Touring - Randonee vs LHT vs 520

Hey guys,
I'm graduating college in May and want to take time off and tour instead of doing what I should do and get a job. But whatever, work can wait. :D Saved up a year to do this anyway.

Anyway, I want to spend about 1500 on Bike and gear. No SAG. Easy trip, 60miles or so a day and maybe continue in Europe and Asia if the touring bug catches me and I'm not broke by then.

Did my research and I'm down to 3 bikes. The Randonee, 520 and the Surly Long Haul Trucker coming out April 2nd. I put together a comparison chart (attached) for what I think matters most. I'm inclined with the LHT as of now. I like the gearing, bar ends shifters, MTB components and the bad ass Surlyness.

Any ideas? Comments?

I'm 5" 9.5' I ride a 56cm Fuji but am wondering if I should go a tiny bit smaller for touring to get a more upright position.

Thanks!

Rear wheel in Pacific June 1st, Front Wheel in Atlantic ???
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=38669&d=1173136078

They're all good bikes from what I've heard, but I leant towards the 520. My order arrives very soon!

First, congrats on delaying the "real world" experience, something I regret not having done way back when. Second, a smaller bike would likely have a lower position as the head tube would usually be shorter. I have a cross check and would recommend surly. Also, you can get the steerer tube left long and get higher handlebars if you would like. Generally the 520 comes with a cut steerer.

Rivendell goes crazy telling people not to go too small, but too big is alright. Is this true for other bikes too? Or its something specific to Rivendells?

Second, I think bar ends make more sense since they don't get in the way in the case of a crash, which is the main reason I'm staying away from the Randonee. Any good sense here?

I like everything on the 520 except the gearing which I would like to have lowered some like the LHT and the Randonee. The LHT trucker components are comparable (if not slightly better) to the 520 components... yes?

How much does BIKE WEIGHT matter?
Or can I more than make up for it by packing light?

Does anyone know the weight of the 520?

Thanks
Tzuo

Size depends a lot on the geometry. If a big bike has a top tube that's too long for you, it doesn't matter how high the bars are, you'll still be stretched out. A small bike will necessitate more seat post extension which means that there'll be more drop to the bars which also causes a lot of forward lean. So, neither smaller nor bigger necessarily means more upright.

Bike weight does matter, but it is only part of your total load weight which obviously matters more. Don't ignore it, but don't obsess over it either. It's all about trade-offs in durability, function and weight.

Besides a bike, what gear are you including in your $1500 budget?

It's a toss up between the LHT and 520. They are both true touring bikes. If I remember correctly, the Randonee comes with STI shifters (which I prefer) but still, I'd still go LHT or 520. If you get one of the smaller frames for the LHT, realize that it'll come with 650c wheels instead of 700c if that makes a difference to you.

I say Long Haul Trucker!

But then again, I'm a Surly fan ;)

It's spec'ed out really nice considering the price.

Rivendell goes crazy telling people not to go too small, but too big is alright. Is this true for other bikes too? Or its something specific to Rivendells?

Second, I think bar ends make more sense since they don't get in the way in the case of a crash, which is the main reason I'm staying away from the Randonee. Any good sense here?

I like everything on the 520 except the gearing which I would like to have lowered some like the LHT and the Randonee. The LHT trucker components are comparable (if not slightly better) to the 520 components... yes?

How much does BIKE WEIGHT matter?
Or can I more than make up for it by packing light?

Does anyone know the weight of the 520?

Thanks
Tzuo

I wouldn't go too big or too small. Too big and you don't have room to get off the bike in a hurry if you have to. You also will be more stretched out than would be comfortable for all day riding. Too small and you'll feel hunched up and that isn't comfortable either. Think Goldilocks when you fit the bike. You want one that is just right.

About the only shifter that won't get damaged in a crash are downtube shifters. Quite possibly the worst place to have shifters if you want to keep them from damage in a fall would be on the end of the bars. The end of my bars have usually taken the brunt of any crashes where the bars hit the ground. Brake levers seldom get damaged because of their location...it's pretty tough to get the bars down on the ground where an STI could be severely damaged and the bike still be ridable afterwards.

Don't worry too much about bicycle weight. You want strength from the frame. Weight is really secondary. No, you won't get a 20 lb bike but a 20 lb bike won't stand up to the rigors of loaded touring either.

Gearing: Lots of people have a problem with the 520 gearing. Although it's not the best, it's not that bad either. I spent many, many years riding a 52/40/24 crank. It was all that you could get. Of course we didn't have 11-34 cassettes but if you change the cassette to a 12-34, you'd lower the top gear slightly. Alternatively, you can change the chainrings to a 48/38/24 or buy a Shimano LX trekking crank which is a pretty good investment (Nashbar has an Octalink version for $70). It's basically a Shimano LX mountain bike crank with a 48/36/24 ring set. You can even change the inner ring to as low as a 22. I'd recommend that you keep a pretty good range on the bike since you'll likely be riding it more between tours than on tour and you'll want a bit higher gear for that.

Finally, for what you a looking at spending, give the Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 a look. And the Cannondale T800 is a worthy touring bike too. Yes it's aluminum but it has a proven track record as a well designed and built touring bike.

If you get one of the smaller frames for the LHT, realize that it'll come with 650c wheels instead of 700c if that makes a difference to you.

Want to check that?

