2 Q's: touring & Surly



Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Jonathan Kaplan
I spoke to Surly, they said April or May. My only complaints are as follows:
(1) 54cm and down are 26" wheels (they said to reduce wheel interference), and (2) the Pea soup
green color. Other than that they appear to be among the few true loaded touring frames
available.
Click to expand...

I think that it is a bummer that they are not going to do the larger sizes in 26" wheels. I was hoping to be able to find an inexpensive frame for touring that uses the 26" wheels, and then I heard about the Surly using the 26" wheels. I was disappointed when I read on Surly's website that they are using 700c wheels for the larger sizes.

Mountain bike wheels are available everywhere, and so are street tires for mountain bikes, but touring wheels and touring tires are a special order item in many places. 700c wheels on most touring bikes use the mountain bike rear freehubs with the 135 mm spacing, and touring wheels have wider rims for strength and to work with wider tires, so a regular road wheel will not be a good substitute, but a tourist using 26” rims can always use just about any mountain bike wheel.

I think Surly dropped the ball by not making all their touring frame sizes compatible with mountain bike wheels. If they had done so, then they would have one more way to distinguish their product for just about every other touring frame on the market.

Does anybody know of stock touring frames that use 26" wheels in the larger sizes?
 
"Robert Canon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Reuteler" wrote
> > that one single bike is a fantastic all-rounder. i've ridden it across [France and Texas] with a
> > full load of panniers, off-road as a cyclocross bike, to work as a commuter and on club rides.
>
> That describes my touring bike with 559 wheels! Although, when I built up
a
> fixed gear bike recently I was tempted to go 135 spacing and 559 rims for compatibility. The more
> I thought about it the more I wanted the fixie to be somewhat track bike based rather than SS MTB
> based so I went with 120 spacing and 700c rims, so far with no regrets. That might change if the
> first time I taco a rim is before I have a spare set of 700c wheels and I can't just swap in a
> spare 559 to get back on the road!
>

The other advantage of course is that some form of 26 inch tyre is available "everywhere" worldwide.
It really is a universal 2nd standard - which 700 definitely isn't in many places. I was working in
Myanmar in a small town up on the Chinese border - and yes you could get 26 inch tyres.

Hugh Fenton
 
Originally posted by Chalo
Rim availability is not really an issue, because 48 hole rims are uncommon everywhere, and that is
the smart spoke count for loaded touring.
Click to expand...

If a stronger and smaller diameter rim is used, then perhaps the required amount of spokes would be fewer.
 
Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock chainrings.
 
Originally posted by Chalo
I have done all my multi-day rides on 26" wheels. Given the choice however, I would choose 700c
every time now that there are some real fat tire options available. (Schwalbe's 700x50 and 700x60
Big Apples have changed my life.)

Comparing tires in identical widths, 700c wheels ride _much_ nicer than 26". The worse the surface
conditions, the more pronounced the difference becomes. And while there are beaucoups of stupid, anti-
functional treads for 26" tires (like, all the ones at the Wallymart in Pissenschitt, MO), almost
all 700c tires make some kind of sense for their purposes.
Click to expand...

I had not considered the ride quality because my road bike has skinny tires and my mountain bike has wide tires, so I don’t have a way of compairing the two. In addition to the larger surface area and air volume that you mention, I presume that the larger wheels roll over the bumps and potholes better due to a smaller angle of attack too.
 
"James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "scituatejohn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Does anybody know of stock touring frames that use 26" wheels in the larger sizes?
>
> The Bruce Gordon BLT-X is one option, though not a cheap one:
>
> http://www.bgcycles.com/blt.html
>
> In the UK, Thorn produce a number or 26"-wheeled tourers, though If you're USA-based, the weak
> dollar may make importing one unattractive:
>
> http://www.sjscycles.com/thornbrochure.asp
>
> James Thomson

Rivendell makes some of their frames in the smaller sizes with 26" wheels instead of 700C. I believe
the Atlantis comes with 26" wheels up to the 56cm frame size. Like the others listed, its not a
cheap option.

