Touring advice, one bike or two?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I'm mostly a Toronto-local road rider; I prefer longer 150+ km rides
but mostly end up doing 50k-ish rides after work. I also go on the
occasional tour; I've done the Icefields in AB (highly recommended 3-
day ride!) and the Cabot Trail (ditto) and this year I'm thinking of
doing a week long ride in Peru with some friends.

Right now I'm riding a couple-year-old Trek 5000. It's starting to get
a little cranky shifting, and will likely need some real work at the
end of this season. I got this bike because I was mostly road, and
really liked the way it felt over long distances compared to the Canny
and Lightspeeds, and especially the 1991 Marin steel road frame I was
on at the time. Had I waited one year, I would have got a Roubaix,
that's even more aimed at the sort of riding I do.

But with a double on the front and no braze-ons, it's almost useless
for touring. I've been borrowing a friend's spare MTB, but I have a
serious problem with my hands going numb after a couple of hours, and
it gets so bad I have to stop every 15 to 20 minutes to let it "cool
off". So while it has a great pannier setup and pretty good gearing,
it's really less than ideal.

So, what do I do for a touring setup?

1) get a new road bike like the 5.2 or Roubaix, set it up with a
triple and use a skewer-mounted panier those very few times I tour
(along with high-spoke wheels and 32's)

2) buy a second bike with a better touring setup (braze-ons, bigger
wheels) and let it rust the other 99% of the time

3) buy an old road bike and re-equip it with a triple -- this seems to
take some serious coin

Arguments anyone? If I go with (2) or (3), what options do I have for
drivetrains that I can use with drop-handle brakes and still get some
serious torque? IE, can I use indexed STI's with XT's?

Maury

On May 20, 11:08 am, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm mostly a Toronto-local road rider; I prefer longer 150+ km rides
> but mostly end up doing 50k-ish rides after work. I also go on the
> occasional tour; I've done the Icefields in AB (highly recommended 3-
> day ride!) and the Cabot Trail (ditto) and this year I'm thinking of
> doing a week long ride in Peru with some friends.
>
> Right now I'm riding a couple-year-old Trek 5000. It's starting to get
> a little cranky shifting, and will likely need some real work at the
> end of this season. I got this bike because I was mostly road, and
> really liked the way it felt over long distances compared to the Canny
> and Lightspeeds, and especially the 1991 Marin steel road frame I was
> on at the time. Had I waited one year, I would have got a Roubaix,
> that's even more aimed at the sort of riding I do.
>
> But with a double on the front and no braze-ons, it's almost useless
> for touring. I've been borrowing a friend's spare MTB, but I have a
> serious problem with my hands going numb after a couple of hours, and
> it gets so bad I have to stop every 15 to 20 minutes to let it "cool
> off". So while it has a great pannier setup and pretty good gearing,
> it's really less than ideal.
>
> So, what do I do for a touring setup?
>
> 1) get a new road bike like the 5.2 or Roubaix, set it up with a
> triple and use a skewer-mounted panier those very few times I tour
> (along with high-spoke wheels and 32's)
>
> 2) buy a second bike with a better touring setup (braze-ons, bigger
> wheels) and let it rust the other 99% of the time

For my money, a Surly LHT is nearly a perfect do everything bike right
out of the box. I'd replace the tires first thing with Pasela 32s to
make the bike a little more nippy. It's going to be 95% as fast as any
sport bike out there at 25# or so, and you can bolt the kitchen sink
to it when you want to tour. I don't see any reason for it to sit and
rust other than you finding long chain stays unfashionable. You
thought your Trek was comfy over long distances...try something with a
good wheelbase and nice tires at 90 psi.

On May 20, 11:08 am, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Arguments anyone? If I go with (2) or (3), what options do I have for
> drivetrains that I can use with drop-handle brakes and still get some
> serious torque? IE, can I use indexed STI's with XT's?

