Unveiling Rodriguez UTB - The Ultimate Touring Bike!
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Unveiling Rodriguez UTB - The Ultimate Touring Bike!
BACKGROUND
For the past year or so I have been looking into building a new touring bike. The frame (the heart of a bike) needed to be capable of:
FINDING THE RIGHT BUILDER
I was thrilled when I found Rodríguez (AKA R+E Cycles) and their UTB model: ULTIMATE TOURING BIKE. They’re based in Seattle, WA. and have been doing business since 1973. They are known for their tandems and touring bikes handmade right in their facilities. In the last several years, however, these guys have also become renowned for their Rohloff bikes in the Northwest. After some extensive research I can see why:
At that point, I felt I was completely in good hands. BTW, Rodríguez does little advertisement and does not participate in fancy national tradeshows. It’s mainly all word of mouth or web search! Their website doesn’t mention several options indicated above, but they are available to anyone as very reasonable extras. They are the only ones who satisfied my needs with a “Yes, we can!” to ALL of my requirements. Their pricing structure is such that I felt the overall package was quite reasonable and within my budget. These guys have also the expertise of working long-distance with their customers across the nation or internationally. Since I live in Mexico, we exchanged tons of email and phone correspondence. They provided a step-by-step video for fitting (body measurements) and processed all data into a computerized fitting system to catch any errors. They also provided me with a free DVD to disassemble and assemble my S&S coupled bike which made everything so easy when I had to use it for the first time last week. The final product was delivered as requested. Nothing was missed!
UNVEILING FINAL PRODUCT - My 40th B-Day present, BTW
So, without further delay, here is my RODRÍGUEZ UTB:
Main shot! - Yes, I still have to get a rear rack for it.
26" wheels w/ wide tires - up to 2.1" w/ fenders and up 2.4" w/o fenders (1.75" shown):
Disc Brakes:
Splitter in seatstay for Belt Rohloff / Chainstay Protector à la Miyata 1000:
Eccentric Bottom Bracket for chain tensioning on a Rohloff:
S&S Couplers + Brake/Derailleur cable splitters + 3 water bottle cages
For the past year or so I have been looking into building a new touring bike. The frame (the heart of a bike) needed to be capable of:
- Being comfortable at the top of the list - A bike that suited me like a glove!
- Reynolds 725 frame
- Loaded Touring/Randonneuring - PBP 2015?
- Using 26” wheels for worldwide use. I live in Mexico, so this requirement was a true necessity even more.
- Fitting wide rims and tires. I felt I was looking for a “Gravel Grinder” - a bike that could perform really well on tarmac but that would also be at complete ease on dirt roads such as those found in the San Juan Huts trail in Colorado or the Carretera Austral in Chile.
- S&S couplers - What seemed like a pricey option in the beginning turned out (after some research) to be something that would pay off easily after just a few flights given how much airlines have increased their sports equipment fees. My Ultimate Touring Bike needed to be capable of flying anywhere in the world with no constraints or high-fees.
- Disc brakes - Researched this very thoroughly and at the end decided that, for off-road purposes, mechanical disc brakes (Avid BB7) would be the way to go for me. The frame should not have me stuck with only a disc option, however. Therefore, the frame would be ready for V-brakes or even cantis if ever needed. A disc option also gives me the ability to go with 650b wheels for randonneuring if I ever want this.
- Being able to grow with my needs. How often do we find ourselves wanting a different bike because our current (touring) bike no longer fits our needs?... Oh, I wish it had this or I wish it had that. A new touring frame had to tackle both my current and future needs. Flexibility with brake and wheel options mentioned above were two of them. Another important factor was its drivetrain. My current needs/budget call for a nice ole derailleur system. But I also wanted a frame for the point below...
