Touring - X-country on a Jamis Aurora? Should it be done, or should I drink the LHT Kool-Aid?

Hey bikeforums touring people:
I've read the Touring forums up and down so that I wouldn't have to post one of those "tell me exactly what to do" posts but I still can't quite figure it out, so here goes...

My girlfriend and I are planning on going cross-country this summer- doing the ACA TransAmerica route, modified to start in Washington, DC. From other cross-country tourers we've spoken with, we're planning on using rear panniers and a trunk bag and handlebar bag. We're planning on leaving June 1st, so we're getting to the six-week mark on equipment and purchasing, which means that it's time to act. We've checked out a few LBS's and will likely be going with one that is a Jamis dealer and also stocks a full sizerun of Surly LHT's. I've taken both the Aurora and the LHT for test rides and liked both; however, a test ride is far from conclusive. Here's the kicker through-- the LBS has one Aurora left from 08 in my size which they're closing out for $800. Their price for the complete LHT is $1250-- no, I have no idea why they've gone $150 above MSRP, and I'm trying to look into that with a contact who works at another location of said shop. I've seen all the raves about the LHT on this board and that counts for a lot, but $450 could go a long way...

So it boils down to this: by buying the Aurora, I can get a less optimal touring bike than the LHT, but for $450 less. This leads to two questions:

Will the necessary upgrades to get the Aurora in touring shape be too much to make the huge discount worth it? Based on what I've seen on the boards, I would need to get beefier tires ($70 for 35mm Randonneurs?), a smaller (26 or 28t) granny gear installed for the rockies, and new brake pads for starters. What else to get an Aurora in shape for serious touring?

The deeper question: Even with all this, is the Aurora suitable for a 2-person XC ride? I've seen some issues raised on the board about its crankset, tire clearance, chainstay length, spec of STI instead of bar-ends, etc. I'm trying hard not to imagine a worn-out spring or broken plastic brifter bit in the middle of Kansas...

Not to mention the fact that you can get an LHT shipped for $900 on universalcycling, but without the support of an LBS...

So what do you more experienced tourers think? I am eternally grateful for any advice you might have.

Hey bikefor
So it boils down to this: by buying the Aurora, I can get a less optimal touring bike than the LHT, but for $450 less. This leads to two questions:

Will the necessary upgrades to get the Aurora in touring shape be too much to make the huge discount worth it? Based on what I've seen on the boards, I would need to get beefier tires ($70 for 35mm Randonneurs?), a smaller (26 or 28t) granny gear installed for the rockies, and new brake pads for starters. What else to get an Aurora in shape for serious touring?


My opinion is that you don't need any of those things. They might help a little bit, but $450 would also help a little bit. Beefy tires are only a necessity if you have a high total weight. If you were a small girl that is sub 200 lbs with bike and gear, 23 or 25s would probably be fine. If your legs are strong, you can hammer up hills in just about any gear. The fastest guy I've met on my tours rode a double. I say go for the cheaper bike. It's the sexier looking one too.

I think you meant www.universalcycles.com, and not universalcycling, which doesn't exist. At Universal Cycles, they list the LHT at MSRP: $1095. The only thing listed close to your $900 is last year's Cross Check in a 62cm, but even that is listed as out-of-stock. I'm told any dealer can order an LHT from QBP and get it to you for the MSRP of $1095. If yours won't, DC's a big place; walk down the street to another shop and have them order it. Or tell your dealer that and that you'll pay MSRP or walk. Since he let you test ride, I suppose you at least owe him the chance.

Either bike will work, unless you're very large or pack too much. I think you should get the bike you want to own next year, after the trip. :thumb:

Oh, and don't worry about the *middle* of Kansas. Plenty of good shops and mechanics in the area. It's the middle of the western *half* I'd be thinking about. But folks out there are friendly and a ride to town in a pickup is only the next vehicle coming down the road. I hope you have a wonderful trip! :)

Worked fine for me last summer on the Northern Tier 2008. It's a great bike.




http://yofapq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pM_2PzEJP6xYUW5MnH_FUOFvSWNwwFfrJVAWKuq8cflaDChwZb99f3wPWv0RbBPQCrxEuh7Si8OiQPQKUVQvZPg/bicycle%20tour%202008%20193.JPG

It comes with 32mm Randonneurs on the 2008. Should be plenty good for the first few thousand. That is all I ran going cross country. I've been running 28 conti gator skins for the last few thousand since I returned and I'm pretty happy with them also. My 2008 Jamis Aurora now has approx 10,000 miles. Paid $800 plus tax last summer.

Now for the things to think about. You need to consider either upgrading front chainrings for a few bucks or swap out the crankset. I swapped out the crankset for an LX mountain crank. Cost me $140.00 with shipping. Sold the original FSA for about $40.00 if I remember correct. So net upgrade cost was $100.00. Other than that I didn't do any other upgrade for the trip. Wheels are machine built like most bikes. I would suggest having the wheels checked a few times before departure to make sure they are tensioned well.

I'm a big fan of STI type shifters so this bike came stock better equipped off the peg.

