BikeSkiTennis

I am trying to figure out whether I can get away with buying a hybrid commuting/touring bicycle instead of buying two bicycles: one for commuting and one for touring. I will be commuting much more than touring, so perhaps a bike more suited for commuting is best. My current commuting bike is a super heavy Schwinn (cheap) which I have a difficult time carrying up and down the commuting train and up and down public transport stairs. Extremely difficult - one time, the train conductor had to help me and I still had difficulties.

I'd like a women-specific bike because I like the sloped down frame for women and not the straight frame for men. I am hoping to find a bike that is strong enough to carry touring items but light enough to use while I take public transportation.

Thanks!!

juggleaddict

Touring bikes work great as commuters. I'm currently riding an LHT. Got it for touring but use it for commuting every day.

Have you considered a bike-friday or similar folding touring bike? Seems like just the ticket. Great for public transport, and no top tube to worry about.

BikeSkiTennis

I've been considering the Cross Check; will just have to make sure I like it and it isn't as heavy as my current bike, which I can't lift. Thanks!

cyccommute 

A bunch of questions:

How tall are you? Do you know your frame size? Do you want a drop bar or flat bar? How much do you want to spend?

You really don't need to be concerned with strength of the frame. I assume that you aren't my size...well into clyde country...and I do loaded touring on an aluminum bike without a second thought. Aluminum has some distinct advantages for small people. It's significantly lighter at a lower price point than steel and a well made frame is almost as strong. The problem is that there aren't too many aluminum "touring" bikes around. The only aluminum touring frame that I know of is offered by Bike Nashbar. If you are looking for a flat bar bike, there are a number of them that could do fine duty as a touring bike. The Specialized Vita would work as would the Trek 7.3FX. Don't go too high in the lines to avoid carbon forks. You could convert them to drop bars if you wanted to but that can get pricey fast. The only problem is that these bikes have a shorter wheelbase than traditional touring bikes have.

Another alternative is Terry Cycles. Not cheap but they are wonderfully light bikes for women. Georgina Terry developed the women's specific design. My wife has an old Symmetry that weighs in at a feathery 20 lbs.

eofelis 

Biksdirect has some aluminum frame cross bikes with steel forks. Not sure what they weigh though, the prices are pretty good. Their steel Windsor Tourist bike may be lighter than the LHT.

Any of those lower priced bd cross bikes would probably be great for commuting and occasional touring.

I have a bikesdirect cross bike Motobecane Fantom CXX, which is a frame identical to the Cross Check. Mine is the smallest, 42cm. I also have a 42cm LHT. I have not weighed either of these bikes lately but the LHT is nearly 30lbs with XT parts, 32 spoke wheels and lightweight Delta and Blackburn racks. I think the CXX weighs a bit less.

sci_femme

Cyclocross bikes are it for commute and light touring. Just make sure that there are rack and fender mounts on whatever particular bike you choose. Most low-to-mid range bikes do, but never hurts to double check.

Additional benefit - relatively shorter top tube (if you buy into whole women-specific design for longer legs and shorter torso) and unisex paint scheme. I am not a pink person.

Fair warning - sizing can get really creative, so 54 in CX does not equal 54 in road design.

If Bikes Direct prices and inventory look attractive to you, find a Cycle Spectrum in your area and visit. These are storefronts for Bikes Direct, only products are already assembled and ready to test.

Good Luck

SF

MichaelW

A tourable commuting bike is a good idea, it doesn't have to be the classic English style drop-bar tourer, there are plenty of other good styles. Aluminium or steel will both work, and any mid-priced bike on the market is strong enough for touring. Most fully equipped bikes seem to weigh in at about 35lbs.
The other alternative is to get a small-wheeled folder as an everyday commuter bike, this would be easier to handle on your daily commute and takes up little storage room.

For step-through frames, see Soma Buena Vista, a mixte style.
Cannondale do a step-thru Tesora. If you avoid their fancy fork suspension, it could work.

The only reason to avoid a carbon fork is the lack of front pannier rack eyelets. Urban bikes with carbon forks can take touring tyres and fenders.

cyccommute 

Not sure what you mean by cyclocross bikes being "it" for commuting and touring. They can do the job but they may not be the best tool in the drawer for that purpose. They are zippy but if you are going to do loaded touring, 'zippy' isn't necessarily good. The fact that you have to look for rack and fender mounts speaks volumes to their intended purpose.

noglider 

In my experience, cyclo cross bikes aren't zippy or nimble or squirrely. I have a Surly Cross Check and a Bianchi Volpe. They are stable and predictable. They inspire confidence in turns and at high speed. I like the Bianchi better. It's lighter, and it climbs and accelerates better. Does Bianchi make the Volpe any more?

I have panniers on my Volpe, and my heels can scrape them barely, but only depending on my foot position. It's easy to avoid the scrape without sacrificing comfort.

I'm selling my Cross Check if you're interested. I prefer to sell just the frameset, but you might be able to talk me into the whole bike or even modifying it to your needs. I've barely ridden it, and the paint is in very good condition. It's a 54cm (21") seat tube.

