Tourer versus Audax versus Cross

[horizon]

I'm going to de-frame a 700c tourer (size is wrong) this winter and re-frame it with ....

I already have another 700c tourer (albeit not as good) so could give myself another bike type or simply a better tourer. The obvious is a lighter, faster bike such as an Audax or cross bike. I'm trying to stay away from specifics here and really just get a discussion going on how these three bike types relate to each other. I've already factored in wheels and brakes on the Audax. A typical line up would be LHT/ClubTour versus Thorn Audax versus Cross Check (all as frames).

Any thoughts?

[PH]

The problem with having two similar bikes it that you have two similar bikes...
I have this, they are different, but not different enough to make one noticeably better than the other on any given ride. I think before long I'll part with one, I could use the space, but a) I can't make my mind up which, and b) Even good quality second hand bikes often fetch a pitiful amount of money.
IMO Thorn Audax and LHT would have enough difference, but Club Tour and Cross Check would have a lot of overlap.

[horizon]

I think where I'm having probems is the choice between Audax and Cross. I never rated a cross bike a true tourer (such as when some posters on here were sold Tri-crosses for long trips) but that was mainy due to equipment such as a double.

But my question would be now, what advantage does an Audax bike hold over a cross? I'm guessing that an Audax bike has a comfier frame (longer head tube??) but the cross takes comfier tyres. Why would an Audax bike rider (not an Audax rider) spurn the chance of fitting wider tyres (if and when required)?

[PH]

Forget the labels and look at the bikes, list the criteria that's important to you, and look at the overlap.

[iandriver]

OK, cross check, higher bottom bracket and shorter chain stays than the LHT. Do you care about large loads (cyclo crossers wouldn't dream of riding a cross check, it's a robust bike for people who don't like the thought of a tourer).

Audax should be far closer to a road bike but with better tyre clearances, designed to be built lighter than a tourer but still reliable and comfortable without a load. Saying that though, if you strip off all the tourer bits and put them on an Audax frame, sounds like you get the worst of both worlds.

[Erudin]

...Why would an Audax bike rider (not an Audax rider) spurn the chance of fitting wider tyres (if and when required)?

It allows closer clearances on the frame, and steel audax frames/forks have enough springiness to make 23mm tyres comfortable even on fairly poor road surfaces. With 28mm tyres on it's ok for lightly loaded touring and light off-roading (eg Tarka trail/ Drakes trail). The lighter tyres and wheels mean you can ride further and longer in a day than on a heavier tourer, basically I can ride twice as far in a day than I can on any of my other bikes.

I have built up a 26" wheeled LHT for a wide tyre option and the ability to ride rougher off-road tracks (eg. the old railway track round Princetown on Dartmoor) and heavy loaded touring.

[Bicycler]

(cyclo crossers wouldn't dream of riding a cross check, it's a robust bike for people who don't like the thought of a tourer).

Yes. In truth it is a bad example of a 'cross bike. I wouldn't recommend a cross bike to somebody looking for a touring bike but I have recommended a Cross Check to those looking for something lighter than a LHT but with adequate clearances and fittings. In truth as tourers have got more robust over the years they seem to have left a gap and there's not much out there for those wanting a fast tourer with good tire clearances and braze ons for mudguards and carriers. The Cross Check is one of the few that fits that niche. That is a shame as most people probably ought to be riding wider tyres, probably do want guards and would find racks useful but aren't likely to be lugging expedition loads round the world.

[iandriver]

My cross check does make a great commuter, but I don't use it for Audax. My Audax machine has clearance for bigger tyres and guards, but not so much as to need cantis. Deep drop road callipers that are compatible with STIs without gizmos and a 4lb club hammer are fine.

[PH]

My Audax machine has clearance for bigger tyres and guards, but not so much as to need cantis. Deep drop road callipers that are compatible with STIs without gizmos and a 4lb club hammer are fine.

What bike Ian? I'm interested to know of a caliper brake bike that has better clearance that the crosscheck.

[PH]

In truth as tourers have got more robust over the years they seem to have left a gap and there's not much out there for those wanting a fast tourer with good tire clearances and braze ons for mudguards and carriers.

I'm not sure that all tourers have become that much more robust, the Spa tourer dosen't look like a heavyweight. The Paul Hewitt steel tourer (Cheviot) and Audax (Chiltern) share the same main triangle, the audax has shorter stays a lighter fork and is caliper brake rather than canti. I've ridden them both and they are different, but not so much as I'd ever want both, though you could of course build them up to be different bikes.

[DaveGos]

I have all three. IMO Audax is best , but of course it does depend what you want to do.

Tourer - Only one for heavy loads, difficult in the back of hatchbacks and not so easy on planes , heavy
Audax - Good all rounders , can be quite fast , not so good for heavy loads, prefer the brakes over cantilevers , but not as good brakes as road bikes due to the fact they have to span mudguards
Cross bikes - good for cyclocross lol , depends what brazeons they have , Obviously a big factor on all 3 is what tyres you are running unless you switch them regularly . Not sure why the current trend of selling peeps cross bikes , I suppose its what the shops stock , they don't generally have tourers and audax bikes. A proper cross bike has to be pretty light which is not good for moving on tours . Few people these days though do moving on tours carrying there own gear ( including me) so little need for a full tourer

[Bicycler]

If I had to recommend somebody a bike as an all-rounder it wouldn't be one with a choice between 28mm tyres or mudguards.

[Brucey]

most alleged 'cross bikes' are not for CX; I have called them fauCX bikes before now. When they come with carrier eyes etc they are (highish BB or not) really one interpretation of a 'do it all' bike, but without the customer feeling that they are buying anything as boring as a 'light touring bike'.

Years ago a friend of mine raced (everything but CX in fact), commuted, toured and trained on a single bike, a proper steel-framed CX bike with no mudguard eyes. He seemed quite happy with this arrangement, but he wasn't heavily built and never carried a very heavy load either. The bike also didn't have ridiculously short chainstays, and did have long horizontal dropouts; he could shorten or lengthen the wheelbase about an inch as he saw fit.

He could fit 32s and mudguards in there, maybe 35s BTW.

cheers

[iandriver]

My Audax machine has clearance for bigger tyres and guards, but not so much as to need cantis. Deep drop road callipers that are compatible with STIs without gizmos and a 4lb club hammer are fine.

What bike Ian? I'm interested to know of a caliper brake bike that has better clearance that the crosscheck.

Think the wires are a bit crossed there. It has more clearance than a road bike, not a cross check, which does have cani bosses making the use of STI levers a pain. A kineses T2 will take 28mm tyres and guards with deep drop callipers which most road bikes won't. I think this is one of the core differences between a road and an audax bike.

[reohn2]

What do you want to use the finished bike for?