Touring - Touring Bike Recommendation

Hi everyone - I'm a fat old man who is trying to be a skinny old man. I am pedaling to work (13 miles each way) on a 19 year old Bianchi Strada. I am looking for a good touring bicycle to commute with and to go on longer unsupported trips.

I am considering the Burley Hudson, Cannondale T2000, or Kona Sutra. Does anyone have experience with these bicycles? Any feedback? Any other models that I should consider? I willing to spend up to 3K max, including panniers, racks, etc.

I'll toss in my .02 for the Bianchi Volpe. I love mine, if I only could only have 1 bike, that would be it. Here are my reasons for the love.

1 The geometry is about 1/2 way between a 'fast road bike' and a true touring bike. Gives you a good responsive ride, without it getting twitchy on you.

2. Fairly light but not so light that strength is an issue

3. Plenty of braize ons, (3 water bottles, front and rear racks)

4. Perfectly functional mix of components, not flashy, but very functional

5. Geared fairly low, for those of us that don't have 500 watts hiding away in our legs for hills.

6. It's steel, and for a lot of people that is a major factor.

7. About 800 bucks or so.

8. Room for fenders

Downsides:
1. Canti brakes. They 'can' be a bit fiddly to adjust, but they work well

2. Some people don't like the tires that come with it, 700x32 AllTerrain-ASaurus. They are a bit noisy and the aggressive tread doesn't roll as smooth as I'd like. I've swapped mine out for Panaracer Pasela Tour Guard 700x28's.

3. The brakes mean that you really need a rear rack that mounts to both sides of the stays, but that's the way MOST are.

4 They are sold out right now. Most folks on the forum are saying that their LBS won't be getting in any till Feb or so.

I've got mine hooked up with a Tubus Vega from The Touring Store (http://thetouringstore.com/TUBUS/TUBUS%20HOME/TUBUS%20HOME%20PAGE.htm) . It's like the Tubus Fly, but uses 2 struts going from the rack to the seat stays, rather than the 1 on the Fly. (with the canti brakes, a single front mounting point wasn't really doable.

Yea, I'm biased, but like I said, it's the bike I'd grab if the house caught fire. It's also the bike I plan on using to ride the Brevet series this year.

Steve W
Who would probably grab his cats in a fire.

I think you'll like the Kona Sutra. You also might consider building a Surly Long Haul Trucker, which could be done very nicely to your tastes for between $1500-2000, leaving you plenty for panniers, lighting, and other accessories.

I am looking for a good touring bicycle to commute with and to go on longer unsupported trips.

I'll throw my .02 in as well. I just did a bunch of reading and looking around to find a bike exactly like what you describe.

The Bianchi Volpe is a great bike but it is also out of the US shops until 1st quarter of 06. Steel makes sense for the type of riding I was considering and the type of riding you describe. I had nearly decided on getting a Surly Long Haul Trucker which is a phenomenal touring bike (http://www.surlybikes.com/longhaul.html) but I was bothered by the idea of having a bike that was such a great tourer (sturdy and rugged) that it would be less of a commuter (not so nimble).

In the end, I decided to go with a Surly Crosscheck (http://www.surlybikes.com/crosscheck.html) which is generally considered to be one of the most versatile bike frames you can get. It's a tourer, commuter, cyclocross bike which can be easily converted to a fixed gear for city riding if you make that switch. After all the looking I did, I just couldn't beat the mix of durability, versatility, reputation, affordability, and desirability.

As for how I like it... can't say. It's on order. However, when I was comparing bikes many detractors spoke of the Surly's lower end components (Tiagra - the same as the Bianchi Volpe). However, when ordering from your Local Bike Shop you can specify a higher quality group of components (105s) which is what I did. You can see that build up here: http://www.surlybikes.com/virtual_CrossCheck.html My bike should come in this week and if it does I'll report back to let you know my initial thoughts.

Good luck deciding. The only thing I've found more nerve-racking than trying to decide on the right bike is having decided on one and waiting for it to arrive!! ;-)

My two bits? I'd have the bike shop install Shimano Ultegra 10 speed onto your Bianchi and then ride it to death. It is almost impossible to find a better bike then you already have for the commuting you're doing.

If the bike is beat up, have the bike shop strip it down and have it powder coated and then put on new components and a set of Mavic Equipe wheels. It will cost you about the price of a pretty good new bike but then if anything happens to the old frame you can just buy a new frame and use all of the components on it.