The 56cm should be fine. If you went smaller, you would have a less upright position as you will have more saddle to handlebar drop unless you use a ton of spacers.

The LHT comes in 26inch wheels in sizes 54 and smaller.

I wouldn't go too big or too small. Too big and you don't have room to get off the bike in a hurry if you have to. You also will be more stretched out than would be comfortable for all day riding. Too small and you'll feel hunched up and that isn't comfortable either. Think Goldilocks when you fit the bike. You want one that is just right.

About the only shifter that won't get damaged in a crash are downtube shifters. Quite possibly the worst place to have shifters if you want to keep them from damage in a fall would be on the end of the bars. The end of my bars have usually taken the brunt of any crashes where the bars hit the ground. Brake levers seldom get damaged because of their location...it's pretty tough to get the bars down on the ground where an STI could be severely damaged and the bike still be ridable afterwards.

Don't worry too much about bicycle weight. You want strength from the frame. Weight is really secondary. No, you won't get a 20 lb bike but a 20 lb bike won't stand up to the rigors of loaded touring either.

Gearing: Lots of people have a problem with the 520 gearing. Although it's not the best, it's not that bad either. I spent many, many years riding a 52/40/24 crank. It was all that you could get. Of course we didn't have 11-34 cassettes but if you change the cassette to a 12-34, you'd lower the top gear slightly. Alternatively, you can change the chainrings to a 48/38/24 or buy a Shimano LX trekking crank which is a pretty good investment (Nashbar has an Octalink version for $70). It's basically a Shimano LX mountain bike crank with a 48/36/24 ring set. You can even change the inner ring to as low as a 22. I'd recommend that you keep a pretty good range on the bike since you'll likely be riding it more between tours than on tour and you'll want a bit higher gear for that.

Finally, for what you a looking at spending, give the Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 a look. And the Cannondale T800 is a worthy touring bike too. Yes it's aluminum but it has a proven track record as a well designed and built touring bike.

+1 on the RM Sherpa 30. cyccommute gave me some very compelling arguments of this bike over the 520.

Hey guys,
I'm graduating college in May and want to take time off and tour instead of doing what I should do and get a job. But whatever, work can wait. :D Saved up a year to do this anyway.

Anyway, I want to spend about 1500 on Bike and gear. No SAG. Easy trip, 60miles or so a day and maybe continue in Europe and Asia if the touring bug catches me and I'm not broke by then.

Did my research and I'm down to 3 bikes. The Randonee, 520 and the Surly Long Haul Trucker coming out April 2nd. I put together a comparison chart (attached) for what I think matters most. I'm inclined with the LHT as of now. I like the gearing, bar ends shifters, MTB components and the bad ass Surlyness.

Any ideas? Comments?

I'm 5" 9.5' I ride a 56cm Fuji but am wondering if I should go a tiny bit smaller for touring to get a more upright position.

Thanks!

Rear wheel in Pacific June 1st, Front Wheel in Atlantic ???
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=38669&d=1173136078

+1 for the LHT, nice gearing and good solid components. I'm not sure how going smaller in bike size would
get you more upright. I'd go with the 56cm

+1 on the RM Sherpa 30. cyccommute gave me some very compelling arguments of this bike over the 520.

+1 on the Sherpa 30 here too! cyccocommute turned me on to this bike and it's the one I bought. I'm extremely happy with this bike. Really strong frame made from Reynolds 853 steel. I did my research and test rides. I picked it over the following bikes: Jamis Aurora, Novara Randonee, Trek 520, Fuji Touring, Cannondale T800, & Surly LHT (I wasn't able to test ride the Cannondale or the Surly.)

They were all good bikes. You won't go wrong with any of them. For me, the deciding factors were:

1) STI shifters
2) 700c wheels (not on the LHT in my size)
3) I love the Reynolds 853 steel

Those are all just personal preferences. Yours might be different.

I am 5'9", and I ride a custom 54cm LHT. I suppose I could have gone with a 56 which might have been a tad on the bigger side for me but I really wanted the 26" wheels of the 54cm (56 has 700c). I love my Trucker, so that's a +1 LHT from me.

I am 5'9", and I ride a custom 54cm LHT. I suppose I could have gone with a 56 which might have been a tad on the bigger side for me but I really wanted the 26" wheels of the 54cm (56 has 700c). I love my Trucker, so that's a +1 LHT from me.

Aha! Just as I figured. I'm about your height, and guessed that a 54cm LHT would be appropriate for me too :D

+1 on the Sherpa 30 here too! cyccocommute turned me on to this bike and it's the one I bought. I'm extremely happy with this bike. Really strong frame made from Reynolds 853 steel. I did my research and test rides. I picked it over the following bikes: Jamis Aurora, Novara Randonee, Trek 520, Fuji Touring, Cannondale T800, & Surly LHT (I wasn't able to test ride the Cannondale or the Surly.)

They were all good bikes. You won't go wrong with any of them. For me, the deciding factors were:

1) STI shifters
2) 700c wheels (not on the LHT in my size)
3) I love the Reynolds 853 steel

Those are all just personal preferences. Yours might be different.

Ya hear that Rocky Mountain! I've sold two of your bikes now. I want stock! :D

I've got the 520 but fitted brifters to it - bar ends seem vulnerable to me (as discussed above) and ensure that you always have to move your hand to a non-used part of the bike to change gears whereas brifters are usually under your fingers. But then again, I don't use a handlebar bag either and my bike is used as an allrounder, not purely as a tourer.

