intransit1217

KHS, Trek, etc, all have a touring bike.

What is the advantage of going with a co-motion or a Kona or a surly over a more mainstream mfg?

3speed

It just depends on your preferences and what you want out of it. There are slightly different geometries, different materials, different level components, etc. Research every bike that you're interested in until you find out what makes it different than the other offerings. The most important thing is picking one that fits you very well. You'll be spending a lot of hours on that seat in one ride. It needs to fit well. For example, the Long Haul Trucker has a long top tube, which doesn't work for a lot of people. Maybe that would eliminate that option for you, or maybe a shorter top tube would feel cramped if you have a longer torso. It's made of steel, so that eliminates it from my list. Maybe that's a benefit to you.

Tourist in MSN

I thought Surly LHT was more mainstream, not high end, they have worked very hard to keep the price point low. Not familiar with KHS.

Big differences is (1) Cost, (2) Ability to customize, (3) Quality, but that is model specific because there are mainstream bikes with very high quality and other mainstream bikes that are less so.

High end - You want some custom brazeons or custom paint, not a problem with a Co-Motion because they make each frame in house and are set up for custom painting.

Normal or mainstream - If you want anything custom on a LHT or Fuji Touring or REI Randonee or Trek 520, you will find out how willing each individual bike shop is to make changes in the shop to keep a sale.

Then there is the Windsor Tourist that arrives at your door in a box, no local bike shop involved so you do not even have the chance to ask about customization.

It gets a little more complicated if you want to discuss options like a frame designed specifically for an IGH or frame designed for belt drive, or something else that is exotic, but that becomes a very lengthy esoteric discussion.

And if you check out the bikes in a hiker biker campsite where you see some people traveling by bike for hundreds of miles on a low budget, you find lots of other bikes that are not considered proper "touring" bikes. Last summer I met a gal that had been traveling the world for the past seven years, she estimated that her bike had over 100,000 km on it. It was a mountain bike with air suspension front fork - the last thing I would have ever recommended to someone to use for a round the world tour.

LeeG

There is no advantage until you perceive one.

mstateglfr 

From what I've seen, the difference is customization and a unique bike.

All you mentioned will have different geometries abd one is not better than another when it comes to geometry since that is individual.

Components and customization separate the mass produced from the higher end.
It isnt good or bad.

intransit1217

Ok . How about 700c vs 26" wheels. Assuming a triple and some type of hill climbing gearing

hueyhoolihan

i've done a lot of touring on 26" (559mm rims), more on 650c (571mm rims), and 700c (622mm rims) and 27" (630mm rims). it's personal, but i've found that the bigger the better. so it's 27" rims, but these days, i guess, i'd would, if picking a wheel, reluctantly settle for 700c (622mm rims), although i have a couple sets of 27 inchers and touring tires are readily available.

intransit1217

Can you say what specifically you prefer about the larger diameter wheels?

dwmckee

My body dimensions are a little hard to fit well with many stock frames so I bought a fylly custom CoMotion Cascadia 2 years ago. I am really happy with it. I bought the frame from CoMotion and collected the components over a year on ebay looking for deals on what I wanted. I was not on a tight budget so could afford pretty much what I wanted. If I was on a bit of a budget though I'd have gone with a Gunnar, Bob Jackson, Salsa or a Soma most likely. Next down for me would have been a Jamis Aurora Elite or maybe a Fuji Touring. I'd have been happy at the lower end but am really happy at the higher end. Ride quality on the CoMotion is really excellent and it looks beautiful too. You forget the cost pretty quickly and just remember how happy and comfortable you are.

hueyhoolihan

smoother ride, no squirrelly steering, holds a line better. probably not my first choice for a single track though.

if you have a chance ride one of those tiny wheeled road bikes. it difference should be immediately apparent. there's a reason MTB's went to 29er's, the same sized rim as road and track bikes.

MassiveD

The original reason for the 26 was to have the same wheels size as road bikes with the larger tire. I think a lot of 29ers may have been a fad, a lot of the bikes have suspension and there is no real energy advantage to rolling a big wheel over bumps even without the suspension. They are only better in the narrow range where a 26er would take air but a 29 would roll. At least that is one theory.

MassiveD

On the main question I agree on the Como is in a different category, LHT is still a cheap build. In fact it was originally sold most as a frame only. Then they rolled out the complete bike, and while it was a good deal, it completely changed the ecosystem it was sold into.

