Touring - uncommon touring bike (newbie has quesions)

I have a couple of questions for you experienced riders out there.

Today I went to a LBS and put a down payment on a touring bike. The bike is a Vitali steel frame (Columbus), made in Italy and distributed here in Vancouver by La Bicicyletta (normally they put together top end racing bikes). This is not a well-known bike but it's presumably good without being high end. Also I can afford it! It's a couple of hundred more than what the Trek 520 goes for here.

I got a reasonably good deal because the fellow who'd ordered the bike built changed his mind. It's my size exactly, give or take some tinkering with the handlebars. It's got Mavic MA3 rims, 36 spokes in the back (32 front), Schwalbe Marathon 700x28 tires. I'll put my Brooks saddle on it myself. It's got Dura-Ace bar-end shifters and a nice steel touring fork. It's a very light bike.

Here are my concerns: it's got 105 hubs and a 105 front derailleur.

Question One: Is this a problem? The fellows at the store told me that Shimano's recent couple of years of LX or XT hubs are not as good as they were a few years ago and so there should be no appreciable difference between these and the 105 hubs.

I will get the store to put an XT (long cage) on the back, because the rear cassette is an 11-34. The front triple however is 52-42-32 (32 or 30 -- I forget).

Question Two: should I switch to a mountain bike triple? I'm not going to tour the Alps anytime soon. More likely I'll be commuting or going on short errands 90% of the time on this bike, but eventually I do want to tour Vancouver Island and also do Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The 30 (or 32) combined with the rear 34 should give me enough low gear. Um, right?

They also offered to switch the steel fork out for a carbon fork for a hundred bucks, but that makes it impossible to attach a low-rider front rack, so I said 'no thanks'.

Anyhow, I would be grateful for any feedback.

I think that bike qualifies as a "light touring" bike.

If you have eyelets for front and rear racks, you are OK. And if it uses cantilever brakes or v-brakes, you should have room for decent-sized tires (say 700x32 or 700x37) and fenders, you have something great.
If, on the other hand, the bike uses sidepull brakes, you probably won't have any room for tires larger than 700x28 (if they are long-reach brakes). Such tires would be ok for touring on good pavement, but not on gravel or on bumpy roads.

BTW, keeping the steel fork is wise.

As for gears, you could switch for an MTB crankset, but you could also change some or all chainwheels for 48-38-24 (if it's 130/74 BCD) or 46-36-24 (if it's 110/74 BCD). You might even get them swapped on the cheap while you buy the bike. Otherwise, change them later if you are short on money.

Just as a bit of trivia. I recently bought a Fuji World, which has carbon forks. It can handle a front rack as it has inserts built in for mounting them so that clamping is not necessary. I haven't tested them out in that way yet, and I'm not particularly advocating carbon forks, but it's interesting just the same. I had never planned on carbon forks but liked the bike so much I decided to take the chance figuring I've got ample time to test them & replace the forks if absolutely necessary before heading off to tour in France this June!!!!

I think that bike qualifies as a "light touring" bike.

If you have eyelets for front and rear racks, you are OK. And if it uses cantilever brakes or v-brakes, you should have room for decent-sized tires (say 700x32 or 700x37) and fenders, you have something great.
If, on the other hand, the bike uses sidepull brakes, you probably won't have any room for tires larger than 700x28 (if they are long-reach brakes). Such tires would be ok for touring on good pavement, but not on gravel or on bumpy roads.

BTW, keeping the steel fork is wise.

As for gears, you could switch for an MTB crankset, but you could also change some or all chainwheels for 48-38-24 (if it's 130/74 BCD) or 46-36-24 (if it's 110/74 BCD). You might even get them swapped on the cheap while you buy the bike. Otherwise, change them later if you are short on money.

Thanks. I'll definitely have the chainwheels swapped to at least a 48-38-28. That, apparently, is what the Cannondales come with (along with a rear 11-34).

The brakes are v-brakes and the frame will accomodate larger tires. Probably the 700-28 currently on the bike are best for riding around town or for short trips.

For the record, I think you should look at swapping the cassette at sometime.

A 48-11 combo is a gear of about 118 inches!. DO you really need that high (unless for bombing down hills - never a good idea in a tourer)

I also think the 11-34 has a big jump between 34 and the next gear 28? so it's a bail out gear.

