Bandera

Modern mfgs. in my opinion should take a page from Classic British Audax and French Randonneur machines when designing the next crop of Endurance/Sportive machines. All are designed to be light, lively and capable of long distances at pace on secondary roads by fit club cyclists.

The classic bikes also provided fittings for lightweight mudguards, seatbags and/or handlebar bags suitable for a fast paced weekend tour, Audax or Rando event. This capability is sorely lacking in the current crop of Endurance bikes, like my Merckx EMX-3. It makes these machines far less versatile than they should be.



"Back when" fenders and bags were removed and tubulars/straight blocks installed for the club time trial as a matter of course.
Setting up a CF Endurance bike for long distance and bad weather looks like an ugly kludge and sad afterthought on otherwise fine performance machines.
Simple threaded fittings F/R with specified weight limits would make modern bikes as useful as the Classics if we cyclists demand it.
One wouldn't have to set-up another bike for winter/wet weather LD either.

-Bandera

andrewclaus

I haven't read every word of every post, but has anyone mentioned a backpack yet? For the first tour, at least, before investing in new racks and packs, an old day pack may be enough to carry a rain coat, an extra jersey and socks, spare tube and patch kit, toothbrush, map and lunch well enough for a credit card tour. You can't get any more temporary than that--as soon as you sling off the backpack, you're back to a road bike. A friend did that with a CF road bike on his first tour and it worked out great for him. Next tour he bought a seat post rack and trunk bag. He's trying out different combinations and will eventually settle on something that works well for him, which is sure to be different than what works for me.

As already mentioned, and as is obvious from the range of replies, it depends on how much stuff you need to feel safe and/or comfortable. Some need a trailer, while for some a jersey pocket will do.

nun

I like the way you are thinking, but the only change I'd like to see on modern endurance bikes is room for slightly wider tires and mudguards. Other than that I think they are great for lightweight touring. Its easy enough to mount lights and with bikepacking bags or using a Brooks saddle and a Carradice saddlebag you can carry a lot of stuff. The Klickfix mount makes it easy to attach a handlebar bag and there are plenty of other options that don't need racks and heavy decaleurs.

Bandera

At least British specialty mfgs. still understand the requirements of riding long distances at pace in difficult terrain and less than perfect weather:



"The Hewitt Carbon Audax is a bike that covers a wide range of uses, the frame is a carbon fibre monocoque construction with clearance for 28mm tyres and mudguards. It also has eyes for a carrier to be fitted. It almost has the performance of a race bike with the versatility of an Audax bike."

Something I'd like to see the major mfgs. get into the LBS. A proper gentleman's machine in the spirit of the pre-WWII Clubman.

-Bandera

bikemig 

I like the bike but there isn't a heck of a lot of demand for this kind of bike in the States. There should be since this is a more versatile bike but that's not what sells. I like a bike with eyelets and room for a 700 x 28 tire too. I don't race anymore and I like the way that the 28c handles rough surfaces better. I don't want the bike to limit the roads I ride on.

I picked up a salsa casseroll a few years ago because it had eyelets and used long reach brakes:

staehpj1

Most here are really resistant to backpacks. I personally find them to work great for very light loads. They can also be used with a seat bag, handlebar bag, or bar roll if desired. It seems like for someone who is credit card touring and is willing to pack light, it could be a great choice. I know that I didn't mind wearing a backpack with a few pounds in it on the Southern Tier. It would be quite possible to credit card tour with only a few pounds.

Bandera

The very same reason that I built the Stanyan for winter/wet, but it's no CF Merckx......



-Bandera

nun

Quite a few endurance bikes are going up to 28mm clearances and I actually don't like to see attachment points for racks as that just means more weight. Not having rack mounts on my Cervelo forced me to work out ways to carry stuff without a rack, thus saving weight and volume.....racks tempt people to carry too much.

bikemig 

The weight of an eyelet is pretty minimal and they have lots of uses other than racks (fenders, front light, etc.). At the end of the day, it's one's choice how much to carry and what might be too much for you might be just about right for someone else.

A bike with eyelets and clearance for a fatter tire and fenders is probably best for most people doing credit card touring and bikepacking and a necessity if doing it in a more traditional style.

That may not be the best bike for you but we're talking about what makes sense for most people.

By the way, I say this with all due respect because I think the kind of bikepacking you and others on this list do is very cool. I know I learn a lot from discussions over how to save weight while bike touring.

staehpj1

Really? As far as that stuff being best for credit card touring, that is not a slam dunk. Some may prefer it and some not.

On it being a necessity, even for heavy touring... It definitely isn't. I have met lots of folks doing fine with heavier loads and on multi week and multi month tours with none of that stuff. Some of them were light to medium packers and some were dragging a ton of stuff along, usually in a trailer.