I had a buddy who bought a Volpe and was horribly dissatisfied. He rode it into the ground after about 1 year. The low end shifters and hubs(Shimano), bottom bracket and pedals all disintegrated. He had to abandon a TX to OR trip due to some failed part or another. He did ride it constantly (living car free and all that), but it certainly wasn't lack of proper maintenace that cause these early failures. The design idea is good, but the execution leaves something to be desired.
Although $200 or so more expensive the Trek 520 has a somewhat better parts spec. I especially dig the fact they use old school bar end shifters, which are immune to 'rattle' and aren't nearly as complex as combo brake/shift levers. Minimizing complexity is important in the long empty miles across the country one would hope to be riding.
If I were shopping I would definitely buy a used touring bike or frame. If you don't mind stripping a frame and replacing bearings/brake pads/ bar tape etc. the cost savings can be significant.

I have owned both a Surly Long Haul Trucker and a Crosscheck. They are both excellent frames. If the bike is going to be used mostly for touring, the LHT is the way to go. It is rock steady when full loaded. The Crosscheck is not quite as stable but still quite capable of carrying a full load of gear and much more versatile.

I wouldn't get an aluminum framed touring bike. (Sorry Cannondale).

You might also consider a Bruce Gordon (www.bgcycles.com).

The Long Haul's will also not be available til Feb '06, due to the new color schemes...

Here is another Oregon made bike, the Co-Motion Nor'wester. This is a wonderful bike with excellent design and workmanship, notice the braze ons for front and rear racks if you decide to take a trip. This one is made for you! Take a look:
http://www.co-motion.com/norwester.html

I have a Sutra which I built up as a flat bar commuter. As a commuter it is wonderful.

As a touring bike it lacks. I managed to crack one of the braze-ons for the rear rack. After a bunch of rigmarole with Kona Europe (they told me that over 20kg shouldn't be used on a rack mounted on the braze-ons and I was my fault that it broke...) they sent me a new frame. If this would have happened on a tour I would have been sunk.

I had to have a big shim machined to fit the rear rack on the drop out on the replacement frame. With this I should be able to carry a decent amount of weight. There is some real creative mounting happening on this bike.

Bottom line for the Sutra, in the city I love it, on a tour I wouldn't trust it.

Hi everyone - I'm a fat old man who is trying to be a skinny old man. I am pedaling to work (13 miles each way) on a 19 year old Bianchi Strada. I am looking for a good touring bicycle to commute with and to go on longer unsupported trips.

I am considering the Burley Hudson, Cannondale T2000, or Kona Sutra. Does anyone have experience with these bicycles? Any feedback? Any other models that I should consider? I willing to spend up to 3K max, including panniers, racks, etc.

Look at the Cannondale T800. It has a lower grade of components than the T2000 but it is also less expensive. Mine is a good stiff touring bike that handles well under load. It's a bit rougher to ride unloaded than most steel bikes but, for us big guys, it will handle everything that you can throw at it when going touring, including 200+ miles of dirt roads and trails out of a thousand!

One thing to consider when looking at touring bikes is that, especially for us "large" guys, you have to include the rider as well as the gear that you are going to carry. I've had steel touring bikes and they are dreamy to ride unloaded. But put up to 300 lbs of rider, gear and bike on them, and they can be a bit whippy. Not something you want on a high speed descent!

Hi everyone - I'm a fat old man who is trying to be a skinny old man. I am pedaling to work (13 miles each way) on a 19 year old Bianchi Strada. I am looking for a good touring bicycle to commute with and to go on longer unsupported trips.

I am considering the Burley Hudson, Cannondale T2000, or Kona Sutra. Does anyone have experience with these bicycles? Any feedback? Any other models that I should consider? I willing to spend up to 3K max, including panniers, racks, etc.

You could spend a lot less than $3k and get a nice bike or just stick with what you've got and upgrade it a bit. I ride a Bianchi Volpe now and its ok, the Trek 520 is more expensive, but I've heard good things about it, however, a new bike is always nice and for $3k you can get something really nice. Have you considered, Waterford, Heron or Rivendell Atlantis. You can get a frame for about $1400 and then spend a $1000 on a nice XT setup and some really good wheels.

I'm getting a new bike to replace my aging Volpe and I want it to last a lifetime so I'm investing just over $2k in it. I'm getting a custom touring frame and top of the line components, Phil Wood BB, Chris King headset, Sugino AT crank, XT gearing, White Industries hubs and Velocity Dyad rims. So you can get a real gem for the kind of money you're willing to spend, you just have to decide what level of bike you either want or need.

