Longfemur

Because a sport touring bike takes a load on the rear, but doesn't need to have that load there to handle the way it's designed to. It will roll better with lighter tires, and it will both climb and descend better, because its high trail design will be biased in favour of fast speed stability rather than the reverse for the randonneuses.

Six jours

It's true that rear loading a low trail bike can make it unhappy. But I've ridden low trail bikes without any load and they're fine. The steering is a little lighter; no big deal.

I don't agree at all with the idea that 700c rolls better than 650b. I win "freewheel races" against 700c equipped race bikes every weekend.

Nor do I agree that trail makes a bike climb and descend better one way or the other. The ability of the individual rider utterly overwhelms any little differences in bike geometry.

I had a similar discussion while out riding a few weeks ago. This particular fellow had done a lot of reading on the topic and had believed that there was a huge difference between the various bikes. Then he rode several of the designs in question back-to-back and learned that the differences actually bordered upon trivial. The moral, IMO, is that we all too often make mountains out of molehills, urged on by the editors of bike magazines who get so involved in the details that they forget they are, in fact, details.

As far as I am concerned the only significant geometry difference between a French style rando bike and a modern "sport" bike is about 2 cm of fork rake. This is noticeable, but not by much. And the only difference between 650b and 700c is that the former includes a bit less rim and (usually) a bit more tire. The outer diameter usually ends up about the same, so people who want big fat tires without gigantic wheels have an option. I think I'm pretty sensitive to tires, but if you blindfolded me I doubt I could tell the difference in "feel" between 700c and 650b until the tire diameters became significantly different.

nlerner

I recently "unconverted" my 1970s St. Etienne from 650B w/ 42mm tires to 700c w/ 32mm tires, and I have to say that I really can't feel a difference. What I like a great deal about that bike is that it's quite light weight with metric-sized Reynolds 531 main triangle and a replacement front 531 fork with more rake than the original (and thus I use it as a front-loading bike). It's set up as a single speed, and I zip around on that thing (including today's commute).

Now an important factor is that this riding is all done on roads: if I were on mixed surfaces, I might be clammoring for those wide fatties.

Neal

jan nikolajsen 

this remains a great thread. thanks ya'll.

dit

Six jours....The bike is 531 of about 75' vintage. I doubt that I will have the forks bent but I appreciate the info. You never know, I might change my mind tomorrow. hehehe

Longfemur

Personally, I find there is a noticeable difference between a bike that is a good, stable lower speed handler, and a bike that is more stable when going faster. Assuming both are reasonably stable, enough to ride in traffic, it probably won't matter that much for every day riding... that I agree with.

It may be a false impression I have, but it seems to me that while many people in North America argue the benefits of wider tires, the French themselves seem to prefer 700c and narrower tires. I'm not saying good or bad, just making a general observation. Other than Confrerie des 650, I don't see much action there with regard to 650B. In fact, what they refer to as a randonneering bike seems to be more of a 700c sport touring bike with a few more brazed-on fittings.

StevePGN10

Could I trouble someone to speak more about the fork rake? Some comment that they don't like the feel of a bike when it has a handlebar bag, would the increased rake affect this?


Yes, tis a great thread.

Hydrated

Many people who like to use big bar bags (myself included) find that carrying a relatively heavy front load on a bike with a lot of trail makes steering a chore. Turning the bike is kind of like steering a Mac truck through a slalom course. And the wheel flop makes it nearly impossible to handle the bike gracefully at low speeds.

To counter these effects, you can use a fork with more rake to get less trail (given the same headtube angle and tire size). Using a low trail fork unloaded can seem twitchy, but add a front load and the bike handles predictably and with less effort.

That said, you can really only feel a really big difference when you start pushing the extremes... really heavy loads or really extreme trail measurements.

manicmike

did you have any trouble getting those fenders to fit? i have a 1989 prelude that i want to put fenders on, but it looks like a really tight fit.

Six jours

I think this is probably right. Jan argues that it is because the roads in France have become very nice; nicer than many of the roads in the U.S. I can't comment on that.

