jeremy_t

Hi all, I'm looking for some bike advice.

I'm planning to purchase my first non-mountain bike, which will definitely be used for commuting and will hopefully be used for fully loaded touring once I build up my endurance. The bike will replace my venerable Trek 930 mountain bike as a commuter.

I'm having a lot of difficulty deciding what to get. I've got maybe $1500 or so to spend on the bike, give or take a little for accessories. It seems that the only "touring" bike any local shop has is the Trek 520. I have not yet been able to ride this bike, though I was able to check one out, as only one local shop has them in stock and I haven't managed to make it there before sunset.

Are there any other options? Is there any reason not to get this?

One shop recommended a Lemond cyclocross bike when I described my needs (I believe it was the Poprad as it had a double for the front gears). I was able to test ride it and it was very nice and MUCH faster than my mountain bike, but it was also much lighter than the 520 and the frame seemed much thinner. Is this a worry for loaded touring? Would a bike such as this hold up for very long trips? Can anybody attest to its comfort (or lack thereof)? I know cyclocross bikes are not built with comfort or load bearing in mind.

I have been unable to locate any of the other touring bikes I am aware of (Volpe, Fuji Touring) in my area, so I am "flying blind" on these. One local shop can order the Volpe but does not stock it, and I am aware of nowhere that even carries Fuji

I am also curious as to what makes a bike "light touring" vs "loaded touring." Are light touring bikes simply lacking the front pannier eyelet? I would really like to have front panniers, but I'm not yet certain that this is a make or break feature. Certainly for commuting the rear panniers alone will be adequate, but for longer trips the extra storage would certainly be nice.

Thanks for any advice!

Roughstuff

With the exception of my world tour, all of my tours have been on a Fuji S-12-S (that goes back a ways, eh??), or my current fuji touring. I love the feel of my Fuji Touring bike. To me cycling is supposed to be simple, graceful and pleasant, and Fuji puts that all together for me. Have a local bike shop order it for you and try it out. I am sure if ya look on the internet there is a Fuji dealer nearby.

Lots of people go for the Trek because of some " American Made" mentality.

MY attitude is, whoever makes the bike I want and need at the lowest price gets my dollar, plain and simple.

roughstuff

tourbike

Hi,
I will say I am not overly fond of Trek, I think they are crap. Sorry.
Ok, Moving on, lemme recommend a few for you, and one I shouldn't be recommending for you...
Bruce Gordon Cycles produces a couple excellent models, custom sized, for a pretty penny, in two groups, Ex-freaking-spensive and Expensive.
https://www.bgcycles.com/

I am a personal fan of the BLT-X. But that is more for on and off road.

K. It seems that a lot of people are starting to love the Surly Long-Haul Trucker. Seems like a more accessible store-bought loaded tourer, and has similar geometry to the BLT. Click here to check it out:
https://www.surlybikes.com/virtual_LHT.html
and here to see a retailer list in your area:
https://www.surlybikes.com/dealers.html#

Other than that, and here is where the bad advice comes in, is to purchase an older, used mid-80's sport-tourer like mine and upgrade the hardware. I have an early 80's Shogun Cromoly 500, and it's a workhorse. So much so I loathe to part with it. Problem is you would have to upgrade the entire drivetrain to MTB, with an approriate chainring spread, as well as the shifting etc. I love my bike too much to part with for one of those new-fangled jobs.

I think the best advice I could give is figure out how much you intend to follow your desire to tour, and weigh the options carefully with your pocketbook until you are sure.

As far as a commuter/touring bike is concerned, your best bet is to cut somewhere in between the above choices and opt for a hybrid. They are basically "light tourers", capable of handling mid-weight loads and performing reasonably well in inclement conditions. You can adapt the bike fit your needs. Might I suggest the Novarra from REI? (.com)

Cyclocross bikes are right off the map. Don't do it.

Hope this helps...

tourbike

Oh, sorry here's a link for the Novara tourer/commuter:
https://www.rei.com/online/store/Prod...HP_CYCLING_TOC

Cyclist0094

something to be aware of on cyclocross bikes is they usually have short chainstays. If you plan on touring and carrying large panniers you will likely have interfernce between your heels and the panniers.
The REI novarra often goes on sale about this time of year. Another touring bike is the Jamis Aurora. If you want to build one up on the cheap, Nashbar has an aluminum frame w/ steel fork for $200. I know someone who built one up for touing and it turned out to be a nice ride for a $600 investment, he went about 1300 miles touring on it. I thought the welds were surprisingly good for a chinese frame.

