Touring - Best bike for touring

Hey!

I'm know this question has been asked before by many, but I still need advice.

I'm interested in buying myself a touring bike for Christmas. I was originally looking towards the Trek 520, yet the lbs recommended the Cannondale T800 over the Trek. Both seem to be very good bikes and have different advantages to them. Does anyone have advice about which might be a better choice?

Also, I am finding a +$1000 price tag a little hard to swallow. As much as I would love a new bike that is suited for touring, could anyone recommend a cheaper bike that could work? I haven't started touring yet, but am really interested in trying it out this coming year. Right now I ride a 15 year old Schwinn road bike that is perfect for me, but certainly would never handle hills if loaded down with gear. Would it be insane to look into just changing the gearing of my old Schwinn, or would it be better to just suck it up and spend the money?

I'm really looking for a good excuse to buy a new touring bike, so any recommendations to that effect would be quite welcome! After all, I would rather buy the perfect bike for more money than go with something cheaper and then want to upgrade in a year or two. If I'm going to end up spending the $1000 anyway, I might as well do it now.

Thanks!

Teresa

Unless the shop is an authorized dealer for both brands, I'd discount their recommendation of C'dale over Trek. Not that they might not be right, mind you, just that they'd be biased for reasons that have nothing to do with your best interests.

They're both good bikes, but they're very different from one another. The most important factor is fit, and it's *so* important as to trump everything else. If your current bike is a perfect fit, then it's easy: the new bike should yield the same hands-to-butt-to feet geometry as the current one. (The new bike may achieve that with a slightly different combination of dimensions, but that's not terribly important.)

I've ridden both bikes, and they do have different ride qualities, particularly when unloaded. The bigger the load, the less you'll notice the difference between the aluminum C'dale and the steel Trek. To me, the Trek was considerably more comfortable "empty," but test rides are the only way you can ascertain this for yourself.

I believe the C'Dale has somewhat lower gearing than the Trek, which is a huge benefit. IMO the Trek's gearing is still too high for really steep roads with a fully loaded bike, even though it uses a MTB cassette and derailleur in back.

The Trek uses bar-end shifters while the Cannondale uses STI. This is a matter of personal preference, but it's a choice you should make intentionally. Personally, I like STI on a bike that will mostly be ridden locally without heavy loads; you can always carry a spare downtube shifter on tours as an emergency spare. But the more unsupported touring you'll do, the more you might want to consider barcons, which are more bulletproof and field-serviceable.

Cheaper touring bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee (REI stores). Jamis Aurora (2003).

Also worth checking out: www.bgcycles.com. Take a look at the BLT and read some of Gordon's opinions.

As for your Shwinn, a refit is certainly not out of the question Check out www.sheldonbrown.com/harris for Sheldon's articles and for the variety of parts for older bikes that Harris Cyclery carries.

Good bikes have always cost some money. Back in 1971 my wife and I bought a pair of beautiful white Gitane 10-speeds. They were $200 each in 1971 dollars -- which would be well over $800 today. The difference is that there weren't so many new $20 bikes (the way there are new $80 bikes today) to make them look more expensive than they really were.

RichC

Hi,
Please understand I agree with Rich 110%. But I also know that it can be hard to find the dough.
So....look at used bikes. There is a bike that I think would suit the majority of casual riders.
It is slightly cheaper than the 520 in it's cheapest form (the middle model is the same price, it's a real sweet ride). But give it a try, and see what you think. Buy something you really like. If you don't really like it, you'll find a million excuses not to ride it. If you do really like it; you find 2 million excuses *to* ride it :)
Oh yeah, the bike...

http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?san=03SequoiaSport&bl=road&my=2003

late, I'm very excited by the Specialized Sequoia in general; I see it as the design "hybrids" should have been based on all along.

The reasons I didn't list it as a potential loaded-touring bike are: (1) carbon fork is unsuitable for mounting front racks; (2) chainstays are a trifle short for heel clearance with large panniers in back; (3) gearing is MUCH too high for loaded touring; (4) possibly not enough clearance for fenders (not sure about this, haven't seen one in real life).

It's also unclear whether the bike would accept the larger tires (700x32c or larger) that many touring cyclists prefer.

