jmgardner 

I am researching a bunch of different bikes and am thinking that I like the KOGA Signature except for the fact that it's aluminum.
I'm no expert but it seems that the least popular frame material of the road bike scene wouldn't be a good choice for a touring bike due to the alleged poor ride quality and possible strength issues over steel.
Am I off base with that presumption and if so, how?
What other insights do you have about the KOGA Signature?

TIA

Trakhak

Don't worry about the frame material. Aluminum, the "least popular frame material of the road bike scene," is in fact the biggest seller.

It's worth reading the late Sheldon Brown's take on frame materials for touring bikes:

Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist

It's impressive that Koga Miyata is doing an aluminum frame for their touring bike line. But they sell mostly in Europe, where cyclists tend to be more knowledgeable about the merits of various frame materials, including aluminum.

If you're planning to do loaded touring, the big advantage of aluminum over steel is that aluminum bikes handle very well with loaded panniers---much better than steel bikes, which have an unfortunate tendency to wallow around under load.

You might also consider a Cannondale aluminum touring bike---people who own them usually love them. But that Koga looks terrific as shown on the website.

cyccommute 

Have you looked at the number of aluminum bikes that the major manufacturers offer? Have you looked at the number of steel road bikes those same manufacturers offer? They are far from "the least popular frame material" in road bikes.

As for the strength, try finding a steel mountain bike in any of the major manufacturers' lines. I can't say that I've seen a steel mountain bike offered by any of the big bike companies since the mid90s. If the material is strong enough to take the pounding that off-road riding demands, it will excel at the demands that road riding puts on the bike.

As for the "alleged" poor ride quality, it is just that...alleged. As the Sheldon Brown link in Trakhak's post points out, the tires have more influence on the ride quality than the frame material. That said, I ride an aluminum touring bike and have since 2003. The very first difference I noticed about my Cannondale T800 compared to my old Miyata 610 was that the stiffer ride was a benefit when loaded. Try as I might, I could never climb well out of the saddle on the 610 because the bike would flex. I could climb by standing straight up and pushing straight down but if I tried to throw the bike from side-to-side like I would on a normal bike, the bike would be difficult to control. Usually, I just stayed in the saddle and ground up the hills. That can get a bit tiresome on the old bum! Trakhak is completely correct that the steel bikes can wallow under load.

The stiffer Cannondale doesn't have that problem. I can climb out of the saddle in the natural rhythm I would use for an unloaded bike. On hours long climbs, being able to relieve pressure on the delicate bits helps a lot.

Kogas have a good reputation and you probably couldn't go wrong with one. As he said, Cannondales are another bike to look at, although their component choices aren't as good as they could be for this year's touring bike.

Salamandrine 

I tend to agree that a slightly stiffer frame is a good idea when loaded up. I ordered my Mercian in 725 OS partly for that reason.

I rode a Cannondale road bike for years and never got what was supposed to be so stiff and horrible about aluminum. It was very similar to my Masi. Aluminum is actually less stiff than steel. It's the fat tubes that change it. So aluminum per se isn't necessarily going to be stiff. It depends what the manufacturer does with it. Old aluminum bikes with 'standard' size tubes were total noodles.

I dunno for me the new Cannondale touring bike is equipped nicely. I guess not everyone wants a compact double and brifters, but that would work for me. Brifters I can kind of take or leave. At least Cannondale are offering a touring bike this year. The lost a (potential) sale to me because they didn't have one last year.

LeeG

Yeah, you're operating under mistaken assumptions. I have no insights about the Koga but design for steady energy output carrying a heavy load far from a mechanics repair is a totally different application than Olympic level power output where finishing the race is all that matters. It's like asking why wheelbarrows aren't made out of titanium and carbon fiber.

DropBarFan

Koga makes serious touring/trekking bikes & offer state-of-the-art stuff like Rohloff/Gates/Pinion P.18. To me aluminum makes sense for touring, significant weight saving & with appropriate geometry/tires will be just as comfortable. If Koga offered Signature in drop-bar style I'd definitely consider. Also Koga (AFAIK) doesn't offer coupler option.

jefnvk

Do they sell Koga in the US? Saw quite a few in Europe, sexy bikes indeed!

cyccommute 

The STI isn't a problem in my view. I'm not a fan of the goofy gear pattern offered by a 50/34 compact double to begin with. Add to the poor gear pattern a high low gear and you just don't have a bike that is equipped properly for its intended purpose...loaded touring.