It's also kinda nice riding something a little different. It's a pretty nice ride.

[QUOTE=kyakdiver;8732270]Worked fine for me last summer on the Northern Tier 2008. It's a great bike.


+1. I have a 2007 Aurora that I use for everything from metric centuries to lightly loaded weekend getaways to longer loaded tours. Only change I had the LBS make at time of purchase was change the crankset to 48-36-24. Everything else on the bike is standard including brake pads, saddle, STI shifters, tires etc. and still doing just fine for me after 4,000+ miles. The only thing I have replaced is the chain and that just last week. As I have said before, the Aurora is the Rodney Dangerfield of touring bikes in a LHT & Trek 520 dominated space.

[QUOTE=kyakdiver;8732270]Worked fine for me last summer on the Northern Tier 2008. It's a great bike.


+1. I have a 2007 Aurora that I use for everything from metric centuries to lightly loaded weekend getaways to longer loaded tours. Only change I had the LBS make at time of purchase was change the crankset to 48-36-24. Everything else on the bike is standard including brake pads, saddle, STI shifters, tires etc. and still doing just fine for me after 4,000+ miles. The only thing I have replaced is the chain and that just last week. As I have said before, the Aurora is the Rodney Dangerfield of touring bikes in a LHT & Trek 520 dominated space.

I like it! Well put screenwasher!

Thanks, kyakdiver. You and I seem to be the founding members of the cheerleading club for the Aurora.

To OP - If you still have misgivings, check out all the journals on CGOAB of folks who have toured with Auroras. If you are going to plunk down $1,250 for a LHT, check out the 2009 Aurora Elite as well for a couple of hundred bucks more.

OP..... here is a link to my cross country trip aboard the Jamis starting from the West Coast in Washington...http://cid-e00965f6d68a35b2.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/New%20folder

kansaskid-- You were right, it is universalcycles, I mistyped it. Just to clarify, though, I was referring to the coupon mentioned in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8718097&postcount=2), which is still valid. Point taken though, thank you for your thoughtful advice.

kyakdiver- that picture is badass. Good call on the crankset, I will inquire about it at the shop.

The Aurora looks like a fine bike for touring. I would probably spring for the lower gearing for the appalachians more than for the Rockies. I used my 26-32 combination in the Rockies, but could have gotten by with a 30-32. In the Appalachians a smaller ring would be a real plus and since you can buy a 24t for something like $12, why not?

The OEM 700x32 tires are fine.

The STI is a big plus in my mind. They are quite reliable and I like them so much better than barcons. Even if a brifter fails you can still rig it so it is in the middle range and use the full range on the other derailleur until you get to where you can find a replacement. If you are really paranoid just carry a set of down tube shifters as a backup. I think that is overkill given that in my experience derailleurs fail more often than brifters and almost no one carries spare derailleurs.

The Tektro Oryx brakes are fine, pads and all. We used them on our three bikes on the TransAmerica. The pads didn't give a lot or warning before they died so carry a spare set of pads or replace them well before you have to. I needed them in Kentucky on a W-E TransAmerica and my daughter needed them soon after.

I would happily take off on another TransAmerica on a box stock Aurora except that I would probably put a smaller inner chain ring on.

I am in DC as well and the LBS's around here are horrible. If you want suggestions as to an LBS that wont overcharge, PM me.

Either bike will do you well, I would look for a trucker, personally.

I use a 2006 Jamis Aurora....14,240 miles on it as of today......5 4-day tours and an 18 day tour on it...along with commuting every day.....

Just my view, but I like my Aurora. I went for the 22 chain ring to boost hill climbing, but otherwise made no mods. STI's are a negligible concern. Yes even in Kansas Barend shifters are available and a shifter failure will be on one handlebar or the other, and thus will not totally incapacitate your bike to keep you from riding to the nearest bike shop. I've had barends on practically every bike I had before this one and so I'm biased toward them, but still find little to fault with STI. I did the Miss River Trail for 670 miles, carrying moderate weight, and my 190 carcuss and felt that the bike gave wonderful performance. As to STI failure, it usually will be just not quite lining up so you get DR rattle, but sometimes the shift won't occur (on the front that will put you on your lowest gear (better than your highest); on the back you can always shorten that cable to get the DR pulled to a more comfortable emergency gear. I'd ride the STI's and when and if they fail 3 years from now, replace them with barends. I'd certainly not let them guide my overall bike purchase. IMHO. Tom

Now for the things to think about. You need to consider either upgrading front chainrings for a few bucks or swap out the crankset. I swapped out the crankset for an LX mountain crank. Cost me $140.00 with shipping. Sold the original FSA for about $40.00 if I remember correct. So net upgrade cost was $100.00. Other than that I didn't do any other upgrade for the trip. Wheels are machine built like most bikes. I would suggest having the wheels checked a few times before departure to make sure they are tensioned well.


