Originally Posted by
jefnvk
Forgive my ignorance of current bikes, but are that many touring-type base models sold to people that putz around 3x a year? Seems like a costly purchase for something that isn't being used on a regular basis.
As to the rest, would it cost me 30-40% more? Presumably, the parts I am going to add cost no more whether the frame came with other parts that I paid for or not. To me, it sounds like I would just have the same add-on cost, but a higher base cost. I guess I could always strip and sell the OEM parts and make back some money, but it still sounds like paying for something I am never going to use. I'm genuinely curious, BTW, I've never bought a new bike and immediately swapped parts. It just seems more logical to me that if more than one or two things were getting taken off and replaced you would start with the frame and build up.
I agree! However, it is usually more expensive to build from the frame up, at least with new parts. The bonus is that you get exactly what you want. This bike was built up much differently than a stock Surly LHT. It also costed more. Mixing and matching components is not as easy as some folks would like us to believe, e.g., road and mountain bike compatibility.
I believe that a stock bike is a good choice for the inexperienced person. It has most of the right parts, and can be tweaked as experience is gained.
On a complete bike the saddle is usually the first thing to go, followed by gearing changes. Manufacturers vary from year to year. A few years ago the REI Randonee was the closest to my idea of a good touring bike: low gears, STI shifters etc. However, their newer models have reverted to the "semi-road bike" gearing.