I use barcons with LX on my touring bike - the rear is currently in
index mode, the front has always been in friction mode. Shifts like a
Porsche most of the time. Has the usual ice issues in winter, but I
don't tour in winter and don't need to shift in my part of Toronto.

In article
<1335479f-5362-4b87-88e2-090be41b52b4@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 11:08 am, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm mostly a Toronto-local road rider; I prefer longer 150+ km rides
> > but mostly end up doing 50k-ish rides after work. I also go on the
> > occasional tour; I've done the Icefields in AB (highly recommended 3-
> > day ride!) and the Cabot Trail (ditto) and this year I'm thinking of
> > doing a week long ride in Peru with some friends.
> >
> > Right now I'm riding a couple-year-old Trek 5000. It's starting to get
> > a little cranky shifting, and will likely need some real work at the
> > end of this season. I got this bike because I was mostly road, and
> > really liked the way it felt over long distances compared to the Canny
> > and Lightspeeds, and especially the 1991 Marin steel road frame I was
> > on at the time. Had I waited one year, I would have got a Roubaix,
> > that's even more aimed at the sort of riding I do.
> >
> > But with a double on the front and no braze-ons, it's almost useless
> > for touring. I've been borrowing a friend's spare MTB, but I have a
> > serious problem with my hands going numb after a couple of hours, and
> > it gets so bad I have to stop every 15 to 20 minutes to let it "cool
> > off". So while it has a great pannier setup and pretty good gearing,
> > it's really less than ideal.
> >
> > So, what do I do for a touring setup?
> >
> > 1) get a new road bike like the 5.2 or Roubaix, set it up with a
> > triple and use a skewer-mounted panier those very few times I tour
> > (along with high-spoke wheels and 32's)
> >
> > 2) buy a second bike with a better touring setup (braze-ons, bigger
> > wheels) and let it rust the other 99% of the time
>
> For my money, a Surly LHT is nearly a perfect do everything bike right
> out of the box. I'd replace the tires first thing with Pasela 32s to
> make the bike a little more nippy. It's going to be 95% as fast as any
> sport bike out there at 25# or so, and you can bolt the kitchen sink
> to it when you want to tour. I don't see any reason for it to sit and
> rust other than you finding long chain stays unfashionable. You
> thought your Trek was comfy over long distances...try something with a
> good wheelbase and nice tires at 90 psi.

The beauty of a dedicated touring rig is that, unlike other special
purpose designs, it can more than adequately function in other
capacities. I echo Landotter's recommendation: get a good tourer.

Urbane Cycle's 'Urbanite' house brand includes a touring frameset. It's
built of butted 4130 CroMo as the LHT; definitely worthy of
consideration.

http://ucycle.com/bikes/item.php?name=urbtour&cat=urbanite

landotter wrote:
> For my money, a Surly LHT is nearly a perfect do everything bike right
> out of the box. I'd replace the tires first thing with Pasela 32s to
> make the bike a little more nippy. It's going to be 95% as fast as any
> sport bike out there at 25# or so, and you can bolt the kitchen sink
> to it when you want to tour. I don't see any reason for it to sit and
> rust other than you finding long chain stays unfashionable. You
> thought your Trek was comfy over long distances...try something with a
> good wheelbase and nice tires at 90 psi.

I just built up a Pake C'Muter for the ladyfriend. $300 bucks got her a
lot of frame a fork. Tange Prestige tubing no less. That thing is
steel and super light. Canti--bosses, double eyelets front and rear,
rear cable hanger, 132.5 mm rear spacing, the whole 9 yards...

I'm impressed and might pick one up after the relocation to PDX.