Another rather large wart is the wheels. 32 hole wheels aren't a good choice for touring and 32 hole disc wheels are weaker due to the dishing of both wheels. I can foresee spoke breakage issues for lots of riders down the road, particularly heavy riders with heavy loads.

There's nothing wrong with the frame nor the frame material, I just wish they would have made better choices on the components. Of course components can be changed but that's an added expense.

fietsbob

7005 heat treated and triple hardened, My Koga 04 WTR is a superb bike..

signature lets you pick the components, and they will put your name on it.

Just like they did for Mark Beaumont , who set the fastest cycle around the world record, at one time..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Beaumont

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_B...cycle_-_01.jpg

fietsbob

last dealer was in Santa Barbara they may have dropped the brand . I Got mine 3rd hand , someone bought it in Europe, brought it back with them ..

Signature bikes are shipped to Koga Dealers, once in the dealer's shop , like any other bike ,

feel free change components like to drop bars,etc, if that is what you prefer..

Salamandrine 

I'm curious as to what specifically you don't like about the compact double and what you consider "goofy". Is it the overall range hi to low, the lack of a granny, or the fact that you don't have a middle chainring for general riding conditions?

I'm setting up my Mercian with a 50/34 which should work for my needs, but I'm not really planning any multiweek heavily loaded touring at the moment. I have done that sort of touring with my old touring bike and a racing double 42/52, but I was younger and fitter and probably crazier.

The wheels I agree with you on. And if I hear that "well built wheels don't break spokes" one more time from a neophyte, I think I'll be sick. Well built tires don't get flats either.

fietsbob

having 2 most used gears a double shift.. though people tour on them .

I've seen even wider difference doubles , middle /single ring with a bail out granny..

Like 50 - 28 , when freewheels were 14t high gears, so 95" - 27" GI range

saddlesores

yes, for the front wheel, going from undished to dished. but since
front wheels carry less weight, should the dishing there matter?

no, for the rear wheel...maybe? by adding the disc mount, you're
moving the flange toward the center of the hub, reducing the
asymmetric dishing overall. does the closer tension between the
two sides make up for (or more than make up for) the shallower
dish, and possibly less stiff wheel?

jefnvk

I saw a lot of cool touring bikes at the shops I stopped at over there, they seem to be more of a common type of bike to sell than here. I'd be very tempted to go over there to buy one myself (and then spend a few weeks on it before returning) if I got to the point I wanted to upgrade to something a bit more upscale.

fietsbob

26" wheels with strong rims (Mavic EX 721 CD were the Koga factory pick in 04) , have been Fine..

Rohloff 32 hole was Build (off label recc's) with 3 cross, now the German Company Makes a 36 spoke Hubshell ..

Have Schmidt classic Disc 6 bolt hub on the front 'the Dish' is only Minute.

jimc101

Mark Beaumont went round the world (world record at the time) on a Koga Signature, it survived, so they can't be that bad

cyccommute 

It would depend on where you carry weight. Part of the reason that people suggest a 60/40 front/rear weight split on a touring load is because the front wheel is naturally the stronger wheel due to its symmetry and even right/left tension. Once you start dishing the front wheel to shoehorn in a disc brake, you've lost that symmetry and even tension. If you carry 60% of your load on the front wheel, the wheel is stressed more than a rim brake wheel.


I think you've hit on the main problem with the rear wheel. The shallower angle and the smaller triangle at the base of the triangle is going to make for a wheel that is less able to withstand side loading. Because aluminum is soft, most of the stress on a wheel and spokes is due to side loading either during cornering or just pedaling down the road. Bicycles tend to make a wobbly path due to the way we pedal and the spokes are going to be flexed back and forth a lot. If you make the wheel less stiff, the spokes experience more flexure and will fatigue faster.

