Right now I have a "mullet": business (road 52/39) in the front, party (mtb 11-34) in the back. But I'm thinking the ideal setup might be a triple in the front, a corncob in the back (to minimize gear overlap between chainring) and a SRAM Yaw FD (to maximize usable cross-chaining).

Rixen & Kaul as well as Ortlieb make extenders for their handlebar mounts. That should get you enough clearance if you angle the interrupter bars down.

You might find an advantage to the angled down levers as well. All of the interrupter bars I've seen are set up so that the lever is dead level to the ground. This is a very unnatural position for braking. Angle them down so that your fingers have a natural curve when resting on the lever. More like this

I'd ignore it. Way more choices in 700c. And I like the 26's on my Safari because I can easily find 2" knobby/studs for winter.

Maybe that some people ride in the city? I spent 98% of my time on the hoods of my old cross bike;I rarely used the tops and never used the drops. I can't ride very far without having to stop at an intersection,so the multiple hand positions are moot. Also,we don't get that many windy days,so I don't need to tuck. On the other hand,brifters are much more expensive that flat bar controls,so a drop bar bike with equal groupo would be more expensive than it's flat bar equivalent.

So maybe they were thinking,hey,let's build a general purpose bike for riding around town?

Looked at two Charges the other year when I was thinking of replacing my stolen cross bike. Thought they were kind of heavy(yes,I know they're steel,I'm comparing to my old Sutra) and they didn't have the tire clearance my cross bike had.

My old Big Buzz had a compact double with an 11-34 rear. I really liked it. But I also like the triple/11-26 on my Defy.

I don't know about that. These are not cross racing bikes, everything linked here is copping cross style for a go-anywhere bike. This class of bike offers fender clearance over medium tires on 700c rims. You can see it looking at the space between the tire and the seat tube. Wheelbase of CrossRip and 520 is just about identical. 29er mountain bikes are longer...

It depends on what you mean by "simpler." The thinking that goes into shifting using a compact double isn't really simpler, and the bigger gap in gearing between rings creates more impetus to shift the back in conjunction with front shifts. There is less theoretical overlap in the gearing, but that doesn't result in more usable combinations. There are fewer combinations where cross chaining is a problem, but you're more tempted to use the combinations where it is (because, for instance, you don't want to shift into the small ring for a stop sign). Even the simpler tuning is less than you might think because the difference in ring sizes reduces the effectiveness of the shifting ramps. If simple and consistent front shifting is the primary goal, it's hard to argue against friction shifting, which works perfectly with a triple.

For a gravel grinder a compact combination might make sense (though 50-39-30x11-36 has more range than 48-34x11-36). For a cyclocross racing rig it definitely does (at 46-36/38). For commuting, I don't see it.

On the other hand, no non-professional cyclist has needed a 54T chain ring since the 12T cassette was introduced.



(Apologies to the OP for going off on a tangent.)

Wrong section go back to the hybrid section to roll your eyes.
I don't need a 30+lbs to commute on, or need front suspension.
My Stumpjumper is lighter than the common hybrid!
When you start braving hills, let me know how that hybrid is treating you!
In also find CX geometry better suited to commuting IMO.
Theres a few flat bar CXer on the market now.

By the way:
I ride my road bikes just fine in the city!
Yes they have Dropbars.

Sorry. I should have said that the chainstays on a cross bike are short. The Trek 520 has 45 cm chainstays and the CrossRip has 43 cm chainstays. That can cause some heel strike issues for people with medium to large feet.

Rolling my eyes at you dissing a type of bike because it doesn't fit into your world view.

You're talking about a comfort bike. Lots of hybrids under 30lbs(every one I currently own,in fact) and many with rigid forks.

Specs? If you're rocking higher-end parts,then you need to compare it to a higher-end hybrid. Otherwise it's totally apples-to-oranges.

Braving hills? I live at the second highest point in DC. I do alot of steep hills. Come to DC and climb Loughboro from Sibley hospital to Ward Circle.

