Sharpshin

A pawn shop find a couple of weeks back: a vintage Specialized Hardrock scarcely ridden at all since originally purchased. Turns out this was the base model for the 1995 model year (MSRP:$429, equivalent to $690 today). Pawn shop cost was $100, not a steal maybe but worth it to me.

Here it is at present, from components I had on hand I switched out the wheels (Universal Cycles), tires (2.0 Serfas Drifter w/Mr Tuffy strip in front, 2.0 Schwalbe Marathon Plus Tour in back), pedals (Nashbar Verge) and added a rack and set of Ortleib bags. Headset and bottom bracket yet to be replaced, 8 speed cassette on back works fine with original "7 speed" grip shift.

20046723_693268160857003_1707841082775033794_n.jpg

A sweet and quite lightweight steel frame. Immediate downsides are only two water bottle attachments and no provision for a front rack.

What are the pros and cons of touring on these things?

How does the frame and frame geometry compare with modern purpose-built "adventure-touring" and "world-touring" bikes?

Thanks,
Mike

jefnvk

Pros: you have a $100 touring bike that will work just as well as many more expensive options.
Cons: you don't have the prestige that comes with spending a lot more money that some folks value.

If it fits you, is suited for the roads you are on, and hauls the gear you need to take, ride it and be happy! I can't tell for certain, but it seems it has front eyelets, you can mount a front rack using P-clamps or U-bolts. Likewise, if you just want a small platform, you can get something like this: Nashbar Sixer Front Rack

Two bottle mounts should be plenty unless you really plan on going out of civilization, in which case you'd likely need more than a third bottle anyhow. You can always hose clamp on a third one to the down or top tube, too.

I'd personally get an 8 speed shifter, if you have an 8 speed cassette. No point in cheaping out on a $15 part.

bradtx

Mike, That should be an excellent commuter, day tripper and hub and spoke style touring bike that's also well suited for non technical off-road excursions.

There are parts available to install either a non low rider front rack, large or small, or to adapt a low rider rack to the fork for longer tours. I do highly recommend bar-ends for an extra hand position.

Brad

PS I had a similar mid '90s 8XX Trek that I still kick myself in the rear for selling!

Happy Feet

Here's my current 91 Marin that I've gone across Western Canada and through the Rockies on.

Pro's: it works
Cons: none

P1120351 (2) by dc460, on Flickr

If you want more hand positions you can add bar ends without affecting the grip shifters or use trekking/bullhorns by adding simple mtb brake/shifters.
Like those Drifters. I almost bought some for a build I'm doing on an 84 Diamondback but went with Panaracer Paselas 26 x 1.75 instead.. but it was close. You can get 1L water bottles to fit those two cages or swap them out for cargo cages and carry 1.5L bottles if you wish. Or just add a cage using an adapter somewhere else.

MarcusT

The first question I ask; Is it comfortable? It is a nice bike and you got a great deal, but if you cannot ride all day...

bikemig 

It's tough to beat a vintage mtb as a platform for a touring and adventure bike pricewise. There is nothing out there that can touch this bike at $100.

gerryl

It's a good bike if it's comfortable. If you do basic maintenance on it, it will outlast you and take you anywhere you want. As already mentioned, the downside is that it isn't expensive enough and lacks overpriced boutique components.

Timequake

Hell yeah! I am constantly suggesting mid-90s mountain bikes as touring bikes. They're cheap, have great geometry, touring capable components and gear ratios, and are able to haul weight. What you just bought is essentially the same thing as a Surly Long Haul Trucker. There really are no downsides to this bike. And if you're set on a front rack, you can always attach one with P-clamps. Great find. I'm jealous!

Arvadaman

I love 80's / 90's rigid MTB touring conversions.

Pros: Inexpensive, rugged, more on the expedition end of touring, already has low gears, very utilitarian, will take you just about anywhere you want to go, can fit wide tires, parts are inexpensive and readily available

Cons: Can be a little heavy, the 1-1/8" stem can be limiting if you need to raise the handlebars, not for those who are into fast, can have shorter chain stays, you found it and bought it before I did

I would put on a pair of trekking handlebars and ride it into the sunset.