This seems like excellent advice. My experience pulling a load over mountain passes tells me that it's a pain (literally - in my knees) to need a lower gear and not have one. I'd swap out that crankset for one with at least a 24 tooth granny. I also had one tour spoiled by broken spokes, so I now pay careful attention to my rear wheel - especially the tensioning.

I've heard the worriers talk about possible problems with brifters, and I've got barcons on my LHT, but I've recently acquired a bike with brifters and they work fine. I'd guess the likelihood of them breaking on a tour are about as high as anything else (other than rear spokes.) I'd be fine starting a cross-country tour with them.

Having $450 to spend on other things would make this almost a no-brainer to me. The Aurora is considered to be an excellent tourer. Buy it.

looking at the geometries, looks like the Aurora is a slight bit more sportier, zippy whereas the LHT is a slight bit more stable. If you plan to get a 2nd road bike later on, I'd go with the LHT, or if you only want 1 bike for both loaded touring and unloaded rides, I'd go for the Aurora. As for changing the gearing on the Aurora, just put on some smaller chainrings. You can go as low as 24 teeth on the stock crankset.

Wow, thanks to everyone for all the advice. The consensus definitely seems to be for the Aurora, with good justification. Especially thanks to Peruano and BigBlue about analyzing the shifter concerns-- it definitely seems that Brifter failure, even if it occurs, would not be as much of a concern while in the US as opposed to the true middle of nowhere.

I already have a Cannondale for fast road rides, so the Aurora wouldn't be filling as much of a distinct slot in my bike collection-- but hey, it's a great deal and should fit my needs perfectly. Now I just have to worry about the other 999 things to take care of.

Wow, thanks to everyone for all the advice. The consensus definitely seems to be for the Aurora, with good justification. Especially thanks to Peruano and BigBlue about analyzing the shifter concerns-- it definitely seems that Brifter failure, even if it occurs, would not be as much of a concern while in the US as opposed to the true middle of nowhere.

I already have a Cannondale for fast road rides, so the Aurora wouldn't be filling as much of a distinct slot in my bike collection-- but hey, it's a great deal and should fit my needs perfectly. Now I just have to worry about the other 999 things to take care of.

Before you pull the trigger on an Aurora, consider other bikes as well. The Aurora has short chainstays and a short wheel base which put it near the bottom of the heap, in my opinion, for loaded touring. Consider at least looking at some other touring bikes. If you don't want to be riding what everyone else is riding...*cough*LHT*cough...take a look at the Cannondale T2. You won't find a touring bike with a longer pedigree and you are already familiar with the Cannondale ride.

I just ran across the Masi Speciale Randonneur (http://www.masibikes.com/tab4_subNav2.php) too. It looks like it could give the LHT a run for the money. $1145 MSRP.

[Aurora versus LHT]
I've managed to have seen and touched both! The Aurora is nice and with a nice price. I think it would be a good choice. The frame on the LHT is cleaner (weld wise) but the Aurora is fine. People say good things here about the Aurora (and nothing bad).


The Aurora has short chainstays and a short wheel base which put it near the bottom of the heap, in my opinion, for loaded touring.
Yes, the wheelbase is shorter by 25mm or so than a more standard loaded tourer. But many people have toured on similar bikes. It might depend on how much crap you plan to carry.
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebikes/road/aurora/09_aurora_geo.html

f budget constraints are on your mind, saving the $450 is a no-brainer. However, there's no reason why you can't ask the bikeshop to sell the lht at msrp, which'd drop you down to $300 saved with the aurora. The common advice will be to change the crank to something more trekking (48/36/26) or mtb (44/32/22); depending on your load, your route, and your chops, you might want to do that. I'd try it with a load on a shorter ride, to see how it feels, before I dropped the $100+ on a semi-decent crankset. The only thing I'd HAVE to swap out, right away, if i bought an Aurora complete, is that ridiculous stem. Something for $10 would do the trick; anything that isn't allen-key adjustable, which is going to get shifty/bouncy...

I ride a LHT, and it's a great bike, but i don't know if it's worth the premium to you. I mostly got it because it's the only cheapish tourer that you can easily get as a frameset only with 26" wheels. I'd have loved to build something else, but they were all costly or 700c or both...

hth,
-rob

Yes, the wheelbase is shorter by 25mm or so than a more standard loaded tourer. But many people have toured on similar bikes. It might depend on how much crap you plan to carry.
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebikes/road/aurora/09_aurora_geo.html

The wheelbase is 45 mm or more shorter than an LHT/Cannondale/Masi. The chainstays are 17mm or more shorter. The geometry of the Aurora is more like a cross bike then a touring bike. That may not seem like a big issue but it can have an effect on the bike's handling under load. Load steer, aka 'tail wagging the dog', becomes much more of a problem with short chainstays/wheelbases. I've toured with a load on such bikes and they don't make for relaxing rides. Instead of paying attention to the scenery, you have to pay attention to handling of the bike. I much prefer a more predictably handling bike with a load.

And heel strike on the panniers becomes much more of an issue, even with relatively small feet. Nothing worse on a tour than your feet hitting your bag on every revolution of the crank. You can adjust for that by moving the load back and using a longer rack but that just exacerbates the load steer problem.

