# Are there handling "differences" between a loaded cross vs. loaded touring bike?...



## RedRex (Oct 24, 2004)

*Are there handling "differences" between a loaded cross vs. loaded touring bike?...*

You can tell by my new threads I'm about to pull the trigger....

So lets say I want a bike with front and rear racks for commuting, but in the winter I'll use it for long "adventure rides" with my friends. I'll pull the racks off and go ride all day during NorCAL winters...

Would a cross bike, like a SOMA Double Cross or Surly Cross Check, handle much different than a touring frame like a Jamis Aurora? Specifically if both bikes had racks off, riding in the mountains, slow climbs and fast descents.....

...and are these cross bikes "known" for having short chainstays, with your heel hitting a fully-loaded pannier?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

There are just so many variables that it is hard to come up with a definitive answer.

Generally loaded panniers do better when they are lower to the ground and heel clearance is an issue with some bags. Therefore a pure "touring" frame with a lower bottom bracket and longer chainstays could be expected to handle better with a full load than a pure "cycle-cross" frame which is after all a racing bike. When the bikes are unloaded the pure "cyclo-cross" frame could be expected to be a bit more nimble handling than that pure "touring" frame.

Not all that many pure frames on the market and not the ones you are looking at. Every thing is shades of grey and everyones experience and requirements are a bit different.

How about you forget the racks and bags and just buy yourself a BOB?


----------



## RedRex (Oct 24, 2004)

"How about you forget the racks and bags and just buy yourself a BOB?"


Not an option for my commute, on so many levels.

If I were to ride cross-country, I would DEFINITELY use a BOB, but my "usage profile" for this new bike breaks down to...

90% commute to work, which involves public transit and a bike locker.
8% ultra cycling training in winter, replaces my custom on crappy roads.
2% credit card touring, possibly.

So I suppose I'm wondering how those two cross bikes would handle while training in the mountains. Right now the SOMA is tops on the list and I just want to be sure, I've never actually used cantilevers while descending mountains on the road before........


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

I would think so... cx bike is gonna have shorter stays and WB, higher BB, and prob steeper angles. even without a load it would prob ride differently


----------



## KeeponTrekkin (Aug 29, 2002)

*Pannier bag size matters...*

as with almost everything else.

MB1's reply is accurate. However, you might fall outside typical profiles, as I did.

I commuted for two years using a Gunnar Street Dog with a luggage rack and pannier bags. However, the panniers were not large and I set them very far to the rear and had no heelstrike issues (shoe size 11.) For the light loads I was carrying (clothing, lunch, towel, toilet kit, etc) it worked out fine (if you look hard, you can find a picture on the Fixed Gear Forum, "Post pictures of your fixed gear bike here" thread.) The Street Dog has 41.1 cm chainstays (the measurement is probably to the forwardmost position in the track ends). By contrast, my LHT has 46 cm chainstays. I currently use it for long rides (Brevets) and commuting. Bag placement is less critical with the LHT.

My $.02 is that if your panniers are smaller, then you can probably make due with a Cross frame and get the performance benefits that frame offers over the touring frame.

Also, owning both an LHT and a Street Dog, I can tell you the Street Dog is a much livlier ride. If your budget allows, think about the Crosshairs; if it's anything like the Street Dog, you'll love it (I think Bigbill rides a Crosshairs for commuting.) If you can't load enough in the smaller panniers occasionally, supplement with a fannypack / backpack and get the Bob for more extended tours.


----------



## MIN in PDX (Nov 29, 2007)

Other than chainstay length, the rake is a consideration: 45mm vs 50mm


----------



## RedRex (Oct 24, 2004)

"My $.02 is that if your panniers are smaller, then you can probably make due with a Cross frame and get the performance benefits that frame offers over the touring frame."




This idea seems to be the driving force behind looking at a CX bike. My reasoning is, if I use a CX bike with a drilled fork and a low-rider rack up front, I can use two smallish bags up front, and two medium sized bags in the back, rather than two HUGE bags in the back.........


----------



## the_dude (Jun 25, 2004)

RedRex said:


> This idea seems to be the driving force behind looking at a CX bike. My reasoning is, if I use a CX bike with a drilled fork and a low-rider rack up front, I can use two smallish bags up front, and two medium sized bags in the back, rather than two HUGE bags in the back.........



i think a CX bike would be a good compromise. i bought a crosscheck before buying a road bike, and i've been impressed enough with it that i've stopped thinking of other bikes all together. i ride it hard on pavement and on dirt, and have had ridden short distances with a rear load (handled it well). 

