Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

difference between touring and road bike

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

difference between touring and road bike

Old 06-09-22, 08:50 AM
  #51  
Steve B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 5,880

Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2514 Post(s)
Liked 1,292 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute View Post
A “sport tour” bike was the hybrid bike of the early 80s. They were supposed to be capable of fast road rides and loaded touring. They did both poorly. I’ve toured on a sport tour bike and found it to provide the scariest downhill I’ve ever experienced. The load is cantilevered off the back of the bike and made the steering very vague which is not something you want on a long steep downhill. The wobbly aluminum racks of the day didn’t make matters any better. I’ve done a lot of downhills since then on bikes with better designs and never experienced anything like that.
Well, I would not agree with that. My memory of many sport tourers were they were not designed to carry the kind of load a dedicated touring bike would carry, I.E. front and rear panniers. The sport touring bike I recall Soma and Surly made, were more designed to carry a lighter rear load and to be overall lighter and quicker than a fully loaded tourer, credit card touring comes to mind. The designs I've seen do this well. I had no handling issues with my Soma, so perhaps your particular model was just poorly designed,
Steve B. is online now  
Likes For Steve B.:
Old 06-09-22, 09:34 AM
  #52  
Paul Waque 
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ontario
Posts: 94

Bikes: Road: 1972 Raleigh Competition,1989 Marinoni, 1990 Limongi. MTN: 1990 GT Team Avalanche, 1991 Rocky Mountain Blizzard, GT Team RTS , Rocky Mountain MSL 50 Element, CCM fat bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked 40 Times in 28 Posts
As I understand it, "Special" from Marinoni means that it is a custom order. Here is a Marinoni Special in Ottawa. It is a higher end bike with an $1,100 price to match.
Marinoni Special touring Kijiji ad

Paul Waque is offline  
Old 06-09-22, 12:50 PM
  #53  
Frenzen
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar View Post
Based on his other posts, the OP seems to be finding a lot of bicycles that aren't well suited for grand touring. So, I went to Kijiji Montreal and without going through the thousands of bicycle listings, I simply searched on "Touring". Most weren't grand touring bicycles and those that were, are too small for the OP's 5'11" height, with one exception, a Velosport Alpin.

This is a true grand touring frame. It has relatively slack angles and a longer wheelbase and chain stays. It accommodates two sets of water bottles and has eyelets for both racks and fenders. It even comes with fenders and two Blackburn racks. The frame appears to be Tange Mangaloy 2001 which was a double butted carbon-manganese alloy.

It does have a triple crankset, though it is swaged and it does have cantilever brakes. It appears to have been upgraded to indexing with a new rear derailleur and some cheap clamp-on shift levers. The pedals are touring appropiate quasi-platforms with toe clips and straps.

It appears to be the 1984 model, so the wheels would only be 27", which would make spares more difficult. Still, it's a good, mid-range, grand touring bicycle, that appears to be close to the OP's size and doesn't break the bank at $350 CDN, in what is an expensive market. It's been on the market for 1-1/2 months, so could probably be acquired at a discount. I think it is worth a visit to check out the condition and fit. It has the potential for being a great grand touring starter bicycle for the OP. However, I would ditch those shift levers for some bar end shift levers, to complete the transition.

Here's the link to the Kijiji ad; https://www.kijiji.ca/v-velo-de-rout...cle/1613495612
I have seen this bike and I will give the person a message (offer $200, see what the person says lol), I was more looking for Velo Sport Appalache as I understand it was better than the Alpin. I am trying to get that Mikado touring bike without accessories for $150 but adding a granny gear (if possible?) and the racks/accessories might add up quickly to $350. I do know a few people who do sell bike parts for cheap so we will see just not frames! I believe that I can do touring with flat pedals tho.

Originally Posted by Jeff Neese View Post
After a few months, you're still looking. That's good - it means you're waiting for just the right machine to come along.

You started off saying that you're "looking into doing long distances of riding a bike" but that can mean a lot of things. If you're really thinking of loading up and hitting the open road, I'd suggest a bike that was originally sold as a dedicated touring bike, like the Treks that have been mentioned or a Miyata 1000, something like that. I owned and toured on an '84 Trek 720, and can tell you that a purpose-built bicycle designed to carry loads of stuff, makes all the difference. But, are you really going to do that? There's a lot more investment in gear that you need to make if you're going to do loaded touring. Assess your true needs. You definitely need a triple if you see yourself trying to haul a heavy bike up a long hill. Or you can just walk, which I've done plenty of times even with a granny gear.

