kia3usa

I'm starting to train for a triathlon and I'm looking to purchase a bike. I found a great cyclocross bike that fit (scattante x 560 from Performance Bikes). I was wondering if that was a good find. It has shimano 105 components. I liked the idea of being able to ride in all terrains in one bike and have the flexibility of changing the tires if I wanted to focus on more road training (or for tri races) I'm a beginner and not too heavily focused on racing really competitively just yet. Any opinions would be really great.

Thanks for the help!

borg

All terrains in one bike, a cyclocross bike is probably a good fit. But it won't be great at anything but a cyclocross course.

If you really want to focus on road training and triathlons, skip the cyclocross and get a road bike.

NoRacer

^^^^^^^^
Bah!

It depends on the cyclocross bike.

The frame of my Ridley X-Fire is about 1100 grams (around 2.5 pounds):

In this configuration, I can ride it solo 100 miles in the 18-19 mph range (using a GPS to capture ride data) comfortably. Take all the extra junk off it and I could probably hit another mile or two per hour faster. Not every crossbike is Surly Crosscheck heavy or not aero enough for consideration.

Keith99

Bolding mine.

Depends on how sure you are of the direction you will eventaully go. If you know you eventually want to be highly competitive in Tri's then a cyclocross bike is a poor choice, and even a standard road bike is not a good choice. If you are not sure and tri's are something you are just trying out and for all you know offroad riding may eventually be where you spend time on a bike (or road riding, or tri's) then a cross bike seems a reasonable choice.

EventServices

Don't spend too much time debating this one. Flip a coin and pull the trigger. Start riding it.

Andy_K 

The Scattante has much better components, but I think the Giant has a better frame. The wheelset on the Scattante is probably a lot lighter, but unless you weigh 120 pounds, I'd be concerned about the very low spoke count.

If you can up your budget a little, the Kona Jake the Snake would be worth considering. If not, you should still consider the Kona Jake. Also, if you've got a Permance store near you, check to see if they have any Fuji Cross Comps left.

Retro Grouch 

By far the most enjoyment I've had on bicycles has been on road bikes. I've been messing with bikes for a lot of years and that includes a good number of miles on the crushed limestone Katy trail (it's only 2 miles from my home). I've never felt the need to own a cyclecross bike.

Sourpuss Magee

Be aware that you may have a long wait for the Giant TCX. I had to wait two months for mine to arrive.

kia3usa

I found the Giant tcx2 at a bike shop in my size. So I have to act fast.

mijome07

Get a road bike. Close thread.

Loose Chain

Get a cyclecross bike and then close the thread. I feel the need for cyclecross every time I mount up and am faced with two miles of a rough, dirt, mud and gravel road to the nearest pavement. Many a time I started down it on 23mm tires and 25mm tires and only got halfway before--falling, sticking, mudding up or flatting. None of this is even remotely an issue on my Cross Check and yet once on pavement I don't find myself lagging that far behind the guys on the cf zoot suit bikes.

tsl

Or try my solution, get one of each, then close the thread.

If I could own only one bike, it would be a CX bike, for the versatility. It may not be 100% at anything, but unlike the one-trick ponies, it's 90% at everything.

Plus I like to bust the chops of MTBers off-road.

knobster

I agree with the cross bike recommendations. Pay particular attention to the geometry of these bikes. My Tricross is a great bike and works well for cross racing, commuting, light touring and long distance road rides, but for fast rides, I take my road bike. Noticeably faster. If I was to do it over again, I think I'd get a cross bike that has road bike like geometry.

alexvpaq

well I ride a CX bike, it works well on the road, I can ride it up to 45kph and it mustn't be the lightest one, but I bet when I'll switch to a road bike in a few years, the training I had from it will be very effective on a much lighter bike. Plus, it's an overpowered Commuter bike and it was at least 500$ less than a road bike with the same gruppo at the shop. I bought some road tires and it works really well for me, though I would like to try a real Road bike one day...

so unless you're awesome at cycling, I'm sure the CX would do well for you as long as you get road wheels&tires.

simonaway427

I have a Specialized Tricross. I do 70km rides on it all the time, averaging around 30kph (18mph) - that's on the stock 32C tires. I have some Soul 3.0 with 25C continentals coming soon.

NormanF

There's your Trek Portland.

But I'm thinking the Salsa Fargo might actually be better going anywhere you'd like to tour.

If I had to own only one bike that or its little brother, the Salsa Vaya would be ideal.

BarracksSi

Get the cross bike and ride it everywhere, even for groceries. Configure it for your first few triathlons, too.

If you find that like triathlons enough, by that time you'll have spent so little on gas for the car that you'll have plenty of extra cash for getting -- and justifying -- a dedicated tri bike.

canyoneagle

+1 to the versatility of cross bikes.
What is your budget?
One option to consider if you think you'll stay mainly on-road is the Salsa Casseroll - sort of a sporty road bike but not a full-on racer. It offers alot of the versatility of the cx bikes with a slightly more "roadie" spin.

I'd say start out with a good all-rounder, get "cycling fit"/race/have fun, then assess whether you want to take it to the next level (i.e. specific tri-bike). That way, you've still got a great all-rounder that can be used for commiting or training when you're not in the mood to become a human bullet.

