You mean the pontificating will finally end? Thats probably more than half your posts on this forum- ripping on the LHT with generalizations about how terrible it is compared to bikes 3 and 4 times more expensive.

As for your little explanation where you finally 'explain' your opinion, its nothing different than the other handful of times you have 'explained' your opinion. You once again call it a lower end bicycle with lower quality steel and lower quality components.
I have asked in the past and will again-
- how is double butted 4130 steel 'lower end' when Hiten is a lesser option? What specific steel tubing would you like to see in the LHT?
- How are the components 'lower end'? What specifically is low end? Are a couple of components which can easily be swapped for what you prefer really indicative of calling all the bike's components 'low end'?

I have 5 bikes and 1 more currently in the process of being built. The most expensive is half as much as an LHT. The one in build mode will still be about $500 less than a new LHT. So if the LHT is a lower end bicycle, I cant imagine what you would call all of mine.

Not sure I can add anything useful, but...
My take is that once you reach a certain level of suitability spending more nets quickly diminishing returns. The component choices on the LHT complete are at a really good bang for the buck level that wouldn't impact my enjoyment of touring one iota. That said, I really don't like the design of the LHT myself, but the very things I don't like about it also are the things that make it a great bike for someone else. It is all about suitability to the task and the rider's preferences.

The operative words there are "for myself".

Cheers

bring some extra Carbon cloth and the 2 tubes of Epoxy resin and catalyst, "just in case".

Absolutely. I have no criticism of the bike perse. I would imagine it to be built to a high standard for the application it is being suggested for.

I can't disagree. We all make choices based on a blend of need and personal preference and, if the OP could just validate his choice without needing to buttress it by running down another choice I doubt there would be much discussion. Nobody seems to argue the pros of the Salsa as much as his perceived cons of the LHT.

Another way to look at it, and how my mind often works, is to consider what is needed to accomplish the task well, or what some might call the "sweet spot". If one is going to "champion" minimalist touring as the OP often does, always suggesting one consider what one needs to bring and leaving the rest at home,the first consideration should be the bike. If luxury considerations such as two pairs of UW are met with the minimalist retort of "do you need it" what can we say about a 4K CF bike. That cost would be the same as bringing a cast iron dutch oven weight wise. I actually do embrace the minimalist mindset in the sense of trying to determine what is the entry point in terms of cost and quality, rather than weight (though weight is a factor to consider). On the one hand I probably wouldn'y commit my time or resources to a tour using a crappy w_lmart style bike because I would worry too much about it failing but on the other I also wouldn't commit resources to purchasing a 4K bike either. I would be as worried about theft or inability to replaces and repair components easily. In the middle somewhere is a sweet spot where the quality is good enough for touring without concern both of failure or loss. When touring I think one should always have the knowledge that everything is potentially consumable. A failure, illness, accident or unforeseen situation in the wrong spot may call for you to ditch the bike. So, I think in terms of investing what I need into a bike, in order to be success for a tour and apply the excess towards experience enhancers like cameras, activity specific clothing or hotel rooms and whale watching day trips.

I agree. The Salsa and the LHT are very different so making a comparison difficult. The person wanting to tour on a LHT is also probably very different from the Salsa Cut Throat or general CF disposed tourer.

Completely agree with what you say about diminishing returns and also about each rider having different preferences for their goals/tasks.
I dont bikepack, dont plan to bikepack, but I still both appreciate the idea of it and enjoy reading about and seeing bikepacking setups in use. It isnt for me, but I can recognize those style bikes as a good option for a certain style riding. Its a shame others dont always apply this approach to styles of riding they dont participate in.

This may be the case, at least in the broad sense, but it does not apply to everyone.

I approach my touring set up a little different than you outlined in a couple of posts back. I look at what I think is the optimum gear selection for the type of tour planned. I also look at the terrain, road conditions, amount of dirt or gravel, and location; which will help me determine the tire type and size. I then choose the type of bike I believe will get me comfortably and efficiently through the ride.

I've toured on 18-20 lb. road bikes, an aluminum framed touring bike, a steel framed cyclocross bike, and last but not least a LHT. I don't always get it right, but when I err it is usually on the side of not having enough bike for the job.