Gearing? Top gear is higher than needed, so you can afford to go down there. Bottom gear is too high and there is too much overlap between the middle ring and the bottom ring. Middle ring is perfect for me and my riding though, so an overall change (eg, put on an mtb set of rings like many do) would be counter productive for me. I'm looking at putting a 26 tooth ring on her which will give an extra bottom end gear and give a more sensible overlap between the middle ring and the granny. But, if touring with loads (like you are), I'd seriously consider swapping for an mtb crank and lower all three rings as part of the purchase ... and fitting brifters.

Richard

How long are your legs ?

I would say the LHT and 520 are two interesting options, but I haven't seen specs on the Randonnée. Whichever is the best depends on personal taste and exact configuration/customisation done at the shop.

Factors to consider:

– Geometry seems about the same.

– The LHT has more appropriate gearing. If it were mine, I would have the 26 replaced by a 24-tooth granny (cost 25 $ retail), but I would not loose any sleep about it.
The 520 is seriously overgeared, so at the minimum I would swap the 30 for a 26 (24 would not fit with the two other existing rings, and I would end up with a 18-speed bike), and I would preferably swap all three rings or crankset. Indeed, mine was configured from the start with an XT crankset and 44-34-22 chainrings.

You might also decide to use the chainrings as they are, but replace them when they are worn out. The 520 uses a 130/74 mm crankset, which means the smallest rings you can install are 48-38-24. On the other hand the LHT uses a 110/74 mm crankset which means the smallest rings are 46 (or 44)-34-24. In other words, more flexibility for the LHT.

– My 520 comes from the threaded-headset era. Nowadays, it has a threadless headset and I hear that most often (always?) the steerer tube is cut before the bike hits the store. If you want a "more upright" position, don't go on a too small frame and make sure you have an uncut steerer tube. I think the LHT has a slight advantage here (at least, if their bikes come with an uncut steerer).

– I prefer high bars so I ride on the drops and bar-end shifters. Besides, contrary to what Europa said, bar-end shifters are actually less fragile than STI shifters. Bar-end shifters have a few advantages : it's possible to shift all the way from one end to the other, it can work in friction, and you can fit any kind of chainrings and derailleurs without problems. They have one problem, however: if you like to stand, you might hit the shifters with your legs (yet some folks stand all the time and never hit their bar-end shifters).

– If you were to prefer STI (which I would not recommend, especially for third-world countries), the LHT is easier to adapt. With the LHT, all you need are briefters. With the 520, you need briefters and either Travel Agents or new cantilever brakes and stoppers, which adds 40-50 $ to the bill.

– I think tire clearance is better on the LHT. With fenders, the 520 accepts 700x40-42 on the rear wheel, but only 700x32-35 on the front wheel. I think that the LHT goes to at least 700x37 with fenders on both wheels. Neither is a problem for riding or touring in North America. But if you want to ride in winter, studded tires are only available in 700x37 or more. And if you want to travel off road, you will prefer wider tires.

Does it have to be new? I would start NOW searching the online outlets (craigslist, ebay etc) for a used 520. That bike hasn't changed significantly in the last XX years and holds up great. You would get a ride every bit as good as a new one for a good bit less than any of those 3 new. More budget for the ride and other gear.

-D

I've noticed that threads mushroom when they spin off into topics such as "don't use [cantilever/V-/disk] brakes", or "[STI/brifters/bar-ends] are better and they're less fragile", etc. So here I am.

I'm surprised at some of the above comments about vulnerability of bar-end shifters. To the OP, I suggest searching this board for these endless discussions -- there are real-world stories about broken STIs from falls (not even crashes). I haven't read any about broken bar-end shifters (except for the indexing, which boils down to a non-issue).

For the OP, and others balancing a decision between STIs and bar-ends, you need to decide based on your preference. Most of the "XXX are better" postings will also offer advantages (naturally...), so use these to make up your own list. But the claims that "you can't do YYY with XXX shifters" are mostly rationalizations; in practice, you end up loving what you have. However, IMO, there is an obvious difference in ruggedness; this may be important to you.

-- Mark

Wow, this is great! Thanks! Lots of great info.
Anyway, I spent my day testing out the 520 and the Randonee.

Just to summarize it up some...

- The stock rack on the 520 is wimpy compared to the one on the Randonee. Does anyone have experience with the stock 520 rack? will it hold up when the bike get rocked size to size going uphill with a heavy load?

- $1500 is hopefully everything I need to hit the road. Main items remaining include the test (180), sleeping bag (keeping south which will be warm, so I'll just get mom to sew together a fleece, $10), shoes, panniers, locks, computer, lights, spare parts, etc ~ $300. if i can make dad believe that i won't be going back for at least 6 months, maybe he'll get me a gps, but im not counting on it.

- i got sized up right today on the randonnee and the 520, so i'll just figure out what the correct LHT size is from the geometry. barefoot, to the pelvis bone, its 33" for me. and the right sized randonee was 55cm and 21" for the 520, if that helps anyone who's looking at the same bikes. im 5"9".