The cheapest way to get a 26" wheel touring bike is to convert a mountain bike. I will probably do
this someday for the fun of it. Even though I have a Trek 520 touring bike that has toured many
thousands of miles.

You can find good solid mountain bikes for $500-600 on sale. Or even cheaper used. I have a Raleigh
M600 I bought cheaply from Harris this way. To convert the bike to a loaded touring bike would
require: Nitto 25.4mm drop handlebars from Harris $25, Dia Compe 287V brake levers from Harris $60,
Shimano bar end shifters from Nashbar $50, non suspension fork from ??? for ???, extra fork crown
race for new fork so existing headset can be used, and 1.25 to 1.5" slick tires from Nashbar for
about $25. $170 or so not including the fork. Nashbar used to sell a non suspension fork for about
$40 awhile ago. I suspect bike shops would have non-suspension forks in the back room they took off
bikes for people converting to suspension. These should be fairly resonable in cost. Probably $200-
$250 and you could convert any hard tail mountain bike to a 26" loaded touring bike.
 
Sheldon Brown wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>>
>>> If you have nice fast 700c bikes, why would you want to take your loaded tourer on a club ride?
>>
>>
> Frank Krygowski asked:
>
>>
>> ?? Why not?
>>
>> I see no disadvantage in riding my Cannondale loaded tourer (my "best bike") on a club ride, or
>> any other ride.
>>
>> Sure, it's a couple pounds heavier than others' road bikes. But what the heck, I can still
>> outclimb almost all of the club, and the weight makes no significant distance on the flat.
>>
>> Aside from that, what am I losing? No significant difference in rolling resistance or air
>> resistance. (In fact, I regularly outcoast others.) I'm comfortable on long rides, probably more
>> than on a road bike. I don't need super-quick criterium handling - in fact, I don't prefer it.
>>
>> All I'm giving up, IMO, is micro-adjust gear ratios, since my gear spread is greater and my old
>> bike has fewer speeds. But that's never made a difference to me.
>
>
> Then why do you own "nice fast 700c bikes?" When would you ride them if not on club rides?

Actually, I don't own a "nice fast 700c bike." So I realize I'm violating your "If" clause, above,
and we're really not disagreeing.

But in my experience, comparing most people's idea of a "nice fast 700c bike" to a touring bike, the
difference is more in fragility than in speed. Oh, and there's usually a difference in comfort.

My commuter, my mountain bike, my folder, our tandem, my antique bike and I suppose my unicycle (if
I could ride it) all have substantial capabilities lacked by my touring bike. But a 17 pound wonder
with gossamer spokes and wristwatch parts for gearing? The riding buddies who bought those still
can't keep up with me.

I'm getting older, of course. At some point, maybe I'll blow some money on a vain attempt to keep
ahead. But I may just find some slower riding buddies instead. ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
 
scituatejohn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock
> chainrings.
>

Huh? What? Wheel/tire size, cassette/freewheel range, and chainring sizes are all unrelated. My
touring bike has 700c rims, a 12-34 cassette, and 50-39-26 rings, but I can swap out that 26 for a
20 in a heartbeat. Try to get something lower than 20x34 ;-)

Just cause MTB gearing is used by some folks for touring and MTB gruppos are more common on bikes
with 26" wheels does not mean that you cannot put a MTB gruppo on a bike with 700c wheel.

- rick
 
Rick Warner wrote:

> scituatejohn <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock
>> chainrings.
>
> Huh? What? Wheel/tire size, cassette/freewheel range, and chainring sizes are all unrelated. My
> touring bike has 700c rims, a 12-34 cassette, and 50-39-26 rings, but I can swap out that 26 for a
> 20 in a heartbeat. Try to get something lower than 20x34 ;-)