As an aside, I had a second set of lightweight wheels with skinny road tires for my 720, which I put on when I wasn't touring. It turned it into a fun everyday bike and the low center of gravity made it handle really well. Very comfy of course with that nice long wheelbase and Reynolds 531 frame - I could ride that bike all day.
I am always looking for these bikes but the only ones I have came across Miyata 1000 were 800$-1000$ in Montreal and I did find a Trek 1984 520 in Florida for around $100-120 but the listing expired as I think the owner did not find a buyer. Well to be honest my first goal is to get a bike before I actually get all the accessories and investments that is why I have been searching and looking for a true touring bike. Also I offered $150 for that Mikado, and invest some money to add a granny gear.

Last edited by Frenzen; 06-09-22 at 01:00 PM.
Frenzen is offline  
Old 06-09-22, 01:56 PM
  #54  
T-Mar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,228
Mentioned: 629 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4701 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2,962 Times in 1,839 Posts
Originally Posted by Frenzen View Post
I have seen this bike and I will give the person a message (offer $200, see what the person says lol), I was more looking for Velo Sport Appalache as I understand it was better than the Alpin...
That all depends on the model years that you are comparing. For any specific model year, an Alpin will be better than an Appalache of the same same model year. Both were introduced in 1982, with the Alpin being the top model until 1985, when they introduced the Everest. However, an Appalache could be better than an Alpin, if it is newer. For instance, it's too bad that Alpin wasn't just one year newer, as it received some significant upgrades in 1985: CrMo double butted frame, a 3rd set of bottle bosses, lo-rider fork mounts, 40 spoke rear wheel, sealed cartridge bearing hubs and a lighting system.
T-Mar is offline  
Old 06-09-22, 02:07 PM
  #55  
Frenzen
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar View Post
That all depends on the model years that you are comparing. For any specific model year, an Alpin will be better than an Appalache of the same same model year. Both were introduced in 1982, with the Alpin being the top model until 1985, when they introduced the Everest. However, an Appalache could be better than an Alpin, if it is newer. For instance, it's too bad that Alpin wasn't just one year newer, as it received some significant upgrades in 1985: CrMo double butted frame, a 3rd set of bottle bosses, lo-rider fork mounts, 40 spoke rear wheel, sealed cartridge bearing hubs and a lighting system.
Didn't know Alpin was a top of the line at one point, how do you know this information as I couldn't find the catalogs?
Frenzen is offline  
Old 06-09-22, 07:11 PM
  #56  
kroozer 
vintage motor
 
kroozer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tepic, Nayarit, Mexico
Posts: 1,508

Bikes: 48 Automoto, 49 Stallard, 50 Rotrax, 62 Jack Taylor, 67 Atala, 68 Lejeune, 72-74-75 Motobecanes, 73 RIH, 71 Zieleman, 74 Raleigh, 78 Windsor, 83 Messina (Villata), 84 Brazzo (Losa), 85 Davidson, 90 Diamondback, 92 Kestrel

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 60 Times in 47 Posts
You also might want to consider an older (80's-90's) mountain bike. They are not as fast as road tourers, but they are very serviceable for many types of touring. They are cheap, strong, have low gears and good brakes. You can fit them with wide tires for rougher roads, or narrower tires for pavement. If you want a faster bike for smoother roads, a 90's hybrid has many of the same characteristics (low gears, good brakes, room for wide tires), and these can also be found cheaply. Put on the saddle, handlebar, and pedals that you are comfortable with, and you're set.
kroozer is offline  
Likes For kroozer:
Old 06-09-22, 09:16 PM
  #57  
The Golden Boy 
Extraordinary Magnitude
 
The Golden Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,218

Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT

Mentioned: 81 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2440 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times in 695 Posts
It's awesome that you can and are taking your time finding *THE* bike.

So much of what I know about bikes is based off the Trek catalogs as Trek offered enthusiast to high end bikes, and they were with or on the leading edge of bicycle technology of the time. You get an idea of what constituted a "good" and "great" touring bike for the time. What the frame was made of, the dimensions of the frame and what the good and great components of the day were...

