Well, none of that is actually true. If built right, carbon has more impact resistance than steel so getting it knocked on stuff really isn't a problem, especially if we're talking about a purpose built tourer. There is a video I've been trying to find where they test steel vs carbon frame in impact resistance and carbon wins hands down. Carbon does have some inherent weaknesses, but those can be addressed in planning of the bike as carbon is so easy to mold into complex shapes.
Nor are the elements or outdoor life a problem since CF is pretty inert. It doesn't rust or degrade like metals do. The paint coat doesn't say anything about the durability of the material beneath, it just says that the paint isn't all that good. UV light might be a problem for the epoxy resin so if the paint does scrape off it's a good idea to cover it with something, like nail polish.

That's a problem for touring in general. Touring is not a big cycling market so innovation specifically for it isn't on the top of manufacturers' to-do lists. Luckily tourers can take advantage of the endurance and adventure bike developments if they can do without eyelets and frame inserts to mount racks.

The geometries and wheelbases for touring are all available in CF. Increasing numbers of tourers don't need racks because of new camping equipment and fabrics and the growth of bikepacking. So that just leaves cost as a barrier. The Raleigh Roker costs about $1000 more than a LHT. That's a significant amount, but the Roker might be bought by someone who wants to ride trails and do fast weekend road rides too.

That is a terrible way of looking at quality as it does not take into account the best material for the intended use. Yes there are higher end levels of steel which are lighter. Those tubes are also thinner and less durable. Perhaps these would be good for some types of touring, but it should be clear they arent ideal for traditional loaded touring as the benefits of that higher quality tubing simply wont be realized in that use.

$500 more? I am sure you could find components to get to that total cost, but that would also mean outfitting the LHT with stuff which is more than whats needed.
You wouldnt consider using the hubs?...They are LX hubs. Really, what is inherently wrong with them? Seems to be pretty good stuff.
The front derailleur isnt good enough for you?...its a friction shifting FD...you move a lever and it moves as much or as little as you want. With that system, if the FD doesnt perform to your liking, its because you are a poor shifter. How is the Sora quality not good enough for friction shifting?


Anyways- $500 more? A Deore crank and matching BB will cost something like $70, last I checked. Too low quality for you? A beautiful Sugino XD will set you back $90 and its a square taper to match the current BB. A saddle will cost you whatever you want, and will need to be changed with most any bike you get if you demand a specific saddle. Holding that against a bike is absurd since its a preference accessory. But still, assume $60 for a touring saddle on the higher end of the cost spectrum. Some drop bars will cost anywhere from $20 to $300. $50 will get you a beautiful and high quality Nitto Rando bar and shim or jsut a Nitto Noodle. $75 will get you a Salsa Cowbell 3 bar and a 31.8 stem. Those are 3 good options which are not close to the cheapest and all 3 are well used and respected options.

So I just provided actual components which are all well used and respected and the costs would be between $180 and $235 depending on preference. One could easily go cheaper in cost and still have fine quality components, but I understand wanting to use more reviewed and mainstream name brand components which is why I listed the above stuff.

I would struggle to spend $500 on a saddle, drop bar, and crankset.

Again, my personal experience... not science. None of the carbon bikes held up like my best steel roadies. They developed creaks and were too flexy which turned me off for good. I don't care what lab tests show.. I'm here to tell you carbon bikes are more fragile. that's from experience not theory. For cross country, I'd be apprehensive on carbon. I have owned a 1991 Specialized Allez, 1993 OCLV and a mid to late 90's Kestrel. None of them inspired confidence for being bullet proof. But they were nice, fast and light bikes.

I have heard some good things about this rack and other products from Thule, designed for bikes that don't have eyelets.

Thule Pack 'n Pedal Tour Rack - Thule

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=500027

Since when is stronger tubing less durable? The thinner tube thicknesses are possible, because the steel is more durable and that translates also to impact resistance to a large extent.
Let's take standard chromoly and Reynolds 953 as comparison.

Chromoly UTS is 900 MPa
953 UTS is over 2000MPa

You can get a wall thickness that's half that of chromoly with 953 and it's still as durable as the twice as thick walled chromoly tube.
You translate that tensile strength to material strength and you can then calculate how said piece can deal with in terms of kilograms of force.

Back in iirc 1973 David Gidmark went to Victoria BC Canada, bought a cheap USED 10 speed with Shimano splined Selecta Drive crankset and rode it to somewhere in Newfoundland Canada. he wrote a book about that journey and titled it JOURNEY ACROSS A CONTINENT (1975Paperjacks) which kind of shows that a bicycle does not have to be expensive in order to be used enjoyably for touring.

Cheers

Are you suggesting thinner 853 (or whatever other high end) tubing is as durable to impact as thicker 4130 double butted tubing?

