What in your mind makes perfect loaded touring bike?

[Pat Lamb]

Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> I've been happy light touring with my Co Motion Nor'wester. I've never
> ridden anything with a couple of panniers that climbs better. When I got it,
> I figured I would never been doing more than credit card touring, but if I
> were into the complete, self-contained touring, I'd sure be looking at the
> slightly beefier Americano (see: http://www.co-motion.com/Amerc.html). These
> bikes can be customized, if you're worrying about things hurting these days,
> so it can be built to fit and be comfy just for you. Plus, they can be built
> with S and S couplers, if you're planning to take them around the country,
> or the globe.

Claire,

IIRC you got the Co-motion about a year ago, replacing your REI bike
(was it a Randonee?). Now that you've had the new bike a while, can you
give us and expanded review? I'd like to know what makes the new bike
so wonderful, so much better than what it replaced, and there aren't
many people on these boards who can expound on such things as well as
you can. So, what's it got, how's it ride, what are the little things
you never knew you wanted, and what are the remaining little annoyances
(if any)?

Pat

 

[[email protected]]

"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been happy light touring with my Co Motion Nor'wester. I've never
>ridden anything with a couple of panniers that climbs better. When I got it,
>I figured I would never been doing more than credit card touring, but if I
>were into the complete, self-contained touring, I'd sure be looking at the
>slightly beefier Americano (see: http://www.co-motion.com/Amerc.html). These
>bikes can be customized, if you're worrying about things hurting these days,
>so it can be built to fit and be comfy just for you. Plus, they can be built
>with S and S couplers, if you're planning to take them around the country,
>or the globe.

Thanks!

I will look into them

Look nice!

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Vermeulen <[email protected]> wrote:

>Do you have an ability to borrow or rent a recumbent

No I don't

I wish I did tho

 

[[email protected]]

"Smokey" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My vote goes to Bruce Gordon. He's been at it a long time and knows
>what it takes to make a durable bike that will handle a load well. I
>also like the design of his racks and panniers. I'd probably get the
>Rock 'n' Road, since it's the only one that comes in 59cm (my size),
>but if you can use a smaller frame the BLT would be a good way to go,
>too. His prices aren't bad, either, for what you are getting.

Yeah he is def one I'm considering

You think the BLT worthy?

Or go for more quality?

 

[Chris Z The Wheelman]

Perfect Touring bike?

1) Fits you.

2) Fits your [touring] needs.

3) Is durable, easily serviced (especially on the road).

4) Is maintainable (financially as well as physically).

5) All else is either personal or moot.

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

 

[Chris Z The Wheelman]

What I got is a 1987 Schwinn Voyager road touring frame and forks
(lugged Columbus steel) equipped with hand selected and road proven
componentry: Half-step + granny gearing w/7 speed UniGlide cogs and
BioPace, Sugino AT triple cranks, Brooks B17 leather saddle, Bar-con
shifters (indexed rear, friction front), Dia-Compe cantilever aero brake
levers / Tektro "Mini-V" brakes, clipless pedals (EggBeaters),
StrongLight A7 (needle bearing) headset, Hand made and laced leather
handlebar wrap and brake hood covers.

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

 

[Thomas Wentworth]

The "perfect" touring bicycle is the one YOU LIKE. Could be a three speed.
Or, an old 10 speed. A Mtn bike, anything.

I have toured all over and met hundreds of bicycle tourists. I have seen so
many different bicycles it boggles the mind.

For me; I own three bicycles I have toured on. My old Trek touring bicycle
circa 1984. To me this is about the perfect touring bicycle. It has plenty
of low gears and is tough enough. But, one big problem. It has 27" wheels.
For the life of me, I still go nuts when I think that the bicycle industry
got away with changing the wheel size and not offering a "fix" for all the
27" wheel riders. I tried to put on a 700c wheel and the brake won't work.

Then, I decided to tour on a Mtn bike. So, I go out and buy a Bridgestone
MTN. Good bicycle, and I toured all over on it BUT: the Mtn is heavy.

A couple of years ago I see a Cannondale Touring bicycle on sale, end of
season deal. I must say the fact that the Cannondale is so light appealed
to my old body. What a beautiful bicycle. Light, fast, etc.

So, all three worked.

Oh, I forgot .. my first touring bicycle. A Schinn Top Touring 10 speed. I
thought this was the cat's meow. What a heavy lug. But, in its day it was
sweet.

Still, my favorite is the old 1984 Trek. This bicycle was built for touring
when touring was the "thing" to do. It is in my cellar. When I look at it
I actually get misty. The Trek carried me long and far, it introduced me to
some great people, allowed me to go to places.