Cyclintom has a point there. The Strada's a nice commuting, possibly touring bike. If you do renovate it though, don't powdercoat it, paint it up in nice, bright celeste. If you have to get something new (which is always fun), first, definitely keep the Strada. Then it's going to depend on budget. I'm planning to get a Volpe when they hit USA shores, but then again, with the short trips I plan (most here would consider them an insult to the touring forum), a hub or derraileur crapping out just means the ride's over and I have to call the ol' ball-and-chain sag wagon. The Volpe's a great bike, and you can always switch out components. I like the Surly Crosscheck better, but to build it up the way I want it, it's out of my price range. The gearing on the Trek 520 is a little steep, and the Trek, Surly LHT, and Bruce Gordon's are going to be a little more sluggish (or stable, depending on how you look at it) than the Volpe or XCheck. When it comes down to frames, everything mentioned in this thread is nice stuff. It all comes down to intended use, price, and need for components.

The gearing on the Trek 520 is a little steep...

That is so true, it has a true road triple front crank, making even small hills difficult when fully loaded. Trading that out for the much smaller chainrings of a mtb crankset is a must.

That is so true, it has a true road triple front crank, making even small hills difficult when fully loaded. Trading that out for the much smaller chainrings of a mtb crankset is a must.
It works fine for CC touring and commuting, what many are used for. If you plan loaded touring have your dealer do the swap to a mountain crankset before you pick it up, most will do so for little or no extra charge, and with that the 520 is a great touring rig for the money..

I saw two Fuji steel touring bikes for sale on Ebay recently . . . one was for about 1K and the other was a little more because it had better components and even a <gasp> carbon fork. They even came with a rear rack. However, Trek's dedicated tourer--the 520--has the better frame angles: slacker and has a longer wheelbase too but the gearing isn't low enough. I'd be tempted to get the 520 but I'd want the shop to switch out the cranks with a triple XTR mtn. bike crank. :)

Speaking of Rivendell Atlantis, my new commuter/do it all bike will be here tomorrow! woohoo!

Here's the pics they sent me before they packed it up and gave it to the guy's in brown...

http://www.culturepilot.com/users/d2create/Atlantis/AtlantisBlackSV.jpg
http://www.culturepilot.com/users/d2create/Atlantis/AtlantisBlackDetail.jpg

The most important thing I think would be to figure out whether your body type really leans you towards a custom. Go to one of the fitting sites, and find out if you get some info back like you need a 56CM for the legs but a 62 for the reach, or vis versa. If your body frame is normally proportioned, then you probably fit off the rack. If not I would find someone to make you a touring frame that fits, even if you have to move over some components for a while. I think the money needs to go into a frame first, then medium priced components, then inexpenssive bags and racks. For road touring that seems to be the best payoff. However if you fit off the rack, you can get a good frame for about 360.

From the description of what you do, I would only go for a full touring package, not some semi race, or cyclocross job. There are many subtle feature in the differnet frame types, and cruising along whether comuting or touring is what touring frames do, and they are plenty fast.

Are the Burley and Kona really touring bikes? I think I looked at those, but they are kinda crossovers. I think canondale would be good. And Surly too. Out your way you should look into some of the local custom makers just to get your mind in the game.

D2create - that is a seriously nice looking bike! Awesome!

Beautiful Atlantis, there.

Really like that color scheme.

Indeed, that Atlantis looks excellent.

Thanks guys, i'm super excited. It's the first/only black w/cream Atlantis. I'll take pics this weekend and i'll post them here as well as the commuting forum so you guys can see some of the nice details. :)

mike - what's wrong with your strada? i'm still touring on my '72 strada (luckily, i've stockpiled 5-speed touring freewheels). i know that the bike geometry of the strada has changed over the years. the newer models have a shorter chainstay and over-all wheelbase. the newer ones are more of a light-tourer. at 19 years old, you've got an "old" bike, but in another 5 or 10 it'll be a "classic". mine has nice lugs on it, which only top-of-the-line bikes have now adays. i had the whole frame chromed and professionally repainted some years ago, and it wasn't all that expensive. unless your frame has been damaged, i'd put a fraction of the cost of a new bike into replacing old mid-level parts with quality parts on an as-needed basis.

Mike, avert your eyes from the very pretty new Atlantis and stay focused on your Strada.

D2: that is one fine looking bike.

