Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Looking to buy a new bike for longer distances....

Some background.

Next year will be my second season riding since I was a kid. I recently sold a cannondale six 3 I had and am looking for something for longer distances atm. Next year I plan on doing weekly club rides of 60 miles plus, several centuries, maybe some multi-day events. I would also love possible try a shorter distance brevet, or even build up to longer distances.

The LBS which I am very dedicated too sells Trek and Specialized, any suggestions as to a good bike? I am looking in the 3k-5k range but if I find a good bike for cheaper I wouldn't complain, I am currently leaning towards a roubaix or a performance fit madone.

Thanks for any advice.

My every sunny day and brevet bike is a '99 Trek 5200. Early OCLV. Has about 50k miles on it. It does everything well. Don't see any need to change it out. You might have the same luck with a 5.5.

The two bikes I've used for long distance riding is the Specialized Roubaix Comp that is beautiful on long distance rides. Hard to carry things on it though. I ended up selling this bike to get something a little more versatile. I ended up with a Specialized Tricross Comp. Rides great and is very comfortable over long distances, plus you can put a large range of tires on it and it has all the rack mounts that you'd need. Even has a third water bottle for a pump or battery. One of the toughest bikes I've ever had also.

Specialized TriCross Sport

Fran rode hers 4200 miles in 58 Days with No Rest Days.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh187/10wheels/The%20Real%2042%20South%20Ride/DeskFran.jpg

Have a Roubaix that's been good for 68 centuries so far this year. Think of it as a compromise: agile and quick yet comfortable enough for long rides. I have a Jandd Mountain Wedge III bag (their largest), but in the winter I really, really want a rack and trunk bag. Need something to hold the various layers that get peeled off. (My seatpost rack would loosen and start swaying after a while.)

Thanks for the Tricross info knobster. I'd been thinking steel, like a Casseroll or Pacer. How's that aluminum frame ride compared to the Roubaix? (I know the wider tires alone will account for most of the difference.)

I have a '09 Specialized Tricross and a '07 Trek Madone in my stable. I'm loving the versatility of the Tricross at the moment, but I find both bikes to be very comfortable for me. However, I would never buy a 2008 or later Madone because it is completely non-versatile (you can't even put a seat-post rack on it because of the stupid seat mast thing).

I have a '09 Specialized Tricross and a '07 Trek Madone in my stable. I'm loving the versatility of the Tricross at the moment, but I find both bikes to be very comfortable for me. However, I would never buy a 2008 or later Madone because it is completely non-versatile (you can't even put a seat-post rack on it because of the stupid seat mast thing).

The way I keep seeing the Tri Cross is a bike the is very versatile but kind of mediocre at everything. Not as fast as a madone, not as comfortable as a roubaix, though it does seem tempting. I also like to tour, and though I have been using a converted trek hybrid I wonder how much weight a tricross could hold. Currently my gear with both sets of panniers, front and rear racks, tent, etc. etc. runs around 50lbs.

Trek 520 if I HAD to buy a Trek or Specialized AND carry that much gear. TriCross could probably handle it, too, and be better unloaded, though I've ridden neither. Roubaix - fugedaboudit.

Most LBS can order Salsa or Surly from QBP. A Casseroll would be a good alternative to look at. LHT and Cross Check, too, but I think the Casseroll might be more fun unladen. They're all good, of course.

Keep in mind that long distance bikes tend to be upgraded and personalized with wheels, tires, seats, handlebars, etc. Safety gear and accessories can add up also.

I would set aside between $600 and $1000 for upgrades for any bike that you buy.

Michael

Putting this all together:

1) You want to stay within the Trek/Specialized line
2) You want to try some longer rides and ride with the club
3) You like to pack 50 lbs when you tour
4) You're coming off a Caad Six 3 race bike

Seems to me you need two bikes. No bike in the middle is going to be as nice to ride with the club as, say a Roubaix or relaxed Madone, or be able to adequately carry your touring load. The $3-5K you're willing to spend on one bike can get you a Trek 520 for touring and a carbon Roubaix or Madone for regular rides.

