Touring - Cyclocross vs Mountain Bike Stability for Touring

One of the common reasons people recommend getting a dedicated touring bike instead of a cyclocross bike is that touring bikes have longer chainstays and a lower bottom bracket height for better stability. However, I've noticed that many people do their loaded touring on mountain bikes, which generally have an even heigher bottom bracket height than cyclocross bikes. The difference in chainstay length is usually 0-.5cm between the cross and mountain bikes (at least for the Trek and Jamis bikes I've looked at). This leads me to believe that cross bikes aren't as ill-suited for touring as many people make them out to be.

Could be, or it could be that the people you see on the mountain bikes are intending to travel dirt roads where one wouldn't be so keen to ride a touring bike..

I just switched to a cyclocross from a touring frame set. I would not enjoy riding my mountain bike on the road. Compared to the touring frame set, the cyclocross stays are 1-inch shorter (like wise the wheelbase) and the bottom bracket is 7/8 inch higher. Though the head tube angle is the same (72 degrees), the cyclocross has far faster turning ability/much less straight-line stability. I attribute that to the fork rake which must be greater.

It's much more fun to ride the cyclocross (it's also lighter), but I don't tour. I just like the ability to use a rack, fenders and wider tires when I want. I go for comfort and practicality mostly.

That said, there is a guy who rode this particular cyclocross (Airborne Carpe Diem) cross-country with a "full load". He thinks the bike did great.

http://www.rideacross.com/week2.html

Al