Thoughts on best touring bike?



Should have added why I said "don't spend a lot of money on a touring
bike" is because the more you spend typically the less you get in a
hurry. Does that makes sense?

Deminishing returns set in on road bikes around $900. Meaning you get
a lot less for every penny spent beyond that amount. Touring bikes
it's about $650 or so.

Weight is the primary reason why touring bikes are cheaper and such a
silly way to quickly throw away money when spending a great deal.
While it would be nice to own any bike that is as strong as steel, but
weighs nothing...it's not ever going to be the case. Touring bikes are
heavier for a reason. They are built to go miles upon miles without
incident. Meaning no broken spokes or warped wheels. No flats if it
can be helped. Able to carry heavy loads. RELIABLE is the word.

Randolf
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Do you know anyone that wants to buy a titanium MT
> bike... habanero?


I, like many others, would like a Ti MTB. Most of us have a lot of
demands beyond that spec. So you need to give a few more details if
you're seriously interested in selling.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

One of the most time-consuming things is to have an enemy. -E.B. White,
writer (1899-1985)
 
On 19 Jun 2006 07:56:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>heavier for a reason. They are built to go miles upon miles without
>incident. Meaning no broken spokes or warped wheels. No flats if it
>can be helped. Able to carry heavy loads. RELIABLE is the word.


A single broken spoke shouldn't matter and generous clearances mean a
banged up wheel isn't such a problem.

You don't want it crippled from crash damage when you are miles from
anywhere so maybe you don't want brifters, nice though they are.
 
dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Do you know anyone that wants to buy a titanium MT
>> bike... habanero?

>
>I, like many others, would like a Ti MTB. Most of us have a lot of
>demands beyond that spec. So you need to give a few more details if
>you're seriously interested in selling.


Ok

Bought it from Habanero in 2001

has Shimano LX group and Surly front fork

never hardly ridden as I bought it a bit small and have
never retro-fitted it with riser stem and bars to get
proper fit. I think its a 52 cm frame

have decided to just sell it...take my loss...and get a
touring bike instead. Probably a Bruce Gordon.... don't
know yet
 
dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Do you know anyone that wants to buy a titanium MT
>> bike... habanero?

>
>I, like many others, would like a Ti MTB. Most of us have a lot of
>demands beyond that spec. So you need to give a few more details if
>you're seriously interested in selling.


Oh...paid $1400 new

Hope some of that info helps

I'm not really "up" on the specs or technology as I've
not ridden in years and haven't kept up on groupos etc
 
On 19 Jun 2006 07:56:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Deminishing returns set in on road bikes around $900. Meaning you get
>a lot less for every penny spent beyond that amount. Touring bikes
>it's about $650 or so.


Forgive my curiosity, but where do you find a touring bike for $650?
The ones I've seen pretty much start around $800-900, unless you're
getting an end of the year closeout.

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
Closeout is right. Why pay premiums? Not to mention a lot of touring
bikes fall well below $650...Mercier Galaxy for one. If you think
touring bikes BEGIN at $800 then you've bought into the marketing.

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2006 07:56:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Deminishing returns set in on road bikes around $900. Meaning you get
> >a lot less for every penny spent beyond that amount. Touring bikes
> >it's about $650 or so.

>
> Forgive my curiosity, but where do you find a touring bike for $650?
> The ones I've seen pretty much start around $800-900, unless you're
> getting an end of the year closeout.
>
> Pat
>
> Email address works as is.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Wilfred Kazoks" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I don't ride a MTB so I can't say more from my own experience. I

>
> Question... have you found that touring bike pretty
> much covers ALL the types of riding you do well?
>
> Can you commute on it? Go exploring on dirt and gravel
> roads on it, etc?


For a long time it was the only bike I had. There's something to be said for
the flat bar bike in the city. It makes it a little easier to maintain a
"heads up" position and stay on the brake levers . I like that when there
are a lot of parked cars i'm passing.

It's a small difference. I think a good tourer makes a good city commuter.
Especially if you carry stuff. I never felt comfortable with a backpack on
the bike.

I don't think it is suitable for offroad riding. dirt roads are ok if they
aren't too soft but if you ride over sand even a little it doesn't like it.

If you are not a racer and not intending to ride the rough stuff then a good
conventional long wheelbase tourer is a good choice for getting around on.

Wilfred
 
On 20 Jun 2006 07:29:03 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Closeout is right. Why pay premiums? Not to mention a lot of touring
>bikes fall well below $650...Mercier Galaxy for one. If you think
>touring bikes BEGIN at $800 then you've bought into the marketing.


