henro8

come summer time, upon graduation from college, my buddies and i are going to ride across country. right now i'm riding an '86 12 speed atala. when this ride comes around, i will be in the market for something different, or at least an entire component upgrade for the outdated atala. but as far as frames go, can i have some advice from tourists on carbon frames. specifically, i had a kestrel talon in mind. thanks a lot. take it easy.

greenstork

Just doesn't seem like a good idea at all. I could go on about why carbon is a bad idea for touring but insulting carbon always seems to get me in trouble on the roadies forum. The fact of the matter is, like any tool, the best choice is the one designed for the task at hand. The Talon is a road bike designed for road riding without a load, the geometry and materials are all wrong for touring.

You don't have any eyelets to mount a rack or fenders, so you'll have to work up a compromise solution by mounting a rack to the rear axle. The geometry is aggressive so you'll be leaning over the bike in a more horizontal position and your bars will likely be way below your seat, which is fine for a 35-mile weekend jaunt and downright uncomfortable for much longer rides and tours. The bike will handle great at high speeds, like all road bikes do, and at slower speeds under a full load, it's going to feel like you're riding a slinky. Hauling a load up a mountain will be slow going and with the head tube angle and trail you're talking about here, the steering is going to be all twitchy at slow speeds.

Touring puts a lot of stress on a frame and sturdiness isn't really carbon's strong suit. At my weight (6'4", 230lbs.), I wouldn't even consider a full carbon road bike (disclaimer: I do ride a road bike with carbon seat stays and fork), let a alone a carbon bike for touring.

If you're looking for something lighter that's also going to satisfy your taste for "hot rod" road bikes, you might consider titanium. But like I said before, you're never going to find one bike that does everything well. A great road bike is ill-suited for touring and vice versa and anything in between carries some degree of compromise (like a sport touring bike). Compromise isn't a bad thing, as long as you understand the relative benefits and drawbacks of certain geometries and materials.

MichaelW

Im sure someone could build a touring bike out of carbon but its never been done so far and it would weight a lot more than a race bike. Most tourers are steel because thats what most small niche bullders use but Cannondale make a nice Al one and Lightspeed do a titanium model. Good steel bikes are not overweight and my one is lighter than most production Al hybrids.

First, decide how much luggage you are taking: fully supported or self reliant, hostelling or camping, tent or hammock, cooking or buying.
Decide on your luggage system: minimalist saddlebag, twin panniers, 4 panniers, trailer.
Pick a style of bike capable of carrying your luggage.

DavidARayJaxNC

If Road Bikes are so ill suited for touring then why do people in my area say I am crazy for wanting to fashion a mountian bike into a touring bike?

bike4life

Probably because a mountain bike frame just won't be as comfortable as a touring frame - weight, geometry, gearing, etc.

Getting back on track with the OP's question, I vote for steel over carbon. Steel frames can be repaired, carbon frames cannot. When you're four states away from home and your LBS, which option do you want?

DavidARayJaxNC

but they suggest a trek road bike frame instead. almost anything else. as long as I cant afford it.

MichaelW

MTBs can make perfectly decent tourers and are preferred for more adventurous expeditioning. You need to pick a suitable donor frame which is not easy these days. The classic midrange steel, non sus cross-country style with rack and fender eyelets was ideal. Most people put on slicks and racks , some add fenders and bar-ends or aerobars. I have ridden my classic touring bike alongside MTBers for many days and in practice there is no real difference in efficiency. The weight, the riding position and gearing can be very similar.
It is easier to tourify a suitable MTB than a road race bike.

n4zou

+1 and 1980 to about mid 1990's had (most) MTB bikes with the exact same geometry used on dedicated touring bikes. In the mid 90's the geometry changed when the top tube became slanted at the same angle as the head tube and the top tube became longer. I personally didn't think the angled top tube was an effort toward cheaper construction and not improved design. If you ever get the chance to purchase a 1980's something Specialized HardRock or Stump Jumper latch on to it for the ultimate loaded touring frame. I especially like the 1987 and 1988 models with the U brake mounted to the chain stays. This was a poor design for off road riding in the mud as that gunk would collect in the brake making it useless or worse have the cable brake and the stay cable tangling up in the knobs of the tire locking up the rear wheel. For touring it's the cats meow as it's out of the way of your rack and gear and the top tube is clear of all cables. Here is my HardRock after updating to Revo shift shifters and a complete tune-up and lube job. It has eyelets for attaching racks front and rear and has long chain stays so you never have heal strike problems. This bike was found in a thrift store and purchased for $5.