If so, i could link article after article showing that isnt thebcase. Thinner higher quality tubing has anhigher tensile strength which allows it to be thinner and therefore lighter, but it isnt as durable in that yes it more easily dents if thw same impact on the same part of the frame were done to it and the basic 4130 chomoly.

Well.. you certainly do have an interesting way of looking at things but I would not agree that it is reasonable. As a few others have said, quality is somewhat "qualified" by the intended purpose. They are making a bicycle, not surgical instruments. So, in that regard, the quality seems to be sufficient to the degree for which it is used. If one wants to over engineer a tool have at it but that is really just a want and not a practical consideration. The same holds true for the components.

It's like saying a Honda Civic is a poor quality car because you compare it to a Ferrari, citing better material and components. That seems to make sense except that in most cases "better" is usually qualified by way of some application. As a commuter vehicle for example, the Civic probably wins out.

You also twisted my words a bit there. I did not say I speak for all those people - I said I would reference their experience to validate my opinion. There is a difference. Here's what I said:

That is exactly what I'm saying

link the articles and I'll shoot them down as I doubt the dented frames are compareable to a touring frames. high end steel racing frames are usually pushing the envelope of durability as it is. that's why we even see broken steel frames (and of course manufacturing defects are possible as well)

but if you build a tourer with high end steel with sufficient wall thickness and consider that it's likely to be hardened (unlike basic chromoly) then yes, the impact resistance is likely to be compareable.

Who says you can't use the higher strength alloys in a thicker wall tube. Some of the better companies use multiple wall thicknesses and butt thicknesses in the same alloy. I addressed all this stuff in an earlier post. You are basically saying, is Chinese mystery steel, or something for a road racing bike. That is not the distinction at all.

Not really. Brooks seat, admitedly I stocked two from Nashbar when they were 67 dollars, but today 200 is not that hard to spend there; Nitto bars; Sugino cranks, none of that stuff is over the hill and far away in price, and you could go 500 on it. You couldn't touch it for 500 Canadian.

I have used a lot of LX hubs, and I do consider them good. No I do not use them, If I wouldn't use it, that is what I say, of course other people are fine with them. I use White hubs, and some day I will finish my Rohloff.

I don't get your point. I said elsewhere that on the complete, Surly has identified the cheapest parts that will do, and actually they have moved up from that, as I also said. What is the point you are making? You constantly say anything more is more than an LHT needs, but then say, it's perfect and nothing could be changed or improved. WHICH IS IT?

I don't have to show up for other people's gear, no I don't and don't see myself using that piece. This is what you don't get. Sure protein wey powder may be interchangeable with steak (or some powder is), you can eat the wey powder, I prefer the steak. At the end of the day, the nutrition may be equal.


Sugino is closer to 150, my other cranks are Whites. I wouldn't use the BB. I have white, and would also use Phil. I also have some 10 dollar NOS Nashbar ones that are surprisingly awsome. Why do people have to limit themselves to your Soviet department store choices?



I don't think I am alone in saying B17. And I actually demand a specific piece for every part of the bike. Look at every single part on a bike, and specify only the very best stuff, that is where I am at.

I am not responsible for how Surly has chosen to market stuff, they used to just sell the frame, then they allowed you to outfit it from the catalog, they still may, now apparently they make all the choices for you, well isn't that nice of them. I am surprised they don't supply a standard sized pair of shoes, "Oh you want ones that fit, how precious"

The bottom line is Surly = QPB, they seem to think stocking a world of options is ok for the QPB business just so long as nobody wants them on a bike when it suits them not to offer them.

A 60 dollar touring saddle is a joke. You can get cheap bars. I got vintage NOS Nittos no longer made and they were around 75, of course in the real world there is tax and shipping. B17s are in teh 100-200 range. though I got in at 67.

I'm not being audited am I. I jsut threw out a number that is maybe 100 high, but in the real world you could swallow that up with BB. And there are costs to shipping stuff. I round numbers because in fact I am getting this stuff in Canada and the price is way higher.

I am sure you would which is why you are not the ideal candidate for the job. You see only the lowest cost items, that is great, mostly what I do with every purchase. The only reason I flipped out for a few years on bikes is when I looked at all the bikes I had owned, they had all been mediocre, and there had been a lot of them. One thing I notice is people rushing around buying all the lattest gear at a lowish quality, and never really getting the nice stuff. When you buy the nice stuff you don't want to change it, and the overall price is about the same in the long run of 5-10 years.

