Looks like a nice bike, I have the 1981. Think I'll just put some of those water bottle holders on that go behind the saddle, or just carry my water bottles in my panniers or something . Looks like a good setup for light touring, with racks added with p clamps

Does anybody here have opinions on Shogun tourers? I have a Shogun 2000 frame I'll be building up eventually.

Another vote for the Volpe. I owned a mid-90's model. Great for touring and a lot of other stuff.

Agree with the comment about late 80's bikes vs. early 80's bikes. Quite a bit changed (for the better) during the decade.

Nicely done. Your Voyageur looks great. What calipers and tires did you go with?
From what I can see of the tread of the tires they look like the Continental Contact Extra Light tires I put on a mixte for the missus.

The calipers are Tektro 539 which are long reach. You're right the tires are Conti Contact. I bought this bike new in 1980. In the Schwinn catalogue from that year the Voyageur 11.8 is referred to as a "professional quality touring bike." As I said in my previous post, it lacks a lot of the features of a modern day touring bike. It does have a longish wheel base and chain stays and is made of 4130 cromoly steel. I am hoping that the frame is strong enough for loaded touring.

That's a DARNED nicely equipped bike. I wouldn't change a thing. As I've said before, I toured on sport-touring bikes and I've toured on road racing bikes. The sport touring bikes didn't feel like compromises at all. The racing bikes were, but they were good enough for me.

Pictures of your bike put me in a mood! You got me excited.

Thanks for your kind words. I do like the bike very much.

I'm not much interested in touring, but my first 'project was this Nishiki Seral. Since I completed the rebuild, by brother-in-law has decided he loves this bike so it's going to stay in the family. It was mostly original when I bought it except someone had switched to flat bars. I'm aware Nishiki did not build their own bikes, but whoever built this one seems to have done a nice job.

I'm not a "go fast" guy. I took up bike riding as a way to not go fast. Ride to work. Get away from work and the house and enjoy the scenery, the wind, the smell.

To that end, I don't think I will ever come to my "dream" of riding coast to coast, or a bike tour of Europe. Heck, it's enough of a problem to schedule in enough time to take a day for riding, or anything else that doesn't require my obligations.

Until then, there's the bike.

I have a 1985 Trek 620. I can't see what there is to complain about this bike. It's long- but that's what contributes to that "1972 Cadillac ElDorado" smooth ride. From the moment I got on the bike, with it's nasty bar tape and bubbling, melting tires- I knew this was "MY" bike.

Right now I have it set up with some Atom HF hubs laced to Mavic rims, 6 speed Command Shifters pulling a Suntour XC Pro RD and the original Sachs/Huret Pilot FD, a 6 speed Shimano FW. I'm in the process of figuring out how I want to work the lights on there- right now It's just some Planet Bike lights on the handlebars, but that won't work with a handlebar bag. There's still things I want to do to it, but I really really love it even as it is.

I think it's classy, classic, beautiful, burly as it needs to be, and as graceful as it needs to be.

here is my 1985 Schwinn Voyager SP, I haven't had any time to clean it yet. I hope this bike stays with me a long time as I would love to do some touring on it. it's too nice not to...

That is a heck of a granny for Waukesha area!



Did you consider one of thos things that replaced the skewer nut? I think problem solvers makes one. Minoura also make a mount that clamps around the fork blade.

Just recently converted a 1984 Miyata 610 to a winter rat with 400x45 tires. Fantastic in deep snow and on slick snow packed/icy roads.
Bought new in 1986 a Fuji America Touring Series V just like what is shown earlier in this thread. Mine has been through the ringer, lots of touring and commuting miles on it. Still ride it on occasion.
This summer I acquired a new old stock 1985 Miyata 1000 frameset with crank and rear rack. My old boss had it stashed in his barn. The only thing I am missing at this point are the wheels. Have ridden them before and really like the way they go loaded or unloaded.
Back in the day we sold Miyata, Trek, Fuji, Cdale. The Miyata was highly prized, and very well made, ditto the Fuji Series V. The Cdale was a work horse and was recommended to the heavier riders that were serious about loaded touring. The Trek was for the person who had to have a Trek. Personally I liked them all, but will hang on to the Fuji and Miyata as I believe the represent the best of the 80's bicycle manufacturers skills.

Are cantilevers really necessary? What will they do that modern dual pivot brakes won't.

I'm not into loaded touring and I never will be, but I'm curious.

Pretty convenient for getting super wide tires and fenders in. I also found that it was pretty easy to bolt a nice front rack to cantilever studs. I have't been able to ride a bike with really awesome dual pivots, but I've never had a ton of problems with cantis.

