensible, rather conservative angles, more like a general purpose road bike. Dare I say it, they're more like the spiritual successor to the 10 speed racers popular in the 70s. Of course, if they were sold as "racers", no-one would buy one. But label them as "Cyclocross", put some shiny, modern logos on them and laugh all the way to the bank.
Like John the monkey said, a cyclocross bike is unlikely to have the stability when laden or comfort over long distances that a well designed touring bike will.

 

[andym]

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.

But I want my touring bike to be shoulderable and responsive!

There's always a trade-off to be made: between specialisation and flexibility. Yes if you're planning a world tour on rough roads then there's a good argument for a bike that has been designed for that task. But if you want a bike that you can tour on, as well as commute on and take out for day rides, then getting a good general-purpose bike (whether labelled cyclocross or whatever) seems to me to be a reasonable strategy. Even if it isn't written in the Old Fogies' Book of Rules (aka 'Do It My Way).

 

[chris667]

But I want my touring bike to be shoulderable and responsive!

No, that's the thing, for touring you don't want a bike to be too responsive, because it's harder to ride when you're tired. Cyclocross races are short, tours are long. Same with day rides.

There's always a trade-off to be made: between specialisation and flexibility. Yes if you're planning a world tour on rough roads then there's a good argument for a bike that has been designed for that task. But if you want a bike that you can tour on, as well as commute on and take out for day rides, then getting a good general-purpose bike (whether labelled cyclocross or whatever) seems to me to be a reasonable strategy.

Which brings us neatly back to my suggestion of the Kaffenback. It's still not going to have the comfort of a tourer for a long ride, but if you are very image conscious, maybe that's the way to go. Pure CX bikes are not general purpose at all, they're for very focused athletes in a particular race which to be honest will always be a minority event.

Even if it isn't written in the Old Fogies' Book of Rules (aka 'Do It My Way).

I certainly wouldn't throw stones at what you choose to ride. If you had to change the plug on your kettle you could do it with a butter knife instead of a screwdriver. That doesn't make it the best choice.

And I just thought I'd share this with you, from the brilliant blog Bike Snob NYC. Excuse the Americanism, but the sentiment's there:

The extra bits on a tourer like mudguards are important.

 

[MacB]

out of curiosity where would my Surly fit in the scheme of things?

http://www.surlybikes.com/crosscheck_comp.html

I still find it hard to know what sort of bike is what, the obvious ones are easy but when you get to audax/cross/tour/light tour/hybrid etc, they can seem very similar.

 

[andym]

No, that's the thing, for touring you don't want a bike to be too responsive, because it's harder to ride when you're tired. Cyclocross races are short, tours are long. Same with day rides.

Which brings us neatly back to my suggestion of the Kaffenback. It's still not going to have the comfort of a tourer for a long ride, but if you are very image conscious, maybe that's the way to go. Pure CX bikes are not general purpose at all, they're for very focused athletes in a particular race which to be honest will always be a minority event.

I certainly wouldn't throw stones at what you choose to ride. If you had to change the plug on your kettle you could do it with a butter knife instead of a screwdriver. That doesn't make it the best choice.

If you had actually bothered to read the thread properly you would know that I did not suggest a Kaffenback. I simply said that as someone who rode a bike that some people used for cyclocross I didn't think the original poster's approach was entirely unreasonable.

The fact that no one, yourself included, has actually come up with any substantive or specific reasons to back up their case (oh sorry I forgot: someone said 'not enough clearance for mudguards' and lack of bottle cage bosses on the top tube) suggests to me that prejudice and traditionalism have more to do with most of the responses here than anything else. Silly snide asides about being image conscious don't impress either.

The analogy with fixing a plug with a butter knife is simply silly - I think the question would be which is better for fixing a plug an electrical screwdriver or a small normal screwdriver. The answer is probably neither. You certainly wouldn't go out and buy an electrical screwdriver if you had a normal screwdriver to hand. Same with general-purpose bikes for everyday use. They work perfectly fine for touring.