I think he was referring to the fact that for a given chainwheel/cog ratio, smaller wheels result in
a lower effective gear.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>, Russell Seaton
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"James Thomson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
>berlin.de>...
>> "scituatejohn" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Does anybody know of stock touring frames that use 26" wheels in the larger sizes?
>>
>> The Bruce Gordon BLT-X is one option, though not a cheap one:
>>
>> http://www.bgcycles.com/blt.html
>>
>> In the UK, Thorn produce a number or 26"-wheeled tourers, though If you're USA-based, the weak
>> dollar may make importing one unattractive:
>>
>> http://www.sjscycles.com/thornbrochure.asp
>>
>> James Thomson
>
>Rivendell makes some of their frames in the smaller sizes with 26" wheels instead of 700C. I
>believe the Atlantis comes with 26" wheels up to the 56cm frame size. Like the others listed, its
>not a cheap option.
>
>The cheapest way to get a 26" wheel touring bike is to convert a mountain bike. I will probably do
>this someday for the fun of it. Even though I have a Trek 520 touring bike that has toured many
>thousands of miles.

_ If you look at mountain bikes from the late 80's just before suspension forks became universal,
you find frame angles and measurements that are pretty close to the ones in the other frames
mentioned in this discussion. Look for a rigid fork and U-brake. These bikes will generally have a
longer wheelbase than most current mountain bikes and much slacker angles. The frame will be heavy,
but indestructible.

>
>You can find good solid mountain bikes for $500-600 on sale. Or even cheaper used. I have a Raleigh
>M600 I bought cheaply from Harris this way. To convert the bike to a loaded touring bike would
>require: Nitto 25.4mm drop handlebars from Harris $25, Dia Compe 287V brake levers from Harris $60,
>Shimano bar end shifters from Nashbar $50, non suspension fork from ??? for ???,

_ Quality Bike Parts for $40 or so...

> extra fork crown race for new fork so existing headset can be used, and 1.25 to 1.5" slick tires
> from Nashbar for about $25. $170 or so not including the fork. Nashbar used to sell a non
> suspension fork for about $40 awhile ago. I suspect bike shops would have non-suspension forks in
> the back room they took off bikes for people converting to suspension. These should be fairly
> resonable in cost. Probably $200-$250 and you could convert any hard tail mountain bike to a 26"
> loaded touring bike.

_ All in all, you'd probably spend more fixing up an older steel mountain bike even if you get the
frame free out of the dumpster, but you might end up with a more suitable touring bike and if you've
got one in the garage already....

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQCp/h2TWTAjn5N/lAQEhmQP/cyj5mpJKe/ooBx0OaLN674xHqhzbYrvG
zmq9CYS91k5YxwnQjEVEdj7wHVS2n31oa8kyh1NcBWTfV32slqZzBJh7VGxEMDE7
CSMhwo9o/ZVSnMp7hELyAkrVV0etnR6MA2/i81N2E69kiSlyubtZ3srNdgLpv1dI XocD5aUcnMU= =zemG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Originally posted by Rick Warner
scituatejohn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock
> chainrings.
>

Huh? What? Wheel/tire size, cassette/freewheel range, and chainring sizes are all unrelated. My
touring bike has 700c rims, a 12-34 cassette, and 50-39-26 rings, but I can swap out that 26 for a
20 in a heartbeat. Try to get something lower than 20x34 ;-)

Just cause MTB gearing is used by some folks for touring and MTB gruppos are more common on bikes
with 26" wheels does not mean that you cannot put a MTB gruppo on a bike with 700c wheel.

- rick
Click to expand...

Your 20 x 34 gear will be lower with a 25" diameter wheel than it will be with a 27" diameter wheel. I am assuming that a wheel with a 559 mm rim and a 1.5" tire has a diameter of 25" and that a wheel with a 622 mm rim and a 32 mm tire has a diameter of about 27". I think the benefit is better realized on the road crankset with standard rings, where a 30 tooth granny is not small enough for a 27" wheel, but would perhaps be okay for a 25" wheel. Customizing cranksets is cheaper than customizing frames, so perhaps 700c is the way to go.
 
