Touring on an B'Ston XO-1 / Handsome Cycles XOXO
#1
was fixed, now i am free
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 148
Bikes: Royal H Rando, IRO Mark V Pro, Redline Monocog 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Touring on an Bridgestone XO-1 / Handsome Cycles XOXO
Let me preface by saying that I know the XOXO is not the XO-1, but seems to be my best bet for finding something like an XO-1, where the XO-1 is very hard to find and very expensive. Also, Handsome cycles seems like a cool company that are designing some very practical bikes.
My question:
Has anyone toured on an XO-1 or an XOXO? I know that people call them a tourer, and you can tour on anything, but not ideally. The HT/ST angle is 73* which seems pretty steep for comfortable touring, from my research. And i am having a very difficult time trying to find any accounts of people touring on these.
My story:
I have to ween down my fleet. I currently have a Royal H rando, an IRO fixed gear, a 29er Monocog single speed mtb, and a ('93) Trek 520 frame. I would like to have 2 bikes. A road bike, and a city/touring bike. The rando is a custom bike which i put too much money into and i get too nervous locking it up, or leaving it alone for any extended amount of time, so that is out for a city bike. The 520 is sitting in my basement, next to pile of 7-speed XT stuff. But the 520 would be pretty slow for a 95% city bike, and this is why I am thinking of the XOXO.
thanks
My question:
Has anyone toured on an XO-1 or an XOXO? I know that people call them a tourer, and you can tour on anything, but not ideally. The HT/ST angle is 73* which seems pretty steep for comfortable touring, from my research. And i am having a very difficult time trying to find any accounts of people touring on these.
My story:
I have to ween down my fleet. I currently have a Royal H rando, an IRO fixed gear, a 29er Monocog single speed mtb, and a ('93) Trek 520 frame. I would like to have 2 bikes. A road bike, and a city/touring bike. The rando is a custom bike which i put too much money into and i get too nervous locking it up, or leaving it alone for any extended amount of time, so that is out for a city bike. The 520 is sitting in my basement, next to pile of 7-speed XT stuff. But the 520 would be pretty slow for a 95% city bike, and this is why I am thinking of the XOXO.
thanks
Last edited by viper_04649; 09-12-11 at 05:03 PM.
#2
Senior Member
The 520 seems like a perfect bike for the city and for a bit of touring. It's older, so you'll likely not fret about the paint getting scratched or the bike getting stolen.
Whether a bike is fast is all about how you set it up. You can mount narrow tires and set the handlebars lower than the saddle for a more aero position.
The XOXO doesn't really look like a great touring bike anyway.
Whether a bike is fast is all about how you set it up. You can mount narrow tires and set the handlebars lower than the saddle for a more aero position.
The XOXO doesn't really look like a great touring bike anyway.
#3
missing in action
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times
in
28 Posts
I'm not sure that the XOXO would necessarily be faster than the 520, I agree with niknak that it's a matter of setup. I considered picking up an XOXO as a commuter also, but ultimately the XOXO lost the contest on eyelet count. My choice certainly won't be fast though...
#4
was fixed, now i am free
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 148
Bikes: Royal H Rando, IRO Mark V Pro, Redline Monocog 29er
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So when i said faster, what I really meant is more nimble riding through the city, with cars. It will be replacing a "track" bike, which has steep angles and what not.
Chris, is that a Schwinn High Sierra?
Chris, is that a Schwinn High Sierra?
#5
Banned
With a touring load aboard, you have some handling issues with an overly light frame.
thats when the design ups the tube spec to meet the load demands.
but for a 95% city bike there are commuter setups , drop-bar, disc brake ,
clearance for mudguards, eyelets for a rear rack, perhaps that would be more suitable.
Or consider a Bike Friday, the 406 wheels are stronger.
and by virtue of the lower mass of a smaller wheel , steering response is very quick.
when needed, stable when not.
and the fees are lower to travel with the bikes, packed in a small box or suitcase,
than a big wheel bike packed in a normal bike box.
thats when the design ups the tube spec to meet the load demands.
but for a 95% city bike there are commuter setups , drop-bar, disc brake ,
clearance for mudguards, eyelets for a rear rack, perhaps that would be more suitable.
Or consider a Bike Friday, the 406 wheels are stronger.
and by virtue of the lower mass of a smaller wheel , steering response is very quick.
when needed, stable when not.
and the fees are lower to travel with the bikes, packed in a small box or suitcase,
than a big wheel bike packed in a normal bike box.
Last edited by fietsbob; 09-14-11 at 10:45 AM.
#6
missing in action
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 48 Times
in
28 Posts
Yes, that is an '87 High Sierra, it's replacing a Peugeot Alpin touring bike and a Rockhopper commuter. I'm trying to thin the herd also.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
waterbugg
Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling
29
09-05-10 09:19 PM