MB1's advice in the "grocery getter" thread sums up my views towards bicycles: 


MB1 said:


> The best bikes allow a cyclist to do everything.


----------



## nbrennan (Feb 19, 2007)

i actually really love my touring bike (surly trucker w/ 26" wheels) for bombing hills and flying around corners. i ride it to school every day and enjoy the slalom created by a major college campus filled with cars and people. My guess is that the low bb makes it beg to be leaned into corners, but i'm sure the 1.5" slicks on it help. it also handles great loaded. i recently did a short unsupported tour, and i noticed my bike was way more solid (less swaying, straighter line, no noise, etc) when i was out of the saddle than my friends traditional 700c road/sport tourer thingy.


----------



## Chris H (Jul 7, 2005)

Here's my Cross Check on tour earlier this year.

Way overloaded (around 80ish or 90ish pounds curb weight) and did just fine, plus I learned the difference between bike touring and hiking in regards to packing for a trip. Sure it sucked on the climbs, but it rocked on the downhills. At first I was concerned about the weight on the forks, but I hopped on another guys Long Haul Trucker and it felt about the same. The shimmy is still a bit strange though.

If you're doing CC touring then you won't have any problems at all. Either the Cross Check or the Soma will work out just fine. Plus you'll be carrying about 1/3 the weight I was.










Also, those bags I had on the front work perfectly on the rear with no heel strike. Your idea of getting two sets of front panniers could work well for you.


----------



## nbrennan (Feb 19, 2007)

you'll come to enjoy and take pride in whatever you spend time on and make memories on. the crosscheck is a great bike. i think there might be one in my (distant?) future . for credit card touring and urban commuting i'd go so far as to say a crosscheck would be ideal. the lht is going to give you a lot of features you might not need, and a little extra weight.


----------



## ispoke (Feb 28, 2005)

*Minority opinion from a pannier'ier*



MIN in PDX said:


> Other than chainstay length, the rake is a consideration: 45mm vs 50mm


I guess lots of folks here like CX bikes, which is fine, but MIN has a point. Comparing the specs for a 58/59, the Double Cross has a shallower head angle and less fork rake. The result is more "wheel flop" (undesirable) on the front end, especially when loaded. I'm a fan of Soma frames (love my Groove), but would not use the DC for carrying front panniers. It's front end geometry is actually better for a rear-only pannier load (reference recent Bicycle Quarterly publications for more discussion).

The Jamis Aurora is a sleeper. Really nice sport touring spec. In fact the front end is identical to the Co-Motion Nor'Wester which manages to be a pretty good loaded tourer and a nimble, balanced road bike with excellent road race handling (yes I'm biased). The 72.5 HT and 50mm rake are a better spec for loaded front ends. The Aurora is basically a stock version of a custom bike at half the cost (but without S+S couplers). And it was very well reviewed in Adventure Cyclist.


----------



## ispoke (Feb 28, 2005)

One more thing, I'd be happier descending mountains on the Aurora since it has a better balanced front end (once again less wheel flop in the 58/59 size) and the longer wheelbase will be more stable at speed.

There's nothing about your 'usage profile' that says cyclocross. You apparently don't need it to hop logs or "run round the nickel". Your interest in CX bikes seems to be less about their applicability then it is about a perceived shortcoming in a touring frame. A sport tourer like the Aurora (at least for the 58 frame size I know well) is a perfect match to your needs and is not an overbuilt tank like an LHT. So are you more interested in matching your needs or avoiding misapplied stereotypes?


----------



## RedRex (Oct 24, 2004)

"I'd be happier descending mountains on the Aurora since it has a better balanced front end...
There's nothing about your 'usage profile' that says cyclocross. You apparently don't need it to hop logs or "run round the nickel". Your interest in CX bikes seems to be less about their applicability then it is about a perceived shortcoming in a touring frame."



Not at all....

My useage will be 90% commuting, which includes six miles on gravel roads and dirt trails, along with frequent train trips. The Soma double-cross, to me, is a slightly better choice here than the Jamis.

My winter mountain rides will come, but won't be all that frequent. I have two road bikes I use for ultracycling events and training, this bike will be purely for those days when it's raining or will rain. I could certainly use a Jamis touring frame for these rides.

Although...

I won't be touring....

..and the local Jamis dealer said they came as a complete bike only. Which I do not want.

I do not see a shortcoming in a touring frame, I see a "little" more versatility in a CX frame, especially when considering my frequent commute scenario.


----------