Ithink this is one of the better, unknown touring bikes from the mid eighties: My '85 Maruishi Tour Ace, with gold kangaroos of course!

As far as pure braking power there's no reason why DP calipers aren't a good choice. A loaded tourer can weigh 80 lbs. more than a roadie with the same rider and having the brake arms mounted on two brazed on studs (or a rotor on a hub) are more up to the day in and day out tasks than the single bolt of a caliper brake.

Brad

Grand Bois, calipers can stop a 300 lb guy on a 65cm bike, and offer a good, positive contact on the rim. If you're not into loaded touring, they'll get the job done, but if you get more than say 40 pounds of cargo weight, then I'd rather have the cantilevers. They are harder to set up and maintain in contact with the rim, but offer enhanced braking ability and the ability to toe out the brake pads without bending anything.

I thought I'd want to explore the concept of touring, so rehabbed this 1984/1985 Shogun 2000:



My tastes changed and I started riding larger frames. I ended up swapping AZORCH the Shogun frame for his larger 1988 Schwinn Voyageur frame, and building that up pretty much the same way:



Then after a couple of years I realized these bikes simply weren't getting ridden. I was never going to "tour". At least not until the kids got older, so I sold the Voyageur (Bogester is the new owner). Despite the non-intended use, I should remark that the Voyageur is one of the smoothest, effortless bikes I've ever ridden. Not in terms of weight (it's 30 lb as shown) but in terms of stability. It's like it balances itself.

Mine out for a day trip last Fall. It's very comfortable for me. PG

southpawboston, yours was one of the exceptionally nice looking Voyageurs I have seen on the list.

I have found the great ride qualities you describe to be true of my 1984 non SP Voyageur,
really smooth & can ride easily no hands.
I have done up to 85 mile rides on it and find it lends itself to all day riding comfort.

I am closing in on 4000 miles since I picked it up Sept 2011. It does have a fairly low bottom bracket height
which I expect is a significant factor in it's comfort. I have learned not to pedal through corners at
a low lean.

Another plus on mine I was able to fit 700c x 38 tires.

The most I have carried on it was about 30 lbs in the rear basket I have mounted on mine.
I have also carried several full bikes strapped on top of that rear basket with wheels removed and bungeed to top of transported frame.

I get a few folks looking at me strangely when I have done that.

In my opinion, no, cantilevers are not necessary. I prefer them because they allow easier fit for fenders and wider tires but not necessary. I have a couple of different bikes that would be considered touring bikes that do not have cantilever studs. I believe that they do have a little bit more mechanical advantage than side pull or center pull brakes but there are other things to consider. I'm a 230 lb clydesdale, so additional braking power is something I like. Lighter riders obviously don't have to worry about this as much as a porky old man like me.

I think the granny is a 28, and it's a 28 in the back, so while it's not "stump pulling low," it's certainly, "get my old, fat hinder up the hill" low.


About the lights- I'm considering Paul "Geno Light Mounts" for the mid-fork rack braze ons.






Otherwise, I think it was SixtyFiver who had fabricated a bar that mounted to the brake mount on the fork crown. If I could make one and not have it look all like "I made it," I like that idea best.

Link to the new 520: https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes...uring/520/520/ MSRP $1500(+sales tax in CA=$1620+-). It looks like a nice bike, but comparing it to the 620 is not really comparing "apples to apples"(as in $700 worth of apples). This is all academic to me as I'm too tall to ride anything but a custom frame.

Brian

Have used both.
No. They aren't really necessary, IMO. I found the difference between the two to be less than the difference between rims.

The Trek 620 I purchased new, for example, had canti's and anodized rims. Braking was less than I'd hoped for until the anodized surface wore a bit, then it was better. Oddly enough, the 620 didn't have clearance for a fender on the front. It was a good bike, but not as good as it looked on paper. I weighed it "dry" but ready to go before the last tour I took with it, right at 100 lbs. I don't miss it which seems odd.

FWIW, on some long downhills in the Rockies (like divide passes), I found that by being up on the hoods with elbows out, I could keep it around 40-45 MPH, and at that age I was comfortable with that bike on those hills at those speeds.

I am older now, and might not find that to be the case. : - )


In any event, I think the limiting factor would be the rim's ability to dissipate heat - and a tire/tube's tolerance for it. Neither brake is going to affect that.

That is a pretty bike.About a 64cm.? p.m. me if you really want to get rid of it.