Cost wise, the Aurora isn't much cheaper than an LHT and is only around $150 less than the Masi or Cannondale. Why settle for something that is 'okay' when you can get something that is outstanding for the same price?

cyccommute, I don't really understand you twitchy comment. After 10K miles on my 2008 I'm pretty sure it's not twitchy. My frame is a 55 and with 45 sidi's my heal does not strike my orliebs. 45's are size 11 US. Have you had a chance to ride the bike loaded on tour? The bike is more than relaxing.

I don't own a LHT. It may be the greatest thing since sliced bread also. At the time I puchased my Jamis it was the best bike for me for the price. It cost $800 plus tax. Lifetime frame warranty and 1 year on componants.

It's a great bike that will serve you well on a cross country trip. Just like a LHT, T2, and many others.

I haven't ridden the LHT or the T2 loaded so I can't really comment on how twitchy they are:innocent:

cyccommute, I don't really understand you twitchy comment.
One man's twitchy is another man's responsive.

I understand the twitchy comment. I have an old Nashbar tourer from 1992. Going downhill fast with a load sets up a shimmy that feels like it's going to shake everything loose from the frame! It's a very large frame with 1" tubing - very whippy. Balancing my load between panniers carefully helped somewhat, but the shimmy was always there and always severe - just a little less severe when balanced.

I now have an LHT and have never felt the tiniest bit of shimmy. What a relief!

I'm not implying any other bike would shimmy, and I certainly don't know enough about bike geometry to make a prediction based on numbers. I listen to anecdotes of people who have lived with and toured on their bikes, and the reports of Aurora owners definitely sound positive.

The wheelbase is 45 mm or more shorter than an LHT/Cannondale/Masi. The chainstays are 17mm or more shorter.
Wheelbase differences between the two (Aurora and LHT) for the smallest and largest is 24.6 mm and 34.3 mm. The same numbers for the Aurora and the Cannondale is 39 mm and 26 mm (I used the large, not the peculiarly long "jumbo", Cannondale).


The chainstays are 17mm or more shorter.
There is a 20mm difference in chainstay length between the Aurora and LHT and 17 mm between the Aurora and Cannondale.

http://www.surlybikes.com/longhaul.html
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/09/cusa/model-8TR2.html
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebikes/road/aurora/09_aurora_geo.html


The geometry of the Aurora is more like a cross bike then a touring bike.
Maybe, more like an Audax/Randonee or sport tourer. People use cross bikes for touring (and like them for that) too. People use the Aurora for touring and I haven't heard anybody say it doesn't work for that.

The only thing about the Aurora that might be an issue is the wheelbase/chainstay length.


Cost wise, the Aurora isn't much cheaper than an LHT and is only around $150 less than the Masi or Cannondale. Why settle for something that is 'okay' when you can get something that is outstanding for the same price?
He can get the Aurora for $800 (and the LHT at his LBS for $1250). Thus, it's not $150 or the same price. The only possible significant disadvantage of the Aurora is the wheelbase.

I understand the twitchy comment. I have an old Nashbar tourer from 1992. Going downhill fast with a load sets up a shimmy that feels like it's going to shake everything loose from the frame! It's a very large frame with 1" tubing - very whippy.
I'm not sure we are all using the same definition of twitchy. To me twitchy means short wheel base and quick handling like a crit bike. A bike that shimmies because it in flexible or whippy is an entirely different matter.

My Giant TCR Composite is twitchy :)... But damn is it ever fun!!! I know twitchy. I like to think of it as spirited handling :)

I'm not sure we are all using the same definition of twitchy. To me twitchy means short wheel base and quick handling like a crit bike. A bike that shimmies because it in flexible or whippy is an entirely different matter.

I call that quick or tight handling.
To me twitchy is my longtail with a heavy load, where at slow speed you are moving the bars all over the place to keep yourself in a straight line, and at high speed you are white knuckling the grips fighting a speed wobble.

I call that quick or tight handling.
To me twitchy is my longtail with a heavy load, where at slow speed you are moving the bars all over the place to keep yourself in a straight line, and at high speed you are white knuckling the grips fighting a speed wobble.
"Twitchy" is a poor term for this for the "high speed wobble". "Shimmying" is much better (it's exactly the term to use). It would seem that short wheelbase bikes are normally "twitchy" when moving at slow speed, in the same way as your "long tail" bike.


A bike that shimmies because it in flexible or whippy is an entirely different matter.
Yes, this is a control problem.

Wheelbase differences between the two (Aurora and LHT) for the smallest and largest is 24.6 mm and 34.3 mm. The same numbers for the Aurora and the Cannondale is 39 mm and 26 mm (I used the large, not the peculiarly long "jumbo", Cannondale).

57 cm both bikes:
Cannondale 1077 mm wheelbase
Aurora 1027 mm wheelbase

That 50mm, actually. Comparisons between smaller bikes are similar.


There is a 20mm difference in chainstay length between the Aurora and LHT and 17 mm between the Aurora and Cannondale.