- A Rohloff IGH which is something I see myself having in the future. Will I want a chain or belt drive? Don’t know, yet! The frame needed to be ready for both with its appropriate eccentric bottom bracket for chain tensioning, cable routing braze-ons and frame (seatstay) splitter, just in case. Off-the-rack bikes will give you one option (even from high-end manufacturers), but never two and forget about three - Standard Derailleur, Chain Rohloff or Belt-drive system? Believe me, I searched but encountered the following replies:
A. Simply cannot do all three! - The vast majority.
B. Can do it but have little expertise with Rohloff, especially with belt-drives (i.e., often the case with very small one-person custom builders.) Will cost you beaucoup money!
C. Can do it, have credible expertise - Will still cost you a LOT of $ (more than what I was willing to pay.) - 460mm chainstays for absolutely no heel strike. Obviously, no toe strike with 175mm cranks and 11 (45) size shoes.
- Other small but important things: kickstand plate, incorportated chainstay protector, 3 water bottle cages, uncut steering tube to raise/lower handlebar as I please.
FINDING THE RIGHT BUILDER
I was thrilled when I found Rodríguez (AKA R+E Cycles) and their UTB model: ULTIMATE TOURING BIKE. They’re based in Seattle, WA. and have been doing business since 1973. They are known for their tandems and touring bikes handmade right in their facilities. In the last several years, however, these guys have also become renowned for their Rohloff bikes in the Northwest. After some extensive research I can see why:
- They own the patent to the Bushnell Eccentric Bottom Bracket for chain or belt tensioning which they distribute worldwide. If you do your homework on Rohloff, you’ll learn why this is so important.
- Deep understanding of how the Rohloff system works and all the requirements to make it work smoothly on a given frame.
- They have a dedicated Rohloff frame builder who trained extensively at the Rohloff facility in Germany.
- The above points crowned them as the #1 Rohloff dealer in the U.S. in 2011 (I wonder how many people know this little fact.)
At that point, I felt I was completely in good hands. BTW, Rodríguez does little advertisement and does not participate in fancy national tradeshows. It’s mainly all word of mouth or web search! Their website doesn’t mention several options indicated above, but they are available to anyone as very reasonable extras. They are the only ones who satisfied my needs with a “Yes, we can!” to ALL of my requirements. Their pricing structure is such that I felt the overall package was quite reasonable and within my budget. These guys have also the expertise of working long-distance with their customers across the nation or internationally. Since I live in Mexico, we exchanged tons of email and phone correspondence. They provided a step-by-step video for fitting (body measurements) and processed all data into a computerized fitting system to catch any errors. They also provided me with a free DVD to disassemble and assemble my S&S coupled bike which made everything so easy when I had to use it for the first time last week. The final product was delivered as requested. Nothing was missed!
UNVEILING FINAL PRODUCT - My 40th B-Day present, BTW
So, without further delay, here is my RODRÍGUEZ UTB:
Main shot! - Yes, I still have to get a rear rack for it.
26" wheels w/ wide tires - up to 2.1" w/ fenders and up 2.4" w/o fenders (1.75" shown):
Disc Brakes:
Splitter in seatstay for Belt Rohloff / Chainstay Protector à la Miyata 1000:
Eccentric Bottom Bracket for chain tensioning on a Rohloff:
S&S Couplers + Brake/Derailleur cable splitters + 3 water bottle cages
Last edited by Chris Pringle; 05-01-12 at 11:58 AM.
#2
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 34
Bikes: Redline Conquest Classic - 2010 / Haro V4 MTB - 2008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wow! I love it.
I cannot think of anything I would do differently if I had similar requirements.
How does the weight compare to similar touring bikes?
I cannot think of anything I would do differently if I had similar requirements.
How does the weight compare to similar touring bikes?
#3
Banned
Having 2 Rohloff bikes It is interesting to see the under the BB cable guide
sized just for bare wire and then housing stops on the back end of the chainstay..
since mine run the shift housing all the way from the Grip to the External
shift box on the hub.
sized just for bare wire and then housing stops on the back end of the chainstay..
since mine run the shift housing all the way from the Grip to the External
shift box on the hub.