Michel Gagnon

Like many large companies, Trek has many models at various price range and various quality. The Trek 520 is indeed a very nice bike and could be very good for touring, especially if you adapt it a bit. Whether the price is right depends mostly on whether the LBS is willing to swap chainrings, stem... for free or whether you have to pay retail for them. Check various threads on this forum for "Trek 520" and "gearing", and you'll get your money's worth of suggestions, which apply to most other bikes below. On the plus side, it comes with bar-end shifters. One limitation not mentioned in other threads is that you have clearance for 700x35 tires max. in front (vs 700x42-45 rear) with fenders.

Another very good common bike is the Cannondale T-800 or T-2000. Slightly lower gearing, but I think you can't change the rings with non-CODA rings (i.e. $$). Other unknown (to me) are REI and Fuji touring bikes, and some cyclocross bikes with a low bottom bracket and long chainstays would work. I'd avoid all the Lemond bikes I have seen, any bike with caliper brakes, any bike without eyelets (for racks and fenders) and any bike with tight stays or forks (you need to be able to install 700x32 -35 for touring).

At the high end, some people ride Rivendell Atlantis, and if I had mucho dinero, my preference would be the Heron touring bike (I forget it's recent name) or the Co-Motion (Americano or Nor'Western). Less old-fashion class than Rivendell, but still relatively traditional, high end, classy... and with modern components.

The Bruce Gordon is probably the best touring bike you can have for roughly $1500. It's more expensive than an off-the-shelf Trek 520, but it already comes with proper gearing, proper handlebars, proper shifters (like Trek, but unlike Cannondale). If you compare prices, the Bruce Gordon is often cheaper than a stock 520 + 48-38-24 rings or an XT crankset.
And Bruce Gordon designs his bikes with the proper equipment for touring, including rough-road touring: room for 700x40-42 tires with fenders (if memory is right), very good racks (extra but worthed option, otherwise, get 2 Tubus), proper gearing, etc. so the only additional expenses are fenders, your favourite pedals and saddle (if you want different from stock). The downside is that you need to order a BG from his shop, but then, while I prefer to try a real bike in the shop, I'd rather select and dimension a bike on the web (Bruce Gordon, Heron, Rivendell and the like are experts at long-distance set-ups) than do a similar "distance shopping" with my LBS.
BTW, just to give you an idea, many people

grahamja

The knock on the trek 520 as I understand it is the gearing. If you will tour anywhere near a hill, you want some pretty low gears. This rules out pretty much any bike with two chain rings. I have a Volpe that I bought this summer. I've been using it to commute this fall. I've never had a full load on it, but I've carried 25lbs of stuff to work without a problem. I think it has 43mm chainstays which is about the bare minimum for heel clearance. It has eyelets for a front rack and plenty of tire clearance and is reasonably priced. I'm not sure it would be my choice if I was going to tour 15,000 miles per year, but it is servicable and versatile.

bradw

This is very true. I got my 520 even though I wasn't sure what I wanted from a loaded touring bike.

The shop switched out (for free) the 105 triple for an LX triple. I didn't need the lower gearing for riding around my area, but I liked the wider q-factor (distance between pedals) of the MTB crank. After a few months I decided I'd prefer a flat-bar setup versus the drops. That cost me another $125+ (bar, bar ends, shifters, brake levers, grips). I later upgraded the rear rack to a Jannd, and got Conti touring tires to replace the weak-sidewalled Bontragers.

I ended up with a bike that fit *my* needs (not necessarily anyone else's) for less than the cost of getting a Bruce Gordon bike (without the flat bar setup I'd want). And my LBS covers warranty-related costs (my rear rim cracked and they replaced and rebuilt it for free) in a timely fashion. The BG bikes are great, and if I'd known exactly what I wanted, it might've been worth the extra cost.