Arvadaman

As for comparison to expedition tourers, compare it to this. Looks very similar to an old school MTB to me.

Tom's Expedition Bike: Complete Specification & Image Gallery ? Tom?s Bike Trip

J.Higgins 

Double HELL YEAH! I'm building up a pristine mid-90's Gary Fisher Marlin right now. It looks liek it might have been ridden once and then lost in the back of someone's garage clutter for 20 years. If you just look around, you can usually find an older steel-framed mtb for cheap money, and I scarf 'em up when I find 'em.

Re: your cons. I've found that it's often easier and cheaper to simply purchase a new fork, which will upgrade your bike to a threadless stem, -AND- give you the opportunity to get your desired handlebar height. This is also great if you plan to upgrade the bike to disc brakes also, because you can also choose to get a fork that will accept a disc brake. The best way in my opinion, is to get a Surly Troll fork - Surly Troll Fork > Components > Forks & Suspension > Rigid Mountain Forks | Jenson USA then you've got all the mounts that you could ever want.

Excellent rear disc brake adapters can be had for Trek/Gary Fisher/Specialized/Giant, which will bolt right up to the rear dropouts.

Looking good, Mike! You are on your way to building a very good bike. Best of all, you can refine stuff as you go. FWIW, I have a Hardrock frame just like it waiting to be built up.

Trevtassie

Basically what you have there is a Surly Troll. The rear stays look to be the same length, and the new troll doesn't have suspension corrected forks.
My first two bikes were old MTBs. the second one cost me $50 and I toured from Vancouver, Vancouver Island and down to SF on it, I have a Troll now and there isn't a lot of difference in the geometry or handling. The Troll feels slightly more stable, but I descend like a lunatic and carry a lot of stuff, the average person likely wouldn't notice the difference. And the first thing I did was pull the Surly stickers off because I reckon they are a bunch of wankers.

No real cons apart from the lack of mid fork eyelets, as someone else said you can get a set of the later model non corrected Surly Troll Forks and a new stem and head set to fix this. Or you can do what I did on my first couple of bikes, use U clamps wrapped in tape for the mid fork mount (you can buy these from a good hardware shop) and a quill stem adapter to fit a 1 1/8 stem so you can tweak bar height and reach.

In terms of comfortable and cheap handlebars, look at either butterfly/trekking or my latest favorite VO Crazy bars (although the Ergon GC1 grips that work best with these might whack your budget a little). Both will work with your existing controls.

cyccommute 

Give it a rest! What other people spend on their bikes isn't a concern to 99.9999% of the population and the opinion of the remainder doesn't matter.

That said, there is value in using a touring bike that is built for the purpose. A touring bike's frame geometry and construction solves a lot of problems that can arise from using nontouring frames.

To cut to the chase: no, this bike doesn't compare to purpose-built touring bikes. Mountain bikes were built for the purpose of riding off-road on trails with conditions that you'll never experience on a smooth trail. Early mountain bikes (1983 to about 1990) were very long with very slack head angles which make them extremely stable on downhills but lead to a lot of control issues on up hills...the front wheel tends to flop from side to side and the bike wanders a lot of trails.

By the mid90s, mountain bikes were changing the geometries to push the rider further forward to center the rider on the bike. The head angle steepened which is good for mountain biking by may not be that good for touring. Mid90s bikes also had lower head tubes which means that the rider is pushed further down to better center the rider's weight. The wheels didn't flop anymore but they lost a bit of comfort. The frames also pushed the rider further forward with longer top tubes which also has an effect on comfort. Additionally, the bottom bracket is very high to give the bike ground clearance for off-road riding.

A touring bike, on the other hand, doesn't need to center the riders weight as much and even has a slight rearward bias. The top tube is shorter so that the rider sits up a little bit, the wheelbase is longer, and the bottom bracket it lower to give a stable ride especially when loaded. Most touring bikes also have stronger top tubes so that the bike doesn't set up resonating vibrations which result in the dreaded "death wobble".