IMO- the sweet spot of purpose built tourers is 1984/1985. That's where you get triples with cantilever brakes and all the rack and bottle braze ons along with the premium tube sets with the premium components in the most graceful, but yet business-like combinations. After 1985 you start seeing more stout tube sets with 1st and 2nd tier components and then unicrown forks... On the other hand- truth be told, if you were going to be carrying 25 pounds, I'd want a heavier duty tube set than 531c or 531CS.

I also think that there are some components from the 80s that are as good as there are now. But there are a whole lot of modern components that are exponentially better.

I love old touring bikes. Out of the bikes I have, the "best" tourer is my 1990 Miyata 1000LT. All of my bikes are awesome- don't get me wrong... But the 1990 Miyata 1000LT is the most stable of all of them. It weighs more than the others, but it's significantly more stiff, but yet it rides as well as either of the Treks. But both of the Treks feel more... graceful- even though they are longer. Go figure.

1985 Trek 720 by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr


620 Rebuild Shakedown by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr


M1000LT by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*

Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!

"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
The Golden Boy is offline  
Old 06-09-22, 09:37 PM
  #58  
Frenzen
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by The Golden Boy View Post
It's awesome that you can and are taking your time finding *THE* bike.

So much of what I know about bikes is based off the Trek catalogs as Trek offered enthusiast to high end bikes, and they were with or on the leading edge of bicycle technology of the time. You get an idea of what constituted a "good" and "great" touring bike for the time. What the frame was made of, the dimensions of the frame and what the good and great components of the day were...

IMO- the sweet spot of purpose built tourers is 1984/1985. That's where you get triples with cantilever brakes and all the rack and bottle braze ons along with the premium tube sets with the premium components in the most graceful, but yet business-like combinations. After 1985 you start seeing more stout tube sets with 1st and 2nd tier components and then unicrown forks... On the other hand- truth be told, if you were going to be carrying 25 pounds, I'd want a heavier duty tube set than 531c or 531CS.

I also think that there are some components from the 80s that are as good as there are now. But there are a whole lot of modern components that are exponentially better.

I love old touring bikes. Out of the bikes I have, the "best" tourer is my 1990 Miyata 1000LT. All of my bikes are awesome- don't get me wrong... But the 1990 Miyata 1000LT is the most stable of all of them. It weighs more than the others, but it's significantly more stiff, but yet it rides as well as either of the Treks. But both of the Treks feel more... graceful- even though they are longer. Go figure.

1985 Trek 720 by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr


620 Rebuild Shakedown by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr


M1000LT by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
I almost got lucky a month ago and had a person selling 2 miyatas 1000LTs for $400 CAD (for both) but unfortunately they were not my size but I even told the person that the price was too good, but yes I do see 1000s going for $1000+ in other cities but they are so few as I believe people do not wish to sell them. As for 720s, I have never seen one from the 80s but the more hybrid ones which are not really touring bikes.
Frenzen is offline  
Old 06-09-22, 09:47 PM
  #59  
Frenzen
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by kroozer View Post
You also might want to consider an older (80's-90's) mountain bike. They are not as fast as road tourers, but they are very serviceable for many types of touring. They are cheap, strong, have low gears and good brakes. You can fit them with wide tires for rougher roads, or narrower tires for pavement. If you want a faster bike for smoother roads, a 90's hybrid has many of the same characteristics (low gears, good brakes, room for wide tires), and these can also be found cheaply. Put on the saddle, handlebar, and pedals that you are comfortable with, and you're set.
Yes this is something I am considering because it is budget friendly. However, I am having a hard time distinguishing between older mountain bikes apart the the ones with 27 inches because someone said that they can be created into good touring bike and apart from that I do not know much about MBTs.

Last edited by Frenzen; 06-09-22 at 10:28 PM.
Frenzen is offline  
Old 06-10-22, 05:59 AM
  #60  
T-Mar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,228
Mentioned: 629 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4701 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2,962 Times in 1,839 Posts
Originally Posted by Frenzen View Post
Didn't know Alpin was a top of the line at one point, how do you know this information as I couldn't find the catalogs?
I wish I had a dollar from every person who had ever asked me this question. Starting in the early 1970s, I was in or the fringe of the Canadian bicycle industry for over four decades, as a mechanic, shop manager, licensed racer (road, track, ATB, CX, duathlon and triathlon), certified coach, quality consultant and just an all around avid cyclist. I've seen a lot, done a lot and collected a lot of cycling reference material over the years.
T-Mar is offline  
Likes For T-Mar:
Old 06-10-22, 02:45 PM
  #61  
Frenzen
Junior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
After all the messages you guys sent about the modifications that are required to make Mikado bike a better touring bike, it seems that it is not worthwhile although I am confident I can make the right modifications but time is money! OP and offered $210 for Mikado without accessories but Velo sport touring bikes are much better looking. My search goes on as the Alpin person never responded (I believe it is already sold but forgotten)?

