bark_eater 

From the 1985 Miyata catalog:

610 Miyata combines both touring and sports bicycle characteristics in the 610. The frame is designed for long distance riding while the steering is quicker, the ride stiffer than most touring bicycles. Like the 1000, the 610 features sealed hubs, Shimano components and triple-butted Chromoly tubing. Colors: Artesian Blue, Burnt Sienna. Frame Sizes: 18'~ 19½", 21", 23", 25". Speeds: 18 Water bottles optional.

Touring/Sport vs. Sport/Touring?

ShannonM

Almost entirely the latter.

If you want a sport touring bike, (slightly longer chainstays, slightly shorter top tube, a bit more fork rake, slightly lower bottom bracket, eyelets on the dropouts, road-bike-gauge tubing,) with cantilever brakes, you've pretty much got to go custom.

Bikes like that just didn't get made. But if they had, they'd be sport touring bikes. The definition is about the bike, not the brake.

--Shannon

​​​

smd4

You guys are free to call penny farthings and unicycles “sport tourers” if you want. Who am I to stop you? But just about everyone who grew up with sport tourers during their heyday will be laughing behind your backs. Don’t worry, you won’t hear us.

nlerner

Determining the category of a bicycle based on its components is fraught. In 1988, the primary mass produced bicycles that had canti brakes were mountain bikes. Fwiw, I have a 1974 British-made bicycle that was designed as a sports tourer--it came with MAFAC canti brakes, a five-speed block, and a TA Pro vis 5 crankset with 45/28t rings (or what kids these days call compact doubles).

And if you want to point to 1988 as some defining year, that's fine. Here's a chart from Frank Berto's Complete Guide to Upgrading Your Bike from that year:

And here's how Berto defines "Sport Touring Bicycles": "Most 10-speeds are sport tourers, neither racers nor loaded tourers, which is as it should be since most cyclists neither race nor to on loaded cross-country tours. Sport touring bicycles fall somewhere between the other two categories; they're called 'sports tourers' both for want of a better name and because it's a useful marketing term. The bicycle makers design for a particular kind of rider at each price level. The makers know that standard quality 10-speeds will never be raced and they design them for entry-level riders. At the $400 to $500 price level, many makers supply two models: one for sporting and one for touring. Two recent trends have made the bicycles sportier. The growing number of triathletes has created demand for higher-performance almost-racing bicycles. At the same time, the market for comfortable touring bicycles is drying up because increasing numbers of riders are touring on mountain bikes. Some sports tourers are actually 'platypi' with odd combinations of touring gears on racing frames. . . . The big problem in selecting a sport touring bicycle isn't defining what you want, it's trying to determine if the bicycle that you're reading about or looking at meets your requirements. The differences are subtle and bicycle advertising offers little assistance. The catalogs don't tell you where the various models fit in the racing-touring spectrum."

Yeah, he doesn't mention canti brakes or triple cranksets, but that's totally beside the point--he's focused on purpose and function. Makes sense to me.

bwilli88 

I have both an 81 with stud mounted centerpulls and an 83 with cantis Centurion Pro-Tours. They are fairly decent Sport tourers.
I would rather ride my gugificazion Witcomb.

smd4

I don't think so. A bicycle isn't just a set of frame dimensions; it's the sum-total of the frame and the included components. I would never consider a bike with flat bars and steel rims to be sport tourer, even if it did have side-pulls and a double crank. I still like Bicycling's characterization that a sport tourer "could easily qualify as an entry-level road racing bike." In my book, entry-level road racing bikes didn't have cantilevers or triples.

I like Frank Berto a lot. He speaks volumes in his omissions.

cyccommute 

While that is what the ad copy says, the 610 and 1000 are listed in the “Grand Touring Series” section of the catalog. The 110 or Sport 10 in the same catalog is closer to a “sport tour”. In that same era, Univega (which were made by Miyata) made the Sportour and the Viva Sport which are both examples of sport tour bikes.

bark_eater 

cyccommute The point I might convey is that "Copy" writers are not framers of any sort of Constitution nor 10 Commandments, but It seems to me at least that the categories may of been created for the American market, and apparently a segment of the American market still demands surety and purity in their consumed commodity's.

