So I barely qualify as a Clydesdale (just tipping over 200, 6' 3"), but my fitness level is also terrible. I work a desk job, and haven't ridden a bike with seriousness since I was 14 (36 now). I have friends who have not only been avid cyclists for years, but are 150-170 and riding very nice road bikes. Obviously, I struggle to keep up with them, losing sight within a few miles in to a ride. They're nice about it and will circle back to me or wait up (though that's typically when I'll want a break and they're already way bored with theirs).
I'm riding a new Felt F65X because the price was great, and it seemed like it had the versatility I wanted (commuting, maybe some gravel or even single track from time to time, disc brakes). Plus most of the research I've seen indicates Clydes should be running wider tires than featherweights, and cross bikes are wider by nature. And sturdier. As I've been increasing my road rides with it, I've put on some Clement X'PLOR tires for better road performance.
So my question is: how much insult am I adding to injury by riding a cross bike? Would there be that much of a difference if I got a proper road bike? Or could I swap out my crank with one with more teeth and narrow the gap? If I keep taking steps to make my cross bike more road-like, where's the cutoff for no longer being versatile and having the advantages of a cross bike, but still not being road bike enough to justify it?