Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Handling of the most common LD bikes with larger front bag?

Hi,

As many others I am looking into getting myself my first dedicated LD bike. It will only be used for long distance and nothing else so full touring capacity is not needed. The frames that I am considering are the most common ones (that I can easily get hold of here in Germany) i.e. Surly XC or Pacer, Salsa Casseroll etc.

All of them seem to do the job well enough from what I have read but my question is how they will work with the set-up of bags that I am planning to use. I would prefer use a medium/large Berthound bag in the front and on the long rides (600km) also complement with a medium sized saddle bag. How do the above mentioned bikes or any similar bikes work with only a large front bag (not mounted on the handle bar but on small front rack)? If anyone has any experiences to share I would be grateful.

Cheers and see you in Paris 2011 :)

I think many people put too much concern into "the perfect geometry" and let it ruin the fun of just going out and riding. (I know that I was falling into that rut while deciding on a new bike!)
I've got a Cross Check and use a VO Randonneur rack with a Berthoud GB28 bag. I have no issues with the handling, even at lower speeds or while riding no-hands. Sure, the front end can be a bit 'floppy' if I just try and walk with my bike and don't keep a hand on the bars, but how often do I really do that?
I just did a 200k yesterday through mixed conditions; rain, light snow, high wind; and handling was never a concern even with the amount of stuff I carried. Lots of cold weather gear, some dry spares of clothing, and a bunch of food since controls were fairly remote and not always stocked on decent grub.

I couple the Berthoud with a Carradice Pendle on a Bagman support in back and that gives me the capacity for carrying just about anything I could ever need.

Very true! Your set-up sounds like something I would have too. And Cross Check is cheap and easy to come by. I probably should worry more about getting enough mileage in the legs rather than the geometry of the bike but I guess I have read too much of bicycle-quarterly :) (bicycle quarterly is an excellent magazine about bikes and biking for those who doesn't know).

I don't think you'd even notice ~5 lbs of weight on a front bag. 10 lbs maybe you'd notice a bit. My preference though is that if I'm going to carry more than a few pounds, I'll go for a rear bag, preferably with a rear rack.

If you're just putting a small amount of weight up there is shouldn't be a big deal. If you start carrying a bunch of weight I'd be concerned. Ditto's to what's been said already. :) Don't forget, the more space you have to carry stuff, the more stuff you'll carry! Whether you need it or not...;)

http://www.longleafbicycles.com/ Scroll down a little for a replacement 1 1/8" low trail replacement fork. Might be the ticket to lower the trail on some bikes.

You're getting good advice here. Low trail bikes do handle front loads better than high trail bikes, but as long as the load isn't flopping all over the place, even the high trail bikes will manage. And any half-way competent frame builder can add a centimeter or two of rake to your existing fork, which is all low trail geometry really amounts to.

My Pacer carries a front load pretty well.

You're getting good advice here. Low trail bikes do handle front loads better than high trail bikes, but as long as the load isn't flopping all over the place, even the high trail bikes will manage. And any half-way competent frame builder can add a centimeter or two of rake to your existing fork, which is all low trail geometry really amounts to.

Here's an example: My Trek 610 came stock with trail around 50 mm. I didn't like its handling as a sport bike so I had it de-raked by a frame builder to provide more like 58 mm trail (higher trail) Last summer I tried a front bag with a lock, spares, a few tools and some grub on a long ride. Handling was pretty good at speed and with good grip on the bars, but floppy at low and very low speeds, requiring significantly more attention. I attribute this to both high trail and a less than optimal bag mount. I'm not sure which factor was more significant. I'm gearing up to try a frame with 31 mm trail and a cheep front rack, now.

For an extremely positive example of low trail, check out Randochap's website.

Handling will most likely be acceptable on any of those frames with a front load up to around 10 pounds. I say this, based on my experience riding a Gunnar Sport (about 60mm of trail with my tires) and a Rivendell Rambouillet (about 57mm of trail). You have to pay more attention, particularly when you're going slowly uphill. I found it really helps to put on wider handlebars than might otherwise be necessary.

But since you are buying a dedicated LD bike, and you've already decided you want a front bag, why not get something designed for a front bag, like a Kogswell P/R. Or wait a bit for a VeloOrange rando frame. Maybe there are other suitable rando frames in the $750 price range, but I haven't heard about them. Or maybe your budget can go higher.

Another alternative is to get an older, low-trail frame. Examples include 70's Raleigh International, Nishiki International, a "low-trail" Trek from the late 70's/early 80's (see below), or one of numerous models of early-70's French bikes (but French threaded parts are harder to replace). Among lower-trail Trek's, most have a 73 degree head angle and 55mm rake, so with 700x32 tires they have trail of about 48 mm. For example:

1976 700=Reynolds 531 (R531) + New Continental Oval (NCO) fork
1977 700=R531+NCO
1978 710=R531+NCO, 910=Columbus SL/SP+NCO
1979 710=R531+NCO, 910=Columbus SL/SP+NCO
1980 710=R531, 910=Columbus SL/SP
1981 610=R531+Ishi Fork
1982 613/614=R531C mangalloy + Ishi mangalloy Fork -- rear-rack + water-bottle cage
1983 600/620/630/640 = R531C mangalloy + mangalloy fork -- rear-rack + water-bottle cage
In 1984, Trek did away with its low-trail models.

As to replacement forks with higher fork rake, the one on the Longleaf bicycle site sure looked like it would inevitably make the front end higher, since there is so much more clearance between tire and crown (3cm, which is about 2 cm higher than typical). The website does not list the distance from the crown to the ground, which does diminish with rake, for given fork leg length. Anyway, if the distance from crown to the ground is higher in the replacement fork than in the original fork, this would decrease the head angle, increasing trail, and partially offsetting the greater rake. Plus increasing standover height. Seems like you'd want to make sure you work out the resulting front-end geometry before ordering.

Nick

Yes I am considering spending a bit more than I originally planned and have been looking at rando-cycles in Paris which isn't that far from me (south west Germany). I would assume that their model "Paris-Brest" is optimized for front bag (http://www.rando-cycles.fr/parisbrest.html). I would probably opt for another colour though :) That is probably my limit in how much I am willing to spend though and preferably I would like to spend a bit less. Problem with ex Kogswell is that the shipping would be very expensive. Otherwise I think a build around that frame with 650B wheels and the rest pretty lightweight would be perfect.

I have also been looking at bob jackson world tourer which looks like a good alternative. Optimized for carrying load back and front but I am not sure how it would work just with front load and if it would be unnecessary heavy.

Sorry, didn't notice your original post said you're in Germany. That "Paris-Brest" bike looks very nice, but it looks like it has pretty small tires on it, and not much room for larger. Something to check on.

Another to look at in Britain might be one of Thorn's audax bikes, http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/audaxmk3.html A friend has one that he really likes, and it looks like the geometry would work well with a bar bag, but I could not find anything that said the head tube angle or fork rake.

Many people use touring bikes for rando, but it does mean they have to haul around a bike that is a little heavier and possibly stiffer than optimal.

I is a nice problem to have to build your ultimate LD bike. So far I have only bought one part, the crank (a NOS pro5vis). Not much but a good start :) As for tires I would prefer to use 32mm but I would be fine with 30mm but preferably not less (for 622 wheels).

I have been looking at the thorn as well. Seems very nice although a bit "un-sexy". Nice attachment for front rack though so should probably work with front bag with some load in it.