Many of you have suggested that I stay with the Strada. Other than the fact that purchasing a new toy is fun, I had a crash some months ago and bent and replaced the front fork and slightly bent the frame. I still need to get a better front fork with a more forward rake because now I have a toe overlap issue with slow speed turns where I didn't have that before. My plan right now is to get myself a christmas present touring bike and see what I can do to upgrade the Strada and keep it. I definitely want to change the gearing to be more "hill friendly". The ding on the frame is not major or even noticable but I can feel a crease on the back of the tube the front fork goes through. (I hit a concrete post head on - first the front wheel and then the top of my head - thank god I was wearing a helmet - Coasting without paying attention)

If I may suggest, the Gunnar Rock Tour is a pretty good bike. I got a custom one last year and rode it like mad for the 2nd half of the summer, including 2 decent sized tours on it. Fabulous bike, IMO. http://www.gunnarbikes.com

Here's what a Surly Long Haul Trucker looks like as a commuter...

Hi everyone - I'm a fat old man who is trying to be a skinny old man. I am pedaling to work (13 miles each way) on a 19 year old Bianchi Strada. I am looking for a good touring bicycle to commute with and to go on longer unsupported trips.

I am considering the Burley Hudson, Cannondale T2000, or Kona Sutra. Does anyone have experience with these bicycles? Any feedback? Any other models that I should consider? I willing to spend up to 3K max, including panniers, racks, etc.

I have a lot of experience with the T2000 ( www.loa2004.crazyguyonabike.com )

The only things that need to be changed on that bike out of the box are the chain rings and brake pads. As with most touring bikes the stock gearing is too high and it comes with crappy pads, switch to cool-stop pads. This is a great bike! The bias against aluminum bikes on this forum is completely unfounded.

May I suggest the king of touring bicycles -= the Mercian King of Mercia. Hand built in Derby UK not a Taiwan Asian generic bike. Lugged steel not aluminum (ever try to repair aluminum) and also a very comfortable ride (good aluminum frames are acceptable, but a good steel frame is veryyyyyyyyy comfortable). They also have many in stock so you don't have to go the custom route and wait 3 months. You can order one Monday and have it Wednesday ! It's really The King. I had one a few years ago and sold it on impulse. Bad decision. Three years later I just bought a new one.

May I suggest the king of touring bicycles -= the Mercian King of Mercia. Hand built in Derby UK not a Taiwan Asian generic bike. Lugged steel not aluminum (ever try to repair aluminum) and also a very comfortable ride (good aluminum frames are acceptable, but a good steel frame is veryyyyyyyyy comfortable). They also have many in stock so you don't have to go the custom route and wait 3 months. You can order one Monday and have it Wednesday ! It's really The King. I had one a few years ago and sold it on impulse. Bad decision. Three years later I just bought a new one.

I'm really glad that you enjoy your bike, it's great when you find a bike that is just right for you!

"Lugged steel not aluminum (ever try to repair aluminum)"
But....... your comments about aluminum are baseless. Aside from the factory that made both the aluminum and lugged Reynolds 631 steel frame I would not trust any "side of the road", BFE welder to touch either one of them. Unless you can find a very skilled welder with a high end wire fed welder, he will blow right through the thin steel walls of your frame, and try to fine someone you would trust with the brazing of your lugged frame. Besides, what on your fine steel frame is going to fail? If you wreck so bad as to need welding or re-brazing of your frame, you are more than likely in the hospital anyway. Most companies will warrant any failures, but if you try to get someone else to work on it, it will probably void the warranty.

(good aluminum frames are acceptable, but a good steel frame is veryyyyyyyyy comfortable).

Making such generalizations about ride quality based on material is silly. The same steel frame that feels great in a 62 cm frame size will be stiff in a 53 cm. I would rather have a stiff frame (very energy efficient) with a sprung Brooks saddle than an inefficient springy frame, regardless of the frame material.

Not the place or time for a steel vs aluminum debate, but aren't most bikes built for long distance loaded touring steel?

Fit is very important, but if you have your choice of a good fitting steel vs good fitting alum for extended touring, which one would you choose if both fit equally? I'd never recommend an aluminum bike to anyone as the first choice - I always recommend that that they try and find a good fitting steel bike as their first choice.


I'm really glad that you enjoy your bike, it's great when you find a bike that is just right for you!

"Lugged steel not aluminum (ever try to repair aluminum)"
But....... your comments about aluminum are baseless. Aside from the factory that made both the aluminum and lugged Reynolds 631 steel frame I would not trust any "side of the road", BFE welder to touch either one of them. Unless you can find a very skilled welder with a high end wire fed welder, he will blow right through the thin steel walls of your frame, and try to fine someone you would trust with the brazing of your lugged frame. Besides, what on your fine steel frame is going to fail? If you wreck so bad as to need welding or re-brazing of your frame, you are more than likely in the hospital anyway. Most companies will warrant any failures, but if you try to get someone else to work on it, it will probably void the warranty.

(good aluminum frames are acceptable, but a good steel frame is veryyyyyyyyy comfortable).

Making such generalizations about ride quality based on material is silly. The same steel frame that feels great in a 62 cm frame size will be stiff in a 53 cm. I would rather have a stiff frame (very energy efficient) with a sprung Brooks saddle than an inefficient springy frame, regardless of the frame material.

May I suggest the king of touring bicycles -= the Mercian King of Mercia. Hand built in Derby UK not a Taiwan Asian generic bike. Lugged steel not aluminum (ever try to repair aluminum) and also a very comfortable ride (good aluminum frames are acceptable, but a good steel frame is veryyyyyyyyy comfortable). They also have many in stock so you don't have to go the custom route and wait 3 months. You can order one Monday and have it Wednesday ! It's really The King. I had one a few years ago and sold it on impulse. Bad decision. Three years later I just bought a new one.

A little short in the chainstays for a real touring bike (typical of kings: lots of posing but little substance ;) ) At 16.9" those of use with larger feet would have troubles with carrying bags. Plus it would make the bike hard to handle on downhills. I'm sure it's a nice bike to ride but having ridden a loaded, short chainstay bike down some of our Colorado mountains, it's not an experience I want to repeat.

Plus, don't assume that what works for you, works for everyone. I've ridden steel bikes and, while I like the ride, they are whippy for me. The Cannondale, I currently have, is more stable for a big guy like me. I wouldn't necessarily suggest it for some one who is light weight but for us big guys it works.

A little short in the chainstays for a real touring bike (typical of kings: lots of posing but little substance ;) ) At 16.9" those of use with larger feet would have troubles with carrying bags. Plus it would make the bike hard to handle on downhills. I'm sure it's a nice bike to ride but having ridden a loaded, short chainstay bike down some of our Colorado mountains, it's not an experience I want to repeat.

Plus, don't assume that what works for you, works for everyone. I've ridden steel bikes and, while I like the ride, they are whippy for me. The Cannondale, I currently have, is more stable for a big guy like me. I wouldn't necessarily suggest it for some one who is light weight but for us big guys it works.

While a few are stocked, most Mercians are made to order. You want longer chainstays? Just ask.

Not the place or time for a steel vs aluminum debate, but aren't most bikes built for long distance loaded touring steel?

Fit is very important, but if you have your choice of a good fitting steel vs good fitting alum for extended touring, which one would you choose if both fit equally? I'd never recommend an aluminum bike to anyone as the first choice - I always recommend that that they try and find a good fitting steel bike as their first choice.

All else being equal, especially bike fit, I agree with you there, I choose Alum., lighter and does not rust.

Now that's a BICYCLE !!!! BEAUTIFUL !!!!!!


Speaking of Rivendell Atlantis, my new commuter/do it all bike will be here tomorrow! woohoo!

Here's the pics they sent me before they packed it up and gave it to the guy's in brown...

http://www.culturepilot.com/users/d2create/Atlantis/AtlantisBlackSV.jpg
http://www.culturepilot.com/users/d2create/Atlantis/AtlantisBlackDetail.jpg

Does the 0.39 inch difference between, say, the Rivendell Atlantis and the Mercian KOM chain stay length make that big of a difference (stock size 430 compared to 440) in downhill handling???


A little short in the chainstays for a real touring bike (typical of kings: lots of posing but little substance ;) ) At 16.9" those of use with larger feet would have troubles with carrying bags.

Does the 0.39 inch difference between, say, the Rivendell Atlantis and the Mercian KOM chain stay length make that big of a difference (stock size 430 compared to 440) in downhill handling???

There is a lot more than a 0.39" difference between the Mercian and what I would call a touring bike. My Cannondale has 18" (457mm) chainstays which is more the norm, with a good range being from 450 (a little short) to 457mm. I've toured on bikes with 440 chainstays and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. On a bike with 440mm chainstays, I constantly clipped the panniers and I don't have overly large feet. On down hills, the quicker geometry made the bike difficult to handle with a load (all rear, not the best).

There is a lot more than a 0.39" difference between the Mercian and what I would call a touring bike. My Cannondale has 18" (457mm) chainstays which is more the norm, with a good range being from 450 (a little short) to 457mm. I've toured on bikes with 440 chainstays and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. On a bike with 440mm chainstays, I constantly clipped the panniers and I don't have overly large feet. On down hills, the quicker geometry made the bike difficult to handle with a load (all rear, not the best).

There is quite a range of chainstay lengths on what manufacturers call touring bikes, but a good average
is 45cm. Longer and its a loaded tourer, shorter and its more randonnee oriented.

Heron Wayfarer 45.5 cm
Rivendell Atlantis 45.5 cm
Bilenky Midland 45.5 cm
Trek 520 45cm
Cannodale T200 45.7cm
Bianchi Volpe 43cm (actually more of a cross bike)
Waterford Adventure 44.5cm
Fuji 44cm
Bruce Gordon BLT 44 or 45cm
Beckman Sakkit 47.5 cm
KOM 43cm

I think the issue with the KOM is that in the UK touring doesn't necessarilly involve 75lbs of gear in multiple panniers. The tradition is far more Randonnering in style with a saddlebag and hence the spec KOM has shorter chainstays and more upright head and seat angles than in US designed touring bikes. Of course you can change any spec on a KOM at no extra cost. Personally I like to keep weight to a minimum. With tents now weighing 2lbs and sleeping bags 1.5lbs its possible to do unsupported touring with a load under 30lbs which means that panniers can be small and the bike a bit more sporty. My tourer has the following gemetry making it great for touring, commuting and day rides in the country.

Chainstay 44cm
seat angle 72 degs
heat angle 72 degs
seat tube (c to top) 55cm
horizontal top tube 55.5cm
BB drop 8cm
Fork rake 4.8cm

There is a lot more than a 0.39" difference between the Mercian and what I would call a touring bike. My Cannondale has 18" (457mm) chainstays which is more the norm, with a good range being from 450 (a little short) to 457mm. I've toured on bikes with 440 chainstays and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. On a bike with 440mm chainstays, I constantly clipped the panniers and I don't have overly large feet. On down hills, the quicker geometry made the bike difficult to handle with a load (all rear, not the best).

How can you possibly tour on ONLY 457mm chainstays? You need a good 470mm like an '85 Trek 620 (which happens to be what I ride)!

:)

How can you possibly tour on ONLY 457mm chainstays? You need a good 470mm like an '85 Trek 620 (which happens to be what I ride)!

:)

Why does it always come down to length. My chainstays are only 44cm, but they are quite wide and I know what to do wth them

There is quite a range of chainstay lengths on what manufacturers call touring bikes, but a good average
is 45cm. Longer and its a loaded tourer, shorter and its more randonnee oriented.

Bruce Gordon BLT 44 or 45cm

Praise Be. Someone finally mentioned my tourer/commuter, with a full set of his custom racks, just over $2100. Check out his web site www.bgcycles.com He can tweak the frame dimensions for a little more. I commute at 260 pounds bike-me-gear and it is solid on high speed descents. Not as nimble as a miyata 1000 or very early model Bianchi Volpe two tourers that have crumbled beneath me. Recently I rode past Bruces' shop in Petaluma and he noticed my handlebar was bent. (did I tell you I am hard on bikes?) He replaced it at cost.
He is not the curmudgeon some people indicate. You can get lugged frames and other stuff from him.

Actually in checking the Rivendell and Mercian Web sites, that's exactly the difference in the stock Atlantis and KOM models - 0.39" (10mm) in a 56cm frame. I can't believe that about 1/4" would make the bike more steady down hill. I'd hardly call .39" a quicker geometry bike!!!

On steel being the best choice for a touring bike, well just to quote the Rivendell Web site:

"All of our frames are steel and lugged. Not because lugged steel frames are delightfully charming in an old-fashioned way, but because steel is the best material for a lightweight structure that you trust your life to; and the strongest and most beautiful frame joints are lugged."

Aluminum has it's place, but for an all-around touring bike, it's hard to beat a good steel frame like a Mercian, Rivendell, or most of the other touring bikes out there. Everything else being equal steel would be the better choice for a tourer.




There is a lot more than a 0.39" difference between the Mercian and what I would call a touring bike. My Cannondale has 18" (457mm) chainstays which is more the norm, with a good range being from 450 (a little short) to 457mm. I've toured on bikes with 440 chainstays and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat. On a bike with 440mm chainstays, I constantly clipped the panniers and I don't have overly large feet. On down hills, the quicker geometry made the bike difficult to handle with a load (all rear, not the best).

Actually in checking the Rivendell and Mercian Web sites, that's exactly the difference in the stock Atlantis and KOM models - 0.39" (10mm) in a 56cm frame. I can't believe that about 1/4" would make the bike more steady down hill. I'd hardly call .39" a quicker geometry bike!!!

On steel being the best choice for a touring bike, well just to quote the Rivendell Web site:

"All of our frames are steel and lugged. Not because lugged steel frames are delightfully charming in an old-fashioned way, but because steel is the best material for a lightweight structure that you trust your life to; and the strongest and most beautiful frame joints are lugged."

Aluminum has it's place, but for an all-around touring bike, it's hard to beat a good steel frame like a Mercian, Rivendell, or most of the other touring bikes out there. Everything else being equal steel would be the better choice for a tourer.

Praise Be. .....and then prophet Rivendell created the steel bike frame and it was good. The skies cleared, clouds parted and all were happy. Amen

Actually in checking the Rivendell and Mercian Web sites, that's exactly the difference in the stock Atlantis and KOM models - 0.39" (10mm) in a 56cm frame. I can't believe that about 1/4" would make the bike more steady down hill. I'd hardly call .39" a quicker geometry bike!!!

On steel being the best choice for a touring bike, well just to quote the Rivendell Web site:

"All of our frames are steel and lugged. Not because lugged steel frames are delightfully charming in an old-fashioned way, but because steel is the best material for a lightweight structure that you trust your life to; and the strongest and most beautiful frame joints are lugged."

Aluminum has it's place, but for an all-around touring bike, it's hard to beat a good steel frame like a Mercian, Rivendell, or most of the other touring bikes out there. Everything else being equal steel would be the better choice for a tourer.

The Atlantis is not a loaded touring bike. 440mm chainstays are way too short for a loaded bike. The difference between the Mercian and a Cannondale is almost a full inch. That inch makes a big difference when you put a load on a bike and head down a hill.

As for steel being the "best material" for lightweight frames, that depends. For large people with heavy loads, a steel bike with conventional tubes isn't necessarily the best choice. We can over power the frame rather easily. A large diameter aluminum tubed bike is stiffer and safer since it doesn't shimmy on downhills as much. It also climbs better since the frame isn't as whippy. I could never climb standing on my steel touring bike with a load. I could feel the frame twisting under me. The Cannondale I can rock back and forth like an unloaded bike even fully loaded!

Edit: I was incorrect in my assessment of the Atlantis not being a bicycle suitable for loaded touring. Information that I was provided was incorrect - specifically that the chainstays are 440mm long- which lead me to a incorrect conclusion. I appologize for the error.

All other opinions I have expressed in this thread I still hold.

For large people with heavy loads, a steel bike with conventional tubes isn't necessarily the best choice. We can over power the frame rather easily.

I wanted to say thanks for the (unintentional) encouragement. I am a large rider looking to ride a few centuries and a weekend tour or two this year. I recently bought a 1989 Cannondale touring bike that is in pretty good shape that I am tuning up over the winter (the bike hadn't been used in several years, and needs a good cleaning and lube plus a few small items).

I had been leaning toward a steel frame because of the general comments I keep reading about them, but did not hesitate when I saw a used Cannondale in my size for $80, based in part on reading your comments in earlier threads. They must be nice bikes for some purposes, or Cannondale would have dropped the line by now. :)

I have not even been out on the bike yet, but look forward to the spring when I will hit the road and start training with it, and in short order do some longer rides. I hope to get some time with it on the trainer before that.

The Atlantis is not a loaded touring bike. 440mm chainstays are way too short for a loaded bike. The difference between the Mercian and a Cannondale is almost a full inch. That inch makes a big difference when you put a load on a bike and head down a hill.

As for steel being the "best material" for lightweight frames, that depends. For large people with heavy loads, a steel bike with conventional tubes isn't necessarily the best choice. We can over power the frame rather easily. A large diameter aluminum tubed bike is stiffer and safer since it doesn't shimmy on downhills as much. It also climbs better since the frame isn't as whippy. I could never climb standing on my steel touring bike with a load. I could feel the frame twisting under me. The Cannondale I can rock back and forth like an unloaded bike even fully loaded!

I hear you talk about chainstay length a lot, yet I wear size 13 shoes and have no problem with the 440mm on my bike. Perhaps you should consider re-evaluating your rack, how it is mounted and how you attach your panniers?

As far as steel, at 230 and and high as 250 a few times, I shave never 'overpowered' my steel bikes and indeed much prefer them over aluminum. No shimmy, no whippy climbs, no problem standing on fully loaded climbs.

So think it's best to say that longer chainstays and aluminum work well for you, but that others' results may vary. ;)

I hear you talk about chainstay length a lot, yet I wear size 13 shoes and have no problem with the 440mm on my bike. Perhaps you should consider re-evaluating your rack, how it is mounted and how you attach your panniers?

As far as steel, at 230 and and high as 250 a few times, I shave never 'overpowered' my steel bikes and indeed much prefer them over aluminum. No shimmy, no whippy climbs, no problem standing on fully loaded climbs.

So think it's best to say that longer chainstays and aluminum work well for you, but that others' results may vary. ;)

Got a bit confused. Sorry. The Mercian that Markwebb was talking about was the bike with chainstays that are way too short for touring. Those are 430mm (16.9"). The 440mm stays are short, too short for my taste, but are at least in the range of a decent touring bike. The main reason I harp on longer stays is that that heels clipping the panniers is the #1 complaint I hear about loaded touring. I've had problems with it myself on shorter bikes. I don't have to re-evaluate my rack or how it's mounted or how my panniers are attached because I have a bike with long stays that keep the bags out of my way without having to cantilever them off the back of the wheel. They ride over the axle or even a little in front of it and the bike handles better that way...for me, although I suspect that other's would agree.

As for shimmy, that's probably complaint #2. Over 25 or 30 mph, the steel bikes I've ridden shimmy horribly with a load. It makes for a very frightening ride! The Cannondale I currently have will do 50 mph easily without doing shimmy, so I'll stick to it and suggest it for any big powerful riders carrying a lot of stuff.

And, finally, anything anyone says anywhere in the Bicycle Forums should be prefaced with "it works for me. Your experience may be different."

I just dont think 0.39" of chainstay makes any difference in how a bike performs going downhill, as was originally postulated. I guess it may make a difference with shoe sizes, as in if I have a small shoe size x the 430 may be great, where your shoe size may be 1 size larger or two (don't know how shoe sizes compare to 0.39" difference) and that 0.39" would make a diffeence, and still someone else with size 18 boats and huge panniers and stuff everywhere would need way longer stay length to avoid problems with hitting the packs. I guess the stock Rivendell Atlantis or Mercian KOM would not be a good choice for some people with big feet who do extended fully loaded tours, but would seem to be ideal for day rides or short credit card unloaded tours, as the chainstay length would not be an issue.

I chose my Mercian KOM for centurys and short weekend trips without a load - the 430mm chain stay is just a wee bit longer than more racy bikes, but still not so long as to make me feel like I'm riding some huge machince. It should make my rides as comfortable as possible. I guess it's is just what works for me, and readers will have to evaluate our advice and make their decisions.

Got a bit confused. Sorry. The Mercian that Markwebb was talking about was the bike with chainstays that are way too short for touring. Those are 430mm (16.9"). The 440mm stays are short, too short for my taste, but are at least in the range of a decent touring bike. The main reason I harp on longer stays is that that heels clipping the panniers is the #1 complaint I hear about loaded touring. I've had problems with it myself on shorter bikes. I don't have to re-evaluate my rack or how it's mounted or how my panniers are attached because I have a bike with long stays that keep the bags out of my way without having to cantilever them off the back of the wheel. They ride over the axle or even a little in front of it and the bike handles better that way...for me, although I suspect that other's would agree.

As for shimmy, that's probably complaint #2. Over 25 or 30 mph, the steel bikes I've ridden shimmy horribly with a load. It makes for a very frightening ride! The Cannondale I currently have will do 50 mph easily without doing shimmy, so I'll stick to it and suggest it for any big powerful riders carrying a lot of stuff.

And, finally, anything anyone says anywhere in the Bicycle Forums should be prefaced with "it works for me. Your experience may be different."

I was disscusing touring geometries recently and it was mentioned that the chainstay length issue is over rated and that of equal, or even more importance, is the Trail of the bike; the distance between where the wheel hits the ground and a line drawn from the fork to the ground. Bigger the Trail the more stable the bike, something between 50 and 60 mm seems good for a tourer. Of course Traila and chainstay length also contrbute to the wheelbase and the longer this the more stable the bike, an extreme example being Beckmans Sakkit

http://www.coinet.com/~beckman/bikeframes.html

which has 47.5 cm chainstays. Personally if you are hitting the panniers on 44cm chainstays then you need to adjust the panniers, rather than getting longer chain tays

[QUOTE=nun]I was disscusing touring geometries recently and it was mentioned that the chainstay length issue is over rated and that of equal, or even more importance, is the Trail of the bike. . ./QUOTE]


Of related importance, or at least characteristic, is a longer wheelbase and lower bottom bracket. The BB on my old Trek, for example, I think was about 5.5" compared to modern road bikes of about 10" :)