Help finding a suitable touring frame? (long)

R. Brickston said:

...
It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

I find comfort is optimum with the bottom bracket 15 to 20-cm above
the height of the seat. No problems with handing either above 5-kph.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Luigi de Guzman said:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:14:15 +0000, landotter wrote:

<discussion on trail snipped>

Kogswell Cycles has a handy front-end geometry/trail calculator on their
website:

http://www.kogswell.com/geo.php

And here is a link to a discussion of trail and it's effects from Tom
Kellogg, who really knows whereof he speaks:

http://spectrum-cycles.com/612.htm

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
fenders.

RBrickston said:

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

I guess the best way to describe what I want is a very sporty, drop-bar
commuter that will act mostly as a practical road bike the majority of
the time, and a light tourer a couple of times a year.

By "light tourer" I mean either two or three day trips from Atlanta to
Birmingham (destination: parents' pantry) or the Bike Ride Across
Georgia (BRAG), which is fully supported over 7 days.

\\paul

Paul Myron Hobson said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
fenders.

RBrickston said:

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

I guess the best way to describe what I want is a very sporty, drop-bar
commuter that will act mostly as a practical road bike the majority of
the time, and a light tourer a couple of times a year.

By "light tourer" I mean either two or three day trips from Atlanta to
Birmingham (destination: parents' pantry) or the Bike Ride Across
Georgia (BRAG), which is fully supported over 7 days.

\\paul

Surly Pacer? clearance for 28mm tires with fenders, much much more
upright & sporty than any of the tourers, and probably cheaper than
equivalent "club bikes" (Independent Fabrications Club Racer, for
instance, or the Heron Road or Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen or Ramboulliet)

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

RBrickston said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Paul Myron Hobson said:

landotter wrote:
> I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> Cross Check.

Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).

My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
them back up.

Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
fenders.

A CX bike works fine as a road-race bike as well. You give up a tiny
amount of aerodynamics, and some will argue that cantis are a little
fussier to set up than caliper brakes (and they'll probably be right).

But so what? It's otherwise the perfect sawzall bicycle.

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
handle well, more or less.

On one hand, I have been racing, commuting, and club riding on a CX most
of this year. I don't feel any substantial handling differences between
it and my early-80s Miyata tourer (set up as a fendered, racked
commuter). It's lighter.

On the other hand, I suspect my Nashbar "X" CX frame of being rather low
in the BB by CX standards.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RBrickston said:

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
handle well, more or less.

I don't think the BB height is that big a deal either. It would be an
extra 0 to 5cm compared to a racer or tourer. This would be similar to a
track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.

Paul Myron Hobson said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
fenders.

RBrickston said:

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

I guess the best way to describe what I want is a very sporty, drop-bar
commuter that will act mostly as a practical road bike the majority of
the time, and a light tourer a couple of times a year.

I think we understand what you're after, something the British would
call an Audax bike. Possibly the rest of Europe calls it that too, I'm
not sure.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3598

I agree with the suggestion for the CX bike, as the entry level versions
are often similar to this but made to cope with slightly worse terrain.
The high end versions are purely for C racing and lack mounts for
bottles, racks, etc.

anth said:

This would be similar to a
track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.

So is *that* why I can't seem to trackstand my touring bike?

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Luigi de Guzman said:

anth said:

This would be similar to a
track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.

So is *that* why I can't seem to trackstand my touring bike?

No.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RBrickston said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Paul Myron Hobson <[email hidden]> wrote:

> landotter wrote:
> > I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> > light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> > your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> > Cross Check.
>
> Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
> 75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
> cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
> see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).
>
> My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
> now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
> decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
> them back up.

Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
fenders.

A CX bike works fine as a road-race bike as well. You give up a tiny
amount of aerodynamics, and some will argue that cantis are a little
fussier to set up than caliper brakes (and they'll probably be right).

But so what? It's otherwise the perfect sawzall bicycle.

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
handle well, more or less.

On one hand, I have been racing, commuting, and club riding on a CX most
of this year. I don't feel any substantial handling differences between
it and my early-80s Miyata tourer (set up as a fendered, racked
commuter). It's lighter.

On the other hand, I suspect my Nashbar "X" CX frame of being rather low
in the BB by CX standards.

If the OP is exactly and precisely like you, there is the solution.

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

So is *that* why I can't seem to trackstand my touring bike?

No.

Drat!

Actually, I'm having trouble with fender/toeclip overlap, so I can't yank
the front wheel over far enough. Fooey.

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

I can second the Surly Pacer. It accepts wide tires up to 32 or 28 mm
with fenders. It is very comfortable, and I have carried ~30-40 lbs on
the Blackburn expedition rack that I have mounted without problems.

Toshi

anth said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

RBrickston said:

It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
handle well, more or less.

I don't think the BB height is that big a deal either. It would be an
extra 0 to 5cm compared to a racer or tourer. This would be similar to a
track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.

The reason you want a low BB on a touring bike is so you can "dab"
easier, making starting and stopping with a heavily loaded bike much
easier.