The thing with the fender clearance is true. I now have 700x35 Vittoria Randonneur tires on my bike, and when riding on crushed gravel the tires would pick up bits of rock and it would scrape against the Freddy Fender on my front wheel. Clearance was very tight.

grahamja

Just to muddy the water further, here is another option from Bilenky:

https://www.bilenky.com/prod39.html

MichaelW

The Bruce Gordon BLT is setup the way most experienced loaded expedition tourists would want. If you dont buy one, at least copy it. The Trek has a nice frame, but so much else, racks, gearing, wheel-build is inadaquate.
That Bilenky looks OK at first sight, but a Campy triple just wont work for expeditions. I tried it and switched to a Shimano LX.

BG has a nice rant describing the difference between a light-tourer and a loaded tourer. I'm a big fan of light-touring bikes. For everyday riding on the road they are just about perfect.

jharte

Jeremy t, all of the ideas you have read are true from experienced cyclists. Most of 'experience' comes from things we wish we would have done differently. Like trying to make a cross bike a tourer or trying to make a mountain bike a tourer. Of course it can be done, but with sacrifices somewhere. Try this, make a list of things that are important to you for touring/commuting. For example, brazeons for racks, long chainstays for heal clearance with panniers, bottle brazeons, etc. Then match what is important to you with your pocket book. I've been touring with a converted MTB for 10 years. It works only because I made it work. I'd rather have a touring bike. They are more comfortable and built for the purpose. The list also might help your LBS understand your needs. True touring bikes are less popular than they were in the 80s. This is why some of us look into used touring bikes. Good luck with your search. You can always check here for answers to your questions.

photojtn

Wow, The Trek 520's have been all over the Globe touring... If its what u say it is, then why is this? It's still the most sought after for "serious touring", period..

Kodama

Pretty American perspective, and I suspect there are more tourers outside of America then in. I could be wrong though, let's see those statistics you are basing this claim on.

jeremy_t

Thanks for all the advice!

I am glad to hear from people with experience. I am almost positive I will be doing some serious touring, but am worried about making a mistake with my first bike purchased for it. $1000-$1500 is nothing to sneeze at, and like somebody said I hope to avoid common mistakes people make.

I really wish the LBS around here were more helpful in this regard. I went into one shop and asked for a touring bike, and the salesman didn't even know what that was!

It seems to me very hard to get a "feel" for what will be a good touring bike just by test riding one, since you have no idea how it will feel once it's weighted down on a long trip. This is why your advice is so helpful, I'm basically "flying blind" in the shop and want to be armed with any information I can get.

I am looking at the Bruce Gordon BLT online and it looks very nice, but the cost once outfitted with racks and shipped should come in over $2000 - a bit above my range. Is this bike really worth it?

Kodama

Hey, if you are seriously touring then you will find that a really well built bicycle is worth it. If you want to do small tours for a couple of years and then maybe do something more adventurous buy something cheaper and save for the hardcore cycle. I think that Trek has pretty much ruined the venerable 520 and I would get a Novara Randonee(or Safari if you want to do some offroad) instead for a cheaper/lighter tourer. The main issue to me is that with the Trek you can't get the handlerbars high enough anymore. The gearing, rack and wheels just added to the cost and effort expended. I bought a Novara Safari when I wanted to start touring, with full knowledge that I would buy a Rivendell Atlantis when I could afford it. The Safari has served me well for almost two years now and will continue as a winter commuting cycle when it is replaced for touring.

Dahon.Steve

The poor rear rack, no fenders, no front rack, high gearing, low stem length all point to a light tourer. The Trek 520 is sought after because most people don't know what they really need for touring and the company's name and extensive dealer list alone can carry an average product.

If you think about it, Bruce Gordon would be out of business if the BLT were designed like the Trek 520.

jeremy_t

I just managed to find a LBS that had a Giant OCR Touring, and I did get a chance to ride it. The same dealer also can order the Bianci Volpe, but does not stock them.