Hence the "17mm or more shorter" for the three bikes. The Masi is even longer than the other two..


Maybe, more like an Audax/Randonee or sport tourer. People use cross bikes for touring (and like them for that) too. People use the Aurora for touring and I haven't heard anybody say it doesn't work for that.

The Las Cruces I have has a wheel base of 1051 which is even longer than a comparable Aurora, but the stays on a cross bike are even shorter.


He can get the Aurora for $800 (and the LHT at his LBS for $1250). Thus, it's not $150 or the same price. The only possible significant disadvantage of the Aurora is the wheelbase.

Buy the right bike first is always cheaper than buy the wrong one and then the proper one further down the road. It's tough to test ride a touring bike in the first place but riding one with a load on it is even harder to arrange. The test ride around the parking lot won't tell you diddly about how the bike rides in the real world. About the only thing you have to judge a touring bike by is other people's experiences. I've tried short wheel base bikes for touring. I've ridden short wheel base bikes with lighter loads, as well. They weren't stellar performers. My commuter bike, the Las Cruces, is okay with a summer load of clothes on it. It's less okay with my winter load (afternoons carrying home the 2 jerseys, shoe covers, jacket, etc. that I need to carry when the temperature is 60 F instead of 20F.

A long wheel base touring bike, designed and built for carrying 50 or more of gear is a joy to ride with that gear. Adapting something that isn't designed to do so is less of a joy.

One man's twitchy is another man's responsive.

Responsive on a supported century or supported tour: great.

Responsive on a loaded tour = twitchy

Twitchy at 40+ mph on a downhill mountain road = disaster:eek:

That I suppose is why Cyccommute.... I have given my real world experience with the bike. I didn't just look at the spec's. It is more than up to the task of touring. It handles well and comes at a nice price point. Has a warranty as good as any in the business as well.

Have you riddin the Jamis on tour? I don't think I could really comment to much on what you ride since I have very little experience with how it rides loaded(actually none). So I don't have two cents to add to what your feelings are about it.

In the end I've seen people touring on $50 craigslist bikes and having a ball and making it cross country just fine. In the end it's like my Group ride bike...... We all use different tools to get the job done.

I have never felt that my choice of touring bike was holding me back. Now I know otherwise.

Thanks

I call that quick or tight handling.
To me twitchy is my longtail with a heavy load, where at slow speed you are moving the bars all over the place to keep yourself in a straight line, and at high speed you are white knuckling the grips fighting a speed wobble.

A tight handling bike is wonderful for high speed riding. They are light weight and you can throw them around on climbs and they are very responsive on turns. However, add a lot of weight to the frame and they don't want to hold a line on a high speed...or even moderate...curve. The quick handling means that they are too responsive in a loaded situation. You'll tend to over or understeer which could mean the difference between staying on the road or going off it:eek: The load will want to steer the bike at just about any speed, i.e. the tail wags the dog. Standing up on hills...a great way to releave the nether regions...just makes the tail wag the dog harder.

Speed wobbles are more likely in a tight handling bike because most of them are lighter framed bikes. By thinning the tubes, weight is saved but at the cost of rigidity. With a load, a lighter bike will be less rigid and more likely to develop the oscillations that create speed wobbles.

I'm not saying that the Aurora has a problem with speed wobbles. I'm saying that the shorter stays can cause problems with control and load steering because the load has to be cantilevered further off the back of the bike and further from the center of the wheelbase. A good 60/40 front to rear load ratio will help.

I've toured on bikes with stay lengths of from <17.5 to 18" and much prefer the longer stays. The bikes with longer stays and wheelbases just ride and handle better with fewer issues.

enough of this drama.... I got a group ride to get to. cya

Responsive on a supported century or supported tour: great.

Responsive on a loaded tour = twitchy

Twitchy at 40+ mph on a downhill mountain road = disaster:eek:
Still... there is a wide range of what folks find acceptable. Lots of folks have done self supported mountain touring on responsive road bikes. Some of them are absolute Kamikazes on the downhills and manage fine.

For some the Aurora is exactly what they want, for some it is just acceptable, and for some it is just not what they want. It is certainly in the realm of what is acceptable to some significant number of riders for long distance touring given the number of folks who have done longish tours on them in the mountains.

If I were to have only one bike I would be touring on a more responsive bike.

BTW, I am tall (just shy of 6'3") so I would be on the 62cm aurora, which has a 105cm wheelbase anyway. Hooray!

One thing I've found over the years to be true, is that it's not just the length of the chain stays which is important but also the rigidity of the rear triangle that makes for a stable ride when loaded. I had a quote "touring" bike for a short time which had longer stays but the darn thing was so flexible in the rear, it wasn't a lot of fun to climb or bomb a hill. Oh and I will agree with Cycco, you might be able to tell whether a frame's geometry is comfortable during the test ride in a parking lot, but you won't have a clue as to how it handles when fully loaded.

