motobecane69

you'll have to pry my nashbar touring frame commuter from my cold dead hands. the hard core touring guys probably won't like it for touring because it's aluminum, not steel but mine is outfitted with a carbon fiber cross fork, disc brake up front and racks front and rear. The geometry works perfect for my size 6'3" frame is a 60cm and even with the racks, fender and BEEFY 2200 gram wheelset (I'm 240lbs) the bike weighs in at 26lbs. Cross bikes are supposed to have a higher bottom bracket for more clearance but if your not really using it for Cross, you don't need that and in my opinon a touring frame is a better option


I have an interest in doing some touring but I know starting out it would probably be pretty local stuff within 100 miles of home so I'm not worried about an aluminum frame bike.

JeffS

Once upon a time that was true. There's no reason for it though. Currently, manufacturers are all over the place, which is why I cringe when I hear blanket cross recommendations.

JeffS

Better yet, find one of the older models - from before they screwed it up.

Andy_K 

What do you mean by "race-inspired-fast"?

There are really very few differences between a race-oriented CX bike and a commuter-oriented CX bike. The race bikes often have slightly different geometry (but not always). The race-oriented bikes typically have higher-end components and weigh a few pounds less. The commuter-oriented CX bikes often have a triple crankset. And, of course, the commuter-oriented CX bikes have more eyelets and braze-ons, which is a very important difference.

Now let's talk about the differences.

The geometry differences make the race bikes a little more nimble. They can take a 180 degree turn much faster than a bike with more relaxed geometry. That matters in a race. It can save you 10 seconds per lap. If you have hairpin turns on your commute, you might pick up 10 seconds there too, but obviously 10 seconds is a lot more important in a race than it is while commuting. And keep in mind that even commuting-oriented CX bikes tend to be less relaxed than, say, a touring bike.

The weight difference makes the race-oriented bikes accelerate quicker. A good race bike will typically weigh under 19 pounds. A commuter oriented CX bike might weigh as much as 25 pounds without rack and fenders (I'm thinking of a Cross Check here). That six pounds might be enough difference for you to feel the acceleration difference, but it's not a lot. The cruising speed of the bike is independent of weight.

The components contribute to the weight difference, but otherwise they have no effect on speed. Tiagra components are pretty good for commuting, and much cheaper to replace than even 105 components. The triple crankset is also part of the typical weight difference. It's unnecessary for a lot of commuters, but it can be nice if you've got a steep hill. If you don't want it, your LBS may be willing to swap in a compact double at the point of sale.

I've got a 2008 Kona Jake that I raced for two years. It happens to have the exact same geometry as the 2008 Major Jake (Kona's top race bike). It's a pretty decent bike for racing. It's a great bike for commuting. I've also got a 2008 Major Jake, and it's really no faster.

In summary, the race bikes aren't really all that much faster than the commuting bikes. The biggest factor for either is the engine.

The 2011 Kona Jake seems to have lost the braze-ons to mount a rack, but it's got better racing geometry. If you can find a 2010 Jake, I think it's worth a look.

If you've got room in your budget, check out the Ridley X-bow. It's got all the bells and whistles for commuting with a racing pedigree.

Phyoomz

Andy, you sonova-Fish, all jokes aside. I appreciate your comment there. You won't believe how much better this is than asking these questions to a lbs mechanic who exhales loudly and rolls his eyes after everything you ask.
I'll definitely look into the Konas, oh, and one more thing...what I meant by race-inspired-fast is basically this:


If I run 25c tires on a cross and then run a comparable roadie (same gearing ratios, slightly lighter of course), would I be able to run more or less the same time on the same stretch of road? I figure obviously the roadie'll be faster...but how much so? Thanks again!

Please forgive me, I'm riding a 24sp mtb currently and I run out of gears on the straights. The lbs tells me it's practically impossible to do so on a modern roadie or cross.

canyoneagle

I'm inclined to say "little difference, if any". are you looking to do club rides/races or weekly time trials? Just curious.

canyoneagle

I agree with everything said here. Really good post.

caloso

If it's flat, hardly at all. I see guys on CX bikes with slicks on the local race rides all the time. I don't believe anyone's actually won the county line sprint on a CX bike, but they don't get dropped either.

motobecane69

When aerodynamics are discussed regarding road bikes its usually talking about shaving seconds to a.couple of minutes over the.course of an hour. A cx bike with the same wheels as a road bike will perform comparable. But the road bike may not fit larger tires, have mounts for a.rack, and if it does, heelstrike can be an issue. If your a.lightweight rider put a rack on.a.cx bike and run smaller road tires, you'll be fast.