--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

On May 21, 9:32 am, "Paul M. Hobson" <fob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > For my money, a Surly LHT is nearly a perfect do everything bike right
> > out of the box. I'd replace the tires first thing with Pasela 32s to
> > make the bike a little more nippy. It's going to be 95% as fast as any
> > sport bike out there at 25# or so, and you can bolt the kitchen sink
> > to it when you want to tour. I don't see any reason for it to sit and
> > rust other than you finding long chain stays unfashionable. You
> > thought your Trek was comfy over long distances...try something with a
> > good wheelbase and nice tires at 90 psi.
>
> I just built up a Pake C'Muter for the ladyfriend. $300 bucks got her a
> lot of frame a fork. Tange Prestige tubing no less. That thing is
> steel and super light. Canti--bosses, double eyelets front and rear,
> rear cable hanger, 132.5 mm rear spacing, the whole 9 yards...
>
> I'm impressed and might pick one up after the relocation to PDX.
>
I'd pretty much compare that to a Surly Crosser to be fair. Good price
for a light Tange frame for sure. The stays are 35mm shorter than a
LHT--cross bike short or fashionably short if you're calling it a
"commuter"--but not an issue, unless you're a guy like me with Real
Man (46+) size feet and want to run panniers without going "fppp fppp
fppp" all the way home.

On May 21, 10:57 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd pretty much compare that to a Surly Crosser to be fair. Good price
> for a light Tange frame for sure. The stays are 35mm shorter than a
> LHT--cross bike short or fashionably short if you're calling it a
> "commuter"--but not an issue, unless you're a guy like me with Real
> Man (46+) size feet and want to run panniers without going "fppp fppp
> fppp" all the way home.

No concern here, I'm only 5'9", the only problem I have is hitting the
front on hard turns.

Ok, point taken... cheap touring frame it is. Ok, so for the comfort
side, what do I look for in geometry that will get me a little more
head-up than a traditional road frame?

On May 21, 3:29 pm, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 21, 10:57 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd pretty much compare that to a Surly Crosser to be fair. Good price
> > for a light Tange frame for sure. The stays are 35mm shorter than a
> > LHT--cross bike short or fashionably short if you're calling it a
> > "commuter"--but not an issue, unless you're a guy like me with Real
> > Man (46+) size feet and want to run panniers without going "fppp fppp
> > fppp" all the way home.
>
> No concern here, I'm only 5'9", the only problem I have is hitting the
> front on hard turns.
>
> Ok, point taken... cheap touring frame it is. Ok, so for the comfort
> side, what do I look for in geometry that will get me a little more
> head-up than a traditional road frame?

That's more a result of picking the right size, correct stem, spacers,
etc. A frame like the Pake that Paul linked to is a really nice option
with the extended head tube--which helps avoid a stupid amount of
spacers if any. It's got pretty sporty geometry and all of the braze
ons so you can bolt on the Cuisinart and bug ZapR as needed for your
trips.

On May 21, 4:29 pm, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, point taken... cheap touring frame it is. Ok, so for the comfort
> side, what do I look for in geometry that will get me a little more
> head-up than a traditional road frame?

Look for a non-racy shop, first. Someone's already mentioned Urbane
(John Street, above Queen, Toronto, Canada.) They understand uncut
steerers, etc. I put "interrupter" brakes on my bike so I can ride on
the tops and still have full control - they interfer with many
handlebar bags, but that can usually be worked around.

You don't want to completely sacrific the head-down option when
touring. Headwinds are worse than hills and can go on for days in some
places.

I like combination pedals - clipless on one side, flat on the other -
too, as clipping out can give your feet a bit of a break at the end of
the day. Handy if you need to ride your bike to a meal or shower after
setting up for the night, too, when you might be wearing other shoes.
Definitely a comfort item.

Bigger tires, too - 32s or wider. And splurge on handlebar tape.

On May 20, 9:08 am, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Arguments anyone? If I go with (2) or (3), what options do I have for
> drivetrains that I can use with drop-handle brakes and still get some
> serious torque? IE, can I use indexed STI's with XT's?
>

You can with an XT rear but not front, as the MTB FDs have different
cable pull rates. Surly LHT uses an XT rear with a Tiagra triple
front. They stock it with bar-cons, but it would work with STIs no
problem.

