swampyankee2

Sorry for all the posts. I'm a newbie and asking alot of questions as I weigh my options.

As it applies to 10 speed, drop handlebar bikes of the 70's and 80's, what constitutes a touring bike as opposed to a racing bike? I get that the frame of a tourer would be more rigged to carry luggage, etc. But what other differences? Frame dimensions? If so, what to look for in a touring type?

Mr. 66

For the 70's most of the touring bikes were 27" x 1 1/4" tires, where the race bikes were 700cm sew ups. In the 70's the race bikes wheel base became shorter than the touring counterparts. Most race bikes in the 70's did not have rack and fender mounts, the touring bikes could have tip and dropout eyelets some had/have seatstay and/or fork mounts.

The race bikes were 52/42 cranks with corncob freewheels. Touring bikes could be triple cranks long cage derailleurs big freewheels.

davester

There are quite a lot of differences, though back in the day I did some big tours on my racing bike because I couldn't afford a touring bike at the time. Here are the main differences I can think of:

The main difference is that touring bikes have much lower, and typically wider range gearing to allow one to drag luggage up steep grades for hours at a stretch. Racing bikes have close ratio gears to allow fine tuning so as to keep your cadence close to ideal during a race. They also have higher top gears to allow short bursts at high speed.

Touring bikes have larger fork and chain stay clearances to allow wider tires. They also typically run either cantilever or center pull brakes for the same reasons.

Touring bikes typically have slacker seat and head tube angles, which results in a cushier ride. Racing bikes generally have steeper angles to provide more responsive steering and less flex.

Touring bikes typically have longer wheelbases for two reasons: 1) longer chain stays allow clearance between the rider's heel and rear panniers; and 2) those slack angles and large chain stay clearances make it so.

Touring bikes typically had 27" clincher wheels because they were easier to repair on the roadside and back in the day 700c clinchers were not widely available in the US and UK. Note that in other countries such as France, touring bikes typically ran 650B clinchers. Racing bikes ran sewups (aka tubulars) because they were lighter and more responsive. Sewups had rims that were approximately the same size as 700c clincher rims.

Touring bike wheels often had higher spoke counts (e.g. 40 rear, 36 front) than racing bikes (36 or 32 both front and rear).

Racing bikes were typically lighter, using thinner tubing and more expensive lightweight components. On a touring bike with luggage weight is much less important because you don't care if you crest a hill or finish a sprint a few seconds faster.

I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of right now.

bikingshearer 

Davester has it pretty well covered. One more thing I can think of, though, is that the bottom bracket of a dedicated touring frame is likely lower than on a racing frame for lower center of gravity. That makes for a more stable ride, especially at low speeds on an extended climb with the extra weight of full paniers. Racers wanted a higher BB so they could lean over more in turns and still be able to pedal without the dreaded pedal strike. Tourers do not need that.

You would think that a centimeter or less difference in BB height is not that big a deal, but over the course of a long day, making it a little bit easier or harder to hold a line really adds up.

Incidentally, that is why I never thought it was a great idea to use a cyclocross bike for loaded touring; their BBs tend to be even higher than road racers, making you work that little bit harder to hold a line, all the time and all day long. Over the course of an hour or two, not a big deal.. Over the course of 8 or 10 hours with a full load, it is noticeably more fatiguing, especially if you are doing a lot of low speed uphill grinding on a narrow road with a fair amount of traffic (I'm looking at you, Pacific Coast Highway), when holding a steady line is really important.

This also ties in with the longer wheelbases on tourers, which also makes it easier to hold a straight line at the cost of a bit less quick handling. On a self-supported tour with a fully loaded bike, that is a tradeoff you will make every time.

ClydeClydeson

Main differences were tire clearance - racing bikes might not fit tires above 28mm and touring bikes can fit medium-wide tires - and luggage/rack/fender eyelets that are on all touring bikes but not on most racing bikes.

Also, most bikes originally specced with 27" tires can be converted to 700c size wheels and tires and this will allow wider tires by a few mm.

squirtdad

here is what i see on Rhode island craigs list.... not sure your size so throwing up what i see

shogun $100 looks to be in good shape pretty small 50 cm???
https://providence.craigslist.org/bi...445320088.html

Cilo $350 this is nice bike swiss with 600 components 53 cm
https://providence.craigslist.org/bi...446062924.html

shogun $125 22inch good shape this would be a nice start and then go higher end later
https://providence.craigslist.org/bi...441430782.html

univega $140 not a lot of info
https://providence.craigslist.org/bi...436139509.html

this guy seems to have a bunch, no pricing info https://providence.craigslist.org/bi...421925855.html

tcs

All that luggage on front and rear racks and handlebar bags put a twisting force on the frame during the dynamics of riding. This can result in shimmy and waggle in low speed, tight turns and fast downhill runs. A good old-school touring bike will have a heavier gage top tube and seat stays to resist this twisting force.

