Touring - Sport touring

What classifies as "sport touring"? what is the geometry of a sport touring bicycle comparable to?

When I bought my Marinoni road bike a few years ago (1988), the geometry of the sport tourer was much closer to a full race frame than a tourer, but it came with eyelets to attach fenders and a rear rack.

To me a sport touring bike would have room for fenders and tires up to 700x28, and would handle reasonably well with a big saddle bag (Carradice Nelson or similar), but I wouldn't expect to put panniers on it.

It's sort of a cross between a road bicycle and a touring bicycle. I have a Marinoni Ciclo, which is a sport touring bicycle. I have used it for everything from 24-hour races, to century rides, to all sorts of randonneuring events ... to fully loaded tours complete with panniers.

The sport touring bike has my favourite geometry, half way between a racer and a touring bike. Think 73 or 72 deg angles, 42 to 43mm chainstays, room for 700x30ish tyres.....they are perfect for lightweight and ultralight touring. Many such bikes were sold in the States through the 70s and 80s and a great modern example is the Rivendell Rambouillet

'80's Specialized Sequoia

Would a sport touring frame be similar to a cyclocross frame?

Would a sport touring frame be similar to a cyclocross frame?

I think so.

My impression (and this is purely my impression) is that "sport touring" was a much more popular term in the 80's. A lot of the Japanese makers then (Univega, Fuji, etc. etc.) talked about the "sport touring" bikes in their lineup; as was the Sequoia mentioned above. Univega even had a very popular model called the Sportour. Almost everything in the bike was "in between" a pure racing bike and pure touring bike -- wheelbase, chainstay length, geometry, number of braze-ons, etc.

Today, I don't see a lot of bike makers using the phrase "sport touring," except for Marinoni, which Machka mentioned. This niche is now filled by cylcocross bikes -- a lot of which are really much more oriented toward "sport touring" than they are actually going out and getting muddy. The Surly Crosscheck, Specialized Tricross, Bianchi Volpe all would be examples of this, in my mind.

(Edit: I just thought of some other modern bikes that *might* fit the definition of sport touring -- Soma Smoothie ES, Salsa Casseroll, Gunnar Sport. All have eyelets to mount fenders and/or light racks; clearance for bigger tires than a race bike, and more relaxed geometry than a racing bike).

Here in the Pacific Northwest, these are popular for commuting, recreational riding, "rain bikes" (since they can take fenders), or light touring.

I am not sure there is any science to these marketing terms, so this is just my impression....

I had an English Argos frame that would fit the description of "sport touring" if it had another 1/4" longer chainstay. It was incredible road bike for descending at high speed.

Would a sport touring frame be similar to a cyclocross frame?

Cyclocross frames typically have high bottom brackets to clear obstacles, lots of clearance for fat tires, fenders and mud, and they are frequently built with cantilever brakes to accommodate the tires, fenders and mud. Tourers typically have low bottom brackets, and sport tourers often have caliper brakes. None of this stops people from commuting and touring on cyclocross frames, and there are probably people out there who ride dirt roads and trails on sport tourers.

Actually, my bottom bracket height on my Volpe (58cm) is about 10.9", and bb height of my wife's Cannondale T 800 (50cm) is about 11.5" Exactly the same tires. My curiosity got the best of me; and I just went out and measured them. Measured from the floor to the center of the bb spindle. This just may be a factor of Cannondale's compact geometry or unique to the Volpe. Regardless of what it is called the Volpe make a nice touring bike.

Cyclocross frames typically have high bottom brackets to clear obstacles, lots of clearance for fat tires, fenders and mud, and they are frequently built with cantilever brakes to accommodate the tires, fenders and mud. Tourers typically have low bottom brackets, and sport tourers often have caliper brakes. None of this stops people from commuting and touring on cyclocross frames, and there are probably people out there who ride dirt roads and trails on sport tourers.

+1

The BB drop (height from center of the BB to the rear wheel axis) is a better way to compare a sport tourer to a cross frame. It will be less on the cross frame than on the sport tourer.

Cyclocross frames typically have high bottom brackets. Tourers typically have low bottom brackets.

Here we go again. Somebody should tell Trek about this since their XO cyclocross bike actually has 27.6 cm from bottom bracket to ground vs. their 520 touring bike which has a greater distance of 27.7 cm

one of my best road tours in California was on a Maserati road bike, 74 parallel angles with the chainstays about 17" with the wheel all the way back. I put the springier Argos fork on it. The Sequioa was a comfier bike but you go with what you got.