nlerner

Well, Matt, I'm afraid I was overcome with longing at Jitensha. Of course, that was for an Ebisu or Toei frameset, but I settled on one of the large Inujirushi bags in grey.

Neal

Charles Wahl

With all this talk about race/ride, I just can't resist:
Winning the Five Boro Bike Tour

Charles Wahl

Could it be that a proper Randonneuring bike could have either low or high trail, depending on how one intends to load it? If you have the front pack, then low trail works better because the weight up there gives your steering apparatus an inertia/tippiness problem. If you don't have the weight up front, then you want high/long trail, for the added stability.

LWaB

If only one person thinks it is a race, it isn't. So he can't win a brevet, although he may finish first in an impressive time

jan nikolajsen 

Much cool info surfaced here on this thread. Thanks.

I've consolidated the submitted external randonneur links, updated feb 4:

Search results for fork trail on Classic Rendezvous et al

Fork rake and trail demystified

Rene Herse bicycle in excruciating detail

..and a fine Alex Singer

Lots of beautiful Herse bicycles here

1951 Herse specs

Trek 420 used twice in the PBP

Thoughts on randonneuring by experienced rider

Brief survey of PBP bikes and riders

More in depth look at the PBP bikes and riders (pdf)

Image pool of long distance classic bikes

Some contemporary makers of (pricey) randonneur rides, including one exhaustive test

Jan Heine on what makes a randounneur (pdf)

Modern specs for $5000 randonneur

Unless you read Japanese this is images only, but way cool images!

Jan
/

jan nikolajsen 

This thread didn't prompt many currently active C&V'ers to reveal their OWN classic French randonneurs, much less tell us about how they ride.

The only member I know that actually own one is A.Winthrop (who's got two Rene Herse). Maybe they are all gone to Japan, and it is too late even if money is no concern.

onetwentyeight 

not mine, but i can dream! I hope to finish my Jack Taylor Tour of Britain today and take it for its inaugural ride. So excited.

joe v

So I posted it before in the 'saved from the dump' thread, but what the heck, I suppose it qualifies as a randonneur. I'm pretty chuffed with how my first rattle-can job turned out anyway:

Picchio Special

I initially posted that low-trail is often preferred for Randonneur bikes because with a small-to-medium-sized front load, this tends to result in better handling and you can get into the bag on the go. Getting to food or a windbreaker without having to stop is no small consideration on a long ride when you want to keep moving. But you're right that some people prefer a more rearward loading and high-trail. The stability will be greater in a straight line at higher speed, but not at lower speeds, or while leaning into a turn. Rivendell, for example, leans toward higher trail (as with my Bleriot), and their bikes are certainly used by many folks for brevets. When you're tired, the last thing you need is twitchiness, though I think Jan Heine would argue that low trail doesn't give up that much in this regard. And again, too much trail and you're looking at potential toe-clip overlap, which you also don't want when you're tired. I ride my Bleriot a lot with little-to-no-load, and I think it's a pretty flexible design, but it's not a dedicated Randonneur bike, either.

Charles Wahl

I think that what we're discovering is that not that many C&V folk have purpose-built randonneurs. There are a lot of C&V bikes with certain r.-ish features, but it's definitely a splinter sport in the cycling community. The other point to be made is that of the people who're really into randonneuring, only a small contingent are in it for the C&V style -- as some of the articles point out, it's a sport that's done on a wide variety of bike types, some at considerable variance from what we find the Herse/Singer model to be.

Like you, and apparently others here, I think that it's a very interesting bike type, and I, too, would like to see more examples. So this thread may spark interest in another type of bike to aspire to build/own, and maybe even ride in a brevet!

tcs

Floyd Landis said that as a young racer trying to build power and endurance he once rode 24,000 miles in a year, "an insane volume that no one in the pro peloton even comes close to doing".


tcs

IceNine

I've been looking at that as well. Here is the large handlebar bag on their website. Jitensha calls it a medium but Inujirushi calls it a large and I don't see a medium on their website. You can get a monogram for 630 yen--not bad.

Inujirushi also makes a $400 saddlebag as well.

Road Fan

Of course, Charles, that is a good way to look at it.

But I'm always amazed at how, from a design point of view, there really aren't many, if any, simple prescriptions in designing something as simple as a bicycle.

Road Fan

What you've just said here is why I suggested our readers look at this thread (https://www.bikeforums.net/long-distance-competition-ultracycling-randonneuring-endurance-cycling/270172-your-century-bicycle-s.html)
in the Long Distance forum. I illustrates that not many distance riders use purpose-built bikes, though there is a lot of steel shown, and vintage. But also we'll find people who actually ride these long events using Madones and other more race-oriented machines.

Picchio Special

Studying craftsmanship in a variety of forms, it's evident that the "perfect" whatever does not, and cannot exist, for the simple reason that every product represents compromise in some degree, consciously accepted and adopted by the craftsperson or people involved.

Charles Wahl

What?! a bicycle simple??!! You're pulling my leg, right? We spend an inordinate amount of time discussing all the subtleties of geometry, size, various types of tubing, and the sorts of ride that combinations give -- and that's leaving components other than the frame itself out of it entirely.

Road Fan

No, CW, I meant mechanically simple, not that the results or the design space are simple.