BarracksSi

Ah, also just thought --

You can put skinnier tires on the cross bike for your first tri or two. Enjoy it? Get some nice aero wheels for it, then do another couple races, maybe even a TT. Still like it? NOW get that tri bike -- get an entry level model with entry level wheels, use those for training, then for races, put on the nice aero wheels you already have.

This'll be like the ol' "N+1" equation, but spread out over time.

fietsbob

training and commuting favors the Cross bike..
Triathalon bike stages favor the road bike,
with aerodynamic enhancements like clip on bars, to get your body down ,
to minimize wind resistance
there are some Tri Races where the bike part is not on paved roads,
but the big time seems that they are on pavement.
So, get the sturdy CX bike for training and start budgeting for the Road bike
with the Tri specific bits, next.

BarracksSi

kia3usa, just in case you haven't thought of it yet --

The major difference between a cross bike and a tri bike is the riding position. Tire clearance, frame design, yadda yadda yadda -- honestly, that's small stuff compared to how they position your body. Follow me here --

You'll see riders sometimes lean down and rest their forearms on the bars when they don't have to concentrate on maneuvering very much. Tri/TT riders are basically doing that with the added purpose of getting a more aero position with their hands close together in front.

However, leaning that far forward can restrict your breathing if it makes your legs bounce against your chest. To solve this, tri/TT bikes are built with the saddle farther forward, which helps open up the angle between the torso and the legs. This works so well that race organizations even have rules that say that the saddle can't be directly over -- or even in front of -- the bottom bracket (they also want bikes to look like "bikes" instead of sprawled-out recumbents).

"Off the shelf", a 'cross bike won't make a great tri bike. Primarily, the saddle would be too far back to let you ride comfortably when using aero bars. This is easy enough to solve, though, by moving the saddle forward (preferably by using a seatpost offset to the front) and, depending on your fit, maybe a swap to a shorter or longer handlebar stem.

This way, you'll get most of the benefits of a tri bike without having to ride something a little too compromised for noodling around town (too compromised for my tastes, anyway). Plus, the experimentation will help you even more if you decide to get a dedicated tri bike.

Make sense?

caloso

I'm with tsl and barracksi: If I could only have a single bike, it would be a CX bike with midlevel components. Ride it anywhere, install fenders and a rack for commuting and errands, swap in skinny tires for the road, even race it.

meanwhile

A typical tri bike won't take more than 25mm tyres. A crosser will usually take 40 or 45mm. This is not "small stuff" if a rider wants to be able to ride "all terrains" - the ability to take moderately wide rubber is essential.

But you're right that a dedicated tri bike will have a very different riding position. However, a lot of people ride triaths on bikes less suited than a crosser. The right crosser with road rubber and aerobars should only be a marginally slower than an entry level triathlon bike - you have to spend big money and do very weird things to get even small increases in speed over an ok frame fitted with aerobars.

I'm no expert on using aerobars, but I know that Will Dehene (search the cross forum) does long distance touring on his crosser, using the aerobars most of the time and has no problems with comfort. So, yes, aerobars on a crosser are very do-able.

But, Barracks, I think you might have missed a trick - one way triath bikes are aerobar friendly is through having shorter shorter top tubes, and some crossers share this trait. The Ridleys? And maybe Specialize Tricrosses? Anyway, I though this article was good:

https://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadin...r/bikefit.html

BarracksSi

I haven't seen that article before (honestly), and yup, it makes sense to me. Just from looking at enough bike geometries made me think that tri/tt bikes have their saddles far forward for a good reason.

A trick to the trick , though, I'd suspect would be that tri bikes have shorter top tubes just because the seat tube (or what counts as a "seat tube" on the more radical frames) is so much steeper than on other bikes. Some have nearly vertical seat tubes, but that's just the top portion; the saddle-to-BB "virtual seat tube" angle isn't quite as vertical... but, it's still pretty steep, even when compared to most crit & stage race bikes.

I linked to some Cannondale bikes in another thread just because I like the bikes and know where to go on their site. So, some examples --
Slice tri/tt bike: https://www.cannondale.com/usa/usaeng...HT-Slice-5-105
SuperX cross bike (more of a race bike than, say, a Surly): https://www.cannondale.com/usa/usaeng...ERX-SRAM-Rival
SuperSix road bike: https://www.cannondale.com/usa/usaeng...MOD-1-Dura-Ace

Both the SuperSix and SuperX frames, at 58 cm (my size), have seat tube angles of 73 degrees. The Slice's saddle can be set back at a 73 deg position or forward all the way to 78 degrees (as shown in its photo). And, yes, its top tube length is shorter than the same "size" of road frame. Cannondale recommends that I should ride a size 58 Slice, which has a top tube of 56.5 cm (the SuperSix's is 57.5). Yet, the Slice's reach (the "O" measurement, at the bottom of their charts) is actually longer by nearly two centimeters.

I'd be hesitant to get a shorter-than-usual 'cross (or road) frame unless the intent is to use aerobars enough of the time. But then again, having enough seatpost setback and the right stem would help bring the rider to a more conventional position the rest of the time.

Robert Foster

If you are serious about trying Tri just look to see what the people in the winners circle are using for a bike. If you don't care to win but just want to give it a try it doesn't much matter what you ride, go out and play.