---------------
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What "features" in your mind make the perfect loaded
>> touring bike?
>>
>> Is it upright or recumbent?
>>
>> Converted mt bike?
>>
>> Steel? Ti?
>>
>> Does it fold? Or not fold?
>>
>> Bottom line.... I'm wanting to take my first ever bike
>> tour next summer. I plan to spend the winter
>> researching and acquiring equipment
>>
>> Recumbents look appealing to me since I'm 48 and things
>> "hurt" more than in past.... but have never had one and
>> "just don't know".
>>
>> So....what YOU think makes good touring bike feature
>> wise?
>
> P.S., I've crossposted this over to rec.bicycles.rides, where the touring
> folks hang out, since I didn't see it posted over there.
>
> --
> Warm Regards,
>
> Claire Petersky
> http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
> See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
>

 

[Chris Z The Wheelman]

Group: rec.bicycles.tech
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 10:53pm (EDT+4)
From: [email protected] (Thomas Wentworth)

>Still, my favorite is the old 1984 Trek.
>This bicycle was built for touring when
>touring was the "thing" to do. It is in my
>cellar. When I look at it I actually get
>misty. The Trek carried me long and far,
>it introduced me to some great people,
>allowed me to go to places.

The word "trek" means voyage of discovery. I believe touring bikes is
where the company got it's start, Just as Cannondale got it's start
making fine touring bags.

- -
Comments and opinions compliments of,
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <pVLGg.8508$cQ.5371@trndny07>,
"Thomas Wentworth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Still, my favorite is the old 1984 Trek. This bicycle was built for
> touring when touring was the "thing" to do. It is in my cellar.
> When I look at it I actually get misty. The Trek carried me long and
> far, it introduced me to some great people, allowed me to go to
> places.

It's an old friend, and that's what meeting old friends does. Cheers
for a great post.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> What "features" in your mind make the perfect loaded
> touring bike?
>
Forget perfection for now and get out on a short tour or two and see
what you like/need. Use whatever you've currently got for a road bike.
My first couple of multiday tours were done on regular road bike with
a 53/39 set of rings (yes, the steeper hills were a challenge.) It
didn't even have the braze-ons to mount racks. On the first tour I
used a seatpost rack (not recommended) and on the second I used an Old
Man Mountain rack that mounted at the rear axle.

Or consider a low cost or used touring bike for the first couple of
seasons while you get a feel for your preferences. A new Trek 520 can
be had for what - maybe a $1,000? Or if lucky, you might find
something used for just a few hundred. The key is to get out there.
Shoot for perfection after you've done it a few times and know what you
want.

Pat

 

[R Brickston]

On 23 Aug 2006 05:05:15 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> What "features" in your mind make the perfect loaded
>> touring bike?
>>
>Forget perfection for now and get out on a short tour or two and see
>what you like/need. Use whatever you've currently got for a road bike.
> My first couple of multiday tours were done on regular road bike with
>a 53/39 set of rings (yes, the steeper hills were a challenge.) It
>didn't even have the braze-ons to mount racks. On the first tour I
>used a seatpost rack (not recommended) and on the second I used an Old
>Man Mountain rack that mounted at the rear axle.
>
>Or consider a low cost or used touring bike for the first couple of
>seasons while you get a feel for your preferences. A new Trek 520 can
>be had for what - maybe a $1,000? Or if lucky, you might find
>something used for just a few hundred. The key is to get out there.
>Shoot for perfection after you've done it a few times and know what you
>want.
>
>Pat

The Trek 520 is a good choice for an all around tourer. Ebay prices
run from $200+ for an edgier late '80's to early '90's and up to about
$950 for something later, mod to late '90's on up. I saw recently
(since sold) a new left over '04 at an LBS for $899.

The problem I've found is that the unmodified 520's come with a
50/42/30 crank and 11-32 rear cog. Depending on your weight and how
heavy your going to load it up, you may want to go with some lower
gearing.

 

[[email protected]]

R Brickston wrote:
> The problem I've found is that the unmodified 520's come with a
> 50/42/30 crank and 11-32 rear cog. Depending on your weight and how
> heavy your going to load it up, you may want to go with some lower
> gearing.

Although I acknowledge that it was tough going on steeper hills with
39/26 being my lowest gear, it's hard to imagine needing something
lower than a 30/32 combo. For one thing, I'm not sure I could keep the
bike upright moving at that low a speed. That gearing combo at a
moderate cadence must produce about a 4 mph speed.

Pat

 

[R Brickston]

On 23 Aug 2006 08:13:39 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>R Brickston wrote:
>> The problem I've found is that the unmodified 520's come with a
>> 50/42/30 crank and 11-32 rear cog. Depending on your weight and how
>> heavy your going to load it up, you may want to go with some lower
>> gearing.
>
>Although I acknowledge that it was tough going on steeper hills with
>39/26 being my lowest gear, it's hard to imagine needing something
>lower than a 30/32 combo. For one thing, I'm not sure I could keep the
>bike upright moving at that low a speed. That gearing combo at a
>moderate cadence must produce about a 4 mph speed.
>
>Pat

Well, if you're 225 and the bike is around 25, plus about 35 lbs of
stuff and your going up your 22nd nice long, never ending hill at the
end of a five hour day, you'll be cursing the fact that you didn't opt
for the 34 instead of the 32.

