Originally Posted by
pdlamb
Making a diversion back to the O.P. ...
Riding out of the saddle is still possible, but if you're riding with a load you don't want to throw the bike from side to side as much as you would without the load. After all, your 18 pound road bike has been replaced with perhaps 60 pounds of bike + load. At the easy end of the change spectrum, try to keep the bike a bit closer to vertical. That may require a bit more upper body strength, or maybe it's just a question of how far you lean the bike before you start limiting the lean. At the extreme end, pull the loaded bike slightly to the opposite side, so your weight on the pedal is closer to centered over the tires. With a bit of practice, this new skill will find you ready to start weighting the opposite pedal when the bike is leaning toward the pedal that's now at the bottom of the stroke.
That's pretty much how you have to do it but it never feels anything but awkward. Most of the time I just ended up not bothering and remained seated on climbs.
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
15 years of forum experience? I had assumed you'd have more in cycling experience.
Huh? I said 15 years of experience with being flamed for using and suggesting an aluminum touring bike. It has nothing to do with my cycling experience which goes back much, much further...at least 40 years of riding bikes that weren't bought at some Big Box Store.
People don't generally actually "flame" me in face to face conversations but, with few exceptions, even then they ask "how can you tour on aluminum?"
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
You got the fact that steel can be used in a certain way correct. After that it's just objective views based on pretty much nothing. Frame manufacturers do not make bikes feel a certain way because they to feel good in a parking lot. They put in a certain set of parameters that need to be met and use the tools and materials in their disposal to achieve those parameters. I'm going out on a limb here, but I am almost 100% certain that a parking lot blind test is not a deciding criteria for any bike company on how they design their frames.
I don't know what kinds of people you know, but the people I know and a lot of people I've discussed this online with aren't looking for a flexy noodly frame when they are buying a touring bike. Instead they look for something sturdy and stiff. Most touring frame manufacturers offer these and depending on the manufacturer choice the bikes can be steel or aluminum. For whatever reason steel seems to be the material of choice more often than not.
You are giving frame manufacturers too much credit. Most of them...especially the ones who are jumping onto a new fad...build touring bikes based on the available materials and they tend to either copy existing designs (if you are lucky) or go way out on a limb and just throw something together that they label as a "touring bike". A few...Cannondale, Trek and Surly...actually have put some effort in the past into design and selection of materials.
As for the choice of which material to use, the vast majority of actual "touring bike" have been steel because that is all that people will buy. The consumer is afraid that aluminum is too delicate and will break on them while completely ignoring roughly 2 decades of mountain bikes being made of the same material and being subjected to more abuse than any touring bike experiences. There are several steel touring bikes offered by a number of different manufacturers but only a few aluminum touring bikes.
And people don't buy aluminum touring bikes because of the "village smithy" myth.
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
I've only owned one proper touring bike, the LHT and while I do like how it rides even when it's unloaded (I kinda have to, it's my main driver atm) I still dream of a bike that's more supple and better for light riding. It's easier on my hands and butt than the specialized crux I used to have (which was an insanely stiff frame if I may add) but that is as much a tire issue as it is a frame issue. The LHT isn't exactly a fine tuned fine riding road bike when on the other side you have carbon fiber etc.[
I have however noticed that noodly frames wobble. The trek I had wobbled something crazy. The LHT is rock solid no matter how heavy the load gets. It's just a great touring bike.
I've owned 5 touring bikes. Two aluminum Cannondales (a 2003 and 2010 and I still have the 2003 frame as a spare) and 3 steel ones. Two of the steel bikes were "sport tour" bikes which fit into that category of poorly designed touring bikes and one of the touring bikes was the steel Miyata 610. The 610 had its problems but it was way better than at least one of the sport tour bikes. I've ridden a few other touring bikes before choosing the Cannondale and was not impressed.
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
You are simplifying matters too much. Just because both are made of tubes with same techniques does not mean they are the same. Yes, today butted tubes are still used, but they are almost solely oversized or ultra oversized in terms of touring bikes. Today we also have wider rear wheel spacing, compact frame geometries, more shaped seat and chain stays, machined rear cluster areas, strengthened disc brake areas, new head tube size standards, some of which are positively massive, thicker and wider fork blades etc. All of these add into the stiffness of the frame. Components today are also stiffer since we have aheadsets, outboard BB's, better bars etc.
I think you are confused about the diameter of the tubing being used today. It may be slightly larger sized but I haven't seen any touring bikes with "ultra oversized" tubes in steel. Steel bikes still use tubing that is only marginally larger in diameter than bikes from 40 years ago. Aluminum bikes use oversized tubing but not steel.
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
If only you had a way of proving any of this. As soon as you provide the evidence that "everyone wants" a springy ride for a touring bike, I'll be all ears. But as long as you do, all of that simply isn't true. Also OS tubing is the norm these days.
All you have to do is listen to everyone gush about their steel bikes. "
Touring bikes are generally made of steel, ideally placed thanks to the springy ride and durability it provides." ..."
And is renowned for giving a lively, almost springy ride." "
Cycle tourists like its springy resilience..." That's only a few. I've been hearing it for a very long time.
There's also a tradition element to touring bikes: "
If you want to know my personal take on the steel versus aluminium debate, it’s this: the main reason people buy steel-framed bikes for long-term touring is simply because most long-term touring bikes are made of steel." Which is what I've experienced.
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
No if you look at the miyata, it's lugged right? Standard diameter tubing instead of OS. Also super thin fork blades as well as really thin chainstays / seatstays. Also a super thin head tube since it's the old type of threaded headset. And to add to that you are not a stiffness testing machine so your view was very likely biased and thus affected your judgement. And humans as testing instruments usually tend to not be very accurate in any case. And did you use the same tires, same tubes and same pressures with all the aforementioned bikes? I'm being pedantic, because for a person touting science in every thread, you sure disregard it a lot when you make these assesments or opinions.
Another matter that may affect this is that a few years back Surly did in fact change the design of their LHT to make it stiffer. Before that there actually were complaints that it was too noodly, but those complaints have since ceased. Personally I think it was due to the EU bicycle regulation coming to force since it was around the same time. If you were riding the old LHT it's possible you may have gotten a slightly springier feel than what you'd get from a modern one. However even the old one was a lot more beefy than the Miyata.
Yes, it was standard tubing but, again, that's not that much smaller than the tubing you see on modern steel bikes. "A few years back" suggests that Surly's bikes weren't as stiff as you have implied they
all are. The last time I road a Surly touring bike was 15 years ago. That's more than a "few years back".
But scale hasn't provided us with any information on what his bike is. We have no idea how old it is. Since it is steel, it is unlikely to be very new since steel mountain bikes went out of fashion in the early to mid 90s.
Originally Posted by
elcruxio
The old mountain bikes I've seen still had pretty thin chainstays and seat stays even if the main tubes were OS.
Not the ones I see on a regular basis at my local co-op. The mountain bike frame from its inception used larger tubing than road bikes since they want
some longevity out of the frame. But, even with those larger tubes, scale's bike is still not as stiff as aluminum touring bikes are.