Maybe I need to expand my budget but for the time being the tight budget is the main focus, and who knows maybe I’ll stumble upon a decent Miyata in a trash lol.

Last edited by Frenzen; 06-10-22 at 02:48 PM.
Frenzen is offline  
Old 06-11-22, 04:38 AM
  #62  
Steve B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South shore, L.I., NY
Posts: 5,880

Bikes: Flyxii FR322, Cannondale Topstone, Miyata City Liner, Specialized Chisel, Specialized Epic Evo

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2514 Post(s)
Liked 1,292 Times in 741 Posts
Originally Posted by Frenzen View Post
Yes this is something I am considering because it is budget friendly. However, I am having a hard time distinguishing between older mountain bikes apart the the ones with 27 inches because someone said that they can be created into good touring bike and apart from that I do not know much about MBTs.
IMO, the "ideal" mt. bike wanting to be converted to a tourer is late 80's to mid 90's, or just before every mt. bike came with a suspension fork. So a rigid fork. You would get 26" wheels, for which there are a lot of slick tires, likely a tripe crank with mt. bike gearing, might be a 7 speed cassette and you can still find those. Your call on whether you would want to swap to a drop bar as that then opens up a pandora's box of needing to mix and match shifters and brake levers to what would likely be cantilever brakes. All do-able, but takes a bit of knowledge, but you can make it a project bike and ask here for suggestions as to components that work, etc....Old mt. bikes typically did not have eyelets for racks front and rear, so some P clamps might be required if using racks for panniers, or you can go the bikepacking bag route, if you can fit your gear in the more limited space provided.
Steve B. is online now  
Old 06-11-22, 08:00 AM
  #63  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,261

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1594 Post(s)
Liked 497 Times in 376 Posts
Originally Posted by Doug Fattic View Post
While it is possible to do a fully loaded tour on a variety of bikes, I suggest you try to find a full touring frame that was designed with heavier tubing and rack mounts. I'm a custom frame builder so I don't know much about what brands and models apply to that category. Others can chime that are more knowledgable but examples that would work great would be the Trek 520, 620 and 720 models.

Heavier tubing keeps the frame from being whippy (and possibly scary) when you are not going in a straight line. Long chain stays (like 450 + -) keeps your heals from hitting the rear panniers. And balances the load better over the rear axle. And of course having rack mounts is convenient and more secure holding your load.
Doug, your inclusion of the classic Trek tourers brings me back to a question I’ve had from time to time. The Trek tube set does not seem by specs, particularly stiff. Trek’s brochure page for the 728 model (applies to 720 frame/fork as well) says the tube set is “Reynolds 531 Double-Butted” under Main Tubes and “Reynolds 531 forks (sic) and stays.” In the early pages of the 1982 Brochure they provided a table of tube sets. First is the note that all Trek frames are double butted, and for Reynolds 531 the main tube profiles are given as TT 8-5-8, DT 10-7-10, and ST 8-5. I know of a few common variant factors, such as the single digit numbers being rounded from the actual specifications based on standardized gauge number, or that the 10-7-10 DT is elsewhere called out as belonging to the touring-weight Reynolds 531 Super Tourist (same as ST?) tube set. Trek also lists the Reynolds 531 SL tubeset, with thinner walls at the butts and bellies, and it does not use the 10-7-10 downtube. Because of the production years and my experience with several 1980s Trek frames, I think these are all standard diameter tubes.

There is also a potential discrepancy in the fact that Trek does not say they might use thinner tube walls on smaller bikes and thicker ones on larger bikes, but without a lot destructive testing we will never know the answer. So with due skepticism, I’ll just talk about my 21” 720 frame, which seems (based on the SN list) to be the second 720 ever serialized.

So for the 720, the only tube which seems to be heavy weighted for touring is the downtube, and this is true for many Trek frames,. My question is, the 720 design is highly regarded by vintage tourists as being able to take you and your gear any where for as long as you like, in other words capable as a heavy tourer. I can certainly how its design (geometry, braze-ones, other features) supports that usage, but is is it really stiff enough, and was it stiff enough in the past? I can certainly imagine it showed elastic flexing, but I certainly haven’t heard of frames bending out of shape or fracturing.

