CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Leisure

Do you ever need a "touring bike"?

(13 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Dave
    Member

    Some of you may know that we've been off for a few weeks riding in Cuba.

    While there were two bikes built up on the Surly LHT frame, the other three were not touring bikes at all - a cross bike with pannier rack and mudguards, a hybrid town bike with pannier rack but no mudguards, and my work bike, downsized onto 26" wheels (and it has track-ends, so I used a QR skewer derailleur hanger to give me a primitive 9 speed drivetrain).

    Three bikes had triples, one double and my single chainring. Quite a mix of bar types and finishing kit.

    We rode a fair distance (over 800km) on a mix of road surfaces from sublime to extremely poor - some parts made the Glentress forest tracks look good and were far steeper than anything you'd ride up at Glentress too.

    Probably this is better material for a blog post than a forum topic, but it definitely left me wondering what the advantage of "proper" touring bikes is (beyond the obvious, that I could buy a shiny new bike to add to the collection).

    Is it mainly sales hype by gear companies?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. steveo
    Member

    If you can get comfortable on whatever bike your riding then I'd say use it. I've done multi day trips on my "racer" with just my Nelson for luggage and although I was getting sore arms towards the end it was fine.

    I suppose the other question is how much luggage do you need, cc touring a Carradice/ rear Panniers is loads. But if you're camping multiday with a tent, clothes, a few days worth of food, etc you're very quickly going to need larger panniers and probably front panniers to help balance the weight at which point a touring bike is probably needed.

    Touring bikes have been around long enough now that I'd say any hint of sales hype has long since dissipated.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    Depends what you mean by touring bike...!

    The traditional (eg Dawes Galaxy) was basically 'not a racing bike' with a longer wheelbase (combined with shallower frame angles) for 'more comfort' - plus room for 'fatter' tyres (at least 28c).

    In addition mudguards and racks.

    The default tourer had drop bars for 'more riding position'.

    Since the advent of mountain bikes there have been more options to consider - notably 26" wheels and straight bars.

    Personal choice gets more complicated!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. steveo
    Member

    Additionally don't the Europeans have a different idea about "Touring Bike" probably closer in design to a hybrid.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. steveo
    Member

    There is also the what ever you can get your hands onschool of thought:
    http://tomsbiketrip.com/how-to-go-cycle-touring-for-the-price-of-a-round-of-drinks-part-1/

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. EddieD
    Member

    Bikes are bikes - manufacturers put designations on them, but often they're grand for very different purposes - my Streetmachine is meant to be a tourer, I use it for day rides and freight, the Croix is a cyclocross bike, I use it for commuting, and the Chameleon is meant to be a light weight road bike, I use it as a tourer.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Additionally don't the Europeans have a different idea about "Touring Bike" probably closer in design to a hybrid.

    Often flogged here as "trekking bikes", usually very upright, rising stems, suspension seat posts and butterfly bars. I've seen them with very expensive Rohloff hub gears and hydraulic rim brakes.

    I think maybe touring bike could also be styled as "a bike to tour on" and not neccessarily be the same thing.

    At the end of they day, you want comfort - a very personal thing which differs widely between riders - you want the thing to be fairly reliable, you want it to be solid enough for the roads and loads you're intending to ride on and you want it to have enough things to hang your luggage off of.

    I have a "touring bike" because one came up on ebay in "my" colours and it was a round-the-corner cash sale of a nearly-new bike at a knockdown price so too good a chance to miss. Ultimately it's a strong steel frame with heavily spoked wheels, generous gearing, relaxed geometry, wide tyre clearance and plenty lugs to hang things off. It also has the as-standard appaling cantilever rim brakes. This could quite easily describe a "cross" bike though. Or a "hybrid".

    There are small refinements that manufacturers will provide to make it a "real" tourer, such as a bottle cage below the downtube, a holder for spare spokes on the rear triangle, braze-ons for a lowrider rack on the fork and double eyelets on front and rear dropouts to separate the hanging of mudguards and racks. None of these are really essential as you can get round not having all or any of them with cable ties and p-clips.

    To many people it would still be a "racer" because it has drop bars. I wouldn't want to race on a 15kg frame though...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. wingpig
    Member

    The only thing stopping my EBC Continental 'racer' frame (with the original narrow C/Al fork replaced with eyeletted Cr/Mo) from being effective for touring/load-carrying was the lack of rear wheel clearance which no amount of after-market modification could solve, which was a shame seeing as it had both rear mudguard and rack eyelets, but not all usability aspects of the finished bicycle are absolutely constrained or determined by the frame.

