# Downside to cyclocross bike instead of road bike?



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

OK, naive newb question I'm sure...

Was a fairly serious recreational rider years ago. But 20+ college/career/kids years later I'm looking to get back into cycling. Currently riding a Trek hybrid for tooling around with the kids and the occasional ride along the D&R Canal tow path or up and down Long Beach Island. Thinking about getting a road bike for more fitness riding on weekends - especially after a recent straight-into-the-wind ride on the hybrid where I felt like I was riding church-pew upright the whole way!

As I look at possible options I wonder why I wouldn't choose a cyclocross bike instead of a pure road bike. My thinking is that slightly wider tires would be a bit more forgiving on crappy roads and afford the option to ride on some paths and such that might be off-limits to something with narrower tires. I don't want to deal with messing up rims and dealing with flats when I'm out for a ride.

I'm not worried about tremendous speed, will never ever get involved in serious road riding/racing, have no allusions of ever doing triathlons or anything. Just looking for ability to knock out some miles for fun and exercise without having to worry about finicky gear.

What I don't really know about it what other trade-offs am I looking at? I'm assuming an overall heavier frame, etc. Anything about geometry or componentry that would make a cyclocross bike a poor option for what I'm after? Riding will be fairly flat to slight hills in suburban/rural NJ.

Appreciate any insight or thoughts that folks might be able to share on the two different styles overall, as well as specific recommendations. Budget in the sub $1500 range.

Ray


----------



## plodderslusk (Sep 2, 2005)

If i were forced to have only one bike it certainly would be a cyclocross. My advice is to take your 1500 and go to your LBS and try out the CX-bikes they have. I am very satisfied with my Focus Mares that I use for almost exactly the same kind of rides you will do.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I'd pick CX if I only had one--but a road bike is typically lighter, stiffer, more responsive and has better brakes.


----------



## seat_boy (Dec 24, 2006)

If you're not into road racing, most road bike wouldn't serve you well... no room for bigger tires ("bigger" being 25mm+ or so), and certainly not fenders, etc. The cross bike has lots of clearance with almost no downsides.

That being said, some road sport bikes are coming out in the past few years that have longer reach road style brakes. These bikes combine many of the comfort and capability features of a cross bike (wider tires, a slightly more upright position), with the easier brake setup of a road bike.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I don't know of a single current model road bike from a major manufacturer that doesn't support 700x25 tires--most will even do 28. I still would spend $2k on a cross bike than $1k on a road & another $1k on cross (or really at any up to a $4k total budget).


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

I just recently did a 350 mile trip from Pittsburgh to D.C. on a combination or crushed limestone, rough towpath, and roads on my Fuji Cross Pro (with panniers) and Ritchey Speedmax 700 x 32 CX tires. It handled everything well and the heavy duty frame was absolutely bulletproof.

I concur with others here, if you have only one bike then get a CX bike. I'd even think about getting a good carbon framed crosser in case you get the bug for century rides - lighter, durable, smoother riding.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*+1 for a cross bike*

The cross bike is a great option as an all round road bike. I have a 2006 LeMond Poprad as my general purpose bike and it has worked out great. Here are a few points to consider:
Like with any other road bike, fit trumps all other considerations. Get something that fits you well.
You will probably want to change the tires to road/all-surface tires in the 28-32mm width range. IMHO. knobby dirt tires just do not seem to feel right on the road. In addition, they are not as flat-resistant as good purpose-built road tires.
Depending on the terrain you ride and your own needs, you might want to change the gearing. Personally, I swapped the 38/46 cross setup for a 34/50 compact.
The cantilever brakes that come on most cross bikes are harder to dial-in than conventional road calipers.
Here is a link to an old thread on a similar topic: Link


----------



## veloduffer (Aug 26, 2004)

+1 on what others have said about a getting a cross bike. Very versatile, no real difference in riding than a road bike.

Lots of good rail trails in NJ to ride as well - Delaware Raritan Canal, Columbia Trail, Patriots Path, etc for riding and nice change of pace from the road. 

Get a bike with eyelets for a rack and you have a light touring bike.


----------



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

Thanks all for input and links. I hadn't thought about simply putting slightly wider tires on a road bike... nor had I thought about putting slightly lighter tires on a cross bike. Nor did I have the critical understanding of the different gearing between the two. (Duh, they both have chain rings and a cassette - they're not the same?)

The good news is I'm recovering from surgery the next few weeks, so will have plenty of time to continue to do research, obsess, and generally overthink the whole thing!


----------



## mustang1 (Feb 7, 2008)

I've been riding RBs until I decided I needed a backup bike. I chose a CX.

Plus points:
Does what you think it'll do, go on trails paths and fast enough on the road, can accept fenders and rack (as mine it kitted). Very comfortable.

Bad points:
Doesn't do anything very well. Trail bike? It's not as good as a mountain bike. Road? It's not as good as a road. Commuter? I find it awkward to dodge in and out of cars coz the geo makes my foot hit the front wheel in sharp turns. Brakes suck.

It is good at going in reasonably straight lines, for long periods. My RB had a crash so I've been using CX for a while and have really grown to like it a lot more than I used to. But it's plus and minus points still remain.


----------



## MarvinK (Feb 12, 2002)

I agree with stogaguy--if you get a cross bike to do road + cross, get one with a compact (50-34/36). Many manufacturers are doing that now, anyways.


----------



## veloduffer (Aug 26, 2004)

mustang1 said:


> I've been riding RBs until I decided I needed a backup bike. I chose a CX.
> 
> Plus points:
> Does what you think it'll do, go on trails paths and fast enough on the road, can accept fenders and rack (as mine it kitted). Very comfortable.
> ...



Disagree with this assessment. Many pros used cyclocross bike at Paris Roubaix this year, so I don't see how it doesn't work as well as a road bike. In what way? The geometry is often the same as road bikes - so no difference in handling. Very slight weight penalty - the weight on your own body is more of a penalty. You can use wider slicks to ride on wet roads and add fenders as well to keep dry.

Toe overlap can occur on any bike, be it mtn, road or cross. That's all design and the size of your foot. Not all cross bikes have toe overlap - I have one that does slightly and another that has none.

If you've got very good mtn bike skills, you can ride any bike offroad. Check this out on a road bike. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z1fSpZNXhU


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

CX bikes usually have a small geometry than a road bike sized the same. This is due to the fact that in cyclecross racing - which these bikes are actually designed for - the rider is mounting and dismounting many times during a race and the small size makes this easier to do. Also the small sizing allows for easier portability when the racer/rider is portaging over obstacles.

A co-worker of mine bought one last year (we work in a LBS). His normal road bike size is a 58cm. But his CX bike is a 60cm. He is using his for commuting/light road riding.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*this is good advice here*



MarvinK said:


> I agree with stogaguy--if you get a cross bike to do road + cross, get one with a compact (50-34/36). Many manufacturers are doing that now, anyways.


If I had only 1 bike it would be a cxer set up as above. You can commute, road ride and ride off road. You can change the chainring from a 50 to a 48 for race season, or ride the 50.

I've done plenty of fast road rides on a cxer equipped as such

also for a returning rider, the slightly higher position will be more comfortable


----------



## backinthesaddle (Nov 22, 2006)

frdfandc said:


> CX bikes usually have a small geometry than a road bike sized the same. This is due to the fact that in cyclecross racing - which these bikes are actually designed for - the rider is mounting and dismounting many times during a race and the small size makes this easier to do. Also the small sizing allows for easier portability when the racer/rider is portaging over obstacles.
> 
> A co-worker of mine bought one last year (we work in a LBS). His normal road bike size is a 58cm. But his CX bike is a 60cm. He is using his for commuting/light road riding.


Wow! That couldn't be more incorrect if you tried.

Bikes are sized the way they are, many times, because of the way the manufacturer measures them. A 60cm in one can be a 58cm in another. 

My road and cross bikes are completely different sizes and geometries, but they are fitted out to be nearly identical,
If anything, if you are planning to race your cross bike, you want something that's sized the same, or even a bit SMALLER than your road unit.

Cross bikes are the Swiss Army knife of bicycles. With fat tires, it's a great trail bike.
Skinnies make it a capable road bike. I've road raced mine before. Most have fittings for fenders and racks...

If I was forced to only have ONE bike, I'd get a nice cross bike, and be done with it.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

If I were only allowed one bike, I'd get a custom steel or ti frame in a road geometry that allowed me to run up to 32mm tires with fenders.

I have a Merlin Atreus and a LeMond Poprad, and while I like them both a lot, I like the Merlin better. I live on a ridge, so anytime I ride to work I have a couple mile descent and I never feel as comfortable on my Poprad as on the Merlin. I've ridden the Merlin with the wheels currently on the Poprad, so I know that's not the difference.


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*+1 for Custom*

In a world without budget constraints this is what I would have as well. However, there would be very little I would change about the geometry of Poprad. That said, decending the Poprad at speed is a chore. However, IMHO, this is due to the cantilever brakes, not the geometry. Does your Merlin have road calipers or cantis? On the plus side, I love the longish wheelbase, longish chainstays, the tire clearance and the fact that I can beat the crap out of the Poprad on virtually any surface without guilt or undue fear of breaking anything.

Here is a link to a bike that I consider pretty much ideal:
http://www.hampsten.com/bikes/strada-bianca/


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Since no one's touched on the actual ride difference I think I may have a point to offer. Road and CX bike geomerties differ in a few key ways. CX bikes have slacker head angles, higher bottom brackets (usually) and longer chainstays. This adds up to a bike that steers slower/lazier on the road but is usually more stable. As others have said, a CX bike is certainly servicable on the road and with fast tires is just as "fast" as a road bike but will likely feel a little slower.

I recommend that you should get the CX bike and perhaps a second set of wheels with fast road tires on them so making a real performance change is just a matter of two QR's.


