Paul Waque 

My understanding is that the difference radius is 4mm.

grant40

A very beat up Miyata 610.

beicster 

I am genuinely curious about this. Does the presence of cantilevers automatically disqualify a bike no matter the geometry? Or, is it that no one made a bike with cantilevers and qualifying geometry?

The Golden Boy 

Exactly, 622 to 630- and not a whole lot of brakes have that kind of adjustability.

FWIW- I had beginner's luck with Suntour XC Pro brakes and totally expected M900 XTR brakes to work... no go.

The kings of 27 to 700C conversions are the M732 XT brakes. I would assume the MT-62 would be the same- but you never really know.

bark_eater 

The 610 started off as a caliper/centerpull brake touring bike. I'll have to check the catalogs to see if the tubes and geometry changed much when it got cantilevers.

PS. Miyata was billing the 610 as a Touring AND Sport bike, whether with or without cantilivers.

ClydeClydeson

Re. 27" to 700c wheel conversions

A side effect of switching wheel sizes on rim brake bikes is that the change in distance from the brake pivot to the pad/rim causes a change in leverage and therefore brake function. On caliper brakes (where pivot is between the rim and cable anchor), changing to smaller rims causes a decrease in braking force for a given force at the lever, while with cantilever brakes (any brakes where rim/pad are between the cable anchor and the pivot), changing to smaller rims causes an increase in brake force for a given lever force.

cyccommute 

You are right. I split the value in 2 and the split it again. That said, 4mm is a bit over 1/8” which isn’t much.

cyccommute 

I’ve never had a problem when I’ve upgraded brakes many times on a 1983 Miyata that began as a 27” and I converted to a 700C. Like 5 or 6 different brakes. Never had a problem being able to adjust the brakes to the right height. Even more modern cantilever brakes have a fair amount of adjustment.

cyccommute 

I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily true but sport tourers with cantis are rare. Cyclocross bikes, on the other hand, have similar geometries to sport tourers with cantilevers. The bottom bracket is a bit taller but the rest of the bike is more similar to a sport tour than a touring bike.

That said, touring bikes were the first cyclocross bikes because the increased clearance with the cantis worked better in the mud.

79pmooney

My Peter Mooney. It was built to be rideable in the lower 48 states 12 months of the year; in whatever format was appropriate for that location. (Ordered a year after my head injury. I'd raced my final season and would now be seeking work, probably on either coast, I knew the next years were going to be very hard and a test of my sanity. This bike had to be a reliable tool to keep it.

So: canti brakes, Mafacs, because they work, require little fussing and there are nowhere they are poor or dangerous. (And cheap.) 15 years later I upgraded to Shimano canit that came off a Miyata 610. Still there.

Brake posts are set to halfway between 27" and 700c because in 1978 who knew what the wheel standard was going to be or what I could get in, say, backwater Maine.

The frame? 531 (probably - Peter in those days charged extra for the sticker because he preferred the freedom to select the best tubing for that rider and application). Chainstays long enough for panniers. Horizontal dropouts so I could run fixed if I wanted. Front end modeled (but not exactly) off my Fuji Pro, a ride that fit like a dream and I loved. BB high enough to pedal a lot of corners (I was fresh off racing a very high BB crit bike.) Result? It's toured, climbed a lot of hills, a few 160 mile days, rain, very, very hard rain several times, seen snow and now has found its true place as an elegant fix gear. The long chainstays and highish BB - perfect! It does still sport LowRider mounts, derailleur hanger and BB cable guides so I get to change my mind. It does quite passably as a gravel bike with up to 38c tires.

And yes, the bike is a do-everything bike. I've since been buying and setting up bikes to do one thing well and the Mooney took a backseat for years. Then Cycle Oregon advertised their week ride to Crater Lake with gravel. Lots. And 1000' up and downs on that gravel. A great fix gear route but I gotta have big tires! Not happening on my avatar photo fix gear. But the Mooney can! Did it. And promptly fell in love with this classic English fix gear roadster of 1930s, 40s and 50s heritage. Still in love 5 years later; now back on sewups.

And the cantis? Well, on a fix gear I want slightly more gentle braking power because everything gets exciting at the absurd RPMs of very fast descents. I discovered 10 years ago that dual pivots de-powered with V-brake levers work really well. 5 years ago that they work just as well with those cantis. (Yes, on very long descents, my hands tire if I have to brake continuously. And my legs have been known to tire getting to the starting point of those descents! C'est la vie.) Those V-brake levers also come with huge, glorious hand holds! Perfect for uphill on those fix gears!

