Cyclocross or adventure bike

[Jimmi t]

Hi. New to the forum, thought it would be a good place to get some advice. I'm currently looking to buy a new bike. I have a nice road bike and mountain bike and I currently use a aluminium trek as a commuter. Due to current circumstances I find the main time I get to ride is my 8km commute and I get out for an hour every lunch time. I live in the yorkshire dales surrounded by lovely road and nice bridleways. Most of the time I stick to the road as I'm on the trek however sometimes I'll drive in and bring my mountain bike so I can get the bridleways however I always feel that the hassle of taking my bike in and then the inevitable washing and polish after (I like to keep my nice bikes spotless) is more effort than what I get out of it which is why I'm thinking of upgrading my commuter to a cyclocross or adventure bike as I'd then have a nicer bike to commute on and then i can mix up road and bridleways on my lunch. Here is where I need the advice, I was swaying towards a cyclocross bike as the bridleways and tracks can get pretty muddy and i kinda assume that it would handle better in the more technical sections than an adventure bike which I assume is better suited to more endurance and less technical riding. Am I right in that assumption? The main draw of an adventure bike to me is the mudguards eyelets which most racey cyclocross bikes dont have. Is there any decent ones out there that don't require eyelets as I'd like to have some for the commutes. In summary I think I'm better getting a cyclocross bike as that's more suited to the terrain and type of riding I'll be doing and I can always look into an adventure bike in a few years when I might have more time to go on longer mixed terrain adventures. Any advice or opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
J

 

[GuitarRider2002]

Hello and welcome to the forum!

I don't have any real experience with cycle cross bikes, but I do own an adventure bike. I have a Specialized Diverge A1 and I really enjoy it. I chose an adventure bike for the disc brakes and wider tires. I also needed the eyelets on the rear to place a rack, since I do some commuting and touring as well. I ride a lot of gravel roads and the 28mm stock tires do fine, but I plan to go up to 32 maybe in the future. The Diverge uses the plug and play fender system, I do not own any fenders.

Obviously there are tons of options for adventures bikes, basically every company is making them these days.

I'm not sure that there's a huge difference in the frame geometry of an adventure bike or cycle cross, maybe a shorter wheel base? Are you looking for a carbon or aluminum bike?

 

[cyclintom]

I really don't know what an "adventure bike" is. Depending upon the cyclocross bike they may not handle any better on gravel roads or hardpack than a road bike with modest geometry. And on another group lately we've been arguing over the need for disk brakes. As someone that has crashed spectacularly while riding disk brakes I'm not particularly a fan of them. I see them as FAR too strong a brake for a light cyclocross bike especially when something like a TRP 9.0 V-brake is almost as strong and a lot less likely to lock the wheels up. For those that would wish to argue just let me say that I've been riding for 40 years, raced and put in many 16,000 km years. So this is the opinion of someone with plenty of experience with every sort of bike in every sort of condition.

In any case there are cyclocross bikes like the older Ridley Longbow that handles very well off road in the hands of a low mileage rider and others like the newer offerings from the same company that is a shoe on the other foot altogether. More modern cross bikes often are built like modern road racers with much too long top tubes and a lay-down posture. Others are a great deal more moderate.

I think that an aluminum cross bike with moderate geometry and 32 mm knobbies will generally allow you to ride without watching the pathway 12" in front of your wheel all the time and perhaps that is what you're looking for.