57 cm both bikes:
Cannondale 1077 mm wheelbase
Aurora 1027 mm wheelbase.
I think a longer seat tube on the Aurora matches a shorter seat tube on the Cannondale (which has a more sloping top-tube). Thus, I think, it seems that your comparison would not be correct. This points to the problem of being "absolute" about what is "proper" or not.

Anyway, there isn't a 57 cm Cannondale. It looks like you are using the TT length from the Cannondale and comparing it to the seat-tube length of the Aurora.


Hence the "17mm or more shorter" for the three bikes. The Masi is even longer than the other two
That number I was agreeing with.

Anyway, there is not any particular magic value that makes the Aurora absolutely inappropriate. People tour all the time on the Cannondale. Does that mean they should be using the Masi instead, because it's even longer? When does the wheelbase become too long to be desireable when not carrying weight (assuming that people don't have the money for multiple bicycles)?


Buy the right bike first is always cheaper than buy the wrong one and then the proper one further down the road.
This makes more sense but this wasn't the argument you were making by saying they were the "same" price.

Of course, it's still not clear that the Aurora is "wrong" or "improper" and, if the much more expensive bike turned out to be "wrong" (for him), then he'd be worse-off not buying the Aurora.

It certainly makes sense for the original poster to consider other bikes for the reasons you have mentioned!

===========


BTW, I am tall (just shy of 6'3") so I would be on the 62cm aurora, which has a 105cm wheelbase anyway. Hooray!
No! You will die!

Having toured on folding bikes with 20" wheels, I find the idea that a cross bike is going to end up "twitchy" when loaded to be mildly amusing. I know humans can be pretty sensitive to small changes on a bike, but this seems like splitting hairs. You want twitchy? Try smaller wheels. ;)

I might add, that's another thing to consider when comparing the LHT's wheelbase to other bikes. I don't know the exact figures, but 26" wheels will have a slightly tighter turning circle than 700c; so you can't make a direct comparison for the smaller LHT's, except for heel clearance. Even then, that's going to depend on your rack, on the shape of the rear triangle, foot size, pannier shape, etc.

I will say that I'd assume the LHT will still be a tad more stable than the Aurora, but that and the cross geometry also makes the Aurora a little bit more versatile.

the wheelbase is 45 mm or more shorter than an lht/cannondale/masi. The chainstays are 17mm or more shorter. the geometry of the aurora is more like a cross bike then a touring bike. That may not seem like a big issue but it can have an effect on the bike's handling under load. load steer, aka 'tail wagging the dog', becomes much more of a problem with short chainstays/wheelbases. I've toured with a load on such bikes and they don't make for relaxing rides. Instead of paying attention to the scenery, you have to pay attention to handling of the bike. i much prefer a more predictably handling bike with a load.

and heel strike on the panniers becomes much more of an issue, even with relatively small feet. Nothing worse on a tour than your feet hitting your bag on every revolution of the crank. You can adjust for that by moving the load back and using a longer rack but that just exacerbates the load steer problem.

Cost wise, the aurora isn't much cheaper than an lht and is only around $150 less than the masi or cannondale. Why settle for something that is 'okay' when you can get something that is outstanding for the same price?

+1

There are many better options than either of the two bikes mentioned.

+1
There are many better options than either of the two bikes mentioned.
I guess the Aurora is one of the bikes that isn't better. What's the other one?

Randochap, I guess that is why I mentioned in an earlier post that I have size 45 shoes and ride a 55mm frame with no heal strike problems. I also mentioned that the bike handles great loaded. It's a great bike for what it is. Is it perfect? Nope. Is any bike perfect? Nope. Longer wheelbase bikes start to ride like pigs at some point. Where is that point? Don't know.

All of the above is based on real world experience. One cross country trip and 10K miles later I see no reason to find another touring bike.

I would jump on a Cannondale, trek, novara or a lht and tour as well as many others.... I would swap out the shifters because for me that is what I like. All would get the job done. I'm pretty sure that I'd rather ride the Jamis more when the tour is over.


It's a tool................... not a jewel. As a tool it does the job just fine.

Interesting points in this thread.

To the OP: the Aurora Elite looks very attractive to me. You might check around for 08 models and discounts. If I were choosing between the two Jamis bikes, I would find a way to earn the extra money for the Elite, 09 if necesary. (Or ask parents for a few years' worth of Xmas and/or birthday presents in advance, or find some other reasonable way of coming up with the extra money.)

Check the spec sheet on the Jamis site. [I admit to having a preference for stronger, hardened steels over most non-hardened steels (631 over 520).]

There are many other bikes, of course; but it sounds as if you have narrowed it down. If you haven't compared or ridden loaded LWB touring bikes and SWB touring bikes, you might be able to find a way to do so. There might be local touring cyclists who could help. Some shops will let you add a touring load to see how the bikes ride.

I've ridden both, and have both. My favorite ride and strong preference (in touring bikes) for years was LWB (esp. those with long chainstays). It was one of my foremost criteria for choosing a bike.

However.... Things have changed.

Now it doesn't mean so much to me.

Same with frame rigidity.

Super-rigid oversized tubing used to by very high on my list of criteria.