I'm a paid member, and I'll move this message to the for-sale section if necessary.

I've read that the LHT is slower than the Cross Check. That would be a real bummer for me.

But those Surlys sure are versatile. You can install a ton of things on them.

alan s 

Go to a few bike stores in your area and see what is available in your price range. Test ride a few. Budget for accessories.

antimonysarah

Is it the weight, or the weight + the bulk? I found that trying to wrestle something the size of a bike, along with a pannier or messenger bag, was just too tough -- sure, I could spend a LOT on a lighter bike, but once I started putting fenders and a rack and lights on it, it wouldn't be that light, no matter how light the frame was. And it would still be huge and slam into my calves as I tried to carry it up and down stairs. So I bought a folder. It's heavy-ish (30 pounds), but the important part is the size -- I can haul it up with both hands in front of me and walk up train stairs, etc. And folders have low top tubes. So, get a folder and keep the Schwinn for touring? (There are people who tour on a folder, but while I'm happy going 20 miles or so on mine, I'd rather tour on a full-size bike.)

Also, re: a previous poster's suggestion: Bianchi still makes the Volpe, and they're nice, but I personally wouldn't call them light.

noglider 

It's not as light as a road racing bike, but my Volpe is lighter than my Cross Check, in both the way they ride and the way they lift.

cyccommute 

Cyclocross bikes are stable unloaded. Load them up for a tour and they aren't nearly as stable as a touring bike is. And the heel strikes get old by the end of the first day. You may be able to avoid heel strikes by not sacrificing comfort but you have to actively avoid them but you don't say how big your panniers are. And having to think about avoiding heel strikes and/or positioning your feet to avoid it would get old by about the 3 hour of a tour.

sci_femme

I said "light touring", as in equivalent of a heavy backpack with cans of Progresso and clothes and towels strapped to my rear rack, two bottles, cable lock, pump and saddle bag attached to the frame. BTW, I feel no difference in handling the loaded bike and empty bike - CX are so stable and predictable. And with 30mi RT commute "zippy" surely counts. OPs priority is a commute. As far as best tool - why crowd my knife drawer with chef's knife, a slicer and a spatula when santoku will do the job? In other words - in my house I have a room for one and only one do-it-all machine, that I park against kitchen peninsula (it's good to be a wife!) and it is ready out the door on a whim.
Generally only highest models of a CX line come w/o mounts, these are clearly destined for pure racing. Geometry also tweaked on these models despite sharing the same nameplate. Manufacturers aren't dumb, they know the demand and cater to it by installing mounts. If it is not "it" for commuting and light touring, then why my 2008 Tricross Comp came standard with three - three! - bottle mounts, fender mounts, rear and front rack mounts? When Crux first hit the market it was lacking mounts on all but the entry model and consumers shrugged.

cyccommute 

BikeSkiTennis said nothing about what kind of touring she wanted to do. If she wants to do light touring, commuting, heavy touring and/or expedition touring, a touring bike will fit her needs far better than a cyclocross bike.

I'll have to disagree with the idea that manufacturers aren't dumb. They are dumb as a post. Back in the late 80s they made "touring" bikes that are just like cyclocross bikes. Short wheelbase, short chainstays, steep head angles, 32 hole wheels, etc. Some one coined the term 'platypus' for them because they look a little like a touring bike but there was just something odd about them. I owned one. The thing was a nightmare to ride downhill with a load. If something like that is all you've ever ridden, then you might not know the difference. But if you've ever ridden a loaded touring bike with a touring load, you'd find that going to a cyclocross is a step backwards.

If you want more evidence that manufacturers are dumb as a bag of hammers, look no further than the womens market. Women make up more then half the population yet bikes that are made to fit women are an afterthought at best. Parts are made for mens bodies. Small bikes are outfitted with cranksets that are 170 or even 175mm long. They don't even make a crankset that is properly sized for very small women. While the womens market has improved over the last few years...maybe even the last decade...it's still abysmal. If you happen to fall outside of the range of 5'6" to 6'1", you are basically out of luck. They will try to sell something to you if you fall outside the range but it won't fit, you won't like it, and you'll probably give up on riding a bike because it's more painful than even "normal" people experience. If someone gives up bicycling because it's too painful, the manufacturers have lost part of their market. You would think that someone would have noticed in the last 30 years but they haven't.

And even your example of cyclocross shows how dumb a manufacturer can be when you look at the comparison between the TriCross and the Crux. The Tricross has some utility outside of cyclocross, i.e. a market. The Crux doesn't. The Crux has no provisions for rack mounts or fenders. It's a pure single purpose racing machine even at the very lowest level. When you take away the utility, you end up with a much smaller market. It becomes the fillet knife in the drawer...good if you eat fish, useless if you don't.

I have both a touring and a cyclocross bike. The cyclocross bike is used for most of my commuting. It's a nice bike. But if I had to choose between them, I'd take the touring bike. It can be used for commuting but it can also does a better job at touring. The cyclocross bike is the chef's knife in the drawer. The touring bike is the santoku.

And you'd better not use one of my knives as a spatula!

chriskmurray

I think we have reached a point in this discussion where debating which is the best bike for the OP is worthless until we get more info from her.