And when it comes to touring triples, by far the best choice is the
Sugino XD600. The 110/74BCD is the most sensible format for touring,
allowing lows down to 24t and highs up into the 50s. MTB cranks are
geared too low for most folks' tastes, and the rings are too small to
work with STI-compatible FDs.

In article <6d4fbe4a-5225-43ce-80c0-a3215258401a@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Maury Markowitz <maury.markowitz@gmail.com> writes:
>
> So, what do I do for a touring setup?
>
> 1) get a new road bike like the 5.2 or Roubaix, set it up with a
> triple and use a skewer-mounted panier those very few times I tour
> (along with high-spoke wheels and 32's)
>
> 2) buy a second bike with a better touring setup (braze-ons, bigger
> wheels) and let it rust the other 99% of the time
>
> 3) buy an old road bike and re-equip it with a triple -- this seems to
> take some serious coin

Just for something else to consider, here's another option:

http://www.briandesousa.com/bicycling/tech/convert.htm

Brian DeSousa's approach to converting a mountain bike
into a touring bike (and vice verso.)

To me it seems like a pretty good niche filler for so-called
"back country touring," involving some road, some trail and
some light, totally off the beaten track. Even if the
(handlebar) mods were permanent instead of convertible.

If your touring involves mostly riding on pavement, I wouldn't
suggest this option. But if you intend to access many country,
pothole-ridden, dirt roads, or occasionally pick lines through a
bunch of sagebrushes, this rig might just be the ticket. Maybe
outfit it with inverted tread 26" tires.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Wow, thanks everyone! This is great advice, it really opened my eyes
to a totally different direction.

Those "breakable" bikes are extremely interesting, does anyone know of
any downsides? Are they still mechanically strong? Following links off
the site that Tom mentioned I found a company that makes them
complete, set up for road touring with drop handles and everything.
Odd gruppo, but basically exactly what I'm looking for, oh yeah, and
it just happens to stow into a bag. Very cool.

Hank, I'm a little lost about the sizing of the triple you noted. Yes,
MTB gearing would be too low for me (been there, done that), so I
would want a road-sized crank. But isn't 110/74BCD the basic standard
that any triple would use? Is there some difference in geometry
between this, and say a normal 105 triple?

Maury

On May 25, 7:15 pm, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, thanks everyone! This is great advice, it really opened my eyes
> to a totally different direction.
>
> Those "breakable" bikes are extremely interesting, does anyone know of
> any downsides? Are they still mechanically strong? Following links off
> the site that Tom mentioned I found a company that makes them
> complete, set up for road touring with drop handles and everything.

Strong as a non-breakaway bike, just a few ounces heavier. Super neat
engineering.

The Dahon Tournado is another take on a full size high quality do-
anything folder:

https://shop.sunrisecyclery.com/item/37252

Tour, go fast, take it anywhere.

On May 25, 5:15 pm, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, thanks everyone! This is great advice, it really opened my eyes
> to a totally different direction.
>
> Those "breakable" bikes are extremely interesting, does anyone know of
> any downsides? Are they still mechanically strong? Following links off
> the site that Tom mentioned I found a company that makes them
> complete, set up for road touring with drop handles and everything.
> Odd gruppo, but basically exactly what I'm looking for, oh yeah, and
> it just happens to stow into a bag. Very cool.
>
> Hank, I'm a little lost about the sizing of the triple you noted. Yes,
> MTB gearing would be too low for me (been there, done that), so I
> would want a road-sized crank. But isn't 110/74BCD the basic standard
> that any triple would use? Is there some difference in geometry
> between this, and say a normal 105 triple?
>
> Maury

110/74 used to be the standard for triples 20-25 years ago, on the
first wave of MTBs. Since then, it's split off into 2 standards, the
MTB's 104/64 with 44/32/22 rings and the road triple's 130/74, with a
52/42/30. Neither of those are particularly good for touring, but the
110/74 is like Baby Bear's porridge: just right. You might think you
could just swap chainrings around, but modern triple FDs are shaped
for very specific chainring combos, and venturing outside them means
they won't shift at all.

