How do 80s mountain bikes fit into all this? I have a Panasonic mc-4500 and the only things missing are mid-fork rack mounts and seat tube bottle cage mounts.

At the time they weren't really a large factor in the touring niche. They have become popular for loaded touring in recent years becaus of their ruggedness, geometry, TT length is compatible with drop bars and their chainstays are often long enough to minimize heel strike with some of the larger panniers. There are carrier and botle cage mounting systems available to cope with any design frameset.

Brad

Guys like Dennis Coello were talking about 26 inch touring in the late 80's, I think he was at The Cyclist at that time . Also had a book out called Touring on Two Wheels . He talks about both skinny and fat tire touring, if memory serves correctly.

Bottom brackets tended to be higher off the ground, which with all other things being equal made an MTB a little less comfortable over the course of a day than a "touring" bike .... They evolved different shapes for reasons.

How so? thanks, Brian

There are a lot of different opinions about geometries, and this could get weird pretty quickly. I probably should have put a disclaimer on the post "all other things being equal, I find an 80's MTB geometry to be a little less comfortable ... " I used one for a commuter for a couple of years.

Let's turn the question on its head: "what good thing comes from having the bottom bracket higher?" Ground clearance comes to mind, but not a lot else.
For me, a lower BB means I can reach the ground without having to totally leave the saddle. It isn't much, but it is a little thing and I like it. The weight's a little lower when I'm moving, and that helps a little too. No doubt others will have different thoughts.

I find that bikes are a lot more stable with lower bottom brackets, I don't know if its a function of there being a lower center of gravity during pedaling (or if that even makes sense) but cornering, riding hands free, and just over-all stability seem to be related. I know that having your load lower on a loaded touring bike improves handling, and always figured it was the same principle.

CMC

Maybe someone should start a "high vs. low bb" thread(I'd be surprised if one does not already exist).

Brian

Is there a chart or something of what older touring stuff had the lowest BBs? I think my Raleigh USA (Alyeska) has one of the longer chainstays then available, which seems to be brilliant for comfort, but I often feel that the BB is a bit high.

Speaking of '80s-ish touringey stuff, I've been eying VO's new "Campeur" frame lately. Seems like it'd ride similarly to my bike while adding niceties like high-stack headset, kickstand plate, seat tube bottle mounts, and I think a lower BB height as well.

Despite their lower BB height a modern tourer's CofG is often nearly the same as a roadie frame because of the tourer's larger tire size. Many cyclists happily tour on older mountain bike frames and CX frames, two styles often with a higher BB than a dedicated touring frame. Basically if it fits, it can be toured with.

Brad

'85 Taiwanese-constructed Raleighs. The Alyeska & Kodiak were the top two in the touring line. Mainly differentiated by number of bottle bosses. My Alyeska has two.

I think because of the lack of name recognition and the Taiwaese manufacture, they go cheap. Mine was $350 or so on ebay in minty unridden condition including raleigh branded tires, raleigh braded black bottle, raleigh branded toe straps.... I have a Trek 620 w/ 46cm chaistays, and the ride on this is better.

Did 180 miles on it last spring Between 2pm Saturday and 9pm Sunday. Should have left the original saddle on though.

Tracks straight as a dream-- you can slap the handlebars as you ride and it will keep riding straight, even with all the weight on the back as you see in the photo!

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...g/DSC08031.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...g/DSC08020.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/b...g/DSC08027.jpg

Here's how I generally understand the reason that '80's touring bikes are sought after. In the '80's, The touring frames were the top of the line. By the late/mid '80's, racer fashion had taken over and the finest of the bikes were racing oriented. So late '70's- Mid '80s was a real high point. Just like the Japanese bass guitars I tend to aquire-- inexpensive, but really the best that was out there at the time!

Yes, this is what I'm getting at. On a long tour, this makes a difference in fatigue.

I don't think touring bikes were ever the top of any line, but I agree with the rest of what you said. It was a fad that had some merit. But for a while, lots of people who wanted to spend on themselves and get what they perceived to be the best decided that a touring bike was ideal, even if they weren't going to trek with bags on their bikes. And you could do worse, even if you were just going for Sunday rides.