- randonee is 29.5lbs, the 520 is 26.5 lbs with similar components. the randonee had a more solid rack and clips while the 520 had the wimpy rack and stock clipless pedals. but still, thats 1 lb at most, i wonder where the other 2lbs came from. but from what halfspeed and cyccommute said, that probably won't matter. 2lbs is like a can of beans and a couple beers... thats nothing.

- i heard the LHT is a TANK tho... does anyone know their LHT weight with rank and pedals? what components?

- is the rocky mountain tires a little narrow at 28mm?

- got to try bar ends today, yes, i agree that its pretty hard to mess up STI's i fell real bad and got my handlebar folded into a half pretzel, with the sti on the inside, but the sti was fine, prolly fall less if got 2 hands on all the time instead of shifting... but still, bar ends or down tubes would be less prone to hurt, i think...

talked to the REI dude today, and he suggested (challenged rather, coz he was so sure of the randonee being awesome) that i take the randonnee and try it for a few weeks, and return it if i didn't like it...
its $760 with the REI discount, and gives me lots more to gear up.

anyway, thanks a lot...
- is 2 lbs a big deal? im not sure what siginificant weight is
- anyone with a loaded LHT knows the weight?
- dad needs to get a bike and start cycling. i hope he's reading this.

Wow, this is great! Thanks! Lots of great info.
Anyway, I spent my day testing out the 520 and the Randonee.

Just to summarize it up some...

- The stock rack on the 520 is wimpy compared to the one on the Randonee. Does anyone have experience with the stock 520 rack? will it hold up when the bike get rocked size to size going uphill with a heavy load?

- $1500 is hopefully everything I need to hit the road. Main items remaining include the test (180), sleeping bag (keeping south which will be warm, so I'll just get mom to sew together a fleece, $10), shoes, panniers, locks, computer, lights, spare parts, etc ~ $300. if i can make dad believe that i won't be going back for at least 6 months, maybe he'll get me a gps, but im not counting on it.

- i got sized up right today on the randonnee and the 520, so i'll just figure out what the correct LHT size is from the geometry. barefoot, to the pubic bone, its 33" for me. and the right sized randonee was 55cm and 21" for the 520, if that helps anyone who's looking at the same bikes. im 5"9".

- randonee is 29.5lbs, the 520 is 26.5 lbs with similar components. the randonee had a more solid rack and clips while the 520 had the wimpy rack and stock clipless pedals. but still, thats 1 lb at most, i wonder where the other 2lbs came from. but from what halfspeed and cyccommute said, that probably won't matter. 2lbs is like a can of beans and a couple beers... thats nothing.

- i heard the LHT is a TANK tho... does anyone know their LHT weight with rank and pedals? what components?

- is the rocky mountain tires a little narrow at 28mm?

- got to try bar ends today, yes, i agree that its pretty hard to mess up STI's i fell real bad and got my handlebar folded into a half pretzel, with the sti on the inside, but the sti was fine, prolly fall less if got 2 hands on all the time instead of shifting... but still, bar ends or down tubes would be less prone to hurt, i think...

talked to the REI dude today, and he suggested (challenged rather, coz he was so sure of the randonee being awesome) that i take the randonnee and try it for a few weeks, and return it if i didn't like it...
its $760 with the REI discount, and gives me lots more to gear up.

anyway, thanks a lot...
- is 2 lbs a big deal? im not sure what siginificant weight is
- anyone with a loaded LHT knows the weight?
- dad needs to get a bike and start cycling. i hope he's reading this.


2 lbs is nothing! You're after a touring bike, right? You load it up with all your stuff - 40, 50, 60... 90 lbs? I believe that if you are going to do some serious touring, you'll lose that two pounds off your gut in the first 3 days. The Randonee is a good bike and a good value. If you really believe the REI guy about letting you bring it back after you have ridden it in the rain, through muck, the rear derailer and chain packed with road grime... I say go for it! Otherwise, if you like the bike and it fits.. just buy it. The main thing is the frame - alot of the other stuff can be changed if you don't care for it.

If it's a toss up between the bikes you are looking for... then make your list of preferences, and choose based on that. If a two pound weight difference is huge for you on a touring bike and you're deciding based on that, you're going to spend a crapload of money on trying to find the best light weight touring equipment (tents, sleeping bags, stoves, etc.)

For alot of people, budget is huge. When I decided on my bike, I was considering a bike that cost $850 and one that was $1500. But, I figured, "this bike is going to be with me for the next 20-30 years... $650 divided by 30 years comes out to about 6 cents a day... I'm convinced I can afford it"... so, I got what I wanted, with the frame I thought was best, and the components that provided me with the most comfort. This is your bike! You're supposed to fall in love with the thing! But, even if there are things you want to change, realize that you can do that also... you just can't do much about changing the frame.

This is your bike! You're supposed to fall in love with the thing!

Yeah, I guess. Got a 2001 Fuji with my first college paycheck and I wouldn't trade that piece of junk for anything...

Yup, enough thinking. I'll get the Randonee for $760 tomorrow. Throw in the pedals for another $40 bucks. I can switch up the brifters to barends for $150 later on. No big deal there. Its a sturdy bike with decent components and it'll do its job.

$800 for the bike, and $700 to spend on the rest and I guess I'll be ready to start weekend tours and get ready for the long haul.

Who needs a job anyway..., but I figure I can get an Atlantis or something with a job... but that can wait.

Thanks!

Hittin' the road!