Your opinion. I liked my cross bike. Also like my touring bike. And my road bikes. And my hybrids.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with drops,did I? No,I said that most of the advantages over flat bars were mooted in city riding.

I looked at a tricross very carefully and thought I was going to buy one for many of the reasons you imply. In the end I decided not to go for the tricross for a few reasons, though I still think its a great bike.

1. I decided I didn't want the interrupters after commuting on my road bike for a while and realizing I would probably not use them frequently.
2. I was concerned with heel clearance with panniers, since I have large feet. Decided a bike with a longer chain stay might be better.
3. Didn't have a model that was exactly what I wanted. Was looking at a 2013 Elite Steel Disc or a comp (i think that was the top model). I decided I wanted better components then the elite, particularly the disc brakes, and eventually decided I wanted a steel bike for comfort over aluminum. I might consider the 2014 aluminum if it had a carbon fork.

Ultimately I decided to look at other bikes. The Specialized AWOL is on I have been considering, a bit more versatile the the tricross and can be a good tourer too, plus the comp seemed very well spec-ed. I have also considered a number of other bikes, such as the Surly Straggler (essentially a CrossCheck with disc brakes).

Let's not forget the OP's question is asking for options on CXer's for commuting.
Most "opinions" may be biased 1 way or the other, so don't get so sensitive.

I'm not the only to have the same view on hybrids, IMO they a bit or a cash grab.
IMO= in my opinion.

When you have world class mountains to climb, please come back @ me. We have nice CAT 2-4 hills in our city, & a few really nice CAT 1-HC climbs just outside the city.

They're known for skiing, & snowboarding(2010 Winter Olympics), but will like to climb, & descend them on our bikes "round here".


Lighten up a bit & read into the smilies...


Edit: Just realized I was in the Commuting Forums.
I was multitasking in the Commuting, & CX forums, & confused the 2 threads I was posting in.

Interrupters are very easy to remove.
If you looking for better specs, have you considered the Crux?
Yes its more race ready, but the specs might be more on par for you liking.
You should also consider the Kona Jake a the Snake.
This was the bike that got me obessed with dropbar bikes.
I've been tempted to sell mine, been offered good money, but I can't seem to let it go.
Its perfect for my Pit bike, & if I just want to fly around town why fenders/mud guards.
My Tank/commuter does the job, but the weight hinders my climbing times.

Yes, I could have gotten the Tricross and removed the interrupters, but ultimately it was other reasons I decided against it (for now at least). I briefly considered the Crux as well as some other more race oriented cross bikes but didn't want a race geometry, preferred something a bit more relaxed for my daily commute, not to mention the price was a bit high and I wanted a slightly more versatile bike I could do light touring on, etc.

I haven't looked at the Kona yet - not a very convenient dealer to me, but I have heard good things about it. I almost feel like my problem is I found to many good bikes but depending on what features/uses I prioritize the "right" bike changes a bit.

Not sure if the Crux would be pannier friendly either.
The price is what made me think twice too.

Kona JTS is a great bike, I've done a few 60+kms rides on it, while not fully loaded, it was quite comfortable.
Now that I have proper road bikes, I do my long rides on them.

Surly Crosscheck is nice, but you mentioned disc brakes...
The new Surly Straggler might fit the bill, its basically a crosscheck with disc brakes.

For pannier heel clearance, consider "disc-compatible" rear racks whose mounts put the rack back a bit. This one puts the rack an extra 4cm back: https://www.axiomgear.com/products/ge...iner-road-dlx/

Sure, for heavy loads it'd be better to have long stays and a traditional rack, but for commuting...

The 2014 with double 50/34 and 11-30 gets pretty close to 50/39/30 with 12-28 on the low end. You could also change out the cassette to 12-32 SRAM cassette or 11-32 which is a very common mountain/trekking cassette. A 34 ring with 32 cog will be very slightly lower than 30 with 28 actually; 1.063 vs 1.071 output revolutions per input revolution. The Tiagra 4600 rear derailleur will handle that gear combo so no issues there.