Does this mean that other nearly-standard steel frames can be ok for serious touring?

Confession: I haven’t built up and ridden my 720 yet!

Last edited by Road Fan; 06-11-22 at 08:15 AM.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 06-12-22, 07:17 AM
  #64  
Jeff Neese
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 428 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times in 196 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan View Post
Doug, your inclusion of the classic Trek tourers brings me back to a question I’ve had from time to time. The Trek tube set does not seem by specs, particularly stiff. Trek’s brochure page for the 728 model (applies to 720 frame/fork as well) says the tube set is “Reynolds 531 Double-Butted” under Main Tubes and “Reynolds 531 forks (sic) and stays.” In the early pages of the 1982 Brochure they provided a table of tube sets. First is the note that all Trek frames are double butted, and for Reynolds 531 the main tube profiles are given as TT 8-5-8, DT 10-7-10, and ST 8-5. I know of a few common variant factors, such as the single digit numbers being rounded from the actual specifications based on standardized gauge number, or that the 10-7-10 DT is elsewhere called out as belonging to the touring-weight Reynolds 531 Super Tourist (same as ST?) tube set. Trek also lists the Reynolds 531 SL tubeset, with thinner walls at the butts and bellies, and it does not use the 10-7-10 downtube. Because of the production years and my experience with several 1980s Trek frames, I think these are all standard diameter tubes.

There is also a potential discrepancy in the fact that Trek does not say they might use thinner tube walls on smaller bikes and thicker ones on larger bikes, but without a lot destructive testing we will never know the answer. So with due skepticism, I’ll just talk about my 21” 720 frame, which seems (based on the SN list) to be the second 720 ever serialized.

So for the 720, the only tube which seems to be heavy weighted for touring is the downtube, and this is true for many Trek frames,. My question is, the 720 design is highly regarded by vintage tourists as being able to take you and your gear any where for as long as you like, in other words capable as a heavy tourer. I can certainly how its design (geometry, braze-ones, other features) supports that usage, but is is it really stiff enough, and was it stiff enough in the past? I can certainly imagine it showed elastic flexing, but I certainly haven’t heard of frames bending out of shape or fracturing.

Does this mean that other nearly-standard steel frames can be ok for serious touring?

Confession: I haven’t built up and ridden my 720 yet!
My '84 Trek 720 was just fine for touring, as would be expected since that's what it was designed for. Neither too stiff nor too flexy - it just wasn't an issue. I will say that it was very comfortable, so a certain amount of flex combined with a long wheelbase is very desirable for those long days in the saddle.
Jeff Neese is offline  
Old 06-12-22, 07:25 AM
  #65  
Jeff Neese
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 781
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 428 Post(s)
Liked 294 Times in 196 Posts
Originally Posted by Frenzen View Post
Yes this is something I am considering because it is budget friendly. However, I am having a hard time distinguishing between older mountain bikes apart the the ones with 27 inches because someone said that they can be created into good touring bike and apart from that I do not know much about MBTs.
Early-mid '90s fully rigid MTB frames can be used for touring, but they usually only have eyelets for rear racks, and their bottom bracket is way higher than is ideal for loaded touring. Plus then you need to consider whether you want to do a drop-bar conversion, or have a flat-bar touring bike.

I'll reinforce what I said above, that you're really better off waiting and finding a bike that was designed and sold as a no-compromise touring bike. Then you'll always have that. It's not like it's going to be the only bike you own.
Jeff Neese is offline  
Old 06-12-22, 12:07 PM
  #66  
Doug Fattic 
framebuilder
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Niles, Michigan
Posts: 1,297
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Liked 1,480 Times in 526 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan View Post
Doug, your inclusion of the classic Trek tourers brings me back to a question I’ve had from time to time. The Trek tube set does not seem by specs, particularly stiff. Trek’s brochure page for the 728 model (applies to 720 frame/fork as well) says the tube set is “Reynolds 531 Double-Butted” under Main Tubes and “Reynolds 531 forks (sic) and stays.” In the early pages of the 1982 Brochure they provided a table of tube sets. First is the note that all Trek frames are double butted, and for Reynolds 531 the main tube profiles are given as TT 8-5-8, DT 10-7-10, and ST 8-5. I know of a few common variant factors, such as the single digit numbers being rounded from the actual specifications based on standardized gauge number, or that the 10-7-10 DT is elsewhere called out as belonging to the touring-weight Reynolds 531 Super Tourist (same as ST?) tube set. Trek also lists the Reynolds 531 SL tubeset, with thinner walls at the butts and bellies, and it does not use the 10-7-10 downtube. Because of the production years and my experience with several 1980s Trek frames, I think these are all standard diameter tubes.