If I point out a few flaws in this strategy...

First, there's no surfeit of touring bikes in stock in most markets.
If I bet I could find a touring bike in my size within a week, I'd be
looking at two small areas in the US. I heard there are two more.

Second, you've got to catch the closeout in a narrow time frame. In
at least one of the areas touring bikes are popular, you may have one
month out of the year when the bikes are on sale at closeout prices.
For four months after that, the dealers won't have a tourer at any
price.

I really wonder how many touring bike sales are missed because they
aren't in stores for people to try, and sales people actively
discourage touring bikes in favor of whatever they have in stock. My
personal opinion is that a tourer is the standard by which other road
bikes should be judged; YMMV.

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
Whoever said you have to define "touring" first is dead right. You'll
get, as you're seeing, a zillion opinions. Here's mine. And by
"touring" I mean the full-meal deal: No sag, just you, all your gear
and the open road. Indefinitely.

1. Steel frame. Heavier than aluminum, yeah, but more durable. In
general, more comfortable to ride when you're going 70 miles a day or
more. What brand is a matter of personal preference, but, really, there
are a jillion possibilities. True touring bikes take a beating, so
don't spend a lot of money getting something pretty. If you're an
average-sized person (that is, not a midget, not a giant and limbs in
proportion to your frame), an off-the-rack model will do fine, and for
considerably less than $1,500. I'd look for something used--you'll save
huge, huge money--then customize it with select components, paying
careful attention to wheels and gearing (see below). If you look at
hard-core tourists, the folks who live on their bicycles and travel for
months at a time, very few have bikes that cost more than a thousand
bucks. They're riding Treks or equivalent, and they're spending what
they save on the road, which is as it should be. I use an ancient
Peugeot PX10 from the early 70s for touring, and I wouldn't trade it
for a Mercian or a Waterford or anything else, no matter the cost. Why?
Because it works. It fits. I can take it down to the tiniest ball
bearing and put it back together again in a city park. It looks like
****, but it works. It also underscores an important point: Racing
bikes today are totally different than they were three decades ago, but
not so for touring bikes, at least, when it comes to frame geometry:
Long wheelbase, decent amount of fork rake, roomy chainstays. There's
no advantage to buying the latest and greatest because the core
principles haven't changed.

2. KISS (keep it simple stupid). You're gonna be in the middle of North
Dakota or the equivalent of nowhere some day and something's gonna
break. Make sure you can fix it, because that next bus stop/bike shop
might be a long haul. For my money, that means leaving the
fancy-schmanzy disc brakes and STI shifters at home. Friction levers (I
prefer downtube, but bar-ends are fine also) and either cantilevers or
calipers. Any fool can figure out how to fix these, and spare parts are
light and few.)

3. Panniers front and rear, with low-riders in front. Can't emphasize
it enough: Balancing the load is critical, and you need front panniers
to do that. And don't bother paying more for waterproof ones. That's
why God invented ziplocks and waterproof stuff sacks. Waterproof
panniers weigh a ton. Sure, we're not riding the Tour de France here,
but paying more--and, more importantly, carrying more--when there are
lighter and less expensive ways to accomplish the mission doesn't make
sense. I'm also astounded by what racks weigh these days. Admittedly,
I'm an old-school guy, but I've never had a Blackburn break on me, and
I've pounded 'em.

4. Bomb-proof wheels. You know the kind of wheels they make for
tandems? Get those, 48 spokes if possible. May seem like overkill, but
busted spokes in the boonies suck. There is no wheel too strong when it
comes to full-loaded touring. If you're an adventurous sort, sooner or
later you're gonna find yourself on a dirt road. Make sure you have
wheels up to the task.

5. Fenders, kickstand, lights. Fuggedaboudit. You've gotta save weight
somehow, and you do that by leaving these off. Carry a clip-on red
flasher ($10 or so) for emergencies and a cheap-o headlight that clips
on and off a handlebar-mounted bracket that can double as a flashlight
when you make camp. If it rains, put on your GoreTex. That's why you
brought it.

6. Gearing. If you're older than 35, make sure you've got a
ridiculously low bail-out gear. 28t in front and 32t in back isn't
absurd. Unless you're very, very fortunate, whatever bike you get isn'
t going to have the right gearing for your style of touring. Be
prepared to buy new chainrings and a new back cogs. You can scrimp on
any number of things, but do not scrimp on gearing or on wheels.
Period.