At the end of the day it has only two wheels, a few other spinny things for propulsion, a minimized structure to hold it all together, and the smallest possible human contact points.

So yah, consider your leg pulled!!!!!

dit

I am still riding my sport tourer built in the earlly to mid 70's. It has the same wheel base as my 70 ish mirelli (sp) road bike that was about 5 years older. I did not like the way my sport tourer handled with a handle bar bag even when it was lightly loaded such as just 3 or 4 bananas for snacks. I have never had a rear rack on it so I don't know if I would like a rear bag better but I think I will try it just to find out. I need to get off the bike for a stretch anyway. It is not a race as stated above.

nlerner

Speaking of randonneuse:

https://cgi.ebay.com/French-construct...3%3A1|294%3A50

If I were only shorter and richer and in France.

Neal

unterhausen

you guys got me started here, I'm thinking about riding 200k this weekend

USAZorro

I'm an aspirant, and have found - as you have, that while the LHT is a go anywhere, do anything bicycle, it isn't ideal for randonneuring. I'm still trying to sort this one out. I'm tempted to either go back to my Fuji Finest, or try pressing Shadowfax into service, or maybe even the Super Course, but I'm going to give the Surly a chance on a 200k first.

Road Fan

So on to the C&V DIY nuggets:

What frames would be a good basis for a proper randonneuse with front-load?

jan nikolajsen 

This is really the question. Since we like old bikes, and in this connection especially the French originators, we need not discuss the merit of simply choosing the carbon job with an oversize saddlebag. Most riders do this, though. I looked thru the entire 'Show Your Rando Bike' thread on the Long Distance forum, a mere 15 pages, and only a couple of folks had adopted the philosophies of Singer et al. The rest are riding racing bikes.

Finding a vintage frame with the appropriate fork trail might be difficult. I am not sure if I entirely understand this complex issue, but it seems to be the single most important design aspect that sets the old French randonneurs apart from the rest. What does a proper fork trail accomplish? Correct handling with a moderately heavy front load is one thing. Else?

In choosing a suitable conversion frame one may therefore have to divide the load between a medium sized front bag, resting on a low rack, and some sort of saddlebag or even, but in my eyes less aesthetically pleasing, a rear rack with a small pannier. The front storage is for items needed on the go, while spare tubes, tools, emergency supplies and such can be tucked away in the rear.

I'm becoming fascinated with the whole concept of riding far and long, non-stop brevet style, on a vintage bicycle. There's a lot of tempting old frames out there, most really inexpensive, to try and convert to a randonneuse. I don't know all the answers, but this is what I look for:

*Tall frame. Several centimeters bigger than a race frame for the same person. Something with barely enough stand-over height would be ideal. Why so big? So the handlebars can get up high enough for a comfy riding position, without awkward, unstable long stems.

*Relaxed but not lanquid geometry. Touring bikes are not particularly easily driven, mostly unexciting and solid, designed for stability under heavy loads. Not what I want for my randonneur. Racing frames from the eighties and onward are, generally speaking, stiff, twitchy, fast and efficient, but can get tiring in the long run due to steering issues and a hard, bouncy ride. Older racing bikes and high end socalled 'sports tour' frames may have the right geometry. In the latter catagory there seems to be a wide variety of quality. I wouldn't waste my time on anything below at least Reynolds 531, or equivalent, in the main triangle.

*Fender bosses are not essential, but signals a possible suitable geometry. Cantilever bosses, on the other hand, may mean a touring rig, so beware. Get used to spotting the right space between the rear tire and the seat tube, to quickly judge the frame angles.

*Don't worry too much about clearance for bigger tires and fenders. Most likely this is not a real option on sportier frames with stock 700c wheels anyway, so a 650b conversion might have to happen in almost all cases. If doing this, nearly all steel frames will accept up to 35mm tires and fenders. My Trek 600, a very viable rando candidate, have fender bosses and a somewhat stretched out frame, but the fork and rear brake bridge clearances are very tight. Skinny fenders and 23mm tires are the limit, but it takes hours of fiddling to avoid tire rub. Switch to 650b wheels and this is a non issue.

*Be prepared to experiment with several frames. Once you have the specialized components (long reach brakes, 650b wheels, fenders, 110 bcd crank and so on) it is simple and fun to move them from bike to bike.

* Edit: Horizontal drop-outs and fenders on a somewhat racing oriented frame makes it hard to remove the wheel without letting the air out of the tire. But ruling out horizontal drop-outs seriously limits the choices...

*Or just get the folks at the Alex Singer shop in Paris to make you a proper bicycle.

What do you guys think? Am I on the right track here?

digitalbicycle

Won't this just tell you approximate chainstay length? Of course, a bike with longer chainstays will probably have slacker angles, but the gap b/w the tire and the seat tube doesn't technically have anything to do with seat tube angle AFAIK.

jan nikolajsen 

You're right. Maybe not a viable approach.

Anyway, these are some affordable but charismatic frames I'm checking into for a Randonneur conversion:

* Seventies Gazelle Champion Mondial, A-frame. The one with fender bosses.

* Mondia or Super Mondia. Threading issues (Swiss), but that's part of the game.

* Peugeot PX-10, seventies version.

* Gitane TdF, older model.

* High end Velosolex?

* Austro-Daimler Vent Noir or Superleicht

* Any old French steel, like Follis or Jeunet and others.

Comments?