#4
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 445
Bikes: 1993 Bridgestone XO-3, 1981 Trek 613, 1988 Fisher Montare, 1986 Univega Alpina Uno, 2010 Surly Long Haul trucker, 2004 Rivendell Quickbeam. 1970s Gitane Mixtie (60cm), 1994 Diamond Back Axis TT
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked 34 Times
in
21 Posts
That is really amazing, congrats!
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Last edited by Chris Pringle; 04-30-12 at 07:21 PM.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 924
Bikes: A few
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
You did a great job putting your requirements together for that bike. I am sure this is one happy birthday for you! I particularly like the way you determined both current and all possible future needs or desires so that you will not encounter that feeling of "I need another bike" because you want something the current one doesn't do. That bike is a long term investment and a beautiful touring bike that will last long term.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
You lost me at the Gates Drive. That thing is not really practical, and runs counter to other decisions like 26" wheels for wide parts availability. But your other decisions make a lot of sense and it looks like you have a really nice bike there.
Personally I would like to run two front brakes anyway. I have have brakes fail moderately on several tours. And I run the very best stuff, so I think it makes sense to have two front brakes for safety. More likely to save you than a helmet.
Personally I would like to run two front brakes anyway. I have have brakes fail moderately on several tours. And I run the very best stuff, so I think it makes sense to have two front brakes for safety. More likely to save you than a helmet.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Personally I would like to run two front brakes anyway. I have have brakes fail moderately on several tours. And I run the very best stuff, so I think it makes sense to have two front brakes for safety. More likely to save you than a helmet.
Last edited by Chris Pringle; 04-30-12 at 10:24 PM.
#10
deleteme
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PNW lifer
Posts: 582
Bikes: deleteme
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Heh,
Uncut steering tubes and lots of spacers. I waited 6 months before cutting mine.
That fork is mmm mmm beefy. The cable routing on the DT looked a bit different then I realized it's because of the rear disc breaks.
Uncut steering tubes and lots of spacers. I waited 6 months before cutting mine.
That fork is mmm mmm beefy. The cable routing on the DT looked a bit different then I realized it's because of the rear disc breaks.
#12
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Rodriguez builds a really nice bicycle... we are fans up here.
Funny as I was starting to sort out some details for a new 26 inch wheeled touring build and many of the aspects you included were things I had on my list.
We do all those things like build with S&S couplers and fabricate our own eccentric bottom brackets and as I am leaning toward a long tail design, having it coupled would be an excellent feature to have.
Have no desire to build a touring bike with a belt drive although a frame that would handle an IGH or derailleur drive was another essential point as was a set up to run disc or rim brakes.
We built an SS coupled long tail touring bike for a customer last year and it is a wonderful bike although it did not have an eccentric or dual brake mounts as those were not requested.
Funny as I was starting to sort out some details for a new 26 inch wheeled touring build and many of the aspects you included were things I had on my list.
We do all those things like build with S&S couplers and fabricate our own eccentric bottom brackets and as I am leaning toward a long tail design, having it coupled would be an excellent feature to have.
Have no desire to build a touring bike with a belt drive although a frame that would handle an IGH or derailleur drive was another essential point as was a set up to run disc or rim brakes.
We built an SS coupled long tail touring bike for a customer last year and it is a wonderful bike although it did not have an eccentric or dual brake mounts as those were not requested.
#14
Senior Member
Thread Starter
You did a great job putting your requirements together for that bike. I am sure this is one happy birthday for you! I particularly like the way you determined both current and all possible future needs or desires so that you will not encounter that feeling of "I need another bike" because you want something the current one doesn't do. That bike is a long term investment and a beautiful touring bike that will last long term.
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Rodriguez builds a really nice bicycle... we are fans up here.
Funny as I was starting to sort out some details for a new 26 inch wheeled touring build and many of the aspects you included were things I had on my list.