7. Drop bars. If you're gonna ride on the road, leave the upright stuff
to the mountain bike set.

There will be, I'm sure, a lot of disagreement with the above. Fine.
Everyone has their own experiences and opinions. This is what works for
me



Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 07:29:03 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >Closeout is right. Why pay premiums? Not to mention a lot of touring
> >bikes fall well below $650...Mercier Galaxy for one. If you think
> >touring bikes BEGIN at $800 then you've bought into the marketing.

>
> If I point out a few flaws in this strategy...
>
> First, there's no surfeit of touring bikes in stock in most markets.
> If I bet I could find a touring bike in my size within a week, I'd be
> looking at two small areas in the US. I heard there are two more.
>
> Second, you've got to catch the closeout in a narrow time frame. In
> at least one of the areas touring bikes are popular, you may have one
> month out of the year when the bikes are on sale at closeout prices.
> For four months after that, the dealers won't have a tourer at any
> price.
>
> I really wonder how many touring bike sales are missed because they
> aren't in stores for people to try, and sales people actively
> discourage touring bikes in favor of whatever they have in stock. My
> personal opinion is that a tourer is the standard by which other road
> bikes should be judged; YMMV.
>
> Pat
>
> Email address works as is.
 
"bruceinillinois" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Whoever said you have to define "touring" first is dead right. You'll
>get, as you're seeing, a zillion opinions. Here's mine.


I see

What's your opinion of a folding tourer such as Bike
Friday?

Do you feel those hinges introduce complexity and
potential failure points in the bike that is not worth
dealing with?

Bottom line...would you rather NOT have a folding bike
for touring?
 
Folding bikes is for people who have too much time on their
hands...think about that!

Get a REAL bike and start biking. Think no one can disagree that the
Mercier Galaxy is a mucho deal with everything you need. You can even
swap out the crank for a moutain crank if you plan on going over the
rockies.

Randolf
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Folding bikes is for people who have too much time on their
> hands...think about that!
>
> Get a REAL bike and start biking. Think no one can disagree that the
> Mercier Galaxy is a mucho deal with everything you need. You can even
> swap out the crank for a moutain crank if you plan on going over the
> rockies.
>
> Randolf


A folding bike is nice if you partially commute by train... otherwise
it's not a good idea. A folding bike makes compromises with strength
and weigth and most have issues with Cable routing due to their frame.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
([email protected]) wrote:
> "bruceinillinois" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Whoever said you have to define "touring" first is dead right. You'll
> >get, as you're seeing, a zillion opinions. Here's mine.

>
> I see
>
> What's your opinion of a folding tourer such as Bike
> Friday?
>
> Do you feel those hinges introduce complexity and
> potential failure points in the bike that is not worth
> dealing with?
>
> Bottom line...would you rather NOT have a folding bike
> for touring?


A mate of mine did a cross-US ride on his Bike Friday in 2003.

<URL:http://www.bikerevuk.com/rob/tourindex.html>

The foldy bits didn't seem to cause him any problems.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Ernesto, give me that Kit-Kat, or I will kill you.
 
"Tuschinski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>A folding bike is nice if you partially commute by train... otherwise
>it's not a good idea. A folding bike makes compromises with strength
>and weigth and most have issues with Cable routing due to their frame.


Hmm...not something to have when on the road out in the
sticks huh?
 
I most definitely would not favor a folding bicycle for serious
touring. Right upfront, I will confess that I have never ridden a
folding bicycle. But here's my logic:

Yes, a coupler DOES, it seems to me, introduce an unneeded complexity.
Beyond that, a coupler, it seems to me, contributes superflous weight.
I also wonder whether a coupled frame would be as stiff as a
non-coupled frame. While bicycle touring includes considerable highs,
there are few things as depressing and hard to deal with as riding
hungry/thirsty up a mountainside through terrible weather. You've
really got to dig deep to get through those low moments. Looking down
and seeing a coupler that adds weight, no matter how slight, is at the
least a psychological bummer.