On the other hand, if you want a high-zoot bike, try the Roubaix and a performance-fit Madone and buy the one you like best.

Putting this all together:

1) You want to stay within the Trek/Specialized line
2) You want to try some longer rides and ride with the club
3) You like to pack 50 lbs when you tour
4) You're coming off a Caad Six 3 race bike

Seems to me you need two bikes. No bike in the middle is going to be as nice to ride with the club as, say a Roubaix or relaxed Madone, or be able to adequately carry your touring load. The $3-5K you're willing to spend on one bike can get you a Trek 520 for touring and a carbon Roubaix or Madone for regular rides.

On the other hand, if you want a high-zoot bike, try the Roubaix and a performance-fit Madone and buy the one you like best.

I already have a bike I use for touring, I just mentioned that about the tricross to see if I could use it for that as well.

Recently, I was shopping for a new bike (for long supported rides). The Specialized and Trek bikes that I test rode were: Roubaix Comp, Roubaix Pro, Tarmac Elite, Tarmac Pro, Trek 5.2, Trek 6 series (not sure the actual model number).

Of those, the two Treks seemed far superior to the Specialized bikes in terms of performance. The Specialized Tarmac was okay, but not as peppy as the 5.2.

I ended up with a Look 595. I just didn't think any of the other bikes lived up to it in terms of performance and in comfort. I've now ridden two rides on it longer than 200 miles. It was certainly quite the shock going from a steel frame to a top-end carbon fiber...

I think you'd do quite well with a cross bike. I concur that it doesn't excel at any one particular task (except cyclocross racing). However, cross bikes have a few advantages, that the performance fit road bikes may not:

• room for fenders and wider tires
• more relaxed and stable geometry
• better for rough terrain than most standard road bikes

You won't have a problem on a club ride, unless you really want to hammer the whole time.

CX bikes are definitely more relaxed than road bikes... My last frame was a custom steel cross bike. It handled great in a straight line, was very comfortable and generated lots of coolness. The problem is that cross bikes don't corner like road bikes do. They have a higher center of gravity and the longer wheelbase doesn't lend itself to sharp cornering. But if those aren't major issues for you, you'd be well served by one. One thing to definitely watch out for though... Some cantilever brake/pad combos will have your fork stuttering like it just can't take the braking. After getting conflicting advice from the frame builder (Rock Lobster), the maker of the brakes (Paul Components) and a team mechanic; I will say that adjusting those brakes is a royal pain in the butt. I'd rather deal with road brakes...

My every sunny day and brevet bike is a '99 Trek 5200. Early OCLV. Has about 50k miles on it. It does everything well. Don't see any need to change it out. You might have the same luck with a 5.5.

The 5200's are great bikes. Pic please. I still want one.

The 5200's are great bikes. Pic please. I still want one.Here 'tis. Mostly original. Been through several headsets, pedals, middle chainrings, cassettes, and one bottom bracket and one brifter. Wore out the original wheelset, but found this one NOS. There are better lights now, but these work OK. I put on Race Blades with extenders if the brevet forecast looks wet, but have a rain bike named Fred for ordinary wet rides.

Also been repainted twice on warranty, hence the 5500 decals. That's my only complaint: the bike has an electrolysis problem with the aluminum brake stops corroding because they are bonded to carbon, which also causes paint problems in the area. Factory says this is the only 5200 frame with that problem, which seems quite odd to me, also odd that they can't stop it from happening. It needs the treatment again, so I'll be sending it back again, probably this month.

^^ CFboy, tell me about that rear rack. Love the way the bag stays lower than the rack frame, it appears. Thanks!