So of the currently-made 110/74 cranks, the Sugino XD is by far the
best. QBP stocks them with 46/36/26 rings, but some shops get them
from other sources with other chainring combos. I got a 48-36-24 from
Andy Muzi at http://yellowjersey.org last year, and it's what I have
on my Surly Long Haul Trucker, replacing the Campy Veloce triple with
too-big chainrings (52-42-28 - I swapped out the granny, and it
shifted like crap).

The 48-36-24 and the 46-36-26 combos have both shifted great for me
with Campy triple FDs, as well as a Shimano 2203. Just make sure the
middle-to-big gap on your crank is within 2 teeth of what the FD's
designed for. Dura-Ace 7803, for example, is a 53-39-30, and the 14t
gap causes it to shift poorly, if at all, on cranks with a 10t gap.
Conversely, I tried a 50-36-26 setup with the 2203 and it wouldn't
shift from the middle ring onto the granny, because the middle ring
was lower than the ramp that was supposed to derail the chain. I
changed the 36 for a 40 and it worked fine.

I hope that made any sense at all.

On May 25, 9:22 pm, Hank <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
> I hope that made any sense at all.

Yes, it's great! A couple of smaller questions then, if I may...

On my road bike I stay in the 53 ring at least 99% of the time, the
other one's the 42 IIRC. I'm definitely leaning towards a 50 on the
big end, so do you think that a 50-39-26 would work with the 2203? Or
maybe a 38 middle if such a thing exists?

On the back end, any old cassette I can find should work, no? I'm
thinking maybe the long-cage Ultegra 9-speed that they put on my 5000
by mistake, and replacing it on that bike with the short-cage. I've
got a 12 to 27 cassette on the 5000, so what would be more suitable
here, perhaps a 13 to 30? Can you go that high?

Maury

On May 25, 8:55 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Strong as a non-breakaway bike, just a few ounces heavier. Super neat
> engineering.

Done, I'm going for it. I'm going to start checking craigs for a good
starting point. Two more things:

I found riding the '91 Marin steel road bike really tiring on the
rough. Should I consider using a carbon fork? I won't be carrying
front bags, so the lack of braze-ons there doesn't phase me.

And the other question: after smelling my breaks on the Cabot Trail
downhills and hearing horror stories of blown front tires, I'm really
thinking that a disk on the front makes sense. Any reason not to?

Maury

On May 27, 10:43 am, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On May 25, 8:55 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Strong as a non-breakaway bike, just a few ounces heavier. Super neat
> > engineering.
>
> Done, I'm going for it. I'm going to start checking craigs for a good
> starting point. Two more things:
>
> I found riding the '91 Marin steel road bike really tiring on the
> rough. Should I consider using a carbon fork? I won't be carrying
> front bags, so the lack of braze-ons there doesn't phase me.
>

Carbon's fine if you need new fork and they're on sale. Comfort wise,
running a wider tire is what's going to help. A high quality 32mm+
skinwall tire is going to cost you two to five seconds per mile over a
23mm tire, roughly, but be much more easy on your body if you have a
bit less pressure in there. You can run a skinnier tire in back if the
caliper doesn't allow for fatter than, say a 28.

> And the other question: after smelling my breaks on the Cabot Trail
> downhills and hearing horror stories of blown front tires, I'm really
> thinking that a disk on the front makes sense. Any reason not to?