As most folks have said, it is using the right tool for the job we want it to do. In that respect, I don't think we are "very" different.

IMO there is no such thing as the "perfect" bike; there is usually a compromise somewhere. This becomes apparent when a wide range of conditions are encountered during a tour.

okay, i gets it now! i gots you figgered out.
you're a surly sockpuppet, pretending to
be a fundamentalist bible-thumping
trump-hat!

clever!

+1, however the quality of steel would immediately impact the touring bike performance. Guess work is required to figure out what "quality" means in this case, but I can give 3 scenarios:

1) lower strength alloy. There are many different strengths, and presumably manufacturing standards at play, all else being equal stronger is one of the factor we like when we accept the other factors that come with steel;

2) Straightness or other maters of consistency. I did ride a bike that came out of the same factory as the LHT (though that says nothing or related standards of QC). It could not be ridden hands free when the geometry was fine for that purpose. Probably a manufacturing flaw, which is a whole of the kettle of fish, but it could also be in part the straightness of tubes;

3) Part of the whole quality equation is knowing what one is dealing with. I have no idea what is in an LHT. Whatever it is, it appears to be doing the job, but knowing is still better than not knowing. Of course not knowing can be part of the full on custom experience.

The repairability thing is true in that steel can be welded more easily and with cheaper more available equipment than aluminum. But the chance of getting a good weld job on the road is tough. It is very tough to weld materials one does not know with gear that may be there to repair trucks, or irrigation pipes. Chromoly does not weld like high tens steel that most are familiar with, and tubing is a specialty, and thin walls are a specialty. You have at least 3 things against you, then the gear and fillers probably aren't perfect. The surest simplest method is composite splices, and it works on all materials, it works least well on steel.

And a good epoxy choice would be WEST G10. Tow is also a good choice and often cheaper than cloth. Epoxy is the key. Bamboo builds are often held together with string and epoxy.

I guess I missed the piece where this guy doesn't get to have an opinion. On the first page someone asks him to provide information based on essentially science and deep experience, then ends his sentence with what he believes, and goes on to state other beliefs.

Yeah, but that is true, it is what people like about it. It is at the heart of the deminishing returns argument people +1nd.

Well I think we are talking about chinese mystery tubes, right? I looked, I didn't see reynolds or any other qualifier as to quality of composition, or sizes available to optimize butts to frame components etc... You make the point when you say high tens. Nobody expects any serious performance bike (above walmart) to be made of HT, even Walmart bikes are made out of nicely welded Al. So yeah, this is the crap on the floor. But it is the nature of Asian manufacturing that if people are willing to take a leap of faith, and the importer is religious on quality he can get very cheaply stuff that meets the spec. But it is down to Surly it is a leap of faith that most people feel is highly justified. The reverse to that is some nobody framebuilder, wowing you with his 953. He may be a genius but people are looking at the bike going "wow it is 953".

Yeah, that would be the part definition. But I don't think there is a single component on an LHT I wouldn't swap out if given a chance. But that doesn't mean it is a bad bike. Touring bikes are built out of come by chance components more than most. They don't generally make us groupos, And a lot of the stuff that is our best bet is the lower grade sturdier components, but that doesn't change the reality that it is cobbled together out of the cheapest stuff they could lay their hands on that they were sure would do the job.

Not purchased at retail comes to mind.

Carbon is not a weak or easily damaged material, at least not after the specific design needs have been worked out. The problem is nobody is going to buy a carbon bike at current prices if it is build like a tank and only slightly lighter than a steel frame. They want as light as possible. At that point it is fragile, but there are plenty of things built of carbon that can take a hit a bike never experiences, maybe even in most crashes, arrows being a prime example. People buy carbon arrows for hunting because they are tougher, and lighter, than all the other options. I personally prefer steel frames because they can be customized most easily of all materials.

I guess a secondary problem is that there isn't any Lance Armstrong of touring to convince people they need a carbon bike.