You could run a 13 - 28 or 30 if you can get it and drop the gearing at the front so you still have a gear under 24 inches. It gives the benefit of a slightly narrower spread, but small jumps in ratio's again helpful to protect the knees when accelerating a loaded tourer.

Just my opinion, but if you are going slow enough to need lower than that (especially on a lightweight fast tourer), I'd be getting off to walk. :D

I have 28mm Marathons on my commuter, and have no problems riding on trails. It is a good all-round touring tyre.
105 hubs are plenty good enough. I dont think Shimano make a bad hub. My Altus hubs were hand-built and are bomb-proof.
The front gears are too big. A 28/38/48 is good for general purpose riding, and loaded touring on roads. If you want to ride steep trails with a load , then an MTB cranks is a good idea. I find that a stupid-low gear is much easier than pushing the bike.

My new tourer has 48-38-28 on the front and 11-34 on the back. The bike I previously toured on had 52-42-32 on the front and 13-30 on the back. All my touring has been on roads and I found the old arrangement to be good as I use the bike as a training/Audax bike when not touring. The new one has a little more at the lower end and I can't imagine needing any more for on-road touring, but as MichaelW says, if you're thinking of going off-road you may need lower. I'm sure the 105 hubs will be OK. The only problem I had was a dud rear hub on the new bike (Deore XT) which had to be replaced under warranty.

Thanks for all of your comments.

Regarding 105 hubs, I'm glad you guys think they'll be good. I was a bit worried at first but they have a good reputation.

I will be very unlikely to go off-road. When I tour, I stick to roads.

I'm pretty much inclined to just go with 48-38-28, and the 11-34. (It IS a bit of a stretch to the 34, and a 12-30, or something like that, would be better, but maybe I'll do that next time.)

Oh, and I'll be putting Nitto 'Dirt Drop' bars on the bike. I like a wide grip. Anyone know how these feel? I'm buying them sight unseen and throwing them on.

My new tourer has 48-38-28 on the front and 11-34 on the back. The bike I previously toured on had 52-42-32 on the front and 13-30 on the back. All my touring has been on roads and I found the old arrangement to be good as I use the bike as a training/Audax bike when not touring. The new one has a little more at the lower end and I can't imagine needing any more for on-road touring, but as MichaelW says, if you're thinking of going off-road you may need lower. I'm sure the 105 hubs will be OK. The only problem I had was a dud rear hub on the new bike (Deore XT) which had to be replaced under warranty.


What's your bike, a Cannondale? It sounds to me like it is. Tell me more about it, at your convenience.

My new bike is a Fuji World. A new model for 2004 which actually uses pretty much the same components as the Cannondale T2000. The difference is that it uses a Reynolds 853 main triangle, std chrome moly stays and (oddly) carbon forks. The forks I'm slightly nervous about, but they are considerable thicker section than carbon fork blades I've seen on road bikes and they have all the mounting points needed for front racks so I'm going to see how they perform. In Australia it seems to represent pretty good value for money. I't very enjoyable to ride, though I'm yet to ride it with anything more than a rack-bag on it. I've used it on a 200km Audax ride with 3,600km of climbing and it was great for the hills.

Thanks for the info on your bike, Nomad. I have never seen a Fuji world bike in Vancouver. I'll look around the internet for pics. Sounds good. Your set-up is almost identical to mine. I decided against carbon forks. That was in part because these forks won't allow a low-rider front rack, and in part because I'm still unfamiliar with carbon fibre.

The guy at the LBS said that it would really smooth out the ride. But I figure that steel and the dimensions of a touring frame will do a pretty good job too.

Actually I might decide against a front rack (the back rack is a Blackburn) and go with a BOB trailer, we'll see. I've been very indecisive about the chain rings.... I know lots of people like to switch to a mtb cranks and rings, but on my commuter (a converted mtb) I run out of high gears. I guess I'm a 'masher' rather than a 'spinner', so I like some high gears. Then again I have never towed a 50 pound trailer up a series of mountain passes!

I think given the options, there's no reason not to go for the steel forks. I think the reason why my bike comes with carbon forks might be because of the Reynolds 853 frame in that it might give a harsher ride than the lower tensile steels, but I'm not sure. The ride is quite Ok but I don't notice anything remarkable about it. I once rode my mountain bike in an event called round the bay in a day, a 200km event in Melbourne. Whilst everyone cruised past me, my leg were spinning like mad in top gear to get 35km/h!!!!! I too prefer to have taller gearing available, and I think what you're getting will suit the application.