Santaria

Only two points I wanted to add:

If your LBS salesperson is rolling their eyes and exhaling in exhaustion at answering valid questions - beat feet. They either think you should accept that the bikes they stock for everybody else should be good enough for you and you're just being difficult OR you aren't important enough to them to validate you with a sincere and earnest effort to not only get your business (read dollars) but get you on the bike you want.

Also, you can spin out any gear-ratio that is currently available on a bike. It's just a question of the roads you're riding on, wind speeds and how quickly you adapt to a bigger gear ratio. I'm already seeing that I'm 2-4 gears higher nowadays than I was say, six months ago, with the same spin cadence (80-85). If I stand and decide to climb up on top of a gear on my 105-equipped bike, I can do it and still reach a point cadence wise where I'm not falling "down" a gear to get into a solid pace.

fender1

Salsa La Cruz "Cross Bike" as Commuter

[IMG][/IMG]

Soma Double Cross "Cross Bike" as Dedicated Winter Commuter

[IMG][/IMG]

Actual Cross bike frame (No provisions for racks/fenders etc)

[IMG][/IMG]

Andy_K 

As others have said, you'd likely find very little difference. As with the geometry differences between race and commuter CX bikes, the geometry differences with a road racing bike are more about nimble handling. There's some aerodynamic difference, but you can set your bars low on a CX bike and get most of that. Personally, I much prefer a more upright position (as road riding positions go) and am willing to give up the aerodynamic benefits for comfort even though I like to ride fast.

Of course, if you use CX tires to accomodate the dirt portions of your route, that will be a lot slower on pavement than a slick road tire. Then again, the slick road tire won't do so well on dirt.


This has me curious. It definitely isn't easy to run out of gears on a modern roadie crankset, but it's not easy to run out of gears on a MTB either, by the same standard of "running out of gears." So let's look at that.

Most roadies can comfortably spin the cranks at 120 rpm, so I'll use that as a reference point. You didn't say what your gearing is, but I imagine your big chainring is 42T or bigger. With a typical MTB cassette, you'll have an 11T cog. This combination would put you at around 34 mph at 120 rpm. I'm guessing that you don't hit that on flat roads very often. So, I'm guessing that you don't like to spin that fast (or maybe your cassette doesn't have an 11T cog). A 42x11 at 80 rpm would put you at about 22 mph, which seems much more reasonable.

The thing I'm trying to establish here is what kind of speed you're hoping to achieve, and how fast you're willing to spin the pedals to achieve it. A CX bike will typically have a 46T big ring with a double crankset or a 50T ring with a triple, and usually the smallest cog on the cassette is 12T. With a 46x12 gear at 80 rpm, you'd be going just under 25 mph on a CX bike. With a 50x12 at 80 mph, you'd be going around 27 mph.

If you really want to geek out, you can spend some time playing with an online gear calculator to compare what you have now to what you'd get with a new CX bike. I usually use this one from Sheldon Brown's site:

https://sheldonbrown.com/gears/

I know there are others out there that are better for comparisons, but I don't know what they are offhand.

Andy_K 

Qualifying my previous comments, I was just looking at a 2011 Jake the Snake frameset, and it definitely has braze-ons for a rack and eyelets for fenders. A picture of the complete Jake the Snake on the same site doesn't look like it has these. The JtS would be a very sweet commuter, but there seems to be some variability in the attachment points.

meangreen

The caadx has eyelets. I am basically looking for a similar bike. This made the list earlier today. Unfortunately I seem to be incorrectly proportioned for surly's crosscheck. :-(
I would say you should give one a ride. Does cannondale still offer lifetime warranty on their frames now that they have changed owners?

cyclist5

I ride a Trek XO-1 and swapped out the knobby tires for road slicks. The weight is all in the components indeed. My wheelset on the XO is half the weight it seems than on my 7000 hybrid. All in all going from a $400 heavy hybrid/mountain bike to a $1500 setup meant going from 10mph to 18-20mph. The weight difference I'd say was 10-15lb at least overall.

But double check the bike physically. There are some things I feel are lacking with mine, for example. There are no rear eyelets for a rack. The shop had to put an adapter to make it work. And I don't know if this would be a real issue or I'm just a worrywort but the front derailleur cable goes down the underside of the bottom tube, facing the road.