Mudu93

I am 36 and have not ridden my mountain bike offroad in many years. Recently on a trip back home, I found the original rigid fork, and it got me to thinking about taking the rockshock off and turning it into a MUP child trailer hauler and touring machine for the Katie trail and maybe RAGBRAI next year.. The bike itself is a 1993 Miyata Elevation 8000 bonded titanium frame with an Lx, Xt mixture and all the appropriate eyelets for mounting racks. I have the 1.5 slicks, bar ends for multiple hand positions, and I am tired of seeing this bike just hanging around. Besides my now wife will not let me get rid of this bike since I spent the money she thought should have gone to her engagement ring on it. What do you all think?

Mud

MrPolak

If you think what an older MTB is and what a road tourer is, and compare them, you'll see that...

they both have:

- relaxed frame geometries
- beefy frames
- beefy wheels
- beefy wheel bearing
- low gear ratios for climbing
- comfortable riding positions
- room for larger tires
- rack mounts
- fender mounts

their differences:

- handlebars
- wheel size

I think a road tourer, such as a Trek 520, is the ultimate road machine, but given the MTB commonalities, it's easier to convert an older MTB to a tough touring machine than a dedicated road bike.

So, throw on some skinny slicks, a trekking handlebar, some panniers and fenders, and go have fun!

But first... look here: https://www.vwvagabonds.com/Bike/BikeHome.html

sandlapper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudu93

I am 36 and have not ridden my mountain bike offroad in many years. Recently on a trip back home, I found the original rigid fork, and it got me to thinking about taking the rockshock off and turning it into a MUP child trailer hauler and touring machine for the Katie trail and maybe RAGBRAI next year.. The bike itself is a 1993 Miyata Elevation 8000 bonded titanium frame with an Lx, Xt mixture and all the appropriate eyelets for mounting racks. I have the 1.5 slicks, bar ends for multiple hand positions, and I am tired of seeing this bike just hanging around. Besides my now wife will not let me get rid of this bike since I spent the money she thought should have gone to her engagement ring on it. What do you all think?

Mud

I converted my Cannondale Killer V mountain bike into a touring bike. I put butterfly handle bars on change the gearing to make hill climbing easier. Then I added Schwalbe touring tires to it and fenders. I made some other changes I not going into now but the changes made my bike like a new a different bike. It much better now for touring and I have tried out new touring bikes which I do not like as well as my conversions.
I previously had been doing road tours with my Cannodale R2000 road bike but I expect my converted mountain bike will be my choice for touring for now on. I still love my road bike as it is just like driving a sport car to me.

Jed19

Sorry if I digress from the original thread a little bit. I also have a 1994 Cannondale Killer V 900 bike that I am interested in doing long distance touring with. I am very interested in having Doug post the conversions he did on his Killer V, to make it an excellent tourer.

The Killer V were fantastic bikes. I bought mine new in 1994, and I have never regretted buying it. It is well-designed, and it has been a really solid bike for me.

It should also be noted that the head and seat tube angles are not that radically different from that of a good, well-designed touring frame.

Thanks.

Regards,

NoReg

My only thought is that while you can certainly do what you are planing, with surly frames Costing 350, and Nasbar frames costing 180, what do you figure you could get for your titanium frame. If what you really want is a touring geometry bike, why not build it? Every bike is only a few changes in the gearing and the wrong frame away from being a touring bike, even if MTB frames are closer than most.

vik 

I had a killer V I sold and I regret that to this day - wicked frame.

I would agree that if you can get some decent $$$ from your ti frame sell it and buy a cheaper mtn bike frame.

If you want to keep your ti frame my only advice would be don't be afraid to raise the stem/bars up to make them more comfy for all day riding. You can do this inexpensively with extenders sold by nashbar and harris cyclery.

Also a set of trekking bars will give you more hand position options than flat bars and bar ends.

Post some pics when you get your mtn tourer together.

safe riding,

Vik

jcm

I originally posted this response to a similar question back on 4-25. This is not a slam on Trek 520's but you ask about using a properly fitted out mtb for long trips.

As a person who has not yet toured, I'd like to comment none-the-less, if I may. My experience has been mostly on an old 1988 Trek 830. Its been set up for road travel and distance comfort as I expected it to be my only bike and I planned to tour on it next year. I still will, I think.

I routinely ride 80 mile day trips on the week-ends and have added 3 centuries starting the last three weeks. I now average about 190 miles/week. So, I'm laying on the miles.

I'd like to offer a comparison between the old Trek mtb and a 1998 Trek 520 which I recently bought. The following are the reasons I think that a mtb, properly sized, fitted out and in good shape, is not just a reasonable stand-in as a tourer, but a superb tourer.

Trek 830 - mid priced at $500 in '88, from Taiwan Probably worth $100 now.
1) Decent Cro-Moly triple butted frame. TIG welded. Proven to be bombproof.
2) 17.5" chainstays (1/2" longer than the 520)
3) Thicker fork and chainstays. Stiffer, yes, but stronger too.
4) 26" wheels (so common and somewhat stronger).
5) Double eyelets in front. All other hardpoints identical to the 520 which has singles in front.
6) 18 speed with the Biopace/OvalTech chainrings. Many have been led to believe that this was a 'gimmick' foisted upon the market by Shimano. It wasn't. Trust me, I will smoke your tour bike on hills and I will usually stay up with 20lb roadies when I'm not packing 30lbs of training weight. The drivetrain really digs in. I suspect they no longer make the system primarily because it must surely be more expensive to produce than round chainrings. I wouldn't mind hearing some feedback on that.
7) Rough route capability with 1.5" tires. This thing is a Jeep, even without the knobbies.
8) Wheel base is 42.75" The 520 is 41.5" Ride is as good or better than the 520.
9) Frame angles appear to be very closely matched. Both bikes give a remarkably comfortable ride over many hours with few breaks.

Summary:
I paid $550 for the '98 520. I was glad to do it but after having both bikes to compare, I know I would never pay the $1200 they want for a new one. If I had never made the purchase, I feel I would be no worse off for a very good, all purpose bike. The 520 is, in my opinion, simply a more modern and refined version of the 830. Certainly faster in the flats and easier to pedal, but I can't honestly point to a value that would justify the retail price of the 520 for the purpose of touring. I'd take the 830 across the country with no reservations at all.

Trek 830:
https://i4.tinypic.com/10e0qao.jpg

Trek 520:
https://i4.tinypic.com/10e0qpg.jpg