Its seems that a lot of the examples of "Sport Touring" bikes with cantilevers are of European origin. I'd be interested in seeing how the classes of bikes were marketed outside of the American market.

AeroGut

Not vintage, but a modern example of what you are describing might be the SOMA Double Cross canti version. It’s made of Tange Prestige tubing with a claimed frame wt of 4.2 lbs, 42.5 cm chainstays, rack and fender mounts and plenty of tire clearance (claimed to fit 38mm with fenders). Overall geometry is somewhat relaxed but still sporty.

https://www.somafab.com/archives/product/double-cross

Rooney 

The Trek 750/790/520 of the early 90s would be the vintage equivalent, with room for 700x42+. The 750/790 Multitracks were called hybrids and the 520 is, of course, a tourer but the frameset is versatile. The Surly Crosscheck is also in this orbit.

cyccommute 

I owned a 610 that I bought new. It was marketed as a loaded touring bike and has a classic loaded touring bike geometry. The Trek 520, Fuji Touring, Univega Grand Tourisimo, and even the Miyata 1000 all had similar frame geometry and most certainly were not marketed as sport tour bikes. The Miyata 1000 and 610 even shared the same frame with different levels of components. They did marketed them as loaded touring bikes through the 80s up until they left the market in the 90s.

That said, any touring bike can be used as a “sport tour” bike. I use a touring bike (a Cannondale T800) today for my general running around bike. But others are mostly correct is saying that the sport tour category leans more towards the race side of the bicycle world.
‘

European catalogs generally aren’t too different from the US version.

bark_eater 

jdawginsc 

Just echoing this. They were definitely intended for touring, but I loved the ride on mine (my regret at letting miine go has been duly mentioned previously). Very spry and could do about everything.

bark_eater 

Did these bikes have a "Death Fork"?

CO_Hoya 

Going back to your original question, and allowing that in 2023, a bike made in 1998 will be 25 years old and "vintage", I think there are a few bikes that slot well in this category.

The Gunnar Crosshairs came out in 1998 and has the same basic specs as the SOMA Double Cross described below. Surly also founded in 1998 and their ubiquitous Surly Cross-Check is another match, although that may be a bit heavier frameset. Maybe Salsa was making something similar before then?

I haven't looked too hard at the Cross-Check or Double Cross, but I can say that the Crosshairs really isn't a cyclocross bike per se, but more of a relaxed geometry road-bike with generous clearances and braze-ons. For example, the bottom bracket drop (75mm) is more road than cx.

There are plenty of pics on the interwebs of the Crosshairs set up with light (or not so light) touring kits:


That load is probably asking a lot from the relatively light frameset, IMO.

jdawginsc 

Most did not. There are a few specific models that used it, but only a limited run. Forks with Bs were safe. I had a non-B fork and it was also fine. Only three incidents occurred if I recall correctly.

This was mine
https://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?...geViewsIndex=1

Classtime 

If you consider yourself a “Sport”, the bike you chose for touring is a sport tourer. The geometry does not define a sport tourer. I sense some vitriol here.

The Golden Boy 

Hair cream?

The Golden Boy 

Most people consider the 1985 Trek 620 to be a full-on, loaded touring bike.

One of the things that was pointed out a while ago (going from memory now-as Vintage Trek is down) was that the 1985 Trek 620 had the same geometry on the front end as the 1985 Trek 660- a racing bike. So basically, the 620 was a 660 with an extended rear end.

I think where the distinction lies is the difference between a 42cm chainstay and a 45+ cm chainstay.

I think it's interesting how people are just losing their **** about this. It's a bike that's not a racing bike and not a tourer but has elements both. Kinda like how a "hybrid" was a cross between an ATB and a "road" bike.