Go for it. Here's a cheap 1" carbon disc cross fork even:
http://tinyurl.com/2j24w2

+ you'll need a disc wheel...

and a cable disc brake like an Avid compatible with road levers:

http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/BR306C10-Avid+Road+Bb5+Disc+Brake+08.aspx

On May 27, 8:39 am, Maury Markowitz <maury.markow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 9:22 pm, Hank <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > I hope that made any sense at all.
>
> Yes, it's great! A couple of smaller questions then, if I may...
>
> On my road bike I stay in the 53 ring at least 99% of the time, the
> other one's the 42 IIRC. I'm definitely leaning towards a 50 on the
> big end, so do you think that a 50-39-26 would work with the 2203? Or
> maybe a 38 middle if such a thing exists?
>
> On the back end, any old cassette I can find should work, no? I'm
> thinking maybe the long-cage Ultegra 9-speed that they put on my 5000
> by mistake, and replacing it on that bike with the short-cage. I've
> got a 12 to 27 cassette on the 5000, so what would be more suitable
> here, perhaps a 13 to 30? Can you go that high?
>
> Maury

2203 would work, but the Sora Triple 3403 would be better, since
50-39-30 is its native combination. They claim a total capacity of
22t, so a 26 might not work, but probably would. There's usually some
wiggle room.

As for the RD you use, 30 would be pushing it for the Ultegra
RD-6500GS that you have. I got a Tiagra RD-4400GS to work with a 30,
but only by flipping the B-tension screw around, to give the added
extension of the screw's head against the hanger tab. Official maximum
cog size is 27T, but a 28 would work fine. Are you going to index?
There are no off-the-shelf 13-30 9s cassettes. They have to be custom-
made by combining the parts of 2 other cassettes. There's a dead spot
between 12-27 and 11-32, selection-wise, and the 11-32 would require a
MTB RD.

Don't bother with a 38T ring, if you get a crank with a 50-39-30
combo, like the new 105 FC-5603, Tiagra FC-4503 and Sora FC-3403 all
come with. It's not enough of a difference to matter, especially if
you have a granny gear.

Good luck!

Ok, the picture is getting much clearer now.

I visited Urbane and they have a Jamis set up for touring. Low-end
grouppo, but pretty much everything I'm looking for -- drop handles
with STI, standard sized steel tubing that could be cut for break-
down, and a nice head-up geometry. I'll live with the calipers for
now, although I've never been a fan of them. The only real concern was
the front crankset, which was 53-something-30ish. I'd definitely want
to take that down a step, perhaps with the Sugino crank. All this for
$1100, which seems like a steal.

The other option they had was a Richey frameset with built-in
breakdown points. It came with a carbon disk-read front fork, and a
little less wheelbase (which I like). The frame was $1000 though, so
it would likely run me 2k for the full buildout. I'll be trolling
craigs and e-bay and see if anything turns up though.

They also had a couple of the Huffy frames, but he said it would
basically be identical to the Jamis, and only recommended that I go
that way if I wanted to do a complete build-up. Of course at that
point I'd just go with the Richey for a few more bucks, but already
with the breakdown points.

Maury

Maury Markowitz wrote:
> Ok, the picture is getting much clearer now.
>
> I visited Urbane and they have a Jamis set up for touring. Low-end
> grouppo, but pretty much everything I'm looking for -- drop handles
> with STI, standard sized steel tubing that could be cut for break-
> down, and a nice head-up geometry. I'll live with the calipers for
> now, although I've never been a fan of them. The only real concern was
> the front crankset, which was 53-something-30ish. I'd definitely want
> to take that down a step, perhaps with the Sugino crank. All this for
> $1100, which seems like a steal.
>
> The other option they had was a Richey frameset with built-in
> breakdown points. It came with a carbon disk-read front fork, and a
> little less wheelbase (which I like). The frame was $1000 though, so
> it would likely run me 2k for the full buildout. I'll be trolling
> craigs and e-bay and see if anything turns up though.

Two other options.

The Dahon Tournado uses the Ritchey frame. It's $2000, but think about
how much it'll cost for S&S couplers on a standard steel frame touring
frame (I expect that it's at least $350). See
"http://www.dahon.com/us/tournado.htm".

The Panasonic touring frame breaks down, and is available for $795. See
"http://www.yellowjersey.org/posd7.html" Beautiful lugged frame, and
threaded headset.