^^ CFboy, tell me about that rear rack. Love the way the bag stays lower than the rack frame, it appears. Thanks!It's a Detours High Tail:
http://detours.us/index.php?cPath=33&osCsid=bbcaf91bbe6960c6300561293bccb478
My bike is a 52cm and it just barely works 'cause of tire clearance. If I put much in it, I have to bungee it up. 8 lb. limit on the seatpost connection. But they're fine for people with normal legs and minimal cargo needs. :rolleyes: And it would work better if I changed out that stock seatpost for a Thompson, which I should do, but costs money and won't improve the bike particularly. Note how little exposed seatpost I have, even on a 52. I do like the bag. It's quite light and has a solid plastic bottom pan.

I bought the bag from REI. The small Detours is worthless, BTW. Falls off.

Oh - this bike is the source of the moniker. I was so enthralled with it when I first made the transition from steel to carbon. Push on the pedals and it just squirts forward, yet I can feel the frame soak up the big bumps. Some reviewer said (paraphrasing) "On a big climb, when your legs are laden with lactate and you come out of the saddle, this bike just responds." That's true.

I'll put in another vote for the Cross bike. And I'll put in a vote for the Surly Cross Check as a serious contender. The Pacer is also nice but won't take a rear rack. You have a touring bike already though, so that isn't a big deal. As for the LBS, they may carry Trek and Specialized on the floor, but nearly every bike shop out there orders from QBP so they can most likely get Surly and Salsa (Casseroll is nifty as well).

The Tricross looks nice, but for me personally I have a hard time going aluminum on a long ride. Steel and Carbon (and Ti if you can afford it) are more forgiving on my bones. And steel - at least in theory - is more durable than Carbon but if you're not hard on your bikes it probably won't matter.

I also have a Surly Cross Check, and it's working well for me. But I see no problem with recommending a Specialized TriCross. I used to think that frame material mattered, but have changed my mind, it's all in how the tubes are designed -- and your expectations of the bike. ;)

I think you'd do quite well with a cross bike. I concur that it doesn't excel at any one particular task (except cyclocross racing). However, cross bikes have a few advantages, that the performance fit road bikes may not:

• room for fenders and wider tires
• more relaxed and stable geometry
• better for rough terrain than most standard road bikes

You won't have a problem on a club ride, unless you really want to hammer the whole time.


Another endorsement for cross bikes. Very versatile, very comfortable on long rides, reasonably light - my TCX O is within a pound and a half of my own Trek 5200. (20.5 with some upgrades vs 19.0 for the Trek.)

(The Trek 5200 is a 2000 model - as someone states above, it's a terrific bike. I've semi-replaced just this week it with a Giant Defy, but I still look forward to riding it.)

My solution to this is a custom Gunnar Sport frame built up with components and wheels to personal specification. Has lugs for fenders and racks, clearance for fenders and wider tires (32mm), rides for many hours/days like a dream, steers with great precision.

In your price range similar steel candidates might be the Salsa Casseroll, Marninoni Sportivo or a custom from Independent Fabrication.

A custom frame in titanium might also be a consideration.

While you can use pretty much anything you fancy as a rando bike (http://www.veloweb.ca/randopages/randovelos.html), you'll be more comfy over long distance with a bike dedicated to such events. This usually takes the form of a "touring-style" bike.

My only concern with "cross" bikes is they often have high bottom brackets making them less than ideal in the road handling dept.

Other bikes that work well are often referred to as "sport touring." These are usually built with a bit more clearance for fenders and wider tyres, as well as braze-ons and eyelets to accommodate fenders and rack but otherwise maintain "sporty" handling.

Some riders are fans of the "retro" French-influenced randoneusse, often using the 650b wheels size (http://www.veloweb.ca/mybikepages/blerioso.html) and integrated "constructeur" racks, easily-to-get-to front bags, etc. These are very comfortable and have gained a big following amongst randonneurs.

My only concern with "cross" bikes is they often have high bottom brackets making them less than ideal in the road handling dept.
Yeah, I haven't really found this to be the case, especially compared to a "relaxed" geometry. I really don't notice a huge difference in ride feel between my road & cross bikes.

While you can use pretty much anything you fancy as a rando bike (http://www.veloweb.ca/randopages/randovelos.html), you'll be more comfy over long distance with a bike dedicated to such events. This usually takes the form of a "touring-style" bike.

