Touring - Shameless Self Promotion Alert from Bruce Gordon!!

Just saw that my "InterWeb Guy" put up the page about my new less expensive touring frames made to my specs in Taiwan.

http://www.bgcycles.com/BasicLoadedTouring.html



Any questions - feel free to give me a call.



Bruce Gordon Cycles

www.bgcycles.com

Congrats on the progress - the picture is great. Very happy you kept the Chinese characters on the downtube.

if i wasn't already set up happily with my bike situation, I would order one of those from you. Best of luck with the sales... the bike looks great.

Out of curiosity, why no downtube shifter mounts? that is my one gripe, since I like DT shifters best...

Bruce, I love the bike and it's a bargain for all that you are including. However, I am puzzled by the geometry. Why such short head tubes? I probably run my handlebars higher than most cyclists - same height as my saddle - but your head tubes are so short I don't think I could fit one of your frames. Eg, the 56 cm top-tube frame has a head tube only 12 cm long. That is 3 cm shorter than my 57 cm Merckx racing frame and 2 cm shorter than my 57 cm Bob Jackson touring frame (which is on the short side for me).

I thought one of the advantages of using compact geometry was to utilize longer head tubes. For comparison, see the 53 Salsa Casseroll (which has a 56 top tube). It's head tube is 16.5 cm long.

Am I missing something?

Tarwheel, if you compare the length of K (on his geometry page) with your merckx or jackson, whats the measurement range?

Nice looking package -- thanks for posting it.

(Racks that are designed, fitted, and mounted by you, for this frame, will probably result in a more secure, stable, trouble-free setup than usual? If so, this seems like a significant added benefit -- one that is missing from most other touring bikes.)

Why such short head tubes? I probably run my handlebars higher than most cyclists - same height as my saddle - but your head tubes are so short I don't think I could fit one of your frames. Eg, the 56 cm top-tube frame has a head tube only 12 cm long. That is 3 cm shorter than my 57 cm Merckx racing frame and 2 cm shorter than my 57 cm Bob Jackson touring frame (which is on the short side for me).


Comparing head tube lengths alone between a Merckx racing bike and a touring bike is apples to oranges. I would bet that my fork is at least 4cm taller than the fork on your Merckx. The BLT frame is also designed around a quill type stem and not a threadless stem like the Salsa. If you want to compare ride height to ride height, that Salsa with the 165mm head tube has a 383mm fork. My fork is 41.0 with a
12.0cm head tube. Then that difference is only 18mm. Combined with the taller stack height of my headset + cable hanger + a 1cm headset spacer that is included, and I would wager good money that the bar height on my bike will be taller (and better looking without a stack of threadless headset spacers) than that Salsa.

Bottom line, however, is that this is a stock frame size and is formulated based on my 33 years of building touring frames. Because it is a stock frame size, it won't fit every single rider. If it doesn't fit your needs, we can talk about a custom frame.

Any questions - feel free to give me call (707) 762-5601
Regards,
Bruce Gordon
Bruce Gordon Cycles

This is a very good initiative.
I really hope it will work for you.

Good luck,
Kfir

BG - Thanks for the response. That helps me understand. When I add the fork length (K) with head tube length (C), my Merckx is the same as your BLT with the 56 cm top tube, which would be comparable in size. My Merckx has a 57 cm top tube, but a slacker seat tube angle (72.5) so it would fit about the same across the top.

For comparison, here are the fork and head tube lengths for my road bikes, compared with the BLT:
- Merckx Corsa, 38.0 fork, 15.0 head
- Bob Jackson World Tour, 39.5 fork, 14.0 head
- De Bernardi SL, 38.0 fork, 16.0 head
- BLT, 41.0 fork, 12.0 head

They all total about 43-44 cm combined fork and head tube lengths. Ironically, the De Bernardi has the longest combined length and it also has the most racing geometry with steep angles (74), short chain stays, etc.

My general comments about short head tubes still stand, however. It seems that almost every cyclist I see nowadays has a riser stem and lots of spacers. I rarely ever see cyclist with level (73) stem and few spacers, particularly for bikes designed for commuting and touring. So why not just design bikes with taller head tubes in general? It's very easy for a cyclist to achieve more drop using a 73 stem, no spacers, etc., but options are much more limited for cyclists who want to raise their bars higher -- unless they can afford to go the custom route. End of rant.

By the way, your new BLT looks great. The price is incredible considering that it includes frame, fork, headset and stem. It is great to see someone offering more options for affordable touring bikes. I ordered my Bob Jackson from England because I couldn't find anything comparable in the US except the Surly LHT, and I'm a sucker for lugged frames and old-school styling.