Though think how cool it would be if they introduced bmx acrobatics into randonneuring. Maybe in a separate stadium area at the rest stops.

If there is a difference in the machines, It appears the French Cyclotouring rigs were designed to be beautiful, comfortable for long rides and light. The Rando rigs appear more function oriented. Not saying they are exclusive to either or but the emphasis is different.

Funny, I use a LHT to ride brevets here in Fla! I plan to get a different bike for PBP--old school steel, a hair lighter, shorter chainstays, but the difference does not seem critical to finishing to me. I don't want to be first, just under 90 hr.

This was a solid and pretty complete answer.

The main difference, as pointed out earlier, is that a touring bike is designed to carry much heavier loads (and carry them differently). As a result, it's not going to be as light. Bicycle touring is a much more leisurely pursuit with a different level of self-sufficiency. The two types of bikes are quite distinct, though this may not be apparent at first glance. Many of the bikes built for the technical trials are, of course, one-offs that represent extremes in an attempt to win a prize, rather than eveyrday examples. There are of course similarities, but in the end, they're very purpose-built and designed bikes - as usual, the devil (and the difference) is in the details.

They're both highly functional designs - one could say extremely so.
Edit: To say I'm referring to the historical examples, of course.

Come ride the DC Randonneur's March ride that starts in Urbana. 11K' of climbing, and a lot of it is over 8% grade.

I get tired just thinking about PBP. My first and only century, with about 5500-6000 feet of climbing, took me about 9 hours. I can't imagine spending 81 more hours in the saddle after that!

Veloria, if you're planning to build a rando bike, here's a thread that might give you some ideas: https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...gear-the-sport

"When I use a word" Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

I'm looking at a 12% climb (1/2 mile) in a tour this summer. What gearing do you use for 9%, and how fast do you go?

https://www.rusa.org/about.html

I have read more about this issue at this point than I care to for a long time! Well, no, I exaggerate. But it's just that opinions on this tend to be highly partisan, with Bicycle Quarterly doing the majority of "low trail" promotion.

It is interesting to me, that most people I know in the real world who have ridden low trail bicycles, report disliking the handling - often, intensely so. This is a sharp contrast to how much this feature is praised in BQ.

The lowest trail bike I own has 54.5mm trail, which is really neutral. It handles splendidly loaded and unloaded, as does my Rivendell with (I think) 56mm trail. The Rivendell I have ridden with close to 20lb on the front, and it acted indifferent to the weight. But I am curious to try lower and compare.

It's not so much loaded vs. unloaded but where the load is located - low trail, at least per Jan Heine, works particularly well with a front load. It also works better at low speeds, and in situations calling for the kind of maneuverability it requires to do things like skirt potholes in urban streets. With low trail, steering occurs more with the bars: with higher trail, steering occurs more via weight transfer and bike lean, which is why higher trail tends to come into its own as speeds increase. There was a period in bike design in pre-WWII Great Britain where bikes were built with zero trail - the thought being (erroneously) that any trail at all would make handling "sluggish."

Yes - by "loaded" I meant front loaded, sorry.

I wasn't sure. But you're right that there are people who know their stuff on both sides of the debate. I personally like more neutral bikes, but then my favorite bikes are the ones that handle precisely but still steer from the hips. Rivendell - I own one - definitely falls into the higher trail camp.

Don't you already have a UO-8, Veloria? The early '70s models were very low trail.

Also in the same price range are my first choice: pre-'85 Trek sports tourers. Available in several flavors of tubing: Ishiwata 022, Reynolds 501 (both comparable to the Miyata tubing, and over built for LD, IMO), and Reynolds 531 - the Gold Standard for comfort and performance. They tend to be a bit longer than the 912 (which was sold as a racing bike, IIRC) both in the chainstays (43-45cm) and fork rake (5-5.5cm) both of which make 'em more amenable to long distance and carrying a front load. And they have more clearance for big tires (well, 28's anyway) and fenders.