We do all those things like build with S&S couplers and fabricate our own eccentric bottom brackets and as I am leaning toward a long tail design, having it coupled would be an excellent feature to have.
Have no desire to build a touring bike with a belt drive although a frame that would handle an IGH or derailleur drive was another essential point as was a set up to run disc or rim brakes.
We built an SS coupled long tail touring bike for a customer last year and it is a wonderful bike although it did not have an eccentric or dual brake mounts as those were not requested.
Funny as I was starting to sort out some details for a new 26 inch wheeled touring build and many of the aspects you included were things I had on my list.
We do all those things like build with S&S couplers and fabricate our own eccentric bottom brackets and as I am leaning toward a long tail design, having it coupled would be an excellent feature to have.
Have no desire to build a touring bike with a belt drive although a frame that would handle an IGH or derailleur drive was another essential point as was a set up to run disc or rim brakes.
We built an SS coupled long tail touring bike for a customer last year and it is a wonderful bike although it did not have an eccentric or dual brake mounts as those were not requested.
Last edited by Chris Pringle; 05-01-12 at 10:01 AM.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
#17
Hot in China
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: China
Posts: 961
Bikes: Giant Lava
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bummer. I cant see your pics here in China. I would really like to see this bike. Any chance somebody could dump them on imgur.com?
z
z
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
Take the MSR stove. The dual fuel stove idea means the one stove has the possibility of using different fuels if you get into a jam. That is the kind of back up I can see. Though overall most experienced travelers can probably figure out a lighter option, or even do without a stove.
I don't see a situation where a Gates drive, or even an IGF alternative ona bike running deraileurs, provides a contingency benefit. One is just taking on a weight, cost, durability, complexity, burden, in the hope that the features added will have a someday advantage. That seems to me a bit like packing the kitchen sink rather than making a simpler list that will handle the job anyway.
So as I say, too difficult to guess. It is hard enough to make the perfect today bike, let along figure out the future, and unless one limits those additions to stuff that actually makes the bike better per tour, one is degrading current performance.
I also think that cost wise, with the list of features here, one could almost make two frames/bikes, one IGH, and one not, if one dropped the Gates part of the equation. Probably not possible if both have to have S&S though. That is becoming a costly necessity with air travel shaping up as it is.
Things could change very quickly in the future. There are already several touring bikes with belt drives. At NAHBS (which showcase trends that are to come), tons of builders have been making a splash with it over the last few years.
Technology changes at a rapid pace. Disc brakes , for example, have now become really common down here. Another one is wheel size... even though 26" wheels still rule, the LBS here tells me 29ers are now really outselling 26" with high-end MTB customers. So, as far as Gates Belt Drive goes, it might be too early to tell if it's worth the investment, but does it hurt to have a frame ready for it?
The problem I have is that for a lot of touring, "loaded" is already the belt and suspenders model. Most people with all the gear, heavy tourers, already have too much stuff. To make an I-couldn't-make-up-my-mind version is to double down on indecision. Not in your case, I am talking now about what this would mean if everyone's bike looked like yours. I like your bike, and only said it went over the top with the Gates stuff, though if you pressed, for me, IGH interchangeability is also going there.
One thing I notice about lightweight outdoor gear is that with a few exceptions, most notably the ultralite backlash movement, most new gear is a lot heavier than it used to be. Secondary aspect is that a lot of the excess weight has to do with indecision. Thirdly some of the problem is an excess desire for durability. Fourth it is relatively too expensive.
Interesting! But I have never seen a bike running two front brakes. What kind of brakes failed on you which led to install two front brakes? I guess the case scenario you mention would become eminent if two disc brakes failed (front & rear) on a major downhill. You get tons of stopping power even with just one of them. It's better to be safe than sorry. My frame is ready for V-brake or Canti brakes (front and rear) which are economical options in case of emergency or if I ever see myself wanting to switch to them.