The wheels on a touring bike will be built stronger than a racing bike: more, larger gage spokes, sturdier rim, beefier hub flanges.

An old-school touring bike would be more likely to have bar-end shifters rather than down-tube shifters, wider, higher bars (perhaps randonneur bend) and an all-day saddle.

CliffordK

I've toured on my old road bike some. The chainstays are a little shorter than a "touring" bike. And, as mentioned above, I think I max out at about 28mm tires (I usually ride 25mm).



Note, the Colnago doesn't have eyelets at the dropouts, so this uses the Blackburn adapters for Campy dropouts.

I do find the whole thing just feels a little flexy. I'll have to do some more experiments in the future.

swampyankee2

Although I don't see myself doing multi day touring, at my age I'm less likely to race snd more likely to do more "leisurely" day rides.
I'm thinking a tourer style would give me more what i need. I see a vintage Dawes Galaxy for cheap locally. If the guy replies to my inquiry I will go look at it. Dawes were reputed to focus on touring bikes.
but here's a test - looking also at a Schwinn Voyageur. The name suggests its a tourer. But do the features match?

bikemig 

The thing to focus on is tire volume. If the bike can fit a decent volume size tire (700 x 32c or 27 x 1 and 1/4), then you can use it to do tours with or ride on gravel. There are other factors as well (chain stay length, frame geometry, for example) that matters in carrying a load but tire volume really matters.

Both the bikes you mentioned (a Dawes galaxy and the schwinn voyageur) can handle a decent volume tire.

But so can a great many "racing" bikes from the 70s and they had eyelets as well.

bikemig 

Since you're looking for an old bike to fix up and ride, why not post a thread WTB a bike. The posters will look through the usual places (CL and FB) and post the bikes they like. We'll have to have some idea of what size you need. That way, you can get the folks here do some of the work of finding bikes and they'll talk about the bikes they like.

cyccommute 

It’s not that the chainstay has clearance for wider tires, it has longer chainstays to keep more of the load between the axles. Short stays cantilever the load past the axle where the load causes more wag of the bicycle resulting in more difficult control. There are videos around that show how the load on a trailer can be destabilizing. The same applies to bicycles…i.e. more load forward over the axle results in a much more stable ride.

While true in the early 80s, the use of 27” wheels (ETRTO 630mm) was on its way out even then and was almost a relic by the early 90s.



tcs has a better explanation. The thin tubing of a race bike will result in a death wobble with a load. Touring bike use heavier frames to resist the twisting forces that can result in a lightweight steel frame going into a death wobble especially with a load that is behind the rear axle.

squirtdad

swampyankee2 like all of us do I think you are over thinking it. remember the most important rule is the correct number of bikes to have is n+1 where n is the current number of bikes you have. get something learn and replace with better in future

I put posted some ideas earlier, but it would be super helpful it you told us how tall you are or what size bike you ride if you know

also, no steel rims and go for cotterless cranks

here are are a couple of more ideas maybe a little further away

Miyata 210 $150
https://boston.craigslist.org/nwb/bi...432116255.html

bridgestone rb-2 $400 higher than budget but really nice bike
https://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/bi...444694185.html

dedhed

Or in the middle with a sport touring frame.

Show your classic sports touring bicycle

jdawginsc 

That's what I was going to suggest, or a hybrid with some fenders and a rack.

swampyankee2

ha! My "modern" bike is a 2008 Specialized Sirrus with stock 700x28c tires. I sold off a Fuji Roubaix for it since my riding became more social, less solo. It replaced my 92 Trek 820 which I had outfitted with narrower street tires. My wife uses it now.
I'm also trying to rescue a Raleigh Sport I dragged out of a cellar.
I'm just looking for a classic road bike and trying to learn as much about them and the differences as possible.
BTW, I'm 5"8", 33" inseam, so a "medium" sized frame is what looking for. I look at the length of the steering stem to judge.

seedsbelize2

To throw a wrench in the works, I am pushing 70 and am most comfortable on a tall racing bike. I have three of them. My coupled bike is a tourer. The other tourers I've owned are no longer here. Just keep an open mind.