Using a carbon bike to tour is going to remain a small niche because they are not built to carry the racks and loads that most tourers bring on their trips. They are not necessarily limited by strength or geometry, but by the difficulty people will have simply carrying their gear on them. Tire size and gearing are not an issue with carbon endurance and adventure bikes, but few (if any) have the eyelets required for racks. However, if the tourer uses a rackless bikepacking approach or a traditional transverse saddlebag almost any bike can be pressed into service. Some will be better than others, but that comes down more to geometry than frame material. As I can fit all my gear into a Carradice Camper saddlebag and an Ortlieb handlebar bag the only requirements I absolutely have are: a saddle with bag loops; sufficient saddle to rear tire clearance for my saddlebag; and an aluminum handlebar for the Ortlieb clamp.

My Cervelo RS is the best touring bike I've had. I only have a Claud Butler Majestic, Rivendell Rambouillet, Quickbeam and Atlantis to compare and those are all fine bikes for touring, but the Cervelo RS is a better climber and all day rider even limited to 25mm tires. I intend to give the Raleigh Roker a try at some point as that looks as if it could be my perfect touring bike.

http://www.bikemastertool.com/media/...png?1436293217

I think you are referring to me but not sure if it is a criticism or not. What I did was ask the OP to validate an opinion he has by citing something real.

Anyone can say anything they want but it carries more weight in a discussion (which is the primary goal of this forum) if you can back it up with something. I posted that I believe it (LHT) does meet the threshold and if pressed to show some proof I would point to the fact that there are so many people successfully using LHT's (it's the most common production bike) on challenging tours that if there were a problem with steel quality it would probably have surfaced by now. Touring boards and reviews would be full of LHT failures... but they are not. Apparently the components are good enough too. That's something I can use to re enforce my opinion - the combined real world experience of many people.

Here's what I wrote btw:

To me that is a chicken and egg issue. There is no technical problem precluding carbon bikes from carrying racks, but since tourists don't seem to want carbon bikes, the carbon bikes we get are not properly equipped to carry gear.

I did elaborate on the whole steel thing elsewhere, the fact the steel is sufficient for some purpose is not the same thing as saying it is high quality. On the spectrum of steels it is hard to go below what is in an LHT, but it is not hard to go above it, I think that is a pretty reasonable way of looking at quality.

I don't think you really speak for all those people if we are asking for proof, though I imagine your conclusions are pretty much correct. Many of us do buy products, are not all that satisfied and don't really say much about it. There are also a lot of tourist that I run into who are not bike people and don't know a good bike from a bad bike. In fact the world's more traveled tourist rides a bike that would not pass the laugh test for most people who end up buying an LHT. Touring does not require much, but there are masterpiece touring bikes out there even if few people really care.

On component quality, I think it would be interesting to look at what people built their LHTs out with before the complete bike was made available and what was on the complete bike. There was certainly a wider diversity, and I would guess it was mostly higher quality parts, but I would have to wait to see the result.

I looked at the current parts list, pretty nice actually, though lots of room for improvement, but only the cranks, bars and seat were unknown to me, though admittedly those alone are 500 dollars worth of parts if one switches them out for the good stuff. I think the only parts I would actually consider using are the rear deraileur, seat post clamp, levers and shifters.

The steel "quality" argument is pretty redundant for most touring bikes, isn't it? Those in these forums who know much more than me about metallurgy tell me thst the various alloys including 853, Spirit, stainless etc. would all ride exactly the same as gaspipe if the tubes were the same thickness. The fancier alloys allow thinner tubes, so you can get the required strength for less weight. Very important in a road bike, but for tourists who take 30 or 40 or 50lbs of baggage, a few pounds on the frame doesn't mean much.

The tourer I've just bought has Dedacciai tubing that makes it a good deal lighter than a LHT and probably a good deal more fun to ride unloaded, maybe even lightly loaded. But put 40 lbs on it in panniers and I might find the difference much less pronounced.

Umm, sure, whatever you say.

I'm in the camp of durability with reasonable weight so most of the stuff on my bikes is mid level quality, ie. Deore and SLX. There may be some XT in the mix as well. And hubs are where the real money spending goes. But anyways, after SLX you don't actually get any improvement in functionality, just as in road components you don't get better performance out of stuff above 105, just lighter weight (and dura ace might be quieter, but who cares about that?).

So I consider deore level parts to already to be the good stuff.
$50 for a triple crankset.

Seats are personal so the good stuff can be anywhere from $20 to $200. For me the best saddle I've found for touring use is about $60.
60$ for the saddle.

