Right- I dont want to get into a urinating match about this- but in my response above, I actually mentioned the marketing-hype surrounding the 'long wheelbase' criterion (used by trek and cited by you above as
the criterion of what determines a touring bike). That bike you linked- the Trek 520 made way back in the 1980's... Yeah, I have that bike. Except the nicer one, the Trek 620 from 1985. It has the longest production wheelbase of ANY touring bike made, ever. Its identical (geometry-wise) to the trek 720 from the same year. IN MY EXPERIENCE that doesnt make it the best touring bike out there- in fact i own a better one. Please see above, and prevent me from having to repeat myself.
After you called me stupid (following a well-reasoned discussion of other factors that
ACTUALLY make a difference to tour-worthiness and load carrying ability) I cited perhaps the
two most experienced bike tourists in history, and pointed out that according to you they dont ride "touring" bikes. Whatever that means. So, I repeat myself: pointing out the distance between the rear wheel and the seat tube is
silly, which is to say irrelevant to the OP's question...
Of course you know this, which is why you straddle the fence by saying:
"(Note that one could use almost anything for touring)." and "People tour on all sorts of different bikes. People are free to use whatever works for them."
so we agree then
