Originally Posted by
SlimRider
The loss of velocity becomes a greater concern with increasing distance. The OP desires weekend tours. A suspended mountain bike could quite seriously delay the OP at the expense of unnecessarily wasting his energy, while touring.
That's the very purpose of the touring traditionally chromoly steel road bike. To avoid such nonsense, by using it, as the most efficient vehicle on two wheels, while touring on pavement!
First, it's
speed. Velocity is a vector quantity which has a direction and speed associated with it. But let's concentrate on his immediate problem which is getting to work across a field. His best choice is a bike that is handles that task best, which isn't a traditional road bike. Especially not someone who is relatively new to cycling and whose handling skills might not be up to the task.
He really needs two bikes but that's probably not going to happen. So should the choice of bike be for the occasional weekend touring or the one that serves his needs on a more regular basis? He can use the mountain bike, with a lockable fork, for touring but the touring bike may not do the job on weekdays. Riding a skinny wheel bike in an off-road situation makes crashes more likely. I know from long experience, that when you laying on the ground, your forward speed is essentially zero. That really slows you down.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
Agreed! You're just reinforcing my original point. The more engaged suspension, the slower the MTB.
You could possibly use your MTN bikes for touring, but they won't be as efficient as the traditional touring road bike.
Not reinforcing your original point at all. Your point was that suspension slows you down, my point was that it doesn't. Your point was that suspension adds weight, mine was that it doesn't.
Touring isn't about efficiency unless there is a de France following the word 'Tour'. Touring is about the ride and the location. It's not about the speed at which you cover the ground.
Originally Posted by
SlimRider
What myth? My drawn conclusion is simply logical. That being that if aluminum has a fatigue life much shorter than steel, then steel must last longer than aluminum. That statement goes for all applications of aluminum and steel, when used similarly. It doesn't mean that aluminum is going to suddenly explode or disintegrate. However, it does mean, that the probability of an extended life for aluminum diminishes with each individual event of use.
Perhaps it would matter if you plan on keeping a bike for 30 or 40 years, although there are a few 1930s and 1940 Monarch Silver Kings currently listed on Ebay. If you aren't aware of them, Monarch Silver Kings were
aluminum bikes. Those are 70 to 80 year old bikes. There are plenty aluminum bikes from the 80's to 2010's still floating around and, I suspect, some of them will still be around 70 to 80 years from now.
As has been state elsewhere, Eugene_B should concentrate on fit and suitability for what he wants to do and not worry about the frame material. And to be realistic, he's more likely to find a bike that fits his needs in aluminum than in steel because even though you think that aluminum is delicate and unsuitable for a bicycle, the major manufacturers don't think that way.