There is also a potential discrepancy in the fact that Trek does not say they might use thinner tube walls on smaller bikes and thicker ones on larger bikes, but without a lot destructive testing we will never know the answer. So with due skepticism, I’ll just talk about my 21” 720 frame, which seems (based on the SN list) to be the second 720 ever serialized.

So for the 720, the only tube which seems to be heavy weighted for touring is the downtube, and this is true for many Trek frames,. My question is, the 720 design is highly regarded by vintage tourists as being able to take you and your gear any where for as long as you like, in other words capable as a heavy tourer. I can certainly how its design (geometry, braze-ones, other features) supports that usage, but is is it really stiff enough, and was it stiff enough in the past? I can certainly imagine it showed elastic flexing, but I certainly haven’t heard of frames bending out of shape or fracturing.

Does this mean that other nearly-standard steel frames can be ok for serious touring?

Confession: I haven’t built up and ridden my 720 yet!
I'm not an expert on the Reynolds tubing Trek used on their frames. As a custom builder I made my own loaded touring bike. I actually made a 2nd one because the 1st one swayed when it was fully loaded as I was climbing a hill. One the 2nd one I used tubing with a heavier wall diameter. Going from a 1" top tube and a 1 1/8" down tube with 1/7/1 walls to a 1 1/8" top tube and a 1 1/4" down tube with 9/6/9 walls provides about the same stiffness (or so my engineering friends tell me).

I have not ridden a 5/6/720 frame myself. I do know that when they switched to True Temper, they speced the tubes used on their frames differently than what TT tubing was sold by Henry James to frame builders. The butts (the thick parts of the tubes on each end) were longer to provide more support. For our convenience, we describe Reynolds tubing in mms but in fact they were made in wire gauge (as I think you know). The heaviest 531 tubes were 19/22 gauge. I'm too lazy to look up what exactly those dimensions are. It is close to 1.0mm/.7/1.0. Reynolds made 531 in a variety of wall thicknesses. Reynolds often puts some kind of description to a group of tubes (like Super Tourist) but in fact many of us builders did not always buy a tube set but rather we ordered each tube to the specifications we wanted. Trek for sure would have done this.

The Trek sport touring frame I repainted and equipped with Campy triple stuff was not stolen by the Russians when they broke into our workshop and storage shed. Apparently the thieves were not C&V readers. They did steal all the general tools our of our frame workshop in Bucha but not the bike specific tools. I rode that sport touring Trek all around Ukraine and liked it (just not as well as one of my own frames). I just had a handlebar bag and a light trunk on top of the rear rack.
Doug Fattic is offline  
Old 06-15-22, 06:50 PM
  #67  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,261

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1594 Post(s)
Liked 497 Times in 376 Posts
Doug, my brother in law is also sick about Ukraine. He went there for a few weeks on a vacation whim, and had the best time he has ever told us about.

As far as my 720 goes, I'm thinking of it as (I hope it will) having the feeling of a stable running typical Trek sport-tour. For the most part the tubes lengths and butting profiles are the same, unless some butt lengths were varied. I'd like to get it painted before I move over the components from my 610. Except for a longer chain and rear mech cable the gear should all drop into place.

But by the end of the summer I should have a better idea.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 06-15-22, 06:55 PM
  #68  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,261

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1594 Post(s)
Liked 497 Times in 376 Posts
Originally Posted by Jeff Neese View Post
My '84 Trek 720 was just fine for touring, as would be expected since that's what it was designed for. Neither too stiff nor too flexy - it just wasn't an issue. I will say that it was very comfortable, so a certain amount of flex combined with a long wheelbase is very desirable for those long days in the saddle.
I don't intend to tour on this bike, but I assume it will be smooth and comfortable even without full load. My 610 seems to have main tubes with the same wall thicknesses. With that base the longer chainstays and the slightly longer fork blades should be a nice ride. We'll see!
Road Fan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.