What is really needed is to reduce the dish on both sides by widening the dropout width. That is probably coming soon as we try to stuff more gears into a narrow space.

cyccommute 

I have a number of issues with the compact doubles. First, and foremost, is the range. My favorite gear calculator demonstrates this nicely. You can readily see the comparison of the range of a "traditional" triple built around a mountain bike triple. The low gear on the triple is a 27" gear which might be okay for young foolish knees but I suspect that someone riding that gearing would be spending a lot of time suffering on climbs or, worse, walking a lot of climbs. The triple gearing allows the rider to keep pedaling a lot further up the hill. (From a personal note, I consider the 22/34 to be kind of high for a low gear. I have a 20/34 or a 20/36 depending on the cassette I use.)

It might be possible to get a better climbing gear out of a compact double by changing up the chainrings. But you either suffer from a super bad transition between high and low range (50/22) if you want to match the range of the mountain triple or you suffer for a high gear if you want something that would be more "normal" (38/22). With the latter, you are coasting at roughly 25 mph, although you could boost that up to 35mph if you can spin at 120 rpm.

Another problem that I have with compact doubles is the transition from high to low and back. For example, let's assume that you are headed down a hill at 40 mph in the 50/11 gear combination on a compact double. You come around a corner and the hill flattens a bit through a valley and then steeply goes up out of the valley (a scenario I've found all over the eastern US). You start rapidly downshifting until you are in the 50/17 combination at 90rpm and decide that you'd better get into the low range because you are going to be climbing right now! You downshift to the 34/17 combination and suddenly find that you have to dramatically increase your rpms to keep up with this combination. In fact, to maintain the same speed (22 mph), you'd need to increase your cadence to over 120 rpm. Alternatively, you could shift up on the back 2 gears but then you find that you are in too high a gear and rapidly losing momentum for the climb. You are fiddling with gears when you should be concentrating on the climb.

You don't experience those abrupt transitions with a triple. The transition is smaller and smoother.

If you want to geek out further on gearing, I'd suggest these gearing combinations with a triple (a double could be used too but it would, of course, have a higher low). This is what is called a "cross over" gearing pattern...not to be confused with "cross gearing". As an example of how it works, say you are riding in the 50/17 gear and you need to downshift. You can shift the rear cog to the 50/19 but this is exactly the almost the same gear as the 42/17. In other words, you can "cross over" to the middle range and keep the same cadence. If you are in the 42/17 gear and need to upshift, you upshift on the rear or on the front, it's the same gear.

I have the 50/42/30 gearing on my commuter bike. Yes, I have fewer gears to choose from because I have duplicates but the transition between gears, either up or down, feels very natural. There are no abrupt changes. It also is pretty close to how most of us shift anyway. Most people don't fiddle around trying to find the "perfect" gear. They just shift and try to match their cadence to the gear.

Salamandrine 

Thanks for the detailed explanation of your thoughts on this. It is appreciated.

I guess fundamentally I simply don't need the extended low gear range for my use. I tend to pack light, maybe not "ultra light" but "pretty light". While I don't plan on trying to get away with a 42" gear like I did when 19 years old and race fit, I'm pretty sure a 34t is enough for anything I plan on doing with my now middle aged knees. If I ever have the opportunity to go on several month tours with a heavier load, maybe I will re-equip. (BTW I am an experienced ex pro mechanic so it wouldn't be hard)

Your point on the transition is quite reasonable. I can understand the appeal of a less abrupt transition when shifting the front, especially say at the bottom of a hill as you say. It occurs to me just now that this didn't used to be such a big deal with DT shifters or barcons, but with brifters shifting sequentially through the gears would be pretty annoying. OK, you just inadvertently talked me out of brifters with my compact double, though I was leaning heavily to DT or barcons anyway.

I've noticed only fairly recently that if gearing is set up (with double chainrings) so that all usable gears are evenly spaced and sequential, it gets rather annoying to use in real life. The older 42/52 and even 39/52 road type double ring setups often have a few overlapping gears. While it would seem they are superfluous, it gives you extra gears right in the approximately 70" range where most riding is done, and thus probably reduces excessive cog wear. Additionally, the transition is less abrupt when shifting the front.

jmgardner 

Thank you for the valuable input on the suitability of aluminum as a touring bike frame. I will continue to consider the Koga, assuming they will ship here.

to clear up my 'least popular' statement: that was based on my observation of the bikes in my weekly group rides and is not scientific by any definition.

thanks again,
james

fietsbob

Consider which Dealer in Europe you will Buy from . they have a long list . the retail shop will be who ships it ..