My only concern with "cross" bikes is they often have high bottom brackets making them less than ideal in the road handling dept.

Other bikes that work well are often referred to as "sport touring." These are usually built with a bit more clearance for fenders and wider tyres, as well as braze-ons and eyelets to accommodate fenders and rack but otherwise maintain "sporty" handling.

Some riders are fans of the "retro" French-influenced randoneusse, often using the 650b wheels size (http://www.veloweb.ca/mybikepages/blerioso.html) and integrated "constructeur" racks, easily-to-get-to front bags, etc. These are very comfortable and have gained a big following amongst randonneurs.

I think you are mixing one thing up a small bit here Randochap. Rando/touring specific bikes are not more comfortable than any other bike. Relaxed geometry, steel frames etc don't make one bike more comfortable than another. The most important criteria for comfort is fit and you can be fitted properly and be comfortable for long distances on just about any type of bike. I can flat out say that a Rando/touring specific bike is not nearly as comfortable for me as my Colnago C-50 is. That's why I use it for randoneering, not because it's a "race" geometry bike but because it fit's me perfectly and just flat works. I think you hit on this fact when you said that "you can use pretty much anything you fancy." What Rando/touring specifc bikes do is provide room for racks, wider tires, fenders and geometry that allows the use of a handlebar rack and panniers. That all works great for carrying a load but doesn't make one bike more comfy than another. Sorry if I'm nit-picking a little. :)

While I agree that bike fit (http://www.veloweb.ca/bikefit.html) is an all important criteria for any bike, for any use, racing-specific bikes can, by nature, compromise comfort.

One of the simplest modifications toward comfort over extreme distances is the use of wider tyres. The limited clearances of race-specific frames will limit such choice, especially if fenders are desired.

Such frames will also limit easy options for a more relaxed position.

I know many riders choose such bikes for marathon cycling -- there are many to be seen at events like PBP -- but such machines would cripple me.

There is something to the fact that so many distance riders (many of them ex-racers) adopt "randonneur/touring specific" bikes -- though still covering a wide variety of approaches -- for long-distance cycling. They are both comfortable and convenient.

I think that some people use over sized tire to compensate for poor frame designs. :) If you have a well designed bike frame with good compliant wheels you don't need balloon tires to be comfortable with regards to poor road (which I think you are reffering to).
Rando/touring bikes do have many advantages for long distance riding but being more comfortable isn't necessarily one of them. It may be for you because you like a more upright riding position that may be difficult to achieve on another frame but another person may be more comfortable in a lower position it just depends on the individual. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't thow out a blanket statement saying that one frame geometry is more comfortable than another when it may or may not be depending on the individual.

Yeah, I don't know what it is with this rando-specific thing, other than having some way to mount a decent bag or two. I too find a lower position much more comfortable for LD and running high pressure narrow tires on a carbon frame is no bother at all. If I lived in an area where all the roads were that really awful scattered rocks on tar stuff that Homeyba posted photos of - I might go for softer, wider tires. But I enjoy getting 'er done and getting some sleep, so moving down the road is the most comfortable thing for me. I usually don't notice the road surface, other than watching for rocks, spark plugs, tire debris, mufflers, shoes, holes, cracks and all that normal stuff.

There's a favorite bit of back country near here often included in brevets. It's all steep chipseal rollers and I just love riding them. They're all about acceleration. But I know not everyone sees them that way, so that keeps a lot of different bike brands in business, which is a good thing. But I have to wonder, which came first, the bike or the joy?

A buddy and I were on a ride this past summer, I on the old Trek, he on a new 15 lb. Italian carbon racing bike. We have about the same tires. He said he couldn't feel the difference on the chipseal sections at all, which I found very interesting. Said the bike just floated over it. Bike tech keeps moving along.