Now, not so much.

Why?

I had an interesting conversation with Brent Steelman about this. (That's his real, birth-certificate name, by the way, even though he is a builder of fine steel bikes.) The topic was: What if you like everything about a bike for touring, but it isn't as rigid as some others? Couldn't you adapt?

We agreed: Yes, you can adapt. You learn a few things not to do. As he put it, "These bikes have their moments," but if you know what you are doing it really isn't a big deal at all. I've adapted and learned to live with it. I know what situations are of concern, and respond accordingly.

I still prefer (all else being equal) a highly rigid (for fully loaded touring) bike frame. But a moderately rigid one is fine too. And a lot depends on how it is loaded, the stability of the racks, and the whether the loads are well-located and cinched-in, etc., etc.

***

There is more than just wheelbase involved in how relaxed the ride is. There are other factors, too. And some longer-wheelbase touring bikes will feel less relaxed than some other shorter-wheelbase bikes.

Everything, or virtually everything Cyccommute has written strikes me as very informed and true, or well-based; yet there are other takes on the same issues that are also informed and true, and well-based. I respect his views and comments very much; yet I feel that there is room for other takes and other views as well.

***

Having the weight extra low and extra stable makes a major difference.

The tail-wagging is yet another issue on which I have modified my views over the years, after experiences with various bikes and loads and racks and panniers and chainstays.

wow..... well thought out points and counter points. Thanks, Niles H. I could not agree more with everything you have written.

Randochap, Is it perfect? Nope. Is any bike perfect? Nope. Longer wheelbase bikes start to ride like pigs at some point. Where is that point? Don't know.

All of the above is based on real world experience. One cross country trip and 10K miles later I see no reason to find another touring bike.

I would jump on a Cannondale, trek, novara or a lht and tour as well as many others.... I would swap out the shifters because for me that is what I like. All would get the job done. I'm pretty sure that I'd rather ride the Jamis more when the tour is over.

It's a tool................... not a jewel. As a tool it does the job just fine.

Well, some bikes do approach perfection of purpose more than others. Of course one can press many kinds of bikes into use a "tourer" (and I've done so) but it is accepted that the preferable bike for touring is ... a touring bike, with the tried-and-true geometry. Long-wheelbase bikes, ideal for touring, do not "ride like pigs," they track straight.

This was easier in the past, as most off-the-peg bikes had relaxed geometry and long-reach brakes. Not so easy now with the market flooded with racer-wanabee bikes. Having said that, there are more options in touring bikes w/ appropriate geometry and gearing than ever before.

I'm all for practical tools. It's easier to undo a screw w/ a screwdriver than a hammer.

Ride on.

Randochap

It's the motor that can get close to perfection. The bike is just a tool. Did I say what bike rode like a pig? Nope. I had an xtracycle that did have a long wheelbase. Sold it. Handy as heck but not much fun to ride. As a tool it was great.

I guess I should ask what the perfect bike is? I'm sure I can find more than a few things about it that I don't like. Really does not matter to me. To each his own.

At the end of the day............ it just matters that you like what your on and are having fun. The rest is just hot air.

Randochap

It's the motor that can get close to perfection.

Ah, this motor has long since passed the point where it can approach anything near "perfection." I don't dare hook it up to any old rig like I used to.

I have to rely on optimization of the "accesories.":lol:

I think a longer seat tube on the Aurora matches a shorter seat tube on the Cannondale (which has a more sloping top-tube). Thus, I think, it seems that your comparison would not be correct. This points to the problem of being "absolute" about what is "proper" or not.

Anyway, there isn't a 57 cm Cannondale. It looks like you are using the TT length from the Cannondale and comparing it to the seat-tube length of the Aurora.

So I mistyped. Big woop. If you want to split hairs, be my guest:rolleyes:

There isn't a direct comparison between the Aurora and the Cannondale. However, I have one of the Cannondales and the sloping top tube isn't that big of a deal. If you are around 6' tall, you'll likely ride an XL Cannondale (58.4 cm). You'd likely fit on either the 57 or 59cm Aurora. I picked one.


Anyway, there is not any particular magic value that makes the Aurora absolutely inappropriate. People tour all the time on the Cannondale. Does that mean they should be using the Masi instead, because it's even longer? When does the wheelbase become too long to be desireable when not carrying weight (assuming that people don't have the money for multiple bicycles)?

Any chainstay over 17.75" is a good length for touring bikes. Shorter than that and you'll likely have heel clip issues. The longer the better.

As for length without a load, for nearly 20 years I rode a touring bike for all kinds of nontouring riding. Centuries, day tours, fitness, mountain centuries, double metrics, etc. I never raced, nor wanted to, however. The bike handled well and was actually more comfortable on long rides than either a Cannondale race bike or a Diamondback race bike I owned for a short period of time. Both of those bikes beat the crap out of me on rides of over about 10 miles. Yes they were fun to ride and very sporty, but not that much more sporty than the touring bike. Neither would have been worth a damn for touring;)


This makes more sense but this wasn't the argument you were making by saying they were the "same" price.