I just scored an '84 Trek 610 that'd been converted to SS for $150. That's not such a great deal for just a frame, until you consider that it's hand-brazed 531. I'd have had to swap out everything anyway, and after I sell off the SS stuff, the frame price should drop below $100 - much mo' bettah. Should be a nice brevet bike once I'm done fiddling with it. Who knows - I may end up riding it in PBP next year.

SP
Bend, OR

Well, count me among the low-trail converts. I've tried long-trail (~6cm) bikes with bar bags, and the handling was without exception atrocious. They over-steered (fell into turns) with a vengance, and wobbled so badly that it was impossible to ride no-hands. My low-trail Kogswell P/R (4cm trail) is totally indifferent to front load, and handles with aplomb and precision, regardless of speed and conditions. 'Course that's with 700x32c tires. From what I've heard low-trail and skinny tires is a whole nother can o' worms.

SP
Bend, OR

Nope, never did. I had a 1981 Motobecane Mirage mixte. Not sure what trail it had, but I did not care for the handling.

This just shows how different tastes can be. I have a 1982 Trek 610, with a Reynolds 531 main triangle/ cromoly stays and fork. It is a nice bike, very nice. But I prefer my Rivendell for long rides by far, and even for shorter rides I prefer my Italian bikes.

Cyclotouring, stop for lunch have a pint , take your time..
the other one, snacks eaten on the fly out of your Bar Bag..

Hi BC,

I agree the 531 Trek sports touring frames are great. I went with the Trek 400 over a Miyata due to the geometry. The larger Trek frames offer a 59cm top tube, Miyata only goes up to 58cm for their Pro series bikes. My 531 Trek was $170.

Michael

Automatic brazing machinery per the vintage-trek website, unless you have other info?

You are obviously a woman of taste.

I am going to differ in some in saying a touring bike can often be a great rando bike. Actually with some clarification, a vintage touring bike is a great rando bike. Many 70's/80's touring bikes were not made anywhere near as robust as say today's touring bikes. I have owned a number of vintage touring bikes and also own a LHT. The LHT is a pig and is not fast even unloaded (with f/r racks, fenders, and my 62cm sized frame I think it is 33-35lbs). The vintage touring bikes depending on parts selection and size should be able to be built in the mid-upper 20lb range. My Seral rando bike (see below) weighs in at 28lbs (62cm frame) with front rack, full fenders, generator hub, and front and rear lights. The 64cm Kogswell P/R I built up came in at 26lbs with full fenders, front rack, 700cX32 tires, but without the generator front wheel and lights. Too bad the frame is way to flexy to actually be useful or it might have made a great rando bike*

The vintage touring bikes were built with standard diameter (sometimes slightly beefier tubing) from many good tubing manufacturers and came with lots of braze ons for adding racks, fenders, etc as needed. Some of these were also of the low(er) trail variety so would handle greatly with a front load. When starting my reading of low trail I decided to check out some of the bikes I already owned and found out my 83' Nishiki Seral was of a lower trail design (73 degree head tube and 60mm rake=43mm of trail with 700cX32 tires).

They can fit fatter tires (32-35mm tires) with room for fenders still and you can add the racks as you see fit to carry your supplies for a out in the country ride, 200K, or PBP. Some sport touring bikes of the same era work well also, but don't have all the braze ons and generally use caliper brakes instead of cantis.

*all 64cm P/R were made incorrectly with a 28.6mm downtube instead of the specified 31.8mm one so it ghost shifts like crazy if I get out of the saddle even slightly.

I like to say that the difference between tourists and randonneurs is that randonneurs aren't sensible enough to stop for the night.

The way I see it, a touring bike has to handle fairly heavy loads. Thus a good one is a fairly heavy bike. In contrast, even in winter I carry less than 10 pounds on my rando bike, it doesn't make sense to have a beefed-up bike for randonneuring. At this point, I would say that randonneuring bikes are in fashion among the general public more than they are among randonneurs. Seems to me that something like a Specialized Roubaix makes an excellent randonneuring bike.