Speaking personally, I seek out lousy roads, dirt ones in particular. For my needs, 650bx42mm is perfect, and I was surprised at how well they roll. I actually won a "city limits" sprint on a club ride a few months ago, against a bunch of 4s and 5s mounted on carbon bikes with aero wheels, etc. I laughed my socks off because it was mostly a matter of positioning and a bit of luck, but there were a few guys shaking their heads and maybe planning on taking up golf.

At any rate, I don't argue that folks in general would be better served by big fat 650b tires. I just think there's a bit of a misconception in many quarters about what these bikes are actually for, and capable of.

Grim

Its all compromises. Most logic on top would say the wider tires are going to take more effort to spin up and keep spun up but start figuring it road surface you really start mixing it up. What you can go over at speed on a wide 650 may physically beat the hell out of somebody on a 700x28 and drastically offset the weight penalty.

Personally I know I should be able to go faster with less effort on a skinny tire but I find I can go farther with less fatigue on a wider tire that makes the ride better. The constant jarring and tensing I do as a result to absorb/brace for it really wears on me. I find I really like 700x32-35 as a good all around tire for most road surfaces. The ride difference is amazing. Play with the tire pressure a little and you can make for a nice ride over long distance.

StevePGN10

I find that an interesting observation. I imagine earlier rando bikes were fitted with wide tires because the roads may have been of lower quality and, of course, the long sustained distance traveled. But what puzzles me is the selection of a front rack and handlebar bag over a rear rack and trunk bag. It seems like a compromise of convenience of grabbing something from the bag over handling. For those who participate in randonneurs , do you feel the compromise is worth it? What items do you need to grab quickly from a handlebar bag that would be less convenient to grab from a jersey pocket or rear rack?

Grim

I'm betting all they were grabbing while moving is snacks. The modern Benito box solves that. As far as the handling goes....I'm not sure that moderate weight with a very secure bag is going to be much of a detriment to the handling at speed since you steer by leaning so the weigh stays centered.

A bike tends to have a rear weight bias once the rider is on it on. Weight moved up front would probably just offset the rear weight. Possibly it may overall be less weigh to have a single bag on straps off the bars then it would by adding a rack to the rear for a bag or panniers.

Now I do wonder if the aerodynamic drag plays into it at all. The bag on the front may actually improve the aerodynamics over the rider. The y\tear drop shape is one of the most aerodynamic of all. A rider on the drops with the bag would form that shape and keep the air from pooling on their chest and lap. It would also act somewhat like a motorcycle fairing and push the air around the rider helping them keep some warmth on a cool day.

Maybe there is more science then style to it then we think.

Six jours

A bike built with the appropriate geometry really does handle just fine with a front bag. I think the problem really stems from the fact that a lot of people ave tried, at one point or another, some type of bag that just clips to the handlebars. Between a loosely mounted bag banging around on the handlebars, and a bike not really designed for a front load to begin with, it's no wonder front bags developed such a poisonous reputation in some circle.

For my money, there are two real advantages with a front bag: the ability to grab snacks, clothes, etc. without stopping, and the fact that the top of the bag makes a perfect map case.

As far as aerodynamics, BQ did a wind tunnel article a while back that looked to indicate that a front bag was faster than a similarly sized rear bag, and in a straight headwind situation was not significantly slower than no bag at all. This was chalked up to the fact that the front bag doesn't really add any frontal area, while medium and larger seat bags stick out to the sides, into the windstream. The front bag does "look bigger" to sidewinds and quartering headwinds, though, and is slower than no bag in those situations.

cyclotoine

Edit: I'm not sure but apparently this was the same as a 1000, well I know the 1981 1000 had cantilevers and this bike does not. It's geometry still seems racy to me and it lacks all the braze-ons, I think it was probably a sport-touring bike, in any case my intention is to use it as one would use a "real" randonneuse.

Here is my 1981 Specialissima. I'd like to have U-brake studs mounted and a set of paul racers on it eventually but the record calipers work fine for now, I really didn't want cantilevers so this is perfect, This bike has an incredibly smooth yet not sluggish ride.

