Originally Posted by
MassiveD
"Does anyone need a "true" touring bike anymore? If you want to go lightweight with your gear, you don't need a classic touring bike. If you want to carry a lot of weight, why not buy the more versatile off road capable touring bike?"
Total nonsense.
1) In your description, about the only thing that is actually different about a classic touring bike is that it has heavier tubes. If you calculate the average weight difference it is justa few ounces a tube. It amounts to .2 mm over about18 inches x 3 x the circumference of the tube, times the density of steel. Like enough aluminium wrap to wrap a few sandwiches, though steel is 3 times heavier, it is still very little weight.
And the heavier tubing is actually standard butted tubing, 8/6/8, what the avergae non racer should be ridding. Many of the most classic popular MTBs were designed out of heavier straight walled tubing, and nobody seemed too put off by that. It is only when one learns enough about frames to not understand what one is talking about that issues come up.
2) While there are some interesting alternative designs available, and the classic design is a niche bike like every other bike out there, the off road designs are not more versatile. They go well offroad, but not that well on the road, just as road bikes are fine off road, up to some practical limit few riders ever see. Touring in the US is mostly on road, so the road style touring bike is best, but you can go either way depending on use. I would rather tour off road, but there just aren't that many wilderness bikes allowed trails that stretch out a thousand miles, even in NA.
That's more than a little tendentious, isn't it? I was hoping people could have some fun with my point of view rather than start a flame war. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have toured extensively on classic touring bikes. I really like touring bikes but I'm not certain whether I will continue to use them going forward since I'd like to lighten my touring load.
(1) I understand that the frame weight difference isn't much but there is considerably more variation than you suggest in wall thicknesses for touring bikes. This page for example has a nice diagram showing the differences in wall thicknesses between Reynolds 531c and 531st:
https://www.worldclasscycles.com/JACKSON-TOUR-FRAME.htm
But you're going down a rabbit hole on this one. Touring bikes typically have longer chain stays in addition to thicker tubing. That's a plus when carrying gear in panniers but a bit of a performance drag when going lightweight in touring. Not a huge deal but it is a difference.My point is that if going lightweight with your touring gear, you can ride a lot of different bikes and not just a classic touring bike.
(2) Touring bikes designed for touring off road will work well for fully loaded touring even if you stick to roads but they do give you more options. Take a look at the frame geometry on the velo orange camargue or the REI mazama. Those are fine all purpose touring bikes that can take a pretty fat tire.
I understand you disagree about the utility of touring bikes designed for off road touring or touring with lighter gear on a lighter bike but there's a heck of a difference between a difference in opinion and thinking that something you disagree with is nonsense. There's a line I always liked from Mark Twain which is that it's the difference in opinions that makes for horse races. . . .