I don't own a 520 myself, but on my cross-Canada tour I met 4 other cross-Canadians on 520's and 3 of them had their stock rear rack break on them at some point. I don't know about the stability of the rack, but from what I've seen, the durability makes me worry. Maybe those people I met were just unlucky?

If you want Bar Ends, you can also check out Paul Comp Thumbies (http://www.paulcomp.com/thumbrd.html). I personally think they're a little expensive but well worth it.

- i heard the LHT is a TANK tho... does anyone know their LHT weight with rank and pedals? what components?

- anyone with a loaded LHT knows the weight?


No, the LHT is not a tank, it is a bicycle. If you are looking for a Tank you might try here : http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/

They have a wide selection of used army vehicles for sale.


My Long Haul Trucker with all the components, three water bottle cages, rear saddle bag with stuff comes in at about 26lbs. If I took off the saddle bag and put on smaller tires 28mm instead of 35mm, it would probably be about 24lbs.

If I got all weight weinie with it and put on some ultra light wheels, and put on all carbon parts and Campy record I could probably get it under 20lbs, but what would be the point of that.

If your bike is going to have a full load on it over 50% of the time that you're riding it, the LHT is fantastic because the little bit of weight doesn't matter. If, like me, you'll be commuting everyday on it, it's not going to be fully loaded 80% of the time. In this circumstance, I can see how buying a lighter frame (but still strong enough to tour on) would be worth spending more. The Rocky Mountain Sherpa 30 comes to mind.

NeezyDeezy brings up a good point....how much loaded riding are you going to do with bike? How much commuting and rec. riding?

Companies with a lot of experance making touring bikes, like Fuji and Trek, make bikes that can do both pretty darn well. Slap a lighter wheelset on a Fuji touring bike and does well on club rides. The Sulry Crosscheck is another bike you can tour with that rides very well unloaded. But these bike lack the stablity of true touring bikes under heavy loads.

The longer chainstays and wheelbases of the more pure touring bikes, like the LHT and the T-series Cannondales make them more stable under heavy loads. Of all the bikes I've ever rode loaded, I'd give the nod to Cannondale. I can't think of a frame that's stiffer or better built at any price. If I was going to do a 3 month tour, it's what I'd ride. The bike as a great track record as well. Unloaded, however, these bikes aren't great to ride. The're heavy and the wheelbase makes them handle like a truck.

So what bike should you buy? That all depends on what you're going to do with it, because all these bikes are quality bikes. Personally, I think it comes down to how much gear you're going to carry. If you can keep your load under, say 25 lbs, go with one of more road bike type touring bikes. If you're planning a 40 lbs loaded grind across the USA, go with one of the more pure touring bikes.

I hope this helps.

I went online to see the REI Randonnée, and quite frankly, it seems tempting. Compared to the two others, its only "sore points" for me are the first two ones; the other ones are actually good ones:

– STI shifters: I don't like them and prefer bar-ends, but since you prefer STI, that's an advantage.

– Hub : the XT hub is better (better seals, more durable races) than the LX, than the Tiagra. But then, with the huge price difference, you could buy yourself an entire new rear wheel later if you wear your Tiagra hub.

– Rims : I don't know the rims of the two other bikes. However, my 520 came with Bontrager Farlaine rims and the supposedly stroff off-centred rear rim failed in 5000-8000 km (tangential rim split; metal torn apart). I now have a Mavic A719 which still looks good after 15000 km. The A319 is not as strong as the A719, but I suspect you might cross one or two continents before it fails. IOW, the rims are probably better on the Randonnée than on the other two bikes.

– Rack: I don't know what type of rack comes on the Randonnée, but I can tell you the rack that comes on the 520 is light duty indeed. It can be relatively stable if you shorten the legs and screw the counterbolt very tightly, but I would suggest you replace it with another rack before any lenghty trip. A half-decent rear rack costs 20-25 $. Still, if you buy the Randonnée and don't have to replace the rack, isn't that better?

– Gears: I would prefer slightly lower gears, but it's fairly trivial to replace the "26" chainring with a "24". Worthed for any loaded tour in mountains.

Finally a quick comment about weights. Unless you weighed the bikes yourself with the same scale (or with comparable electronic scales), it's as good as gas mileages provided by car manufacturers! Most manufacturers weigh in their smallest frames, some weigh without pedals or saddle...

The longer chainstays and wheelbases of the more pure touring bikes, like the LHT and the T-series Cannondales make them more stable under heavy loads. Of all the bikes I've ever rode loaded, I'd give the nod to Cannondale. I can't think of a frame that's stiffer or better built at any price. If I was going to do a 3 month tour, it's what I'd ride. The bike as a great track record as well. Unloaded, however, these bikes aren't great to ride. The're heavy and the wheelbase makes them handle like a truck.

I don't think that this is a fair characterization at all. Trucks are top-heavy and don't handle well. The steering is slow and they can be a lot harder to handle well than smaller vehicles. That's not a good way to describe the handling of a true loaded touring bike, IMO. In general, I find car analogies frustrating when talking about how bicycles handle. They're a start, but we're talking about two completely different kinds of vehicles, here.

