I'm looking at getting a new bike for commuting sometime either this fall or next spring (trying to get my budget squared away before dropping $$$$ on a new bike). I've been fairly set on a CX bike since there are some rough roads on my route and they just seem like a versatile platform, but I was wondering how they compare to touring bikes? I'm looking for a good compromise between speed, comfort, cargo, and the ability to ride a variety of surfaces. I'm not looking to do any racing or break any records but I also don't want my 10 mile 1-way commute to take forever either.

Can anyone give me any insight into the pros and cons of these two platforms?

hey there, i have a SOMA Doublecross and a Cannondale Cross bike and I've toured with both and both work great. i think you just want to make sure there's enough heel clearance for rear panniers, or, even better, mount them up front. good luck!

I am trying to make the same decision myself! Looking at Cyclo-cross, hybrid and touring bikes for rough country roads and a commute that could be up to 21 miles on-way. I want a good strong bike that will last with heavy mileage but I also don't want it to be so heavy it takes me forever to get where I am going. I don't want to spend tooooo much either. I'll definately being watching this thread! Thanks for posting the ques.

As long as the bike can handle wide tires (and fenders), either one would work. Both are going to be about equally "fast". The touring bike might carry more weight better and track better.

The cyclocross bike is going to have "crisper" steering but that isn't exactly useful for general riding (but some people prefer it).

Touring bikes might generally come with lower gearing.

What kind of "surfaces" are you talking about?

Any decent tourer (with the right tires) will handle gravel/dirt paths. A cyclocross bike isn't going to make riding rough trails easier (though, if it has a higher bottom-bracket, you'd get a bit more clearance). (If the trail is really rough, a mountain bike will be easier to use than a cyclocross bike.)

A "sport touring" bike (shorter wheel base) could even work.

I like my touring bike (Sherpa 30); it's very smooth, handles well under load, and has a road triple on the front so it's pretty quick when I need it to be. I picked it over a cross bike because I have big panniers and big feet, I usually carry a fair bit of stuff, and prefer a more upright position on those days when I haven't woken up completely. (Also, the Sherpa was $600 off.)

If I wanted to go quicker, I'd switch to a road bike, not a cross bike. That being said, a road bike would maybe shave three minutes off my commute. I have to stop too many times for traffic, railway tracks etc. so it doesn't matter if I'm doing 35 km/h or 50 km/h, I'll just have to wait longer at the light/stop. Oh, and we pretty much go over every type of terrain short of scree: railbed, ditches, dirt paths, grass, MUPs, gravel, broken pavement and asphalt. I have had no problems with the stock tires (I think they're 32cs but can't remember.)

IIRC, the cx bikes that I've sampled has a more aggressive riding position than a touring bike. You lean down a bit more with cx bikes. In terms of speed, I think they are pretty much the same until you start getting CF CX bikes. The entry level stuff will be AL with CrMo forks. Similarly to the touring bikes.

Yes, the CX bikes might tend to allow a lower position (ie, be "more aggressive"). The value of a lower position is less air resistance (which is helpful).

Test ride both types of bikes and prioritize what you value most. If you value speed I would probably give the edge to a CX bike. If you value comfort the edge probably to a touring bike. Etc, etc, etc. Of course your opinion may differ after you ride them. Njkayaker made some good points also.

When I went looking for a new bike I took notes. I included factors such as price, location, frame material, wheel size, etc. I also took subjective notes such as speed, quick handling, comfortability, adaptibility, etc. I started looking around August, and ended up buying in December. This after multiple test rides and narrowing down on what I wanted.

You can make your decision any number of ways. And if all else fails, buy the bike with the prettier colors.

A touring bike will have more stable steering, will be more comfortable for long rides and is better suited for carrying large loads. A CX bike will be slightly lighter and more nimble.

For commuting, it doesn't really matter much because you won't be riding very far (relative to the distances touring bikes are made for) or carrying very much cargo (again, relative to what a touring bike is designed for). For commuting distances, your choice of tires will make the most difference in comfort and either bike will take the same tires.

I got a CX bike for commuting and I'm very glad I did because I later discovered that CX racing is insanely fun, even for slow people like me. I've taken my CX bike on (supported) 100 mile rides and have no complaints. In theory, 100 miles is plenty for the comfort advantage of a touring bike to kick in, but if I get a specific bike for rides like that it won't be a touring bike, it will be a plush road bike, because I don't have to carry cargo.

Really, the answer here is to ride both and buy the one that feels better.

Good point about CX racing being an option. I have read a little bit about it and sounds like it could be a blast!! Having that as an options is definitely a plus in the CX column. As someone suggested I probably need to get out and test ride a bunch of bikes to get a better idea of exactly what I like.

Like so many terms these days, CX and touring do mean something but are so broadly, generally, and/or inconsistently used that you can never be quite so sure what they mean. I don't think you can go wrong with either for a commute but if you want to analyze it a bit more then you need to get into the gruesome details.

Every generality (eyelets, frame angles, chainstay length, tires, brake style, etc.) has a basis for its stereotype but there are always exceptions so just make the list of stuff that is important to you and find the bike that has it, rather than starting with a bumper sticker description.