Bars cost $25, may not be light, but is functional and durable. If you want to go all out you might get the Deda Zero 100 bar which is $60
at most 60$ for the bar

so $170 for the good stuff. How you spend so much is beyond me.

You're right about the technical aspect of it. This bike WIAWIS - NANO CARBON BIKE is from the Korean company Wiawis, who, until recently, made compound and recurve bows for archery. It has racks and there is no technical problem.

I think the geometry is too aggressive for a touring bike, but I suspect that it has to do with the constraints of the carbon steerer tube, rather than being a conscious design choice. It will be interesting to see if there is any demand for it either domestically or internationally.

Problem I had with carbon bikes was the flex. And that is with no cargo.. just a racing bike. With even more weight, I would think it would be sloppy feeling or even border line dangerous. I have had a few different carbon bikes... but admittedly nothing real modern. Also, if you are gonna tour on this.. I don't know. Fully loaded bikes on tour take a beating. Wear is much accelerated. With the added weight of panniers and the way a rack flexes... that can't be good on carbon- the sort of twisting motion. Not to mention all the scratches, chips etc from just being a touring bike. I always thought steel was the ultimate there due to it's durability. Lightweight.. not really but that isn't the point of a touring bike in my opinion. That's a racer. A tourer needs to survive thousands of miles being pushed to it's max. I mean, you are fully loaded. 50 plus pounds just in gear. Not really time to be trying to shave grams. But that is just my opinion again. The worst place to break down is hundreds or thousands of miles from home when the lightweight stuff fails,.

my advice.. train on a really heavy bike in the spring.. then the touring bike you have now will feel like a feather. And stick with steel for the frame. I have been told this by many other folks who have gone cross country a few times and have had as much time or more than me on the bike. I have an aluminum Trek and I am leary of even using that with any substantial weight. The ride is certainly more affected than my steel tourers. Handling is noticeably diminished. Other thing to pay attention to is wheels. I like at least 36 hole wheels if using fully loaded panniers. Again, not a place to try to save weight.

If the carbon bike is a properly purpose built tourer I seen no reason why it couldn't work in said activity. It needen't be too flexible as it's easy to add stiffness by adding more carbon layers where those are needed.

Flexing wouldn't be a problem either as carbon doesn't fatigue so if it's not snapping by the load, it's not snapping at all. And this can also be countered by a heavier stronger frame.

What I would do however is that I'd make all the possible attatchment points in the bike with metal inserts so that one could attatch racks with sufficient torque or if clamping is needed then the low compressive durability of carbon wouldn't be an issue. Mainly that would mean that rack attatchment points and bottle eyelets are steel or some other metal (although I prefer steel as its durability as thread material is incredible)

Why one would want a carbon tourer is then another matter. It's still an expensive material and lot of tourers are pretty thrifty. Steel is cheap and very functional, even more so than aluminum in touring context (I get nervous every time I need to attach racks to aluminum as the thread durability just isn't there)

Exactly. Plus the fact it flexes/moves more than steel, thus fatiguing faster. I would think the same of carbon fiber. Plus how does carbon stand up to being outdoors constantly? I never thought they were durable in that respect. I always see peeling finish on carbon frames when they get to a certain age. That yellowing of the clear finsish over the graphite. I have a Softride beam even showing this right now. Meanwhile steel goes on and on. Even damaged/ dented steel can still perform and be OK whereas the others would be done for. So don't crash or let your bike fall over fully loaded if you're not using a good steel frame. I've seen aluminum frames get big dents just falling into a bike rack. Traveling thousands of miles on bike, one must be prepared for such a scenario. Another thing is you will have to lock your tourer at some point. So keep in mind the marks and wear a lock can make on a frame. Again, carbon does not fair well there like steel. Not to mention any damage caused to the frame by would be thieves trying to end your tour prematurely.. it happens. At least steel wouldn't be as damaged by someone trying to forcibly break a Krytonite or combo lock. Sometimes you can't always bring your bike in to certain places or have eyes on it.

That just about sums it up. I'd be riding carbon if it were cheaper. I travel light enough that road bike weight and geometry would be OK or even desirable to me, but yeah, for most touring styles the frame would ideally be built heavier, have more relaxed geometry, a longer wheelbase, and some inserts for racks and such.