Two main reasons for upper end bikes are if you don't fit a bike well off the rack. Some proportion of people do not fit well off a rack, maybe 25%, they would benefit from a custom frame, they would get by without, but then it is just a mater of money. If money in touring bike bites is not an issue, then why wouldn't you buy something better.

The other reason is that when you look at a custom vs a stock bike, there is virtually nothing you can't make better than what is on a stock bike. When I got back from my first long tour in a while in 05, I looked at my LHT grade bike and asked myself what I would change on the bike. With a few exception the bike had been good and there wasn't anything that hugely needed to be changed. (I actually would benefit form a custom frame). Then I asked myself whether there was anything I could improve about the bike, and at that point I came up with a list that included every single part except the seat. Saving money is nice but for most people for whom the price of a bike is not prohibitive, the time they spend one tour is a precious commodity. Why have anything less than the best.

A third point I see a lot is people who buy a new bike every year or so. They won't spend 4 grand on a bike that they would never have to change, but they will spend 4 grand over 3 years, for 3 bikes, every three years. And there are guys with far larger stables of bikes than that. Part of this is the appeal of brands. Como, might make the best touring bike, but no way is the brand as strong as LHT or the majors, people like to read about bikes, then go out an buy one, talk about it with friends, post about it. Most people can't get into your super custom bike made by a guy they have never heard of, using components that are all "too expensive".

79pmooney

The original reason for 26" was that kid's bikes suitable for bombing down Mt Tamalpais' (sp) famous Repack trail came with 26" wheels and fat tires for them were readily available. 26" stuck. (Research was done over a century ago on the best wheel size for different surfaces. What showed up clearly was that the rougher the surface, the bigger the wheel should be. For a smooth surface, the best was 27" ~= 700c. MTB'ing started out at 26". Suspension was, if not invented, certainly perfected because 26" was simply too small for rough conditions. Now we have 29" which rarely needs suspension. Seems that researcher got it right.)

Ben

MassiveD

I've heard all that story too, but it isn't the only story. Sure they ran down the sainted mountain on those bikes, but that isn't any reason for the whole industry to snag the same details when they formalized the format. That was about the only detail they did keep. And your explanation begs the question of why they built those balloon tires that size originally. I've ridden MTBS since the beginning, always rigids, and I don't find them a problem at all. I still see plenty of full suspension bikes, and 26ers for sale. I don't now how popular 29ers may be but heard the explanation of their limitations from a podcast with Gary Bontrager. The cool thing about them initially was that they were a custom item and lots of framebuilders had a virtual exclusive for quite a while. What people on the cutting edge do on MTBs today is a far cry from what most people use them for and I don't see any real reason for a much larger wheel on them for most uses.

irwin7638

Apart from wheel size, the frame geometry is worth looking at. I had a Surly LHT, which I loved, and upgraded the frame to a Riv Hunqapillar when it came out. I wasn't expecting the difference it made. What appeared only minor differences in BB drop, angles and fork rake made a huge difference in handling. The Hunq handles more quickly, like an MTB, while the LHT handles...like a truck by comparison. I always felt like I was steering the LHT while I naturally lean into turns on the Hunq.

Marc

staehpj1

There is some truth to that.

I personally tend to subscribe to the good enough is good enough approach. I think folks get way more wrapped up in the bike itself than they need to. When I was still touring with 30 or more pounds of gear I was quite happy with a $599 (delivered) Windsor Touring. I never really lusted after anything better.

Since then I have started packing very light (8-15 pounds of base gear weight) and been happy with older race bikes (a 1990 ish cannondale crit bike).

For me when I think back on my tours the bike itself really doesn't come to mind all that much. I am not saying a nicer bike isn't a pleasure to ride, just that to me it isn't that big of a deal as long as the bike meets some minimum suitability requirements for the specific usage.

All that said... Fit is important. For those few who can't get an adequate fit on a stock bike, a custom bike makes sense. They are a small minority though.

Pick a bike that is reasonably suitable to the task and you feel good riding. Spend as much or as little as you want. If you have the money and spending $4000 on a bike makes you happy, go for it. If you are on a tight budget, or are just frugal you can get by fine on a $600 bike or even a much cheaper used one.