I'm kinda like you, I have a Trek bike very similar to your Kona but has last model 105 so probably very comparable to your Kona, and it came with Avid BB7s from with 160/140 mm rotors - very avant-garde for 2007 road bike I must say.

The lowest available gear isn't really the point. With a triple I can cruise around using the whole cassette with my 39T ring and only drop down to the granny when I get to the hill. It's just much more usable.

True.
I used the 39 on my triple to get me back in shape to use my standard setup. The 30 is there in case I need it.
I'm back to using my compact, so come summer, I should be good to go back to my standard.

My commute bike has 48/36/26 crank and I use the 36 almost exclusively with maybe 4 gears around the middle of the cassette. My 48 ring is pretty much unused. My road bike I use the 39 almost exclusively too, but I find myself in the bigger gears on the cassette. I imagine that with a 34 I'd be using the 34 most of the time, just on a different part of the cassette.

The Schwinn CrossFit is on the list partly because of the cost. It means you could always switch out some parts and maybe be close to the other bikes. The strong points to me is that it has an aluminium frame and steel fork and sloping top tube. The only thing is, I don't know if it's hi-tensile steel or chromoly. I'd prefer chromoly.

Other parts, my ideas are going all over the place. On the one hand, the 28 spoke wheels may not be ideal for commuting with a backrack. But I'd like a bicycle like this as a fast commuter without panniers. (I can use another one with panniers.) The hubs are Quando and the rims have a V shape. The V shape rims may actually be strong enough for a backrack after all. Even though manufacturers have different quality levels but I don't know the quality of the Quando hubs. Another questionable part is the Prowheel crankset. Or, not just unknown quality but the fact it's 50/39. My area is VERY hilly. You can't go 5 miles without going up and down a few times. I'm pretty sure I'd be satisfied with the Promax cross-top levers though.

The other ones I find interesting are the Specialized Tricross (base model) and Devinci Tosca S.

The Specialized Tricross has 32 spoke wheels which is the minimum I'd prefer. I don't doubt Specialized uses quality hubs and rims although it's difficult to compare when you don't know exact brand name. And the 12-25T cassette is not ideal for the hilly area I live in. (This is not serious though as it could be changed easilly.)

The Devinci Tosca S is very interesting because not only does it have an aluminium frame and chromoly fork (my own bias here as I don't trust carbon and a steel frame would be heavier) but it also has a Shimano crankset and 11-30T cassette. I have to do research on the Jalco rims and Formula hubs though.

The Opus Spark 3.0 is impressive with the Sora parts but has FSA cranks (which I'm a bit unsure about). For those inclined to go lighter, it does have a 24 spoke rear wheel and 20 spoke front wheel.

Well, Sora or no Sora, I'd likely be changing the brifters for bar-end shifters and regular brake levers.

...it's still better.

As Darth Lefty so astutely pointed out, the Trek CrossRip has nearly the same wheelbase as the Trek 520. With a shorter chainstay, that biases the CrossRip's rider position further back over the rear wheel. There is a reason to do that because for off-road riding, the bike handles better with a somewhat lightened front wheel. The wheel is easier to loft over trail irregularities. If you put a rack on the bike that moves a load further back, the load can end up wagging the dog. With the light front end, that makes the handling even more twitchy than it would normally be.

The Schwinn is a department store bike with all the warts that department store bikes have. It comes in one size and has a poor component list. The frame isn't going to be anything special nor worth investing too much money in to "upgrade" it. Better to start with a good bike with good parts rather than try to upgrade a bad bike with good parts. In the end you'll have a cheap bike that you paid a lot of money for.

It's rare in the sense that it has a very sloping top tube. If it's light enough, to me it would justify upgrading.

you never been to any European cities I take it?
and cannot imagine a bike not having drop bars , it appears..

Correct!
I wasn't aware they called them "hybrids" in Europe, I was under the assumption they just called them bikes.

The only European coverage I watch is the Giro d'Italia, Tour De France, & the Vuelta Espana(& various other races,& 1 day events).
Not to mention all the CX sanctioned race spread out through Europe.

Let's get back to the question of origin...