RichC

Teresa, you are getting some good advice, here. I'll pass on my thoughts about the Trek 520. We bought a pair of them to replace the 30 year old Puegeots we had been riding for commuting and touring. The bike store sold both Treks and Cannondale. The sales person had a bad experience with trying to field repair STI shifters on a tour. Treks use Bar Ends shifters, which is what I had installed on our Peugeots. That and because I had never ridden an aluminum frame helped moved me into the Trek camp. They also had two Treks that fit, but didn't have two Cannondale that fit us.

Treks do come with several inappropriately high gears for touring, with a high gear of 128 inches. On all of the touring we have done, which always includes mountains, I had geared the Peugeots to have a high of 88 inches (and the tandem we used to have, which was set up for a child stoker). The only time you can use anything higher is going downhill -- when you really don't need to have a loaded bike hitting 50 mph. Your touring after all, not racing, so you coast (the tandem would hit 50 coasting, anyway.

Thus, we added to the expense of the Trek 520s by changing the cranks to 44-32-22 (from 52-42-30) which also required a new bottom bracket = an additional $200 per bike. You can use the bike as it comes, but there are high gears you will NOT ever use for touring. If you like mountains, a couple lower gears might be more useful.

FWIW, here is the gearing the Treks we bought came with:

Gear Inches (w/Shimano 105 52-42-30 crankset)
-----11---12---14---16---18---21---24---28---32 <==(SRAM 7.0 11-32)
52--128--117--101--88---78---67--58.5--50---44
42--103--94.5--81---71---63---54---47--40.5--35
30---74---68---58---51---45---39---34---29---25

(Of course, the two lowest gears on the large chainring and the two largest on the small charing are not very useful because of excessive chain angle, which would cause excessive wear.)

Also, something pointed out in other threads: Treks 520s currently use threadless headsets (at least the 2002 models did), which are far less adjustable for height than quill stems -- after the bike has been assembled. If you go with a Trek 520, make sure the assembled bike REALLY fits, or buy a bike un-assembled with the steerer tube uncut. This way, the bike can be assembled exactly for you, the steerer tube cut to the height you need. One can change the handlebar position relative to the seat a bit with a threadless headset by changing the stem, but this adds expense and the range of adjustment is limited. We ended up having to change the stem on my wife's bike after additional riding proved it was too low for her, lower than what she had on her Peugeot.

One additional fact about the Trek: The rear rack they come with is a bit flimsy. OK, for light use, but too much side sway for loaded touring. I changed those to a heavier duty rack. More expense.

We are happy with the Treks we bought, even given the added expense. Since we went 30 years between bike purchases, we got our money's worth out of the Peugeots (which we still use for training) and felt we finally deserved new bikes. The Treks are noticeably lighter. The 9-speed cassette and triple is vastly different than the 10-speed I have toured with (which is one reason I had those set up for a high of 88" -- I didn't have any gears to waste). The brakes have considerably more stopping power. We are looking forward to the tour with them, next summer. Most of this is due to advances in components over the last 30 years.

If you REALLY want the ultimate touring bike, and one that is built to fit then you go for either a Nomad or a XTC

see
http://www.sjscycles.com/
for more info

However you will not get away with less than £1,000/$1,500 new, but they always have a list of very good 2nd hand bikes
(and they do world wide mail order)

Teresa,

I agree with all the above.

A word of warning about the gearing. The Cannondale has 48-38-28 with 11-34, whereas the Trek has 50-40-30 with 11-32. But although Cannondale has slightly lower low gears than the Trek, I'd suggest that none of these bikes -- and almost none others have low enough gears unless you want to tour Florida only.

I would therefore suggest that you look at the geometry of the bike you have, but also at the gears you presently have. You could count the number of teeth on your cogs and chainrings and visit Sheldon Brown's gear calculator (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears) to see the numbers you have. If you select "gear-inches" for units, the Cannondale has gears between 22 and 117 gear-inches whereas the Trek (and the REI Novara) has gears between 25 and 127 gear-inches. Preferences differ, but unless you can climb a wall with racing-bike gears, most people prefer ratios between 18-20 inches and 100 inches.

To get lower gearing than stock, you may change some rings or you could make a bold move and swap the entire crankset for a MTB crankset... which is exactly what I have done, resulting in a 44-34-22 XT cransket. This is, BTW, exactly what you would find on a Bruce Gordon (http://www.bgcycles.com) bike.


A last point to remember. Especially now in the low season, and especially if you want to buy a 2002 bike, you may find a shop that is willing to swap some components for free or at a minimal cost.