RR3

These are all fairly low end or middle ground touring bikes. The Surly long haul trucker has lousy components in my opinion although the slightly higher end Trek 920 looks interesting with different tires put on it....that is the one I would look at seriously. The Kona Sutra has good components especially deore stuff. Wheels might only need checked and more tension added by a good wheel builder. I like the bar cons and B17 on the Kona. Not sure I would want discs on a real tour but I am old school. Either the Trek or Kona and I'd have the wheel tensions checked and if they are like most machine built wheels, the wheel builder can improve them and it is worth the money to do so.

Tourist in MSN

Smaller frames sometimes only available in 26 inch. Or if smaller framed bikes are available in 700c might have a lot more toe overlap issues.

Some people say that 26 inch wheels are stronger. I think the difference minor.

Some people say that if you are in the middle of South America and have a wheel failure, 26 inch is much easier to get locally. And if you are dreaming you will go there someday, that is the bike you buy.

A 37mm wide 700c tire is considered pretty wide by 700c standards, but that same width in a 26 inch tire is considered narrow by 26 inch standards. (My widest 700c tires are 37mm, my narrowest 26 inch touring tires are 40mm wide.) Thus, if you are more likely to be on pavement and want narrower tires, a 700c bike might make more sense. But if you plan on more off road touring where a wider tire is desired, then a 26 inch bike might make more sense. This aspect is slowly evolving due to the more recent availability of wide 700c (29 inch) tires. But, most 700c touring bikes will not take those wider tires yet.

I have a 700c touring bike and a 26 inch derailleur touring bike with very similar components and identical gearing. Of the two I prefer teh 26 inch bike, because I like the frame better on that bike. I can't really feel any difference between the different wheel sizes.

intransit1217

So the slight difference in overall diameter is negligible on the climbing issue. I don't see myself going to south america, so that's a non issue.

Considering everything that's been said so far, I suppose I'll stick to my original plan of my ds being my touring tool.

Thank you all !

Tourist in MSN

My 26 inch 40mm tires have a circumference of 2,038mm. My 37mm wide 700c tires have a circumference of 2,204. (I dug these numbers out of a file that I keep to set my bike computers.) So, if you used the same exact components, the 700c bike would be geared higher by roughly 8 percent. I however do not really notice that since I just shift into the gear that I want for the conditions. This could be an issue however if your gearing is higher than you wanted when you scale a steep hill.

hybridbkrdr

I questioned people in the long distance forum and they insist for example that Shimano Deore LX can last longer than regular Deore. As a matter of fact, Deore vs. Alivio, I read Deore can do better in difficult conditions (like changing gears when your pedaling fast) and doesn't have to be adjusted as often. Apparently, there are small parts in LX that made out of metal instead of plastic for the lower groups.

djb

is there still Deore and Deore LX? I dont keep track of this, but I have had LX stuff that has lasted for a very very long time.

LuckySailor

The other reason is that when you look at a custom vs a stock bike, there is virtually nothing you can't make better than what is on a stock bike. When I got back from my first long tour in a while in 05, I looked at my LHT grade bike and asked myself what I would change on the bike. With a few exception the bike had been good and there wasn't anything that hugely needed to be changed. (I actually would benefit form a custom frame). Then I asked myself whether there was anything I could improve about the bike, and at that point I came up with a list that included every single part except the seat. Saving money is nice but for most people for whom the price of a bike is not prohibitive, the time they spend one tour is a precious commodity. Why have anything less than the best.

Agree with this 100% couldn't have said it better myself.

Tourist in MSN

When you quote people, you might want to use the "reply with quote" option instead of copy and paste their text into your post.

tarwheel 

Co-Motions are custom frames/bikes and in a different league price-wise from Surly and Kona. In general, custom frames will be more expensive than off-the-shelf. In the non-custom realm, there is a fairly wide range of costs ranging from Nashbar's budget touring frames that can often be bought on sale for $100-200 to more expensive touring models such as Gunnar, Lynsky, etc. Some manufacturers only sell complete bikes (Jamis, Trek), others only sell frames, and others will sell frames as well as complete bikes.

That said, there are a number of reasonably priced touring frames (or complete bikes) that I would consider high quality and capable of handling almost any kind of touring -- such as the Surly LHT, Soma Saga, Jamis Aurora, Trek 520. The main differences among these frames is their geometries, which can vary quite a bit. IMHO, bike fit is the most important factor in choosing a touring bike (or any other bike). I would rather ride a $500 frame that fit me great than a $2,000 frame that was a poor fit.