If I knew I could get a hold of the horizontally "winged" cantis like the old Mafacs or the early Shimano geometry copies, I'd spec my next bike with them in a flash. (I think Paul makes them too. If so, that's how I'd go now.)

smd4

Sport tourers shared more DNA with racing bikes than touring bikes. To my mind, the only drop bar bikes with triples and cantilevers were touring bikes.

79pmooney

I think my Miyata 610 was a 27" bike. I ran 700c from day one on it and both the stock Shimano canti and the older Mafacs off my Mooney. Never crossed my mind. I've also used stock replacement forks and never asked if 27" or 700c. (I doubt the salesperson would have known.) Pad height has to be dialed in anyway so really, who cares? (Plus, since this is a hub to rim measurement, not a crown to rim measurement, the error can only be, what? 4mm, not well over an inch between a racing bike and a fendered commuter.)

romperrr 

The geometry on the Miyata 6xx series changed over time, earlier year it was distinct from the 1000 but towards the late 80s/early 90's the geometry was the same with different tubing (maybe?) and different components (definitely)

I rode a 82 1000 for a few years and it handled great unloaded/light load and pretty good fully loaded, albeit somewhat noodle-y. Twas a great bike.

The later trek 520 and maybe 620 might also be worth a look. Their chain stays were usually shorter than the 720.

Like the poster before me, I highly highly recommend the early Centurion Pro Tours with the bolt on centerpull brakes, feels fast yet smooth

Bianchigirll 

This may have been discussed but would Randonneurers fit the Sport Tour criteria listed above?

We in the states do not have Randonneur or Brevet events, at least we don’t actually call them that we call the bikeathons or charity rides or Erotic events.

The ‘84 Randonneurer with a Mangalloy frame tips the scale around 25.5lbs

VRJAKE 

Sport Touring bikes to my mind are light tourers, analogous to a Randonneur bike, which were intended to be light, room for bigger tires, fenders and carry a light load. EBISU, per Hiroshi was to be a light, not a full loaded tourer. Mine pictured below from the first batch in 2000, in an earlier C&V build with Suntour/Sugino/Mafac/Nitto weighed under 23 pounds with fenders and a front rack.

Oh and would all the Rivendell variants, hunka sam ram frames be Sport Touring? Maybe not, they're heavy

nlerner

I don’t think https://rusa.org would agree.

GullyFoylesbike

I can't say I have enough experience with the style to contribute much, but my '84 Gitane Grantour seems to sit kind of right in the middle of a lot of this. Made from Vitus 181 - which based on my research is in the 531 neighborhood, maybe a couple grams more? Originally shipped with Cantis set for 27"s and a Stronglight triple, the chainstays are coming in at 44. I've been commuting on it and it rides just beautifully unloaded. Haven't had a chance to weigh it in it's current form though.

smd4

The triple and cantilevers precludes if for me.

Bianchigirll 

well it’s not like their brochures are filling up my mailbox.

Rooney 

I have two Cannondale ST1000s, an 88 and a 90. Both came with Dia Compe NGC982 cantis, both easily converted from 27” to 700c. The spacing on the 90 is inline with modern canti spacing. I don’t remember measuring the spacing on the 88, but noticed there’s only one spring hole per post mount vs the 90’s three holes.

nlerner

It isn’t the LL Bean catalog; you need to join the organization to get the goods.

nlerner

Clearly you’ve never ridden in an organized rando event. Sure, some might be on bikes with canti brakes and triple cranksets, but just as many if not more will be on the skinny tire race bikes you seem to like.

smd4

So? I couldn’t give two craps what anybody rides. I don’t think of bikes with cantilevers and triples as “‘sport tourers,” at least under the classic, original definition.

nlerner

So what is the “classic, original definition” of sport tourer, and where does it come from?

smd4

I personally refer to the Bicycling magazine description from a 1985 book called “Bicycle Touring.” See what I wrote above re the Centurion Lemans. Two chainrings, aluminum wheels, what “could easily qualify as an entry-level road racing bike…This is a good example of the versatility of good sport touring bicycles.” I’m not going to type out the entire section.

Another good resource is the 1988 Bicycling Buyer’s Guide. Not one of the 10 featured bikes defined as “Sport/Touring” bikes have cantilevers or triples.