 

[Smokey]

[email protected] wrote:
> "Smokey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My vote goes to Bruce Gordon. He's been at it a long time and knows
> >what it takes to make a durable bike that will handle a load well. I
> >also like the design of his racks and panniers. I'd probably get the
> >Rock 'n' Road, since it's the only one that comes in 59cm (my size),
> >but if you can use a smaller frame the BLT would be a good way to go,
> >too. His prices aren't bad, either, for what you are getting.
>
> Yeah he is def one I'm considering
>
> You think the BLT worthy?
>
> Or go for more quality?

I think the BLT would definitely be worthy of consideration. The
website (www.bgcycles.com) will tell you the differences between the
BLT and the Rock 'n' Road. The important things, like the frame and
gearing, are the same. The only reason I would go with the Rock 'n'
Road is because it's the only one available in a 59cm, which happens to
be my size.

Smokey

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Pat Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>> I've been happy light touring with my Co Motion Nor'wester. I've never
>> ridden anything with a couple of panniers that climbs better. When I got
>> it,
>> I figured I would never been doing more than credit card touring, but if
>> I
>> were into the complete, self-contained touring, I'd sure be looking at
>> the
>> slightly beefier Americano (see: http://www.co-motion.com/Amerc.html).
>> These
>> bikes can be customized, if you're worrying about things hurting these
>> days,
>> so it can be built to fit and be comfy just for you. Plus, they can be
>> built
>> with S and S couplers, if you're planning to take them around the
>> country,
>> or the globe.
>
> Claire,
>
> IIRC you got the Co-motion about a year ago, replacing your REI bike
> (was it a Randonee?).

No, it was a Strada, the basic road bike.

> and there aren't
> many people on these boards who can expound on such things as well as
> you can.

You're most flattering.

> So, what's it got, how's it ride, what are the little things
> you never knew you wanted, and what are the remaining little annoyances
> (if any)?

Things I especially like: butter-like road feel; climbs well with a load.
This bike feels sturdy (maybe this is what others report as stiff?) without
feeling heavy.

Extra feature I've really enjoyed: hub generator light. No more overloaded
or burned out batteries. It's great. I have a LED light as a suppliment
during the winter. Downside is that there is some drag. If I hadn't done
nearly all my long rides (RAPSody http://www.rapsodybikeride.com/ this
weekend will be the one exception) on the tandem this season, I strongly
would have considered having another wheel built for events and tours.

Anything I would have changed? Maybe I would have paid for a swankier paint
job? I just got a basic solid color. But I was afraid something fancy would
eventually become tiresome. I also probably shouldn't have bothered
springing for the tubus rack. A cheaper rack would have done me fine. I was
sort of into the look of chrome colored fenders, chrome colored rack,
though.

I also wonder if one day I'd really want the S and S couplers -- so far, no.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[David]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:23:11 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>What "features" in your mind make the perfect loaded
>touring bike?
>
>Is it upright or recumbent?
>

Riding an upright or recumbent uses different leg muscles. Upright
uses mostly the quads until you start climbing where the glutes and
hamstrings will be called for. Whereas with recumbents, you will be
using mostly the hamstrings. If you are a runner, then a recumbent
will be the easiest to transition to bike wise.

>Converted mt bike?
>

It's getting popular because of a number of things, mainly the
availability of "TIRES". Interesting enough, 700c hybrid tires can be
hard to come by even in the the popular states of Oregon and
California, whereas 26" replacement tires are plentiful. I thought
this would only happen mostly in Asia, but too many stores now either
carry beefy 26" slicks or skinny and super light 700x23c or 25c x lite
tires which isn't ideal for touring. Anything wider like 35c or 38c
need to be special ordered in some stores!!

Bad if you're in the middle of tour, because a few friends of mine
had already been caught with this problem and yes, even in Oregon.

>Steel? Ti?
>

Both are good materials. Steel is cheaper, can be made stiffer and as
compliant. Ti is nice, but not necessary for touring wise.
You want a frame that is beefy, especially on the top tube section.
The thicker wall on the top tube will resist the fish tailing effect
when you have too much load loaded on the rear of the bike.

>Does it fold? Or not fold?
>

Or split apart with a S&S coupler. If you travel a lot, consider a
Bike Friday folder or a S&S coupler. IF and Co-Motion plus a few
others offer the S&S option. Very easy to split for a newbie.

>Bottom line.... I'm wanting to take my first ever bike
>tour next summer. I plan to spend the winter
>researching and acquiring equipment
>
>Recumbents look appealing to me since I'm 48 and things
>"hurt" more than in past.... but have never had one and
>"just don't know".
>

There are plus and minuses with upright and recumbents. You need to
weight that into consideration. If you have a chronic bad back, then
a recumbent is more suitable for you. Otherwise, an upright with a
professional fit is a good choice.

David.