OTOH, I would put in one plug for a rando specific idea, embodied in another bike of my buddy's: carbon cross frame, carbon cross fork, modified for discs, so 2 discs. A good builder can save enough weight on the frame and components to not make the disc weight a problem. Advantages: carbon of course, easier fender mounting, and most importantly, a spoke going bad or a bent rim won't matter as long as the rim can fit through the fork or rear stays. Could mean finishing or not. Plus braking is better in bad conditions, so it's safer. And you can put any tires you want on it - comfortable with HP tires because of the carbon and capable of wide tires if that's what the rider wants. So I thought that was a pretty cool bike.

Thanks for the Tricross info knobster. I'd been thinking steel, like a Casseroll or Pacer. How's that aluminum frame ride compared to the Roubaix? (I know the wider tires alone will account for most of the difference.)

I've had numerous aluminum bikes and hated them. Beat me to death. I had given up on aluminum frames when I ended up getting an older 06 Tricross. Liked it so much, I got a '10 model. While I won't say it's a better ride than the Roubaix, it's just as good. Hard to believe that a aluminum framed cross bike would be as nice a ride as a full carbon Roubaix, but it is. VERY impressed with the bike.

The way I keep seeing the Tri Cross is a bike the is very versatile but kind of mediocre at everything. Not as fast as a madone, not as comfortable as a roubaix, though it does seem tempting. I also like to tour, and though I have been using a converted trek hybrid I wonder how much weight a tricross could hold. Currently my gear with both sets of panniers, front and rear racks, tent, etc. etc. runs around 50lbs.

I agree. It's a jack of all trades, master of none. Well, it's not bad cross bike. BUT, what I like is being able to put a set of large tires on and take it off road. Can't do this with a typical road bike. Plus had rack and fender mounts. Madone and Roubaix doesn't. Do a search, there are several people that have used the Tricross as a full tourer. With very good success.

Edit: Should mention, that the Comp model has gone more towards cross racing than a do-it-all bike of years past. It now doesn't have front rack mounts as they replaced the fork with the S-Works model which has a carbon steerer. Some other things about the frame that they changed makes it more suited for racing than touring.

My Specialized TriCross Comp maybe mostly aluminum, but it certainly doesn't have a harsh ride. The carbon fork, carbon seat post, and carbon seat stays means that it feels at least as comfortable as my fully carbon Trek Madone 5.2 (2007 model, with the same wheels and tires sometimes being switched between bikes). I'm exploring so many more routes on the TriCross that I would never take the Madone on, and then when I do get back to the tarmac it really doesn't ride much worse. There's barely 1 kg difference in weight between the two bikes (I've changed many parts on both of them, so I don't know what the difference between stock weights would be).

I notice that the steering is a little slower / more stable on the TriCross than the Madone, but the other bike I use a lot is an old Trek 520, and the TriCross is nowhere near that level of slow, stable steering that the 520 is.

I've had numerous aluminum bikes and hated them. Beat me to death. I had given up on aluminum frames when I ended up getting an older 06 Tricross. Liked it so much, I got a '10 model. While I won't say it's a better ride than the Roubaix, it's just as good. Hard to believe that a aluminum framed cross bike would be as nice a ride as a full carbon Roubaix, but it is. VERY impressed with the bike.

This is because ride quality is a function of design (not geometry) not material. I used to have a Colnago Dream that I could comfortably ride a 600k on and a Cannondale CAAD5 that killed me after 100 miles. Both aluminum bikes, both race geometry. It all depends on how compliant or stiff the designer wanted to make the bike. Wheels and tires can also make a huge difference. That's why a lot of poorly designed bikes use compliant wheels and/or big tires. Material should be low on the list of things to pick when choosing a new bike. On a long distance bike there are so many other important things to make decisions about!

Clifford: Since you have 3-5K as the price range check out this builder, Coho Bicycles.
http://cohobicycles.com/cohobicycles/Home.html

I ride with someone that rides one of these bikes. He has a write up on the model he bought. It is in the "long distance forum" check it out. greater brown is his name. Built it up with very good components and came out at $2500. The guy rides some serious miles all year long. He is really pleased with the builder.

PS Did you ever write up your last tour???