Price-wise, the Volpe seems to be about the cheapest option. Would it compare favorably to the Trek?

newskinnedknee

Same boat about two months ago. I wanted a bike that could do some "light touring". I ended up with a Trek 1200C. Gears are not quite as low as a typical tourer but when I wear out the chain I will go with a little lower gearing. It has room for fenders, runs a 28 mm tire and has braze-ons for a rear rack. It does not have braze ons on the front. I found most of the bike shops looked at me like I was nuts to ask about a bike that could tour. They acted like that is about as popular as old fashioned clip-on roller skates. But I bought a bike to get in shape and I figured the best way to do that is something that I would ride a lot. I wanted a bike that could take a two or three day trip to a nearby town, a trip to the grocery store or a nice long charity ride or a trip around the neighborhood. So far it does what I want. When I was looking I also looked at Cannondales (assorted models), Volpe (good value if you can find it), Specialized (assorted models), and a few others. Typical tourers are not at most bike shops near me. I figured some day I might get one of those but for now a more traditional bike would do. You can tour on almost anything. There are seat post rear racks, backpacks, and mounts for racks on front and rear for almost any bike. Now that I have been riding a bit I know more of what I am looking at in the road bike world. If I was buying today I would look very carefully at the two bikes at REI (Novara). The Safari is a great everywhere tourer for about $800 and the Radnoneur is a great road tourer for the same price. The Radoneur will be a little slower than mine as it runs 32mm tires but other than that it looks great. When I was shopping the local REI had neither but now they do and I am envious.

balto charlie

He Jeremy: I'm in the same boat as you. Mnt biker then commuter and now looking at touring. I've decided to convert an old mnt bike to a tourer. I'll then try a few tours and see what I prefer in a bike. If you do this, you can save a little more money for the bike of your choice. I'm curious about the chain stay length. How long will I need OR use a trailer. With a trailer you can use a completely different bike?? Before I plunk down a lot of $$ I'm going to "know" what I want. Try touring first, then you'll have a better understanding of your needs. Charlie

Michel Gagnon

Actually, I think Trek has done a few clever design choices. In spite of what we want, I'm aware of many people who want a 520 for commuting or at the most for light touring, but not for self-contained touring.

In all fairness, the limitations you are talking about are equally serious with most other makers of touring bikes. Almost all of them have a threadless headset with not too much leeway. Trek is the only one who supplies a rear rack -- and the rack is a good commuting rack, but nothing more. And most makers have standardised their gears on 52-42-30 and 11-32 or 11-34. But at least, with the Trek 520 and the Cannondale T-series, you are getting a rigid frame which is ready for loaded touring.

As for the BLT, in all fairness, you should compare the price of the fully loaded bike (nearly $2000, racks included, plus $ for fenders), to the price of an equally loaded Trek 520. If all gear changes are made for free, and if the shop changes for free the stem with one that has a 45-degree rise, then you only need to buy racks, fenders. OTOH, if you pay retail for all these parts, plus labour, then you might even find that the BLT is cheap.

Erick L

I think the Trek 520 is perfect except for the crankset. You'd have to change the rack and add fenders but that's true to all other so-called touring bikes from major brands. The Cannondales look ok if you prefer STI but the gearing is still a bit high.

I have a question about crankset swapping. What does it involve? I heard about having to change the bottom bracket. What else? A lbs said it was quite a hassle. After much discussion, he said he could try something and credit the price of the piece i'm not taking (the 105 crankset). He sounded like he didn't want to do it but my current touring bike already have a 22/front and 28/rear and I want one or two smaller gears (22-32 or 34 would be great!). Is it so complex to change the 105 crankset to LX or XT?

scarpi41

I just got a caad 3 frame. And Im gonna use it to tour long distances. I have the Cannondale R800. Most caad frame with inlets in the frame will hold a rack if your lookin to do some unsupported ride.


hope it helps, matt

roadfix

https://touring.anymouse.org/

bradw

The crank and the bottom bracket were the only pieces that needed to be swapped out when my 520 went from 105 triple to LX.

The 105 derailer works perfectly, and the Dura-Ace barend shifter handled the change without a hitch.
And even after I switched over to a flat bar setup with LX MTB-style thumbshifters, the front derailer still worked great. The rear derailer also functions well.

tourbike

Welcome to the wild world of touring. Here in the US, the cycle market is dominated by three forces: Time trial/road bikes (incl. cyclocross, track, etc), Mountain Biking (MTB), and sport bikes like BMXing. Touring is the outer fringe, a niche market long ignored. Walk into a shop catering to road bikes and you will doubtlessly be treated like a freak for wanting to put 50 lbs on your bike to ride from California to NY.

The Bruce Gordon's are definitely worth it, but as I said, weight your desire to tour with your pocketbook and reality. Try a cheaper one for a couple of years, get a feel for what you like in a bike and see if the BLT seems reasonable to you then.

I stand by my brief remark on Trek.