I have no problem riding my bike when I'm tired. Nor do you need to have to have mudguards for touring.

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not necessarily advocating cyclocross bikes for touring but simply challenging the lack of open-mindendness, knee-jerk traditionalism, and lack of reasoned arguement in the responses to the original poster.

 

[MacB]

so let's see some difintive answers then? I hear things like more relaxed geometry etc, what are the parameters for each type of bike and is there overlap, something like:-

Tour - ST to TT factor should be no more than X, ST angle should be within range Y, Drop from bars to saddle should be in range Z.

Maybe an explanation, or link to one, of the relative impacts of all the lengths and angles on a bike frame and how they should ride.

That sort of thing seems hard to find when looking at bikes, I don't trust the labels that shops and manufacturers put on as they're matching to markets and perceived customer desires.

 

[Crackle]

out of curiosity where would my Surly fit in the scheme of things?

Don't know, looks pretty much an all rounder, quite relaxed looking geometry but with a shortish rear triangle, lots of clearance for off-road, looks interesting actually.

Ben-m, I read your other post which filled in a bit more background. I'd say the crosser would do you for the tour (like I said you could tour on anything, I have). The ones you linked to look quite pure whereas I'd say something a little more all-roundish, like Mac's Surly or a Specialized Tricross might be better general bikes. Unless you are going to use it off-road after the tour, a Sportif style bike but would be a better allround road bike, look at the Dawes range or Kinesis racelight (you might get one in budget).

Bear in mind the gearing. It could be worth buying a different rear cassette just for the tour, depending on the bike you get and I've toured with and without mudguards; I prefer having them to not.

 

[John the Monkey]

But I want my touring bike to be shoulderable and responsive!

There's always a trade-off to be made: between specialisation and flexibility.

I'd not disagree - the most important thing for the op is that they're happy with the bike, and that it does what they want it to do.

I have to admit that for the sort of distance planned, I'd want something fairly specialised (hence the advice), but as Crackle said, you *can* tour on anything, if you don't mind the odd compromise, or if the bike you have suits you better than the sterotypical tourer.

 

[Ben M]

I've read all of the replies in this thread, and excuse me for generalising rather than going through each post individually.

Fitting panniers and mudguards is possible on all of the bikes that we're looking at. The real tradeoff that we are making by going for cyclo-cross is comfort. But, ultimately, we're three fit lads, and the tour is meant to be an adventure, a bit of discomfort is all part of it. We're covering 500(+) miles of cycling, and are taking our time (around 50 miles a day) so we feel that the comfort we can deal with. Obviously we are going to try out all bikes before we purchase, so if we feel that they are going to get uncomfortable quickly, then we will look for something more comfortable.

Crackle, thanks very much for your suggestions, and I completely agree with your logic, but, looking at the Dawes that you mentioned, how does that differ from the cyclo-cross bikes' geometry, I've put a picture of it next to the evans bike, and they both look very similar shape-wise, not that I know much about bike geometry.

The three of us are going to what is supposed to be a good second-hand bike shop this afternoon (bike workshop at the top of the Christmas steps for you Bristol folk) If there's a used tourer, at a good price, in my size, then I think that I'd probbaly go for it, as a money saving (along with the comfort of course) would tip me in favour of a tourer.

A quick question on size guys and girls, I'm 6' with a 34" inside leg, which, according to a few guides, puts me in 58/59/60cm frame territory. I'm assuming that I should go for the largest that I find comfortable, because a longer reach is preferable as I'd be less bent over, and thus it's easier to get air into my lungs. What do y'all think/ do you have any links to a decent guide on the topic?

 

[chris667]

If you had actually bothered to read the thread properly you would know that I did not suggest a Kaffenback. I simply said that as someone who rode a bike that some people used for cyclocross I didn't think the original poster's approach was entirely unreasonable.

The fact that no one, yourself included, has actually come up with any substantive or specific reasons to back up their case (oh sorry I forgot: someone said 'not enough clearance for mudguards' and lack of bottle cage bosses on the top tube) suggests to me that prejudice and traditionalism have more to do with most of the responses here than anything else. Silly snide asides about being image conscious don't impress either.