MSRP for each of the bikes is nearly the same. I missed some of the original post because I was scanning the posts and I added the following post as a suggestion late in the discussion.


Before you pull the trigger on an Aurora, consider other bikes as well. The Aurora has short chainstays and a short wheel base which put it near the bottom of the heap, in my opinion, for loaded touring. Consider at least looking at some other touring bikes. If you don't want to be riding what everyone else is riding...*cough*LHT*cough...take a look at the Cannondale T2. You won't find a touring bike with a longer pedigree and you are already familiar with the Cannondale ride.

I just ran across the Masi Speciale Randonneur (http://www.masibikes.com/tab4_subNav2.php) too. It looks like it could give the LHT a run for the money. $1145 MSRP.

You seemed to take it as a personal affront that I would suggest he just look at something else before he purchased the Aurora. Now isn't it a good idea to consider all the options for the various reasons given here before deciding that you should just go with the bike that's the cheapest?

My aurora handled fine with loaded. Never shook going downhill on my cross-country last year, think I hit either 41 or 43 mph. Now, try taking the panniers off and going for a short ride on your tour, that's twitchy. One thing I would advise is to think more about using 4 panniers. I used two rear ones and a handlebar bag and had spoke issues starting under 1,000 miles in, and continuing until the west. Its also easier to carry a bike with 4 bags, if that should arise.

So I mistyped. Big woop. If you want to split hairs, be my guest:rolleyes:
It really doesn't matter why you incorrect since wasn't clear what you were comparing. Of course, you were incorrect in your reply to my comment saying I was incorrect. So, it seems odd to be make this statement now.


However, I have one of the Cannondales and the sloping top tube isn't that big of a deal. If you are around 6' tall, you'll likely ride an XL Cannondale (58.4 cm). You'd likely fit on either the 57 or 59cm Aurora. I picked one.
If the 57 cm Aurora is an option, then the large Cannondate is also an option. It would appear that the XL is no more "likely" a choice (look at the TT lengths).

The wheelbase differences between the two sizes that match horizontal TT length are 39 and 45 mm.


BTW, I am tall (just shy of 6'3") so I would be on the 62cm aurora, which has a 105cm wheelbase anyway. Hooray!
It looks like the 62 cm Aurora fits him. The Cannondale with a similar TT length is the really-long "jumbo" Cannondale. It might be that, if he chose the Cannondale, he'd be better off with the XL. That would make the wheelbase difference 26 mm. If the original poster was a thin 6'3'', then the "jumbo" might not be so great unloaded.


I picked one.
I think it makes more sense to match by horizontal top-tube length.


As for length without a load, for nearly 20 years I rode a touring bike for all kinds of nontouring riding. Centuries, day tours, fitness, mountain centuries, double metrics, etc. I never raced, nor wanted to, however. The bike handled well and was actually more comfortable on long rides than either a Cannondale race bike or a Diamondback race bike I owned for a short period of time. Both of those bikes beat the crap out of me on rides of over about 10 miles. Yes they were fun to ride and very sporty, but not that much more sporty than the touring bike. Neither would have been worth a damn for touring;)
Touring bikes certainly work fine for regular riding around. I think the fact that they track straighter might be a benefit on longer rides.

Still, it's not at all clear that the Aurora would beat you up any less than the other touring bicycles you mentioned (especially, considering it's nothing like the "racing" bicycles you mentioned and no one else was talking about).

It would be interesting to see how many people doing long distance riding use true touring bicycles (it looks to me that they use anything but that the preference is for something a little bit shorter than a touring bicycle).


Any chainstay over 17.75" is a good length for touring bikes. Shorter than that and you'll likely have heel clip issues. The longer the better.
I wonder if the heel-strike issue is related to how tall people are. I had no issues with a much shorter bicycle. Do people have heel-strike issues with the Aurora?

One might be able to address the potential heel-strike and the somewhat-shorter wheel-base, by using smaller rear panniers and using front panniers (something that you basically suggested). It's possible that the front/rear pannier on a "slightly" shorter bike would be preferrable than using just rear panniers on a longer bike.


MSRP for each of the bikes is nearly the same. I missed some of the original post because I was scanning the posts and I added the following post as a suggestion late in the discussion.
He should certainly look at other bicycles in the same price range. It would even be reasonable to look at what he could get for "a little" more. If you "missed" an important part of the discussion, then maybe you should not be so quick to post a reply to it. It certainly makes no sense to object to somebody pointing out that you "missed" something!


You seemed to take it as a personal affront that I would suggest he just look at something else before he purchased the Aurora. Now isn't it a good idea to consider all the options for the various reasons given here before deciding that you should just go with the bike that's the cheapest?
No. If I took "affront" to anything, it was your implication that the Aurora was "absolutely" not at all usable! There appears to be ample information to the contrary.

The suggestion to look at other bicycles, especially for the specific reasons you suggested, is reasonable advice!

And I said this earlier:


It certainly makes sense for the original poster to consider other bikes for the reasons you have mentioned!