It is all very charming to talk about what is in the bike relative to the purpose, but in reality we have no idea. I remain uninformed, and wish someone would inform me what is in the bike-tubing wise. I make frames for my own use, and when I make a frame, it isn't just "hey look, tubes" Every one is selected for a specific purpose, every dimension is known, and no way are they all the same. There are different degrees of this exercise, but even at the blunt end of the sepctrum there are plenty of decisions. And the choices are not just related to frame size but rider weight, which we do not get with the LHT. Butted Chromoly is a slogan not anything one can rely on.

And then there is the purpose. Touring? Please tell me what loads are going to come from that. Anything from me at 275 riding placidly down the road, to some dude falling into an open manhole in China.

So we have no real idea what is in the bike, the rider, or the use. It is just fun to talk as though we took it all into consideration.

It might be closer to you expounding on what the steel in a Honda axel is like and how there is no better steel for any purpose in the whole wide world. I think the Honda Civic is a pretty good car, that doesn't mean it can't be improved, probably Honda thinks they do that every year. And then there are all the tuners out there who have an astonishing number of improvements for almost every part.

Sure the Honda is a better commuter, than the F. but that is because it is in the appropriate category, not because of quality. The LHT is a better tourer than a tricycle (kid type) is, but I am not sure that says anything about quality.

Do you think that referring to the experiences of others to validate your opinion is what was being set as a standard for the OP. That sounds like a lot of internet crawling and conclusion extrapolating to me. Where are the hard won experiences and facts that were being required of him.

I do wonder why we keep supporting the guys who could give a hoot about us. There are tons of people out there still making touring bikes for tourists that fit, and probably aren't carbon. I know the OP wants some inexplicably lighter bike, but couldn't you get a Como with all the right parts for what he is paying (was it 4K). COmo is good because they probably won't blow it. There are usually local cheap makers who will do something for a price, but the outcome may be harder to assure.

I still think racks are a good option. It is very easy to attach anything you want to a carbon frame so attaching racks should not be ruled out. Sailboats have been down this path for a long time, but carbon likes to have things tied to it, or bonded. It is easier to get results on carbon than steel. Or no harder.

By the way, as far as the cost of getting stuff in Canada is concerned I am not talking about the current plunge in the C-buck, I bought 2 bikes worth of stuff when the dollar was at par. There are a lot of surplus costs, but one is the inability to use the lowest price because that low price seller is not a low price shipper. There are tons of internet places that shave say the Rivendell price, and others I have used in the past, but they have no experience shipping to Canada, and they jack prices on the shipping. I just mention it before someone jumps on my Candian cost point. I was talking 500 US, and that is pretty close to what heat treated bars, brooks, and cranks with bb cost if you have to use Riv, Speedgoat, Nashnar, and Spicer, two of whom are now gone.

Surly doesn't make bikes, they make frames, they just make you buy the rest of it because they make more money, and you save some also. But as appealing as that might be, it doesn't seem to be something we generally do when we buy other stuff. I wouldn't buy a pair of levis if I had to buy all the other things I wear in a day from them at the same time, and I had no choice over what that other stuff was. And at least with the clothes there aren't any safety issues to consider. For instance as with tires, or brakes or weak parts.

Dents are bad but whether they will affect global durability is another mater. All that says is that they are less durable against dents which would be a simple mater to solve when using some other thickness of tube. For instance a large rider might stick with an 969 wall thickness which is certainly nicely dent resistant and use the stronger steel rather than moving up a thickness. Basically when you have no choices it seems as though you have no choices, but in fact there are many many tubing choices available, you just have to be in a position to employ them.

Those are 25 year old bikes. I agree that steel is probably the better choice, but people can make strong carbon parts. This is the Hoyt ad where they drive over bow frames with trucks. Carbon is used in bows to lower weight, but they have to sell toughness also, so that is how they build the parts. But in 1990 I think they wanted mostly super light weight bikes, and they still do, when they use carbon, but there are some heavier carbon parts being made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQJ3Qa4Pkq0

Ok, if you absolutely have to have brooks, sugino or nitto for bling purposes then why not. You can spend as much as you want for bling, but it's not going to bring the functionality up at all. At some point the functionality gains of a certain component stops and you're paying for looks, the warm feeling of having something hand built etc.

Also, shifting the goal posts a little eh? CAD and USD are pretty different and on this forum the base currency is always USD if not specified otherwise. 500 CAD is about 350 USD which is quite a bit less than 500 USD

Wouldn't use shimano hubs either if I can avoid it, at least in the rear. Front hubs aren't all that important and don't really break. Hope is my choice in hubs.