Prowler 

It appears that Schwann used the Voyageur name for many years and the features changed/evolved during that time. I purchased and rehab’d a 1987 model, reputed to be a top touring bike at the time. I’m very pleased. Unloaded it rides like an old Cadillac. Loaded it runs like a Peterbilt. I rode fully loaded 300 miles on the GAP a couple years ago, 90% unpaved . Bike, gear, food, water, touring tires, tools n spares it all weighed 70lbs and was easy to ride. Great trip on all kinds of surfaces. Yes, that’s a heavy bike compared to my “racers” but very confidence inspiring in the unpaved rough stuff.*

I also have a Fuji Touring Series III with the low trail front end. Again, heavier than the racers but very comfortable for JRA (just riding around). Four day “hub and spoke tour” last year. Bike gobbled up everything the world threw at us. I may credit card tour on it a bit with front bag and panniers. The weight “disappears” once the bike is moving.

* what a trip that last day. Through the tunnel at the eastern continental divide, then flying down hill for 21 miles on various surfaces. Fully loaded with wet gear, cold, light rain and highly motivated. Passed the train going back uphill, seemingly 30’ above me. Warm car and Subway sandwich at the end of the journey.

swampyankee2

The thread this link goes to is a gold mine of ideas as far as what I'm looking for. Thanx!

bikemig 

Sports touring bikes are classic vintage bikes but they do go by different names. Race bikes from the 70s by and large had eyelets and clearance for 32c tires. By the 80s, racing bikes typically had narrower clearance and the eyelets started to disappear. There are exceptions. Touring bikes became a thing then. They had existed before then but bike companies became serious about marketing and selling them. It's always good to come up with a new product category in trying to sell stuff. Mountain bikes became commercial, more mainstream product in the 80s and that had a spillover effect in terms of gearing, cranks, shifters, etc. Companies also started marketing sports touring bikes (Trek for example did a good job of this).

The bottom line is that tire volume matters. As in anything else, there are always trade offs but tire volume adds comfort and you are able to more readily ride rough roads (or gravel). If you really want a classic sports touring bike, be patient and hold out for a bike worth owning and restoring.

cyccommute 

Not really. Many bikes may have had eyelets and clearance for widish tires but there were pure race bikes with tight geometries in the 70s.

You are 5 years too late. Touring bikes because “a thing” in the late 70s as part of the Bikecentennial craze. That’s was towards the end of the first modern bike boom. That bike boom was started off by the oil crisis in the early 70s and ended around the end of the Bicentennial in 1976. Bike sales, including touring bikes, slowed somewhat from the end of the 70s until the advent of the mountain bike in the mid80s.

You’ve got that backwards. The spillover came from touring to mountain biking, not the other way around. Cranks, gearing, hubs, etc. came from touring bikes and their need for lower gearing.

”Sport touring” predated mountain bikes. In some respects they were “hybrids”, except that, instead of being a hybrid between road bikes and mountain bikes, they were “hybrids” between the quicker handling road bikes and slower handling touring bikes. Nearly every bulk bicycle maker made a sport touring bike. They were the early 80s “hot bike to own” and everyone wanted a piece of the market.

Back in the day someone describe them as “platypuses” in that they weren’t good road bikes and they weren’t particularly good at carrying loads. The most frightening downhill I’ve ever done was on a loaded Univega Vivasport on a 5 mile 7% grade in the Colorado Rockies.

Well that’s completely out of left field.

swampyankee2

One bike I'll probably pick up just because its so cheap is an old Dawes Galaxy. Just for fun and tinkering with. The bike pictured has the vestiges of chrome fenders which have been "bobbed" to next to nothing. Most of the vintage Dawes Galaxies I find in google searching have full fenders. Would this bike have come new with full fenders? If so, it would be nice to restored full fenders to this bike since it's pretty heavy anyway.

bikemig 

Neat bike that looks to be in decent shape. The rear simplex derailleurs tend to hold up OK (and they shift decently well for their era) but the plastic simplex FD and shifters tend to be a problem. Most folks will tell you to get rid of the "safety" brakes. If you keep them, adjusting them properly will be important. Good quality brake shoes (try kool stop) help.

dedhed

Better do some research on crank cotter removal and replacement.

John E

I'll state another vote for a sports touring bike as a superb compromise between a racing bike and a full out touring bike. Older (1950s) racing frames were pretty similar to sports touring frames, because of the cobblestone and gravel roads that were still common in Europe.

This one as 72 degree parallel seat and head tube angles and a long wheelbase, with plain gauge Reynolds 531 main tubes.