Regards,

Hey Teresa, i've been riding a cannondale T400 for 4-5 years and it has served me well during loaded tours in Upper and Lower/northern Michigan, along the coast of N. Carolina, and most recently through the Sierra Nevada Mountains out west. Look for "last" year's model, or a two year old. This may save on the price. Also you might want to look at the "Terry" brands, they are made to fit women's special needs, but i don't know it they make a touring bike. Good Luck

The 'Dale touring bikes are better suited to large sizes, where their stiff design is needed.
The best touring bikes in the dale/trek price range is the Bruce Gorden BLT. It may cost a little bit more but is ready for fully-loaded touring with NO modifications and comes with really good racks.

The new style of sport-hybrid bikes are good in concept, but the geometries are still a bit goofy at times, with overly tight clearances and toe-clip overlap. Hopefully they will soon settle into flat bar light-touring bikes. Specialized seem to make some good ones.
The REI Novarra is a good tourer at a good price.
If you are on the small side, you should seriously consider a touring bike based on 26" MTB wheels.


It may feasable to upgrade your current bike. Fit an MTB chainset and front mech and you drop your gear ratios. You may be able to pick up a used chainset, people are swapping their traditional square-taper bottom bracket units for the new splined ones, and junking the old systems. See if your bike shop has any kicking around.

Thanks for all your advice!

My concerns about upgrading my Schwinn include the fact that the frame is getting rusty, and that it will not accomodate wider tires. As a light tourer it would be acceptable, but I don't know if I would be comfortable using it for loaded trips.

The dealer who recommended the Cannondale sells both Trek and Cannondale. Both seemed good, but I lean towards the Trek bicycle because I know another dealer who will probably give me a discount if I purchase through them, since my siblings swim with the owner's kids.

I have been learning about gearing, and one of the things I was doing was looking at different bikes and comparing the gear inches to each other. Some bike shop employees recommend road bikes, but I have seen few with decent gearing, and I'm concerned about heavy-duty tires. If I bought a Trek or Cannondale, I could always change the gearing later if I discover that I would prefer to tour mountains, right? I'd rather not put out $200 extra on top of the expense of the bike.

I've been looking on Ebay and other places for used touring bikes, but I kind of want a brand-new bike that is fitted for me. I find my Schwinn comfortable, but it has never been fit for me. I've been told it is probably too small (as the friend that gave it to me is several inches shorter than me).

I guess what I'm looking for is for someone to tell me that buying a dedicated touring bike is really the way to go. Would I be unhappy with something cheaper that isn't quite suited to touring?

Teresa

IMHO, the bar end shifters on the Trek just make more sense on a touring bike and present fewer issues with changing gering , especially with smaller front chainrings and possible use of MTB front derailers. The optional friction mode for the rear is also a plus.The 520 uses 52/42/30 front rings,but they can be changed out to to something smaller or just change the granny to a 26.

Having worked in retail, I know that replacement stuff on a new bike should not cost you retail value. Talk to your LBS manager about down-gearing the Trek. If you leave the replacement till later, you will pay retail and labour charges for the upgrade.

When you come to size the new bike, pay special attention to the length from saddle to bars. Many shops will try to get you into a racing position on a tourer, just because it has drop bars. Your old bike should be the guide.

Any bike can be suitable for touring as long as it fits you, has clearance for wide-enough tyres/fenders, can carry luggage well, has gears low enough for the worst conditions, and has some minimal build quality. In Ireland this summer, most people I saw were touring on hybrid bikes, or roadified MTBs. Touring bikes should (but dont always) offer all these features. Have a look at Bruce Gorden's web site, as well as the one for Thorn (sjscycles.com), for some great styles of tourer.

Originally posted by Teresa

I have been learning about gearing, and one of the things I was doing was looking at different bikes and comparing the gear inches to each other. Some bike shop employees recommend road bikes, but I have seen few with decent gearing, and I'm concerned about heavy-duty tires. If I bought a Trek or Cannondale, I could always change the gearing later if I discover that I would prefer to tour mountains, right? I'd rather not put out $200 extra on top of the expense of the bike.

As Michael points out, it will be cheaper to do the swap when buying the bike, since then the original parts are still new and the dealer should credit you with their full value. Do it later, and you'll pay the full price of the new parts plus labor for installation.