NoReg

When it comes to adapting MTBs to touring, or any bike style or specific choice, the main issues are fit and the configuration. I started on MTBs back in the early 80s, and while they weren't as scrunched back then as they are today, they were still too short in the top tube for my build. Even though the wheel base was only slightly shorter, it was too short for me. I find them comfortable for fully loaded trail riding, but eating up the miles on the road there is virtually nothing about them that would be my first choice, though they are comonly used. A touring frame and an MTB frame share virtually nothing in comon, though people make do. So it comes down to whether the exercise is designing the ideal touring bike, or whether it is settling for something that will do the job.

I'm sure one could make a superb touring bike in carbon. But touring is already a segment so small it is ignored by most of the larger bike companies, or they stuff something inappropriate into their line up. Carbon would require a lot of R&D, a lot of mold making, and even then one could probably only nail a small portion of a tiny market. People doing different trips will continue to prefer variants around a theme. There isn't any Lance Armstrong of touring who could force feed the market, and narrow the choices.

As pointed out, carbon is not in this case going to make a racing bike into a touring bike. Sometimes carbon has the structural excellence to level a market. Recently in the bowhunting field, some shooters have started using modyfied Olympic bows in preference to normal hunting bows. The Olympic bows are very fast carbon springs and a fast arrow is a fast arrow. But in touring I don't think we have that kind of situation with frames. An example of that kind of thing might be a carbon aerospoke wheel. I'm not pushing them, but I could see them working for touring, quite easily, they are used. Or the super bearings that are used in tour bikes. Possibly they aren't worth the effort, but I don't see how they could hurt. If I was Donald Trump and wanted to cycle across America, I would pony up for the bearings. Or if anyone makes a road style hydrolic disc. Again simpler can be better, but there are situations where it might help. You can make a pretty fancy touring bike, but it won't look like a road racing bike.

Bacciagalupe

In theory you could tour on anything. But realistically, the Kestrel Talon isn't just a road bike, it's a tri bike, and is an exceptionally poor choice for touring.

Tri bikes are designed for solo speed riding and light weight, have an aggressive riding position, skinny tires, and will have serious problems adding the necessary racks. You may even accidentally damage the frame in the attempts to fit a rack.

These design aspects are poorly suited for a touring bike. You want something that is rugged, comfortable for long rides, easy to add racks and fenders, handles well with a lot of gear, and is easy to fix. The weight of the bike is unimportant, since you're likely to lug 40-60lbs of gear if you're carrying camping gear. If you are also doing a loaded tour across the US, you will want a much lower gearing range than what you get on a typical road or tri bike.

In addition, the primary advantages of carbon is light weight and the ability to mold it into aerodynamic shapes -- neither of which you need for a touring bike. It's also much more expensive than steel (a preferred touring frame choice) or aluminum. You can easily get an excellent touring bike for $900 - $1200 new.

I recommend you go to a few LBS's, tell them you plan to cross the country on a bike, and see what they show you. Unless you tell them you're doing RAAM, chances are it's not going to be a Cervelo Soloist Team Carbon.

NoReg

"In addition, the primary advantages of carbon is light weight and the ability to mold it into aerodynamic shapes"

Also if you did want to go with a more aero design there are things you can do on a touring bike that would be much cheaper and more effective than a mildly ovalized frame tubbing. Zipper fairings and a rear wheel cover come to mind. Bucking the wind can be a serious problem on a touring bike, but the answers are a lot more difficult to arrange, for instance the drag profile of paniers is probably a bigger factor than the frame.