I have never had a braking failure where the brakes simply did not work. Though I had one just the other day with my city bike. I start from the premise that a) the idea of brake redundancy is universally accepted, where I live it is actually the law. b) With tandems, which is actually the weight range I operate in, the idea of 3 brakes is pretty universal. c) If I was limited to 2 brakes, I would actually prefer both to be on the front.
The touring failures I refer to have mostly been weather related. The brakes simply didn't work well enough to stop the bike withint he distance I regard essential. But there are a wide range of possible failure scenarios, related to maintenance, overheating, water, mud, grit, fouling/interference, mechanical failure, damage, hand position, etc... The brakes absolutely have to work, and my feeling is that to some degree while the cycling breaking systems are elegant, they are not all that robust.
My actual prefered option is as follows, and yeah, this is me going a little crazy: Petersen self-energizing canti on the rear. This brake is great front or rear, and I have run them as a front brake only, but I really only need them on the rear, where they get a better bite than I can comfortably get with road levers. I like to run the Paul neo retro as my main brake, up front. I would also run just a pair of Pauls if I wanted a cleaner looks. But hidden under the bags, the Petersens are my secret weapon. I run an Avid BB7 MTB brake on the front wheel. This is my emergency, and wet weather friend. It also allows me to have a lever on the tops, where I spend a lot of time if the wind is favourable. My feeling is weirdness aside, that is probably a more practical set-up than double discs.
There are V brakes that will space for 26 or 650, so you do not need to mount a rear BB7 or other disc just to get dual wheel use.
Last edited by MassiveD; 05-01-12 at 10:19 AM.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
By the way, I really like the choice you made for EBB. That almost makes it worth having on a tank style bike if one wasn't planing on running IGF. Makes the whole BB a replaceable part that isn't part of the frame. It also has some fitting functionality, and it does not compromise the frame strength.
#21
Banned
ran Petersen SE on my touring cargo bike , what made them work better
was thicker tube walls where they, their bosses are mounted on.
Happened to be a flying saucer like Boss with a flange all the way around
in the builders parts bin, to mount the brake against when they were fitted. ..
the SE uses a helical driver around the frame boss, there is no spring anchor pin..
the fitting used star washers ,I got to dig into the surround ing boss flange.
was thicker tube walls where they, their bosses are mounted on.
Happened to be a flying saucer like Boss with a flange all the way around
in the builders parts bin, to mount the brake against when they were fitted. ..
the SE uses a helical driver around the frame boss, there is no spring anchor pin..
the fitting used star washers ,I got to dig into the surround ing boss flange.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,362 Times
in
944 Posts
I don't see a situation where a Gates drive, or even an IGF alternative ona bike running deraileurs, provides a contingency benefit. One is just taking on a weight, cost, durability, complexity, burden, in the hope that the features added will have a someday advantage. That seems to me a bit like packing the kitchen sink rather than making a simpler list that will handle the job anyway.
I also think that cost wise, with the list of features here, one could almost make two frames/bikes, one IGH, and one not, if one dropped the Gates part of the equation. Probably not possible if both have to have S&S though. That is becoming a costly necessity with air travel shaping up as it is.
#23
Bicycle Repair Man !!!
Hi Sixty Fiver! I'm very glad to hear my post and subsequent discussions might help current and future tourists determine what they want/need from a touring bike. As I said, I really took my time (almost a year) reading tons of posts on this forum, posing questions, etc. I'm sure there are things I missed, but I feel completely satisfied with the final outcome.
Am always looking at other bicycles whether they are production or custom and paying attention to what other people are doing and suppose people do the same when they see an Arvon longtail coming down the road as there are only a few builders who do this as a matter of course.
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Even ignoring the S&S couplers, it's much cheaper adding a few extra bits to one custom frame than to have to buy two custom frames.
Last edited by Chris Pringle; 05-02-12 at 10:46 AM.