Rick Warner wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Rick Warner wrote:
>>
>>> scituatejohn <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>>> Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock
>>>> chainrings.
>>>
>>> Huh? What? Wheel/tire size, cassette/freewheel range, and chainring sizes are all unrelated. My
>>> touring bike has 700c rims, a 12-34 cassette, and 50-39-26 rings, but I can swap out that 26 for
>>> a 20 in a heartbeat. Try to get something lower than 20x34 ;-)
>>
>> I think he was referring to the fact that for a given chainwheel/cog ratio, smaller wheels result
>> in a lower effective gear.
>
> A) Not what he said.

Says you.

> B) Silly irrelevance. The important thing is the ratio of chainwheel/cog and that is completely
> and totally independent of wheel size. A 36x16 ratio is just as hard/easy to pedal on a 700c
> wheel as a 26".

Um, no.

> The only thing that wheel size affects is how fast you are going for a given cadence; 700c is
> bigger so each rotation carries you further so you have a greater speed for that ratio and cadence
> combination. Effort, minus effects of friction, is the same.

Well, in the absence of acceleration, you're right in that friction is the only reason that
*any* effort is required. But in that case it wouldn't matter what gear we were in, since we
could just coast.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Rick Warner wrote:
>
> > scituatejohn <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock
> >> chainrings.
> >
> > Huh? What? Wheel/tire size, cassette/freewheel range, and chainring sizes are all unrelated. My
> > touring bike has 700c rims, a 12-34 cassette, and 50-39-26 rings, but I can swap out that 26 for
> > a 20 in a heartbeat. Try to get something lower than 20x34 ;-)
>
> I think he was referring to the fact that for a given chainwheel/cog ratio, smaller wheels result
> in a lower effective gear.

A) Not what he said.

B) Silly irrelevance. The important thing is the ratio of chainwheel/cog and that is completely and
totally independent of wheel size. A 36x16 ratio is just as hard/easy to pedal on a 700c wheel as
a 26". The only thing that wheel size affects is how fast you are going for a given cadence; 700c
is bigger so each rotation carries you further so you have a greater speed for that ratio and
cadence combination. Effort, minus effects of friction, is the same.

- rick
- rick
 
[email protected] (Rick Warner) wrote:

> The important thing is the ratio of chainwheel/cog and that is completely and totally independent
> of wheel size. A 36x16 ratio is just as hard/easy to pedal on a 700c wheel as a 26". The only
> thing that wheel size affects is how fast you are going for a given cadence; 700c is bigger so
> each rotation carries you further so you have a greater speed for that ratio and cadence
> combination. Effort, minus effects of friction, is the same.

Whoa. If it were that simple, then why don't racers use 72" wheels? Do you really think that pushing
36x16 on a 12" wheel is just as hard as with the sizes you mention?

Methinks you should give the matter a bit more thought.

Chalo Colina
 
> scituatejohn <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>Another benefit for the 26" wheels is the lower gearing without resorting to replacing stock
>>chainrings.

Rick Warner wrote:
> Huh? What? Wheel/tire size, cassette/freewheel range, and chainring sizes are all unrelated. My
> touring bike has 700c rims, a 12-34 cassette, and 50-39-26 rings, but I can swap out that 26 for a
> 20 in a heartbeat. Try to get something lower than 20x34 ;-) Just cause MTB gearing is used by
> some folks for touring and MTB gruppos are more common on bikes with 26" wheels does not mean that
> you cannot put a MTB gruppo on a bike with 700c wheel.

I thought he was referring simply to the effect of the smaller wheel . A 44x20 on a road wheel is a
59, in 26" it's a 57.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

vinyl_theif
Touring frame?? Surly / Salsa
Replies
1
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
felbur
felbur
PedalPowerPaul
Best long-distance ebike touring tips?
Replies
12
Views
57
Cycling Equipment
Jennifer Abernathy
Jennifer Abernathy
jessevan
Wind and Rain Gear for Bike Touring
Replies
12
Views
84
Cycling Equipment
louvigilante
louvigilante
swskier
Rack Systems for Touring Bikes: Durability vs. Weight
Replies
10
Views
60
Cycling Equipment
Jim
Jim
Helter75
Rack Systems for Touring Bikes: Durability vs. Weight
Replies
1
Views
158
Cycling Equipment
roadie_joe
roadie_joe
Top Bottom Back