Originally Posted by
electrik
From what i've seen the tri-cross has no lower eyelets on the seat-stay for a rack, pretty essential. I would say the frame is even further from a touring bicycle and only designed for lighter loads. It is true the MEC 1971 has a narrower cassette, but if that becomes an issue there is always the possibility to swap the RD and cassette... With the tri-cross, it is not possible to swap the frame of the bicycle without getting a "new" bicycle.
My general principle is always purchase the frame first and worry about component issues later.
agree 100% on the frame principle.
the tricross's do have frame eyelets (only one set though both up front and back, my touring bike has 2 at the back, one for rack, one for fenders) and the rack I put on mine 10 mins after I bought it attests to that. I havent put my fenders on it yet still, and will have to piggy back the rack and fender thingees together (I did buy some extra long allen bolts for this)
I freely admit the tricross is not made purely for touring, but I did measure and compare things to my old steel touring bike that i did all my fully loaded tours on and curiously enough, the wheelbases are the same (104cm comes to mind) and the rear chain stay is the same as well (44cm I think)- so I have no rear pannier/heel issues at all. The steering is a bit quicker than my touring bike, but not by a lot.
For me, I saw this as a bike that would be fine for lightish touring, even with climbs. But yes, it is not a dedicated tourer but I didnt buy it for that. The question here was how is the 1971, and it is basically a competitor to the Tricross, Jake the Snake etc. I just wanted and needed lower gearing, and figured the diff in $ was close to what a replacement RD and cassette would be compared to the 1971 (plus tiagra vs sora brifters)