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.
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.
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.
Last edited by viper_04649; 09-12-11 at 05:03 PM.
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.
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...
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?
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.
Last edited by fietsbob; 09-14-11 at 10:45 AM.
I see. The XOXO does appear to have the nippy geometry you're looking for. I've seen plenty of accounts of touring on 90's era rigid MTBs, which are fairly similar to the XOXO. Maybe not optimal, but it depends on what you plan to encounter, and they can be comfy.
Originally Posted by viper_04649
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.