You can also sort out a European*, Fly and ride and just bring your gear,

and fill Panniers you buy there Or bring your loaded at home panniers and put on the bike you ordered in advance and is waiting at the retail Shop you orered it shipped to.

* dealer network in many countries , just none at present in US.


https://www.koga.com/en/koga-signature ... https://www.koga.com/en/find-dealer

cyccommute 

I'm going to rant here...sorry.

My problem with bicycle companies is that they are staffed by people like you...no insult intended. They all seem to think that the world is populated by racers or ex-racers and that no one "needs" gears lower than you'll find in the Tour de France peloton. The current compact double or, even worse, 1x systems are examples of this very narrow line of thinking. Someone who is going to buy a "touring" bike which is designed and built for carrying lots of stuff for long distances and over the course of many days, probably isn't going to be someone who going to need the gear system of a bike for competition. They might, or might not, have the legs of a pro cyclists but I would rather that they err on the side of a "normal" cyclist with more average legs and body type.

It's not all the bicycle manufacturers' fault, however. They are stuck with the parts that Sram and Shimano give them. Shimano's stupidity of changing the mountain bike shifters so that they are incompatible with road stuff and then not making road stuff for "normal" cyclists puts tourists and the people who build bikes for them in a bind.

One of the worst articles I've read recently was one in Adventure Cycle magazine that touted the wonders of Sram's 1x system. The guy at Sram who is responsible for this stupid idea said in the article that you can really change the character of the ride by changing the chainring. Use a small one for a hilly tour and a large one for a flatter tour. Good idea. Maybe we put the rings on some kind of holder so that swapping them is easier. And then we could put on some kind of mechanism to conveniently push the chain from one to the other when we need them. That way we don't have to physically remove the rings to change the "character" of the bike.

Oh! Wait! This kind of thing already exists!

Part of the reason that it didn't used to be a big deal is that downtube or bar end shifter were seldom asked to make that kind of transition. There are a few examples of something like a 50/34 compact but they are quite rare. Up until just a couple of years ago, gearing was somewhat logical and made to be a more or less stepwise system.

You've hit on my problem with the compact double. I look at them as 2 separate drivetrains with a low range and a high range and little overlap or, at least, with little useable overlap. But they don't seem to be made with the way that humans actually pedal a bike in mind. One thing to say about the old gearing with roughly 10 tooth differences between gears, they work like we pedal. The increase or decrease in rpms need to maintain speed after a shift "feels" natural. The huge changes in compact double just doesn't.

Squeezebox

Some people are successful on compact gearing, and road frame geometry. The CC and bikepackers for example. I wouldn't head out to Tierra del Furggo on one. Heavy loaded expeditions isn't the only game in town.

Salamandrine 

No offense taken. It was a polite rant.

Actually you do make some good points, and there is certainly some truth to that. But I think the better designers can see past their own needs. Much of it comes down to the particular person doing the bike design and specifications. I've known a few people that worked for various bike companies, and abilities and qualifications vary greatly.

Re: the big jump and compact doubles. I can understand the issue of the big jump and it kind of annoys me too. However, it seems to be an inevitable result of the decades long march to add more cogs to the back. IMO, this is basically driven by marketing and planned obsolescence by the parts makers, and as you suggest the bike companies probably don't really have much choice but to go along.

While I can see the functional advantages of a 3x7 touring bike, I don't think it would be realistic from a business perspective to try to sell a 7 speed bike today. With 10/ll speeds now standard, a triple crankset with 10t spacing would result in most of the gears being redundant. Maybe that is OK, but I think a lot of people would be less than pleased if they realized half of their nominal 33 gears were overlapping. Still, there seems to be room for a few companies (ie Surly, Fuji, Rivendell, Kona) to sell a semi traditional touring triple.

dim

I looked very closely at the Koga, aswell as others ... price was not a factor ....

but after much research, I opted for a steel Surly LHT .... best bike that I have ever had, and rides like a cadillac... I't one that you can ride for 18 hours a day