This isn't a valid comparison at all. You have to completely different things here and it just doesn't work.
If you really need to compare something, then take two of the same thing, for example hammers. There are some pro titanium hammers out there that cost + $100USD and then there's your $20USD carpenters hammer for comparison. Not gonna say which one to choose but that's an example of a valid comparison (ok, I'd choose the cheap one, because the expensive thing doesn't give me anything, even if it is hand built in the US, which in itself isn't a good qualifier these days)

Shimano outboard BB's are some of the more reliable on the market today. And they're cheap / easy source. No need to make something expensive for the sake of it.
Also, I'd wager that $70USD shimano deore triple shifts better than the White crankset. The White crank is again bling and it's probably pretty durable as well, but honestly, what crankset isn't these days? Shimano stuff is best shifting anyways and their trickle down tech gets to the deore level pretty quickly.

Well, no, you can actually get a pretty dang good touring saddle for 60 dollars (Terry Figura or if you want to dish out a bit more, Arteria). But you want to know what is a joke? Brooks saddles. Their QC is ridiculous, their materials and manufacturing processes are ancient in no way suitable for modern bicycling. I mean if you gotta have a leather saddle then at least get a Gilles Berthoud. Now those are some good saddles with modern manufacturing and QC. Actually GB's are probably the best saddles out there. It's sad I can't fit them though.

Lowest price stuff is the Shimano no name series. You have quite a few tiers above that. If you really want to go with the best quality possible then XT is your choice and it's still a fraction of the price some of these American manufacturers cost. The fact that it's made in the US doesn't make it good by definition, actually in many cases it's the opposite.

Although, I do concede that I don't prefer shimano bearing systems as I like cartridge stuff so my bike bearing carrying parts are mainly made by Hope.

My move away from racks was then followed by using a carbon bike. I think a CF touring bike with proper rack mounts would perform very well, but no major manufacturer is going to make one so that leaves small and custom shops and the bike will necessarily be expensive. If you can liberate yourself from racks it opens up an enormous range of fantastic CF bikes that are great for touring.

GB is too much bling for me. I must have bag loops on my saddle so that limits me a bit. GB and Brooks have the loops and I Buy brooks because they are less expensive and work well for me. I have tried bolt on bag loops with other saddles, but they don't stand up well to a 12lb bag and extended touring.

Reading about how every part of your bikes are so awesome was fun. Glad you saw a way to thump your own chest in the discussion. So glad you know more than the Surly bicycle company. I just wish you could respond to an argument directly though because you twist the meaning to suit your own rhetorical talking points.

For my part; the OP keeps saying a particular model of bike is low quality and I simply asked him to provide some sort of evidence to show what makes it so.

Could any bike be improved? Of course. Using that as a basis of current quality is foolhardy however and what every marketer bases their sales pitch on. Is your I Phone 6 a good quality smart phone? Because next year there will be an I phone 7 that will be way better than that crappy I Phone 6.

That's why most people believe in "good enough" over "the absolute best" because there is no absolute and waiting for it is paralyzing. People want to tour and so they buy a bike within their budget in the here and now that is "good enough" for the purpose. Not rocket science.

No it wouldn't. When discussing a bike we look at it as a whole and do not obsess on one particular aspect of it. I said good touring bike, not good touring axle. If you want to argue which alloy is best for spoke nipples that's another thread. And most people don't forge their own metal so they have to rely on some sort of descriptor like Steel or Aluminum alloy and it's quality. Someone can build a $45K bike out of carbon and hand sculpted each part if they want but that still doesn't mean other lower cost bikes aren't good quality touring bikes. Unless of course, you are that awesome of a rider that nothing less will do.

Yes, that would be fine. I would accept that. If the OP could show a baseline of cyclists that tour on LHT's and then report that their bike was crappy and failed and was just an overall low quality bike I would say there is some evidence to support his position. And it would be real world evidence in that people actually used the product and gave a review of its performance. Why is that so hard? It's how we do every other product on the market. As it stands, a lot of people tour with them, report on their tours, and do not make mention of poor quality. But of course you have already dismissed that by suggesting they don't know better and/or wouldn't know quality if they saw it. As for people not reporting overall poor quality issues on such a widely used model... really?

The Velo ORANGE Blog: Steel is... steel?

One of many. After coming back to thia thread and reading the rants which go way too far off course, i gotta say i am out and lost interest in the discussion.

Its been my understanding that high quality thinner tubing dents easier, even though its as strong as thicker lower end tubing. The strength isnt in its dent resistence, but its ability to be created thinner while still providing the structural stremgth once assembled.
If that isnt the case, i would love to learn, but this thread derailed.

Doesn't even have to be a different steel alloy .. still seamless, just not made thinner in the center,

which is what double butting is.. saves a manufacturing process cost.

ends thicker tube wall for joint strength. but may only be a tenth of a MM. difference in tube wall thickness.



long posts on minutiae is just part of cabin fever when you are snowed in and thinking about other stuff.