Gearing that's appropriate for touring is generally appropriate for any kind of riding except racing. As for the Cannondale vs Trek gearing, IMO the Cannondale comes closer, with its 28/34 combo, to actually being usable for touring as delivered... but much depends on how strong a climber you are, as well.



I guess what I'm looking for is for someone to tell me that buying a dedicated touring bike is really the way to go. Would I be unhappy with something cheaper that isn't quite suited to touring?

Well, it's my opinion that touring bikes as a class are about the most practical and versatile bikes out there. You can commute on them, tour (light or loaded) on them, ride recreationally on them, do organized or solo centuries on them. I've seen people race cyclocross on touring frames, and riding in pacelines.

They're not fashionable, but practicality never is.

As for your last question, IMO you can be happy with a lot of different kinds of bikes for most purposes, but for loaded touring the ability to mount racks and panniers front and rear is pretty important. Carbon road forks are a problem here, as are suspension forks and short chainstays. Fenders and wide tire capability are also important for touring.

So even if you go to a cheaper bike -- the Fuji or the Novara, say -- if loaded touring is on your radar then staying with a touring bike makes sense. (These two brands are often discounted; REI has sales throughout the summer and typically discounts their Novara bikes 10-15%; Fuji bikes often seem to sell for well below list at many bike shops.)

RichC

The one bit of wisdom I'd add to all the good information that has already been offered: Take a look at the BOB trailer for carrying your items. At around $300, it will cost less than racks and panniers and from what I have read is a preferred solution for many people (You can unhook it in a minute and have your bicycle free to use sans the extra weight of the racks. Also, you don't need to buy as heavy of bicycle since it's not carrying the weight, the trailer is. (All this from someone who is getting ready to purchase the panniers after dropping $150 on racks . . .)

Good luck with whatever you choose.

There are a couple of threads on this Touring forum about the Trek 520. One I started when I bought a 520. Another thread compares the 520 to the Bruce Gordon BLT.


One thing you might consider, too, is the following:

www.xtracycle.com

I'm intrigued by it. It's a substitute for a trailer, if you're considering that route as opposed to the standard racks-and-panniers.

Alright! I've been convinced. I'm buying a Trek 520 this weekend (ordering it, actually). I'd like to try it out before I buy, but the bike shops don't have it in stock.

One more question, though. Which gears should I replace? Should I just have them replace the front gearing with something better? Or would it be easier to replace the rear gears? Any recommendations on specific gearing combos? (I'm a gearing newbie, but I'm learning!)

I'm really excited about getting this bike. I just needed to convince myself it was worth the money. Now I'll have lots of questions from me about actually touring on it!

Thanks!

Teresa

Hi Teresa
I think you have selected the right bike, steel bikes are in it for the long haul, the thick and thin of it all. as for gearing, you did get a lot of advice, all of which is good. What you have your bike shop change initially depends on your wallet, it's more expensive to change gearing later but the trek has a good gear range fo most riders as is. I ride a Bridgestone RB-T touring bike, I built it up using the D.A. tripple 30-39-53 and an XTR rear 12-34. I have never riden this bike for any time unloaded, i usually have front and rear panniers (loaded) and a trunk bag (loaded). The total bike weight usually runs between 60 and 80 pounds. I ride the hills of new england and have never had a problem. Of course you physical condition has a lot to do with the need for really short gears. If you can afford it, I would recomment you ride the bike as it is delivered and fine tune the gearing once you ride the bike and see what you actually need. The 520 is a great bike, it's geared for touring and the set up will allow you to go on club rides without over extending. Good luck with oyur bike, I'm excited for you. Oh one more thing, check out the topeak rack systems, they work great and stand up to the test of time.

Originally posted by Teresa
[B

One more question, though. Which gears should I replace? Should I just have them replace the front gearing with something better?

Thanks!

Teresa [/B]The rear is an 11-32 and the biggest cog you could go there is a 34. There is no point in changing the crankset, and that might involve a BB change too.Changing out the 30 small chainring should not be that big a deal though, and a 26x32 is slightly lower than you could get with a 30x34

Originally posted by pokey
The rear is an 11-32 and the biggest cog you could go there is a 34. There is no point in changing the crankset, and that might involve a BB change too.Changing out the 30 small chainring should not be that big a deal though, and a 26x32 is slightly lower than you could get with a 30x34

I disagree. I would go ahead and have the bottom bracket, front derailleur, and crankset replaced, and go with something like a Deore LX crankset with 44-34-24 cogs. A 52-tooth chainring is too big for a touring bike.