    Seeing as one person's light tourer is someone else's winter trainer/audax bike und ein Fahrrad für das Trekking von anderen Personen it'd be nice if frames/bicycles were also described via their values along various axes (perhaps four: load-carriage capability, comfort potential, suitability for travelling quickly and suitability for hostile terrain), which would allow the underlying adaptability of each device to be clearer at the point of sale.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. Roibeard
    Member

    I suppose for longer distances in the wild, either being unbreakable, or being able to be repaired by the bush blacksmith, are useful features, hence steel rather than aluminium racks, etc.

    But few tourers will be spending that amount of time/distance away from "civilisation".

    So, it's probably not about the bike as a bit of time on Crazy Guy on a Bike should confirm.

    Robert
    (who's toured no further than the wilds of Norn Iron...)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. algo
    Member

    I've actually been spending way too much time pondering this question as I'm told I'm allowed to spend £3.52 on a new bike for my imminent 40th. As a result I will simply unload inarticulately what is currently floating round my head on the subject.

    I'd really love a touring bike for what I want to do, but reiterating what all the other wiser people have said - the main thing is that it is comfortable enough to ride for a long time and is easy to fix if you get stuck somewhere between campsites (for example). My current bike is great but is aluminium (a bit stiff) and has too attacking a position for my liking for long rides, so I'm looking out for a suitable steel frame from which I could build on, and have some option of hand position.

    The other thing I would like is disc brakes - I will be pulling a trailer with little people in and even with good ashima v-brake pads I have still had a few moments coming downhill in the wet. On a tourer this means you want the brazings for the disc calipers to be on the chain stay so that it doesn't interfere too much with what racks and guards you can fit. Also I'd want them to be mechanical so they are easy to fix if necessary - I've been eyeing up the TRP spyre calipers as they are genuine mechanical dual piston.

    There are other advantages/disadvantages to disc brakes (rim wear etc...), but I realise I'm diverting this off-topic now into a much-debated area...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. Smudge
    Member

    My lht ticks most of the above boxes, for me, a tourer is a do almost anything bike, not as quick as a road bike but not too far behind, not as good in the mud as an mtb, but can handle surprisingly bad trails, loaded and without worrying about it snapping in half(!) Loads of heel clearance and I can load it up with crazy amounts of luggage before it starts to flex. Comfy and with low enough gears to drag heavy loads/trailer/whatever up hills even when I'm tired.
    Mine has V brakes on rather than cantis so has plenty stop. If I were to replace/refurbish it, I'd probably go for the disc ready frame, but I can't really as the hope hubs are too nice to discard :-o

    Anyway, few people really "need" a tourer, but it can make life nicer, and of an audax/road bike, a folder, a tourer and an MTB the order of most used is tourer/folder (equal top), road bike, MTB, and the last two hardly see any use :-/

    As our colonial cousins like to say, go figure!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. allebong
    Member

    I was planning a short tour a couple of years back - which sadly fell through, but not before I'd halfway sorted a bike out for it. I got a 2005 Kona Fire mountain cheap off a friend, still in it's more or less original setup. I added slicks, a sturdy rear rack, full guards with the aid of P clips on the suspension fork, bottle cages, ergo grips and bar ends etc. Also upgraded to hydraulic discs - of all the brakes I've ever run, those have been by far the least bothersome, and will stop you no matter what. Turned into a really nice and extremely comfortable bike - never did get to properly tour on it, but it has seen a good few thousand miles over various day trips and general outings. Had a shiny new transmission fitted recently and is due for some tlc soon for the spring and summer. Still want to tour with it at some point but I'm dependent on the plans of others.

    Among the better frames for the basis of a solid tourer are 90s steel hybrids and mtbs, which can be seen in the wild still plodding on after decades of use. I have a Trek 700 sport that is currently in the guise of a pieced-together road bike but it'd also make an excellent tourer with the right bits.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. Smudge
    Member

    Yup early mtb frames can make an excellent base for a "tourer". I had an old rigid steel Trek mtb frame (rescued from a bin chute!) Which I stripped and had Hendersons blast and paint, I then built it up with mtb wheels/gears, "road" tyres, bar end shifters on drop bars, comfy saddle full mudguards, rack etc and hey presto I had a tourer. That later was reframed/rebuilt as my Surly LHT.

    Forgot to add earlier, schraeder valves on my tourer deliberately, less faff when you're cold and tired and hp airlines can be found at most small garages to return them to full pressure if required (with suitable caution!)

    The other thing about off the shelf tourers is that they can make excellent commuters, a new/returnee cycle commuter *could* by a 'cross bike, add mudguards, rack etc and have a great bike, or they could buy (for instance) an EBC tourer and have the choices simplified.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin