Originally Posted by
carpediemracing
I'd disagree with the "longer top tube shorter chainstay" generalization. Touring bikes (i.e. not cross bikes) will also have rack mounts, usually an extra bottle mount or two, and typically have stronger tubes both for construction purposes (need to braze mounts in the thin part of a fork) and/or for load carrying purposes. Touring bikes typically have more clearance for tires so you can mount larger tires for better comfort/durability. Touring bikes will usually be stiffer unloaded - think heavy duty van which bounces along unladen but is very happy and smooth once you put 2000 pounds in it (I have one).
True. I forgot to rule out these kinds of differences so we could focus just on the geometry. Why is there such a widespread conception of distinct uses and strengths for road, cross, and touring bikes when they are 90% alike? Brazeons and eyelets aren't keeping people from winning races. The only major differences I can spot other than stock gearing are the geometric differences I mentioned, which I still don't understand fully enough to see how a shorter tube can make someone a winner, but a lower bottom bracket make him a loser. Where do these perceptions come from?
If it's the gearing that makes the difference then why don't we talk more about triples vs. doubles and mountain bike gearing vs. road gearing when people come asking questions about which bike is for them?
If it's a sum of all these small centimeters and degrees, eyelets and gears that make for such distinct categories as ROAD, CROSS, TOURING, then I guess I accept that just like everyone else. But that doesn't mean I won't continue to question it.
At the end of the day I just want a bike with gearing and mounts that'll let me tour loaded, but for the other 330 days of the year is fast as **** and will let me zoom up hills and zip past friends. After lifting a Volpe and a Poprad at the LBS, I was crushed to find that two same size steel frames are vastly different weights. Then seeing the Volpe listed as a touring bike made me rethink whether I could really find this perfect bike for me, and if I should just settle for a touring bike which is so routinely described as "stable" and not "fast." I guess I'm looking to geometry as a last ditch ploy to find a bike I can see as "aggressive" and "fast" even when its got a triple.
It's an anecdote, but check this out:
Here's a "touring" bike with a 42cm chainstay:
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...rist.htm#specs
Here's a "cross" bike with a 44cm chainstay:
http://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=22307
These categories almost led me to buying the heavy touring bike Bianchi sells as a cross bike because I thought "cross" bikes were faster.
Originally Posted by
climbhoser
the 56 has a 57cm top tube, but only a freakin' 12.5cm headtube! That's insanity!
Why?