You should negotiate the price for this as part of the order, and it's shouldn't add too much to the price of the bike; the parts you're swapping in are roughly the same price as the ones you're replacing, so many shops would charge you maybe $50 for the labor and call the parts a wash.

Look at the gearing on the Bruce Gordon BLT. That's what you want on a loaded-touring bike.

Also, make sure you specify that the steerer tube not be cut until after you've been fitted on the bike. If you want high handlebars, this is critical.

RichC

Maybe so on the 52 but it's easy enough to make the 105 triple a 48/38/26 or go with 110/74 crankset that offers more options than the LX,if other than fully loaded touring is on the agenda.

Teresa;

I am assuming that you are a woman from your name and if so please note that modern touring bikes do have longer toptubes (the distance from seat to handlebar) than standard road bikes. Almost all bikes are built for a man body and have too long a reach for a woman already. Be very sure that you are fitted comfortably on the bike. A $1000 is a lot to pay for long term discomfort.

Originally posted by 1oldRoadie
Be very sure that you are fitted comfortably on the bike. A $1000 is a lot to pay for long term discomfort.

You'll never get better advice than that!

RichC

Originally posted by pokey
Mayve so on the 52 but it's easy enough to make the 105 triple a 48/38/26 or go with 110/74 crankset that offers more options than the LX,if other than fully loaded touring is on the agenda.

If you wanted to go 48 I thing Sugino makes a 49/38/28 that fits a 105 BB (same as what's on the Cannondale). Not completely sure about this, however.

Ultimately, IMO, what trumps everything else is whatever the most demanding application is. For an average or worse climber, pulling 50 pounds or more of gear up a long, steep grade, a 22-32 combo that lets you keep up a reasonable cadence can be critical. It's something that will stop you if you need it and don't have it, versus higher gears that may not let you go super-fast but otherwise aren't very useful.

If a buyer isn't sure about this, it's better to err on the side of caution and go with the lower gearing. In the middle of a climb isn't the place to find out you made a mistake!

RichC

Changing gears.

I would leave the rear end as is. You might fine tune your gearing in 1 or 2 years when you change your chain and cassette. That's not a big deal. Look at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/k7.html if you want an idea on prices for replacement cassettes.
Besides, with a simple tool and a decent-size crescent wrench, it's easy to change the cassette by yourself.

Option 1 : changing the rings
The crankset is Shimano 105 with 52-42-30 chainrings. Bolt diametres are 130 / 74 mm, so you could change all three rings to 48-38 24 (38 and 24 being the smallest sizes that fit on the cranks as they are. With such rings, my ideal cassette would be a 14-34, but I could live easily with the stock 11-32.

Option 2 : changing the entire cranckset
You could have the shop swap the entire crankset for a Shimano LX (or XT). Either choice means a new bottom bracket, so a bit more shop labour. With the LX, you have the choice between 4-arm or 5-arm cranks (see http://www.shimano-europe.com). Both are good, but if you later want chainrings of different sizes, it's easier to find them for the 5-arm cranks. The LX typically comes with 44-34-22 or 44-32-22 rings, which are very good for touring with the 11-32 cassette you have..

So in theory, if you were to buy parts, Option 1 should be cheaper than option 2. When swapping at the moment of purchase, the shop might be more willing to compromise one way or another depending on their current stocks.

The shop where I bought my bike deals mostly with MTBs, hybrids/city bikes and a bit of touring, but NO road bike. They didn't have chainrings for the 105, nor a LX drivetrain in stock, but had quite a few XTs... and I learned later that one of their customers had just broken her large ring on the 105. So swapping the drivetrain for an XT made lots of sense for me and for them.

Good luck

I swapped my Road triple for an LX one, since I ride a lot on trails, but its useful on very steep roads. Most mountain passes are well graded, but in the UK, our small roads just go straight up the hills.
I believe you can never have too low a gear, but Im not a fast rider, and like to ride hills.
If you do swap, take note of the length of the crank. For the average male (5'10" tall), a 170mm is about right, although some prefer a longer length. If you are shorter you may want to consider a shorter crank. 165 are readily available from Shimano, and smaller ones are from Specialities-TA (See Peter White Cycles)