When I was choosing a bike, it came down to either a Surly Crosscheck or a Surly Long Haul Trucker. Ultimately I picked the LHT because I liked the color better (rich blue versus poop brown, hmm...) and I really like the name "Long Haul Trucker."

slcbob is right, the categories define broad generalities but don't really describe a bike accurately. My previous bike was a Jamis Aurora - it was considerably lighter than the Surly, had more aggressive frame angles and a shorter wheelbase for more responsive steering, and overall was quite a bit more sport-oriented. Despite being billed as a touring bike, it was probably lighter and more nimble than the Crosscheck. Because of the nimbleness, it's also probably not the bike I'd choose for riding across the country, which the LHT is with its slack angles and stable handling.

If you want a bike that's pleasant to ride, that you'll enjoy riding for years, and that'll keep you looking forward to work on Monday just because it means riding there, then test ride a bunch of bikes and buy the one you fall in love with.

If you wait a while, more CX bikes will be coming spec'd with disc brakes... another huge plus for commuting.

I don't think the differences are huge, the touring bicycle will be more durable and spec'd with longevity in mind. The touring bike will also be heavier but, it will do whatever you want it to.

as you're morphing around thru the realms
you might consider a 29er
i.e. Surly Karate Monkey

+ a lot.
A couple of things for OP to check: will you be riding year round, in every kind of weather? If so, it would be good to be able to fit full fenders, the kind that go round the tyres. Also, if "every kind of weather" in your case means periods of ice and snow, your bike should be able to take studded tyres. There aren't many narrow studded tyres around.

Obviously, a touring bike should have mounting options for all kinds of racks and plenty of heel clearance with panniers. But if the bike you're looking at is bumper stickered in the CX category, you should check for all that. Heck, it doesn't hurt to check in any case. If the bike has additional CX brake levers and you plan to use a handlebar bag, check for clearance. Moving the brake levers around later to make room for handlebar bag is possible of course, but it's a bit of an unnecessary hassle.

--J

As long as it has enough braze-ons for fenders, lights, racks and enough clearance for at least 32s, preferably something bigger, either would be a good choice depending on how the ride felt to you. I generally stick to the touring side as the bikes feel more stable when loaded with a bag or two.

A CX bike that you can't ride in a sanctioned CX race? What will those marketers think of next, spin baby spin...

Need to keep up:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ght=disc+brake

As if it matters? I'd guess the percentage of bikes like the Surly Cross Check that get raced is similar to the percentage of SUVs that go off-road.

Disc brakes in the frame design will be more common , as the rules at UCI
changed to allow them on the CX Pro circuit, for the upcoming season.


It's not that you can't run cantilevers in a Cross race, in the future , there may be some disadvantages for dome muddy courses , with brakes that clog up, versus those that don't.

the Pros still cannot run studded tires on icy courses, but that should not stop you..
on your winter commute ..

I recently went back and forth between a Surly Crosscheck and a Novara Randonee (officially, a “CX” bike and a “touring” bike). Honestly, they were so closely matched that it really was splitting hairs to talk about the differences. The ride was virtually identical, and the biggest material differences between the two are easily changed, i.e. tires and shifters.

What it came down to in the end (as it usually does) is how the bike fits and feels to you when you test ride it. The CC was a 56 and the Rand a 55, but the stand-over height on the Rand was lower enough in comparison that I just felt like I had more control over that bike. I forget the exact difference of all the frame dimensions, but I just remember thinking that the CC felt bigger than it’s measurements suggested. The more I went back and forth between the two bikes, the more I felt at home on the Randaonee, so I got it.

So just pay attention to fit and feel first. It won’t matter if your bike can plow through four inches of mud, or carry 40 pounds of camping gear, if it’s too big or too small to commute on comfortably every day.

D'oh.

Shoulda guessed that electrik was onto something more behind that while I was still crawling out from under my rock.

I bought a Cross check a few weeks ago after trying quite a few bikes. Most of the bikes i rode were 56 but i ended up with a 52 CC due to the effective top tube measurement of that size frame being 55.

I would personally go with a touring bike. They are a bit more comfortable than CX bikes, definitely more versatile in terms of weight carrying, extra accessories and so on... plus they are not slow at all!
My Cannondale has road gearing shimano 105 all over, and is very light for what it is: like real light for a non-racing bike, without all the accessories on it of course.

The touring bike can take all the beating of rough roads, hard environment and still be true and reliable. The wheels are tough, the frame is tough, handling is stable, and posture is great!

Not all touring bikes are made equal, you have to choose what suites you better. A hard core tourer will never choose the bike that I chose with its 100% pure road gearing (30/39/50 x 12-27), but I personally do not use my bike exclusively for touring, rather it is more like a commuter, trainer, recreational bike for me...
Some touring bikes come with flat handle bars, others with thin tires, without fenders, with lights, etc... Any stock configuration can be tweaked, but it is always better to buy the model you will modify the least, gearing being a fundamental part!

Here's a picture of my do it all bike:

i have both a long haul trucker and a cross check. i've commuted on both and find really no preference for one over another at a fundamental level. fit is more important than bike type, IMO