So what's the advantage? Well, the only one, it seems to me, is for
shipping on rail or air. I'd much prefer stuffing my bike into a
hardshell travel case (available for $200 or so) that offers plenty of
protection. (Myself, I've just used cardboard bicycle shipping boxes
picked up for free at the LBS and had no trouble on Greyhound or
airlines, but that's just me). You're not going to be doing this very
often (recall my definition of touring--long, self-supported
expeditions)--figure less than 1 percent of your time on tour will be
on a train/plane/ship. I wouldn't favor tailoring my bicycle to such a
miniscule percentage of my time on tour. Sure, you might get charged a
few extra bucks for the hardshell case, but the difference can't
possibly be that much. So, you have the case shipped by a friend to the
terminal, use it, then ship it back to the friend, who ships it to the
next terminal you'll need it at. The cost will be, I'm sure, more than
offset by the reduced amount you'll spend for a traditional frame.
Finally, look at what the pros use: Heinz Stucke, on the road since
1962, at 335,000 miles and counting, uses (of all things) a
three-speed. Incredible--but not a folding bike. Joe Bowen, recently
completed a 14,000-mile trek around America, rode a Trek 520. Do some
googling--there are numerous long-distance touring sites out there--and
you'll find that virtually no one uses folding bikes for serious global
touring. There's a reason for that, some of which, I suspect, I think I
intuitively know...
[email protected] wrote:
> "bruceinillinois" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Whoever said you have to define "touring" first is dead right. You'll
> >get, as you're seeing, a zillion opinions. Here's mine.

>
> I see
>
> What's your opinion of a folding tourer such as Bike
> Friday?
>
> Do you feel those hinges introduce complexity and
> potential failure points in the bike that is not worth
> dealing with?
>
> Bottom line...would you rather NOT have a folding bike
> for touring?
 
Just checked out the pictures of the Bike Friday folding bike, and I'm
even more convinced it's a bad idea for extended touring (recognizing,
of course, that some folks will disagree and point out that folks have
ridden these across the country). The first thing that grabbed me was
the wheel size. If nothing else, strikes me that it would be a lot
tougher to find decent tires for that contraption than for a
standard-size 700c (best option) or 27" (second best). Guess this falls
into the KISS department: Ride something that you can easily fix
yourself and for which parts are widely available.


Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> ([email protected]) wrote:
> > "bruceinillinois" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Whoever said you have to define "touring" first is dead right. You'll
> > >get, as you're seeing, a zillion opinions. Here's mine.

> >
> > I see
> >
> > What's your opinion of a folding tourer such as Bike
> > Friday?
> >
> > Do you feel those hinges introduce complexity and
> > potential failure points in the bike that is not worth
> > dealing with?
> >
> > Bottom line...would you rather NOT have a folding bike
> > for touring?

>
> A mate of mine did a cross-US ride on his Bike Friday in 2003.
>
> <URL:http://www.bikerevuk.com/rob/tourindex.html>
>
> The foldy bits didn't seem to cause him any problems.
>
> --
> Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
> Ernesto, give me that Kit-Kat, or I will kill you.
 
bruceinillinois wrote:
> Just checked out the pictures of the Bike Friday folding bike, and I'm
> even more convinced it's a bad idea for extended touring (recognizing,
> of course, that some folks will disagree and point out that folks have
> ridden these across the country). The first thing that grabbed me was
> the wheel size. If nothing else, strikes me that it would be a lot
> tougher to find decent tires for that contraption than for a
> standard-size 700c (best option) or 27" (second best). Guess this falls
> into the KISS department: Ride something that you can easily fix
> yourself and for which parts are widely available.
>
>


I'd be willing to bet that the 20" (ETRTO 406) tires on the Bike Friday
bikes are more available worldwide than 700C tires. They're the common
standard for most kid's bikes.

Bike Fridays are ridden the world over. They've got a worldwide
community, several members of which spend months at a time touring. I
don't think wheel size is the limitation you imagine it.

Also, the question of "widely available" tires is largely moot given
the ease of cross-country overnight shipping. A friend of mine broke
the rear triangle on his Fold Rush recumbent while on tour in
Pennsylvania. He was able to call the factory and have a replacement
shipped to the local bike shop overnight, have the bike repaired, and
rejoin his group having lost *one* day in the process.

Jeff "And I don't even *own* a Friday!" Wills
 
"bruceinillinois" <[email protected]> wrote:

>you'll find that virtually no one uses folding bikes for serious global
>touring.


Well the engineer in means recognizes that perfection
is achieved by taking away things... not adding to
them.

In other words..... the folding bike friday has 'some"
added complexity just in it very nature of having hinge
points etc.

But maybe the folding aspect means I can take the bike
friday to exotic touring locals that I cant easily with
a traditional non-folding tourer?

Again...what you think?
 
[email protected] wrote:
> the folding bike


You can get a conventional bicycle that breaks down to a compact size
with S&S couplers. The only real disadvantage is the price: a premium
of something like $400. Look at <www.sandsmachines.com>.

There are others that do the same, but all are not created equal. The
Ritchey Breakaway has received bad reviews here.

The main advantages are ease of air travel, and perhaps, to be able to
take your bicycle up to your hotel room. Not bad but then the vast
majority of touring is done without them.

0