My LHT is not fast and zippy like my Univega road racing bike, but it's not slow and awkward either. It won't zip around corners like my Univega, but it goes exactly where I point it, every single time, and it does so with complete confidence. A good touring bike has slacker angles and a long wheelbase but a low bottom bracket. A good touring bike should ride comfortably, not quickly. On the other hand, an unloaded touring bike isn't going to be a slow bike, either. A good touring bike won't steer quickly or turn on a dime, but it should lean confidently into corners and easily hold the line you tell it to. It should respond easily to your commands, but only respond when you actually direct it. That's the beauty of good design. The penalty of the quick handling you find on racier bikes is the need for constant vigilance. By the way, touring bikes go VERY well with the control you get from a wide bar - 44cm is what I'm riding on now, and I love it.

I should add that we're talking about a GOOD loaded touring bike, here - without a nice, low BB, it will indeed handle like a tank.

I have two other bikes with much faster, twitchier handling than my LHT. They can be a lot of fun to ride - they make a good change of pace. Even so, I usually find myself coming back to the Surly after a few days on my other rides. Maybe it's just what you're used to, but I really enjoy riding my "loaded" touring bike - even when the only load is my skinny butt.

If I had to really characterize the difference in handling and ride qualities between a (good) loaded touring bike and sportier bikes, I would say that the ride of a loaded touring bike is unexciting. It's not going to give you thrills (unless you're doing things that you really shouldn't do on a touring bike!). It's not going to make the little hairs on the back of your neck stand up. I don't mean that in a bad way. If you want a little bit of excitement on every ride, that's fine. The Randonee and LHT won't be for you. But don't let that scare you away. A loaded touring bike won't handle like a truck, it won't be boring, it won't be "unfun" to ride. It'll just be... unexciting. Personally, I have a lot of fun on my Surly. When I feel like excitement and speed, I climb on my Univega and go for a ride. I might do this for a few days. But eventually my appetite is whetted, and I go back to my dependable, burly Surly LHT.

That's my defense of full-on loaded touring bikes. No matter what you ride, you're going to have fun. Seriously. I wouldn't worry too much about getting a bike that's too boring. Just think about whether you prefer thrills, chills and speed in everyday life... or not. Then, get a bike and go out and ride. That's the important part.

A few notes that might be of interest:

I am 5’10”, and would prefer 54cm over 56 any day. Some people will steer you toward larger bikes. I used to be in this camp myself; but after purchasing and riding all three – slightly-on-the-large-side, slightly-on-the-small-side, and spot-on – I much prefer the second and third choices over the first.

There is some kind of strange holdover from childhood that says bigger is better – something along those lines seems to go on, perhaps not entirely consciously.

The smaller sizes make for superior riding, in several respects. And you can pack all you would ever want to carry – it’s not as if they can’t handle the loads (another strange, barely conscious myth I had fallen into somehow). The smaller bikes are much, much better off-road, and on other sketchy surfaces (look at the bikes used by experienced pros). You are more in control. You feel less awkward. You can recover better from difficult situations, or from partial loss of balance or control. They just fit and feel better.

Bruce Gordon steers his customers this way. (Yes, BG has a difficult personality sometimes; but he builds great touring bikes and racks, and has extensive, long-term experience building and fitting bikes for extended touring.) He says: Go smaller. Try it. Give it a month. You’ll thank me.

And most people do thank him. Even though I don’t particularly like his crusty old personality, he absolutely knows what he is talking about here.

Grant Peterson (Rivendell) on the other hand, is clever with words, and has strong retro aesthetics, along with prejudices and contrarian tendencies. Some of his assertions tend to be misleading and counterproductive. Not everything that is different is better. It is sometimes worse.

Some people -- including many professional cyclists -- go for compact frames. You can adjust the fit with spacers or the right stem, or both. (Surly can work with you on this.)

Of the three you mention, LHT would be my choice.

26” wheels have advantages, especially overseas: much better tire availability and ruggedness or reliability. Also, the LHT with 26” wheels can be used as a mountain bike, if the off-road touring bug ever hits, or if you simply want to do some rides on trails or rough roads. Your range and versatility and options are extended.

*******
A fairly in-depth discussion of why 26" wheels might be a better choice: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/why26inchwheels.html

trace22clawson said:
''you get one of the smaller frames for the LHT, realize that it'll come with 650c wheels instead of 700c ''

that's not true: the surly lht smaller size comes in 26" rims.

Go for the LHT!

;>

Most of the weight comes from the rest of the bike, not the frame. A slight weight penalty in the frame can be more than overcome by choosing the right wheels, or even just the right tires and tubes. Also, the the rack(s) and panniers -- which vary quite a bit in weight -- and other gear can make a huge difference, especially when compared to the frame.

Yes, you can more than make up for a slightly heavier frame by going with lighter gear.
(You can also save alot of money on lightweight gear by reading some of Sgt. Rock's approaches: http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=206678#post206678

There are various other sites (including this one) that can help you to cut down on weight. The ultralight backpacking world has a lot of useful information that also applies to bike touring. Personally, I like to take enough gear to sleep well, stay dry and warm, etc. -- enough but not too much. Many ultralight hikers go a bit too far, and don't carry enough. Many bike tourists, on the other hand, tend to carry unnecessary weight. There is some middle path, a range in-between -- light but not too light....)

*******

The LHT has better components than the other two. Surly is a great company. (Not that the others are bad.)