----------



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

davidka said:


> I recommend that you should get the CX bike and perhaps a second set of wheels with fast road tires on them so making a real performance change is just a matter of two QR's.


What about going the other way - a second set of beefier wheels/tires on a road bike depending on ride/day?


----------



## Stogaguy (Feb 11, 2006)

*Tire clearance*

One of the central points of this thread is the relative lack of tire clearance on most road bikes. There are not too many "racing" or "performance" bikes from major manufacturers that can accommodate anything bigger than a 25. If you want 32s (and maybe fenders too) you are SOL with most current road frames.


----------



## kmac76 (Jan 22, 2004)

get a solid cx bike, one ride everything on one bike...sometimes the stopping power of canti's comes up as a red flag...ok - get a bike with discs, like a redline, then you can run whatever tires fit your ride, with killer stopping power. in NJ, the towpath and a lot of trails are rideable on a cross bike - go for it!!!


----------



## pacificaslim (Sep 10, 2008)

I ride my aluminum frame carbon forked Bianchi Axis on trails or mixed terrain with cross tires and then switch to another set of wheels with 23mm road tires when it'll be a pure road riding. I tried 28mm panaracer road tires for a while too, but in the end, at my size/weight, I found I liked the 23mm much better. 

I'm quite satisfied with this bike.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Stogaguy said:


> In a world without budget constraints this is what I would have as well. However, there would be very little I would change about the geometry of Poprad. That said, decending the Poprad at speed is a chore. However, IMHO, this is due to the cantilever brakes, not the geometry. Does your Merlin have road calipers or cantis? On the plus side, I love the longish wheelbase, longish chainstays, the tire clearance and the fact that I can beat the crap out of the Poprad on virtually any surface without guilt or undue fear of breaking anything.
> 
> Here is a link to a bike that I consider pretty much ideal:
> http://www.hampsten.com/bikes/strada-bianca/


My Merlin has Ultegra calipers, while the Poprad has Shimano cantis. And that's probably part of the problem. Slightly higher center of gravity is another.

Don't get me wrong, I like my Poprad a lot and I have it set up with a rack and panniers, which my Merlin can't do. It's just that the Merlin is dang near perfect--I feel like I'm riding atop the Poprad while I'm riding with my Merlin.

That Hampsten is a lovely machine.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

Don't be frightened by cantis. Sure, road calipers do a better job of modulation and stopping and are a must if you're riding steep technical descents. Cantis are a a function of proper adjustment and...drum roll...upgrading your pads. Both are easy to do and anyone calling themselves "cyclist" should pick up some rudimentary wrenching skills.


----------



## Crank-a-Roo (Mar 21, 2003)

If your only concern is to get a bike and ride, you should get the 'cross bike. It will handle most of the on road situations. Since I don't road race, I actually run 28-30c tires because they are more durable.


----------



## hrumpole (Jun 17, 2008)

Another thing to consider if the brakes bother you (and depending on patience and budget) is that I think I read in a magazine that UCI allows disk brakes now. Braking is not going to be a problem. 

Some (Soma, for example) already build bikes with disk tabs, if you're into that.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I bought my road bike a long time ago, before I knew about 'cross. I'm always conflicted by these threads.

If I had it to do over, I'd probably have bought a 'cross bike and never bought a road bike. I'm a lot more interested in racing 'cross than road, and you can slap slick tires on a 'cross bike and go to a crit or on a long road ride, but for riding a more technical 'cross course or riding off-road for fun, road bikes won't accept a very large tire.

That being said, every time I ride my road bike, I'm reminded why I don't sell it. The differences are subtle, but they're there. I think the only really immutable ones are that 'cross bikes tend to have a longer wheelbase, and many have a little less bottom bracket drop. So they don't corner quite as well.

I think it's better, when it's possible, to start with the bike closest to what you want to end with. If you'll be going off road, that's most likely the 'cross bike. If you'll always be on pavement, bear in mind that most road bikes will accept at least a 28mm tire, and stems are cheap. Even the current ones are more malleable than people give them credit for.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

MarvinK said:


> I don't know of a single current model road bike from a major manufacturer that doesn't support 700x25 tires--most will even do 28. I still would spend $2k on a cross bike than $1k on a road & another $1k on cross (or really at any up to a $4k total budget).



My Specialized Secteur Elite has 700x25 (as well as the rest of the Secteur line-up).

though I have a dedicated MTB Hardtail 29-er for trails....

however.... I am highly considering buying & keeping a cyclocross bike at my parent's house in CA, for the occasional low-technical singletrack....

maybe a Motobecane Fantom CX....

though..interesting, the Motobecane Fantom Cross Outlaw has Avid BB5 mechanical disc bikes, maybe something for the OP to consider, since he has no plans for competition.

On the flip side of things, NJ is home to a lot of good MTB trails, with varying degrees of technical terrain (see www.mtbnj.com). He can get a 29-er and then mount 700x35 tires for the road/rail-trails. I have done this (prior to buying a road bike)... and the main downside? It's heavier and slower than the road bike & cyclocross bike crowd on the road.


----------