I'm not so dismissive of touring bike buyers during this "echo" of the bike boom. People were buying bikes in '73 for lifestyle and health reasons, and I think those reasons carried through into the '80s.

Buyers looked at touring bikes (and marketed them) as more Cadillac or Land Rover top-of-the-line than Corvette top-of-the-line. The 'Vette had the engineering (well, kind of) and the Caddy had the build quality (well, sort of) and the features.

I think that touring market in the mid-80's contained plenty of people who were legitimately serious about long-distance self-supported riding. I started riding in the late '80s, and I was on bike boom era italian gaspipe with 70/70 geometry doing MS 150's. I knew no different-- that was, and still is, riding to me.

Which is more top of the line, the '84 Trek 170 or the 720? 170 would win the debate, probably even the 760 and 770, but you could still argue in favor of the 720...

And what about custom bikes of the day? I read a fair bit about people who special order touring bikes these days. Wasn't it the same in the '80s?

Anyway, I'd quibble with "fad" and "conspicuous consumption." A lot of touring dreams and plans fall through sure enough, but I'd say that there are far more racing hopes dashed! Or dropped, as the case may be! :)

This is a mid 80's Panasonic Tourer, my favorite bike. Don't plan on using it for long trips. It is a great all round bike. Very comfortable and stable with it's long wheelbase, just right for getting out to enjoy Mother Nature.http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=298742http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=298744

It's like it balances itself.

I have a Schwinn Voyageur from the end of the production run, '90-1; its like it's riding on rails..a workhorse, and surprisingly fast. Seabiscuit would be a good name for it. I picked it up for about half what I would have paid for a Miyata 1000; you can find some gems among the unloved brands. But how often do I really use it? My touring eyes were bigger than my stomach. I suspect it was the same way for the seller.

Standalone, you raise good points to counter-balance my arguments.

Love my 1984 Centurion "Pro-Tour"!http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=300251http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=300252http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=300253http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=300254

Ack! It's so ... stock! :p The only original parts on mine are the brakes and seatpost! I'm currently running Albatross bars, Suntour barcons, 24/36/46 Deore crank, cartridge BB, Lambda pedals, cheapie springy saddle, 700c wheels with 38mm tires (we have horrid roads in my area) .....

Though, I will say that for me, the Alyeska frame may be pretty nearly perfect. My complaints about the frame are limited to the lack of a kickstand plate, BB being a touch high for convenient stop/go around town, and the old level toptube/low-stack headset combo that makes it harder to get the bars up high. And I find it rides really, really comfortably either completely unladen or with a 40# kid on the back plus a bunch of junk in baskets on the front, and I can ride it either at a walking pace or in top gear on a flat with equal comfort. Feels totally steady either way, and it's somehow easier to pedal than anything else I've had. I just can't believe I didn't know a bike could be this comfortable until I was about 30!

Since I've done so much around-town riding with a rear child seat, and expect to do still more in the future (kid #2 is currently 7 mos.), I've thought of getting a Raleigh Wyoming mixte frame and swapping all my parts over, and maybe even doing a 650b swap since it uses sidepulls, but the right opportunity has yet to present itself.

I like a french fit, and don't need the bars up quite that high, just right around the saddle level feels about right. The bike definitely isn't a stopper&starter round-town bike so much as a long hauler. The day after I unpacked it from ebay I crossed Connecticut twice. It just kept going and going. Love it.

I also dig the original half step + granny gearing of the crankset. Totally works for my style of riding and the generally flat to rolling terrain around here.

I do a lot of kid hauling, too-- but have room to keep cargo/xtracycle/tandems around for that... :)

I sure love to debate about stuff! Can't go having my long held touring bike assumptions sacred cows questioned without mounting a vigorous defense!

I think that some of what you were getting at maybe relates to the overpriced touring bikes that are out there on the used market. Much as I love them, they are indeed not necessarily "all that."

Very true, Standalone. Very true.