What is your budget, will your touring be on road or off, supported or unsupported. Do you need the bike to be able to take wider tires to get you through snow, do you want drop bars or flat, upright or more of an aggressive (more leaned over) position. The great (yet intimidating to a new cyclist) thing about cycling is that choices are nearly limitless and the perfect bike for you is out there. You just need to know how to find it.

noglider 

Maybe it depends on the bike. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that there are so many classes of bikes whose purposes barely overlap. I think in the western world, we're pretty wealthy, and we have the luxury of choice. In the poor countries, they do what they need to do on whatever bike is available.

I had to modify my pedal stroke drastically when I toured on road racing bikes. I'm not recommending that, though I really didn't find it a burden. My Volpe has big panniers, and I don't have to lift my heel to avoid heel strike. I just have to twist it out ever-so-slightly, which is good for my knees anyway. Perhaps my panniers are short front-to-back. Or perhaps my rack is long or my chainstays are longer than typical for a cyclo cross bike. But it works great.

I've put as much as 30 pounds in the panniers and found the bike to be extremely stable. Maybe I got extremely lucky with this bike. And I only paid $140 for it on craigslist, so it was quite a score!

fietsbob

Find a Terry dealer , Ms Terry makes bikes for Women and their un Male proportioned bodies.
(unisex is usually just a mens frame with funny geometry.)

She has a Touring Bike that has 2 26" wheels [except the XL size] and has Waterford
in Wisconsin make the frames for them..


that sounds like a place where a folding bike may be better..
People do tour on those too..

juggleaddict

lol, women frames. . . sorry that's the most absurd notion to me.

Everybody is different regardless of your gender. Buying a bike that isn't custom made is always going to be a balance as far as geometry goes. Even if you found the normative fit, personal preferences are different. You can't just generalize a thing like a bike frame. You can try just like everything else in this society (shoes, saddles, etc.) but in the end it's "if the shoe fits. . . "

Bikeski, people here can guide you based on their personal experiences, but you're going to be the one who has to decide what you want out of a bike in the end. You're also going to have to make a judgement call on how well everybody's suggestions fit the needs/wants you had in mind.

cyccommute 

Not absurd at all. Georgina Terry has an excellent video about it. Her ideas revolutionized bike fit for women, especially very small women.

cyccommute 

If you really think about it, I'm the one arguing for one bike that does more things well than multiple bikes. If the plan is to ride a bike that can be used for commuting and touring, why not choose the bike that more specialized for touring? A cyclocross bike is a compromise at best. It's a bike that has been optimized for a specific task, in this case for racing off-pavement on courses that are wet and have dismount zones. Historically, the cyclocross bike came from touring bikes. However, the geometries evolved to meet the needs of the cyclocross racer.

A touring bike, on the other hand, is designed for riding while carrying luggage. That's much more like commuting than cyclocross is. The longer wheelbase/chainstays of a touring bike do more then just offer a plusher ride. They allow for more of the load to be carried between the axles than behind the axle so the handling isn't compromised. Short chainstay bikes push the load further off the back and cause the tail to wag the dog as well as lead to more heel strike problems.

hubcap

Are you saying you can't tell a difference in the handling of your bike whether you have loaded panniers or not? I commute on a cyclocross bike a lot and think it handles my commute load just fine. But the not-so-frequent times that I ride it unladen, I sure as heck can tell the difference. It's like that with all of my bikes.

noglider 

cyccommute, all your points are fair. I guess it does make sense to look for a touring bike. My point of view is that I came upon this bike and find it to be suitable for all of my purposes. If BikeSkiTennis stumbles upon one, I wouldn't want to dissuade her from it merely because of the classification. Plus weight and handling are a matter of taste, and she might like nimbler bikes. Some do; some don't. And she did state that weight is an important criterion. I'm not convinced that there are huge differences in handling. I've toured on "sport touring" bikes and on road racing bikes, and I did fine. The road racing bikes required extra strength to handle fast descents while under load, so I can't recommend them for that purpose, but it's worth mentioning that it can be done. Touring on a cyclo cross bike is not as much of a stretch. I'm not saying it's better, though. In some cases, it would be unsuitable, such as if the chainstays are too short or when the frame is made of carbon fiber.

Unless I'm quite out of touch with what the market now offers, the difference in geometry of cyclo cross bikes and of touring bikes is small.

sci_femme

Oddly enough - no. It is illogical as heck, considering I carry my load in a backpack strapped to the rear rack (i.e. higher center of gravity). May be a weight of a motor - light Athena, may be 440 mm long chainstays, may be grippy tires, do not know. I do not have "all my bikes", but my TriX is like that. Dumb luck?

Ktea

Just my 2 cents: I find mixte style bikes (if that's what you're referring to by the women's sloped top tube) difficult to maneuver down stairs. Not sure if that's the type of bike you were referring to.

Also, I used to have a Cross Check and sold it. The top tube was way too long and I have the typical long legs/short torso that women's frames are designed for. But, if you're interested in them they seem to have a strong following- so definitely take one for a test ride.