Actually the OP asked about riding short credit card tours on a Roubaix, which seems very suitable to the type of trip he described. So we really weren't talking about what makes sense for most people.

bikemig 

(1) I think we're saying the same thing insofar as lightweight touring is concerned. It's up to the rider but I think most people are better off with the more versatile bike (i.e., the one with eyelets and room for a bit fatter tire). Tire size more than anything else have an impact on comfort, roads you can ride on, etc. If you want to disagree with the idea that tire size matters, that's cool but I don't agree.

(2) Obviously I was thinking of touring with panniers and not going lightweight. So I'll agree with you that you don't need eyelets or a little beefier tubing or a little longer chainstay (some of the hallmarks of a "traditional" touring bike) if you want to use a trailer, a heavy backpack, or whatever else floats your boat. Still it's nice to have the option of carrying a full set of panniers if you plan on "traditional" touring. 4 sets of panniers on a touring bike works well; there are other options. A "traditional" touring bike is a real trooper for long distance riding if you're carrying a heavier load.

(3) OK but that's not the direction where the conversation moved to. Still if we want to talk about the OP's question, you may want to read my earlier post where I said the same thing you just said. The bike is obviously fine for the OP's intended use. If one were free to select a bike for this kind of touring, we would simply disagree as to what the optimal bike is. I think a "sports touring" bike is a better choice because you can run a bit fatter tire and fenders.

Edit: btw, @staehpj1, I've learned a lot from and I've enjoyed your posts on lightweight touring. The only thing I think I disagree with you (and some of the other posters) is that in an optimal world even for light weight touring, I'd like the option of running at least 28c tire and fenders.

staehpj1

Fair enough. I'd even agree that all other things being equal room for 28 mm tires is a good (but not necessary) thing. After all you don't have to run them just because there is room.

Also I guess that the OP really never said how much they intend to carry so we are all making suggestions based on our guesses about that.

Bandera

Not you or I.
Having a threaded mounting point for full mudguards, and clearance for 25-28mm tires, on a CF Endurance machine that sees duty in less than ideal weather is my requirement. The Carradice Barley and small Arkel handlebar bag suffice for weekend trips to/from a favorite old hotel in the Hill Country that has a good restaurant and bar even when Autumn weather requires layers.

For the OP: Arkel makes well thought out quality gear to rig an Endurance machine for Audax, Randonneuring and credit card touring.
Emily at Dill Pickle will make a custom rig to meet your needs.
Lots of ways to skin the cat but it would be sensible for mfgs, to add 4 simple 5mm threaded fittings as was done when performance bicycles were expected to be versatile.



-Bandera

fietsbob

Id rather not put all my grocery shopping in my Jersey Back Pockets ..

prathmann

I never understood why at some point it became a negative to have eyelets and a few mm more clearance for tires on bikes intended primarily for racing. There's essentially no difference in the weight of a frame with vs. without these features but it gave the older bikes far more versatility. A PX-10 was considered suitable for the highest level of road racing - up to and incl. the T de F, yet it still had eyelets for mounting a rack if desired and enough clearance for a bit wider tire and/or added fenders. It let you use your 'good bike' for an occasional extended tour and also made it easy to repurpose last year's race bike to be this year's utility bike after a new bike was purchased.

Bandera

Like this one that's been in service for >40 years while a good many race bikes are long gone?



-Bandera

bikemig 

Apparently eyelets add too much weight and entice people to overpack,

nun

That would be a nice bike. But there are plenty of endurance bikes that will take 28mm tires out there and you can use bikepacking bags or Carradice type saddlebags to carry your gear. If you want mud guards there are plenty that don't need eyelets to mount. So why wait for eyelets, just buy a CF endurance bike and go credit card or lightweight touring

Bandera

I already have one, and do.



The CF Merckx is a fine machine but a lack of four simple eyelets limit it's versatility.
For me full mudguards should fit to eyelets: no kludges w/ rubber bands or zipties allowed.



Spending this size of $$$ for limited versatility when eyelets F/R have been the standard for performance bikes decades?
Silly fashion.......

-Bandera

Bandera

Jamis is listening, good for them/us:

"Blend of high and mid modulus carbon fiber, Dyad Elite M30/T700 lay-up, tri-oval shaped top and down tubes with SST tubing diameters and ACE internal cables compatible with Di2, Carbon 1 1/8-1 1/2” head tube, Carbon PressFit 30 BB shell, asymmetrical chainstays, twin SST seat stays with hidden carrier/fender eyelets, forged one-piece dropouts with replaceable derailleur hanger."

-Bandera

nun

Personally, the lack of eyelets on a bike would not stop me from using it to tour; my bags don't need them and I don't mind being without mud guards given the limited number of times I find myself riding in really wet conditions.

bikemig 

I've been pretty lucky sometimes and not dealt with a lot of rain on a tour. Other times I've been less lucky.