You indicated a liking for the LHT in your original posting. This sort of attraction, liking or affinity is not to be ignored, it seems to me. If you like the bike, that means something. If another bike has some slight advantages, but you don’t feel the same affinity for it, then maybe the affinity tips the scales? It would for me. (marriages of convenience can be dull affairs –- not a good way to live)

Maybe take a look at the RM also, and see how you feel about it?

There is also the ride. You might find that a certain bike rides very much to your liking. The exact setup – stem, saddle and saddle height, bars, etc. will contribute to the feel of the ride. So will tires and tire pressure. So will the geometry and tubing. (I can tell by the geometry of the LHT that I would like this bike's handling.)

I just did a comparison of the LHT and the Sherpa 30. I would choose the LHT. Better components. Longer chainstays. Plenty strong. Better looking.

The Randonee looks like a decent bike; but don't let a salesman talk you into buying something that isn't as attractive a match as the Surly -- if that's the way you feel about that bike. (Or just go ahead and return it if it isn't such a great match for you. Just make sure there are no conditions or penalties that make it more difficult or unattractive to get a refund.) If you really like the REI bike, why not go with it? Otherwise, why not hold out for something that is a better match?

"Tank" is a vague term. It can mean some good things in a touring bike. When you are fully loaded, and going fast down a hill, and run into some rough spots, and the bike starts flexing, you can lose control. I've done this, and it makes me appreciate a setup that is more resistant to flexing. "Built like a tank" can mean better handling under load, less flex, better control. I would rather have an extra half pound or pound of steel in the frame, and the better strength and handling that go with it.

Beefier tubing helps to minimize the flex. You can really notice the difference in stability and handling, especially in certain sorts of situations.

Please don't take this as a hijack, but I've been looking for the right light touring bike. That Randonee looks darn good, especially when you factor in the price. REI lists their Element on the touring bike page, as well. It's lighter, and more expensive, but not alot more. Has anyone had exprerience with it? If I read the description right (and hoping I'm not) it looks like only two chainrings.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Read my review of my 520. Going on three years old and my fav. ride.

http://spokesandbeans.wordpress.com/

If you can get the LHT for $930 with THOSE components... GO FOR IT. I wouldn't think twice.

When I bought my Randonee, I pretty much only compared it to the Trek. I bought the Randonee over the Trek because: I prefer brifters, the rack is supposedly much stronger, better gearing, price (bought it on sale for $750), no Trek shop in the Raleigh, NC area had a 520 for me to test ride... They'd all have to special order it.

So far so good...

I did a better read of the Element specs. Indeed, two chain rings, so forget that thought.

I did a better read of the Element specs. Indeed, two chain rings, so forget that thought.

Yeah, and it's really just a cyclocross bike with disc brakes and a wider gear range (still not low enough to tour with). I don't understand why REI markets it in the touring category. I mean, it has exactly the same geometry (seat tube sizes, seat angles, head angles, top tubes, standover height, etc.) as the Novara Rivet, their "true" cyclocross bike. The top tubes are on the short end...not exactly a good thing to have for a tourer, as shorter than average TT's = shorter wheelbase = less stability.

Un huh, and I'm short with shorter legs than my height would indicate, but I was willing to go by a test ride.

Yeah, so like I mentioned earlier, I did have a preference for the LHT, but I got an Randonee anyway just to start cycling and seeing what I liked and didn't like. Besides, REI folks did say I could return it if I wasn't satisfied. I have it for a couple of days now and am getting miles on it and no problems so far.

Anyway, more questions for those experienced folks.

- What do you look for when you are test riding/riding a new bike? Say, if you had 15mins or 1 day or 1 week.

- STIs allow your hands to be in control all the time, bar ends don't. Has anyone crashed because they were shifting bar ends and didn't have whole control?

- Do hubs fail easily? I'm 140lbs... that shouldn't be a problem for Tiagras right? Its a 6 month tour.

The top tubes are on the short end...not exactly a good thing to have for a tourer, as shorter than average TT's = shorter wheelbase = less stability.

That's the first time I've heard that bit of reasoning and I don't agree at all. Yes, a longer wheelbase is going to be more stable, but that's something that should be developed from the chainstay length and the head tube angle. The only serious concern for the top tube length needs to be =fit=. As someone with long legs and a short torso, a long top tube is the last thing I want to see on a touring bike.

- What do you look for when you are test riding/riding a new bike? Say, if you had 15mins or 1 day or 1 week.

To be honest, I've been doing this for so long that I know the minute I settle into the saddle after pushing off if the bike is going to work for me or what I'd have to change to make it work. It's kind of automatic but here goes.

15 minutes: Can I stand over the bike comfortably with some room? Do I feel like I'm stretching for the bars? Am I hunched up? Is the seatpost high enough without going past the limit? Does the bike feel heavy? Too light? Are the controls easy to access? Do the brakes work well? Is it adjusted properly? Does it ghost shift if I stand up and honk on it? Do I like the color and the look? Does it have the extras - bottle mounts, rack mounts, etc. - I need? There are other questions but that's enough.

If the answers that I get for those questions are to my satisfaction, I'll get the bike. If I'm not comfortable with it, I won't.

1 day: Same questions as above. Add is the ride harsh? Too soft? Does it still feel right?