Probably will switch to Nitto Noodles and a nitto stem soon. Funny enough my blackburn rack wouldn't fit because of the steep seatstays and relatively far forward drop-out eyelets, so I used this trace front rack instead... looks kinda funny but actually worked great with my ortleib front panniers for a weekend trip to Vancouver a couple weeks back.

Special thanks to 24tracktape for the trade! I'd like to get a titanium syncros post for it but the last 26.8 on ebay went for over 170USD! Thinking about getting one of these.

cs1

I hear you. LOL That's what happens after 50, at least in my case.

Six jours

Thread necromancy!

Gives me a chance to post my latest randonneuse...



A shameless copy of a 1952 Rene Herse, but with modern components and integrated LED lighting. Long live 650B!

andy e

necromancy-smancy, still one of my favorite threads!

kbjack

Very nice! Who made the frame?

Six jours

Me!

fuzz2050

Bravo, bravo indeed. Now give us a rundown of the build. I see the T.A. Cranks, the Selle An-Atomica saddle, and of course the fenders (either V.O. or honjo, they look pretty much identical at this point). The rest though?

ilikebikes

Heres something I'm building up, don't know where it's going but it's getting there fast! Maybe it'll end up a Randonneur. I'll post better pics tomorrow.

LuggerJones

I'm currently building-up a Shogun 2000 which by the geometry and multiple braze-ons is clearly a touring bike however fully loaded touring is not really my thing. I prefer riding fast , although not competitively, and I think randonneuring sounds like a lot of fun. I'm not sure if the geometry of my Shogun is too laid-back for this type of riding. So far I have only been using it for commuting and for sunny-day cruising with the girlfriend and others. It is plenty fast and I can comfortably maintain 17-18mph on my 10 mile commute. Now that fall is here and I'll have more time indoors I'm installing fenders and perhaps some racks. Looking at the picture I've posted do you, the experts, think the bike looks suitable? I'm not sure where it falls in the sport-tourer/fully-loaded tourer spectrum. It has a seat angle of 72 and weighs in at around 23lbs currently.

Six jours

Fenders are Honjo; 52mm hammered aluminum. Bars are the Randonneur bend made by Nitto for Grand Bois. Stem is Nitto Pearl. Headset is the great Stronglight needle bearing model. Rear derailleur is Dura-Ace nine speed with indexing downtube Dura-Ace shifters. I had a devil of a time finding a front derailleur to work with the non-profiled/ramped 44-30 chainrings; the Campy Super Record that ended up working best is a couple of decades old. Rear hub is Ultegra, front is the Schmidt Dynohub generator. Front light is the Supernova E3 triple, matching LED tail light. Seatpost is the Nitto Jaguar, which is pretty expensive for an aluminum post, but works extremely well. Rims are Rigida Sphynx 650B with Grand Bois Hetre 42mm tires. Pedals are MKS touring, clips and strap from Christophe with leathers from Velo-Orange. Brake calipers are Tektro CR720 with Kool-Stop salmon pads. Brake levers are ancient old (50+years) Mafacs with NOS half-hoods. Brooks mud flap, Nitto front rack with Velo-Orange decaleur holding up a Berthoud bag. TA chrome steel bottle cages. White cloth handlebar tape with four or five coats of shellac. And I think that's it!

Longfemur

Outside of the fantasy world on the internet, most people who ride far and often tend to prefer the narrowest tires that for their body weight, won't require extremely high inflation pressures. For some smaller, lighter guys, a 23 is fine if it doesn't have to be inflated above 100 psi. Heavier people might be better off with a wider tire, like a 28, maybe 32 for touring.

I use a small handlebar bag for my personal items like wallet, cellphone, glasses, lip balm... but it's a really small bag. I don't like the encumbrance of big handlebar bags when I ride, and dislike even more carrying stuff on my body.

I do think that those who say wide tires ride as fast as narrower ones are either dreaming in technicolor, trying to sell you something, or they collect bikes as living room furniture more than they ride them... but that's just me. Why do you think that hybrid riders are swapping out wide for narrower when they can't keep up with road bikes on their commutes? Now, why they feel they need to be race-worthy on commutes is another question entirely.