The analogy with fixing a plug with a butter knife is simply silly - I think the question would be which is better for fixing a plug an electrical screwdriver or a small normal screwdriver. The answer is probably neither. You certainly wouldn't go out and buy an electrical screwdriver if you had a normal screwdriver to hand. Same with general-purpose bikes for everyday use. They work perfectly fine for touring.

I have no problem riding my bike when I'm tired. Nor do you need to have to have mudguards for touring.

I'd like to emphasize that I'm not necessarily advocating cyclocross bikes for touring but simply challenging the lack of open-mindendness, knee-jerk traditionalism, and lack of reasoned arguement in the responses to the original poster.

You seem rather angry about this.
I've never told anyone what they should do. I've said what I'd do, and why I think choosing a bike on sporty looks and what the man in the shop tells you is a silly idea.
It's great that you like your bike, and you can ride it when you're tired, and you can go touring without mudguards. Good for you. But I've done all those things too, and I think losing a tiny, tiny edge on speed that I probably wouldn't notice anyway at the expense of comfort is unecessary.
For touring, a correctly fitting touring bike is more comfortable than a cyclocross one. For day rides, a correctly fitting touring bike is more comfortable than a cyclocross one as well. Chances are, over a long distance you'll actually go faster and further the more comfortable you are. Racers, as they crunch their maggot-like bodies down and pedal on sacrifice everything for out and out speed, including comfort. They can't take food, so shiver in rediculous skintight outfits, and feed on tubes of sugary gel instead of food. All these nice, enjoyable things about distance cycling vanish in favour of a few seconds in a race.
What's the worst thing about an uncomfortable bike? The fact that after a while, you'll probably stop riding it. Ebay is full of basically new bikes that people have stopped riding because they were uncomfortable.
And as for mudguards, between you and me, I think unless you're racing having mudguards when riding in a group is just bloody rude. If you ride without a mudguard and take your kid on a trailerbike, well frankly shame on you. What happens if you ride through a dog turd?

 

[MacB]

If you ride without a mudguard and take your kid on a trailerbike, well frankly shame on you. What happens if you ride through a dog turd?

Sorry Chris, I know you're making a serious point, but that made me laugh out loud....thanks

 

[John the Monkey]

If you ride the lanes near me, you'll go through quite a lot of cowsh*t. The value of mudguards becomes apparent when your back and (more importantly) water bottles aren't covered in crap.

 

[Crackle]

Crackle, thanks very much for your suggestions, and I completely agree with your logic, but, looking at the Dawes that you mentioned, how does that differ from the cyclo-cross bikes' geometry, I've put a picture of it next to the evans bike, and they both look very similar shape-wise, not that I know much about bike geometry.

Good question and not so easy to answer. There is a very good Wiki article here. If you take two examples of a tourer and a racer, then a tourer will have less steep angles making for a more stable and comfortable ride. It will have a longer wheelbase for stability under load and good tracking, probably a higher head tube height so you sit more upright plus various other small differences including clearance for larger tyres and fittings for rack and mudguards. A race bike will be the opposite, short responsive wheelbase, tight tube angles for fast handling, a head down position, no clearance for big tyres or mudguards and no rack mounts.

However that polarisation rarely holds true and often a bike will be built with characteristics belonging to both. Take a Sportif for example. It could be very like a tourer in geometry or much more like a racer but with extra clearance for mudguards. It's the same with a cross bike. You get them built with very tight geometry but clearance for big tyres and mud or much more relaxed like a tourer. You really have to examine how the manufacturer is pitching his range.

If I look at my own bike, it's somewhere between a tourer and a racer with mudguard clearance and rack fittings. It has a more upright position but still feels responsive. It's an Audax bike or what was once called a fast tourer, capable of riding comfortably all day and taking light loads and I bought it specifically as a jack of all trades.

I think your approach of riding a few is right but it's a good idea to know as much as possible about what you are looking for.