Bikeforums: Where people smugly promote their superior opinions on lower mid-level bikes with lower mid-level components. Because it MATTERS.

bark_eater 

Small bit of irony. While examples of this nebulous "class" of bikes seem to be uncommon, I have 3 reasonable examples in my bike pile.

A beat up British Roy Thame, an even more beat up British "Delta Sportive" and a Vermont made Bill Vetter, that ain't to bad but check back after I get the bottom bracket sorted.

Their all custom or at least semi custom. And their either European or European influenced.


Now as far as applying hair cream to Vitriol, give it a try and report back.......

USAZorro

You certainly are fixated.

Just because some people used bicycles marketed as "sport/touring" as budget entry-level racing bikes, it doesn't mean that is the definitive criterium. It is primarily the frame geometry and wheel clearances that makes a sport-tourer a sport tourer. It's something that falls between sport and touring - could be fitted out to perform either function - even if it wasn't optimal for either.

For example, many 1970s Raleigh models were sport tourers. Grand Prix, Super Course. Grand Sports, International - all clearly Sports Tourers and all have been used as racers in some configuration. Some years, even the Competition had nearly identical geometry to these sport tourers - as would the MK-I Professional. Yes. These all came standard with two chainrings and caliper brakes, but throw a triple chainring on an International (I have a 1974 with a triple), and it's no less capable a bicycle for any purpose than if it had a double. Same goes for brakes. Granted, not how they typically came, but the added functionality isn't disqualifying.

While I'm not going to enter a road race with either a front or rear rack or panniers, nor with knobby 38's, I'm also not going to attempt a long-ish unsupported adventure over occasionally rough surfaces without at least one rack, possibly wider tires and also fenders. If I have a frame that supports either function, having it set up as a racer doesn't mean it no longer could be used for touring, nor does having it set up for touring mean that it could no longer be used for racing.

Back to the thread topic.

I got my wife a 1981 Miyata 1000 a few years back. It has cantilever brakes. It was relatively nimble both with the originally specced 27" wheels and the 700c wheels that I built as replacements. I have previously owned a Miyata 210 - which definitely handled like a touring bike, and a Long Haul Trucker (which most definitely did as well) - although the LHT certainly did not have canti brakes, and I don't recall the 210 having them either. Yes, the 1000 is sold as a Touring bike, and it has most of the fittings one would expect on a Touring bike, but it also has 44cm chainstays and handling is comparable to a mid 70s Grand Sports that I also have.

sd5782 

It’s all kind of funny and I wasn’t going to reply but….. I think it is all where someone is coming from that is most important in the definition of sport tourer. A former racer thinks a sport tourer should have a fair bit of racy feel. An old slow guy or a tourer will define it as being sportier than their comfy ride, so that makes it sporty. The “show your sport tourer” thread is many pages long and quite varied as a result. It’s all a reflection of our starting point. Fun discussion either way, and I bet many folks owning some of the sport tourers mentioned would indeed be happy with cantilevers.

Germany_chris

I think the Cross Check is probably the modern equivalent of what we’re talking about here.

dddd

The Six ten feels more like a touring bike to me, even as it's 73x73 frame angles were steeper than the 72x72 of the Two Ten and of the 1000.

Cyclocross frames often have 71x73-degree HT/ST angles, as does an early-70's Super Course. True off-road geometry, same as an early-90's mtb frame. Cyclocross bikes also have tight chainstays for climbing traction on muddy courses.

The Six-Ten's stays look fairly long, but not in the full-touring league like a Trek 720 or even an old UO8. The rack with some luggage on it really helps climbing traction off road.

Miyatas used some heavy-ish tubing so aren't typically on the light side. Durability is excellent and my own Six-Ten and earlier 1000 both held up to extensive riding on technical trails.

bark_eater 

The Miyata 610 just keeps popping up. It would be hard to confirm if the 82 caliper brake version has effectively the same frame as the 83 with cantilevers, with out having the 2 bikes to compare side to side.

I'm still intrigued with my own question, so I'll just info dump whatever relevant stuff I find here.


Starting now:


I want a C&V fast lightweight touring bike.