1 week: Never had that happen (nor needed it;) ) but I'd put 40 lbs of rice in 4 panniers and take it for a ride. Things change a lot under load. Can I stand and pedal it? If not, I take it back. Does it handle the load without feeling like the load is driving the bike? If so, I'd take it back. Can it go downhill, with a load at rocketsled speeds without wiggling all over the road?


- STIs allow your hands to be in control all the time, bar ends don't. Has anyone crashed because they were shifting bar ends and didn't have whole control?

I don't think that many people have problems one way or the other. It's mostly personal taste. I've used the barends and the complaint I had with them is more annoyance than anything. I constantly bumped the shifter and then was having to adjust it when I started. You are using these at pretty slow speeds so shifting isn't that big a deal.


- Do hubs fail easily? I'm 140lbs... that shouldn't be a problem for Tiagras right? Its a 6 month tour.

A mere slip of a lad (assuming you are a lad). The wheels will last you until the next millennium :rolleyes: I wouldn't worry about them.

- What do you look for when you are test riding/riding a new bike? Say, if you had 15mins or 1 day or 1 week.

I would probably spend 10 minutes setting the bike almost perfectly, then ride for 10 seconds and spend another 10 minutes fine-tuning adjustments : saddle and handlebar tilt, stem length... Then, in less than 2 minutes, I will know if the bike suits me, especially if I can ride on a pothole-ridden street.


- STIs allow your hands to be in control all the time, bar ends don't. Has anyone crashed because they were shifting bar ends and didn't have whole control?
I had a bit of that problem when using downtube shifters while towing a trailercycle (not crashing, just feeling unsteady). I never got the kick for STI, but never had any problem with bar-end shifters. They are easy to use with the palm or little finger.


- Do hubs fail easily? I'm 140lbs... that shouldn't be a problem for Tiagras right?
Mud or sand getting in the hubs could be a problem, whatever your weight. Sometimes, new hubs are too tight and are insufficiently greased. Might be worth checking before you leave.

I have owned a 520, and an LHT. So, I can offer some first-hand, comparative remarks.

I like the LHT better than the 520. It's not that the LHT is head and shoulders above the 520. It's just that the LHT is better in smaller ways that I appreciate in ordinary use, especially having owned the 520 previously. The most important thing is that the LHT has much greater fender clearance than the 520, especially in front. I had trouble getting more than a 32mm tire under the fender in front on the 520. I can fit 2" or greater tires easily on the LHT with a fender.

I also like that the LHT can be had with 26" wheels, too. (Any LHT frame 54cm or smaller is built for 26" wheels.) The 26" frames permit fatter tires for mountain biking *and* fenders, easily.

The LHT frame has spoke holders on the left chain stay, and a frame pump protrusion for pumps that lay along the bottom of the top tupe. These things don't matter so much to me.

I like the feel of the LHT a bit more, too. The 520 had a bit of bottom bracket flex. The LHT is stiffer, as it is, I believe, a slightly thicker frame. It is a heavier frame, to be sure.

hey guys,
thanks

got my first good ride on the the randonee today and im convinced its not the right bike for me.

my problems, which are already well documented include:

the chain just doesn't clear on the largest chain right in the extremes of the rear cassette... no matter what i try..

i don't know if this is true for all touring bikes since its my first, but it just doesn't handle very well (with no load, haven't tested it with load yet) i keep getting the feeling that the bike is trying to straighten itself every time i make a turn. i wonder if touring bikes handle better under load, is this true? i can't imagine why, but read somewhere here its the case for some bikes.

in any case, i just don't 'feel' it with the bike, and would most probably give it a good wipe down and return it to REI. i might take it there for the free tune up and see if they can fix the drivetrain problem plus some little clicks coming from the headset that i can't fix... tried tightening stuff, but it just won't go.

ive tried the 520, and liked it less than the randonee the moment i got on, so im going to wait till end of the month, get a test ride on the LHT and probably get that.
problem now is deciding if i want to go with the 54cm LHT or the 56cm LHT. the randonee i rode is a 55cm and my fuji is a 56cm, both fit me really well.

in any case, randonee was great, but the drivetrain and handling put me off a little... not to mention its weight which will suck for commuting.

Can't comment on the other two bikes but I've just done a tour of Tasmania on my new LHT. Comfort and handling (down hill fully loaded at 80kph no worries) tested over 1500km and I'm happy with my decision

As for bar end shifters I was very worried about not having the STI shifters I was used to on my road bike. I was so worried I'd also ordered some Pauls Thumbies to mount them up top. The Thumbies didn't arive on time for the tour but it took me all of about three and a half minutes to get used to the bar end shifters and now I love them.

When test riding my choices for a tourer, I had the bennefit of testing the 520, LHT and Mongoose Randonneur. I didn't like the Mongoose, and had to decide between the 520 and the LHT. I know many will disagree, but the 520 just felt and looked more solid and well-built. Sure the LHT had a few little extras, (The 520 has a pump protrusion too) but overall after a ride round the block a few times, the 520 came off as the winner, IMO. I like drop bars and bar end shifters, too, so thay may have swayed my decision.

Don't get me wrong, the LHT was a fantastic bike and would be an easy second choice. Another thing, who can go past an awesome black frame? :D

in any case, randonee was great, but the drivetrain and handling put me off a little... not to mention its weight which will suck for commuting.

Is there such a thing as a light-weight touring bike? I commute on my Randonee and, while it could be faster, I don't find the weight to be much of a problem.