While it is true that you can touring on anything, you may not want to. Some bikes can be a real handful when loaded and some just aren't that comfortable. I doubt you would have any handling issues with this one but, as the former owner of one of these, it's not all that comfortable for long rides. Off-road it will jar your teeth out and on-road it will make everything it touches numb.

saddlesores

i have the above referenced small platform racks on both of my bikes, good for about 10 pounds.
can carry a gallon of water for long, dry runs.

for front bags, go with a vintage blackburn lowrider, mounts with u-bolt clamps.

stick with what you have until it doesn't work for you. 7 speed rear is plenty for touring, and
you'd probably find you never use that wee, tiny 11T cog anyways.

jefnvk

Yeah, 7 speed is fine, but if the 8 speed cassette is back there anyhow and the RD supports it, the couple bucks an 8 speed shifter costs is worth the benefit of an extra gear (at least to me).

New SRAM MRX Comp 8-spd grip shifts can be had on eBay for under $10 shipped.

Edit: in case you are interested https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-SRAM-MRX...4AAOSw~e5ZWGYF

Happy Feet

Yeah.. nah.

One of the things I'm always interested in, because I actually tour on a converted mtb, is how it stacks up against the frames of other touring bikes. So when I meet other riders on the road I look at that issue. Pretty much the same as the more modern sloping tube style of touring bike and most other people get that. The difference comes in components such as disc vs canti, 10 or 11 sp vs 7 etc... Numbing out is a bi product of poor fit, not design and with today's accessories you can adjust almost any angle of seat height and bars. Riding a stock mtb and then suggesting it doesn't feel good touring is a bit disingenuous; of course one will adjust the bikes components for conditions otherwise yeah, the knobbies suck too.

But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. If someone can crank out 100+Km days and match other tourers when comparing stops along a route the bike probably gets the job done. One benefit I enjoy with my rigid mtb is being able to do those long km's on pavement and then leaving the bags at camp to ride trail systems.

P1120374 (2) by dc460, on Flickr

zzzz20170507_132404 by dc460, on Flickr

zzzz20170507_131632 by dc460, on Flickr

LeeG

Excellent set up. I wouldn't bother making a comparison between the range of modern "adventure touring" bikes and "these things" made from old non shock mtn bikes. There's just too big a range from a short top tube Bridgestone with drop bars to a long cockpit HardRock like yours with Safari bars.

Your bike has platform pedals, what appears to be a relatively low seat height and high/forward bar position, and hella tough and heavy rear wheel. If that's the set up you like and feels right that's really all that matters. Personally I'd experiment around with loading and not dump everything on the rear rack. If my recollection is correct it isn't a heavy frame and I'd be shy about putting a large tail wagging weight on the rear.

Lots of ways to put on a front rack and add more bottles. My preference for 26" wheels and front rack is a platform rack then move the panniers as far back as possible to be in line with the fork and not far forward. It overlaps the brakes a couple inches so a couple layers of gorilla tape is needed where it touches the brake. Not as much of an issue with direct pull. I found in commuting that low riders and 26" wheels puts the panniers right near curb height and definitely isn't something I'd want on trails with rocks and bushes.

Some possibilities:

https://store.velo-orange.com/index....ront-rack.html

I have the older version of the VeloOrange on a CrossCheck attached to the brake posts with p-clamps instead of a single tang to the fork crown. It is very solid. Only fits front panniers that have adjustable clips but would make a fine platform for a compression dry bag or two medium dry bags strapped down on the sides and clipped together over the top.
Lucas Mini Front Rack | SOMA Fabrications

bradtx

@cyccommute, sharpshin, already has a nicely updated and upgraded older Schwinn touring bike to compare with. A con point is that the Hardrock may not allow heel clearance with some of the larger sized panniers. Easy enough for him to determine quickly.
@Sharpshin, I failed to mention earlier that I think a twist grip shifter frees up a little extra space to move your hands about. If you can find an 8S (or a 9S + cassette + chain) set of twist grips inexpensively it would allow the full range of the cassette when in the middle ring.

Brad

mobilemail

Some of my favorite touring bikes have been vintage mountain bikes. I suppose I may not know enough about "true" touring bikes to realize I shouldn't be having fun! :-) The way I see it, there are lots of pictures of folks in the '70s with backpacks, cut-off jeans, questionable bikes and having the time of their life. They always remind me to not overthink it, do whatever it takes to get you on the road.

My Cannondale, waiting for me to have enough time off work to go for an adventure! (I also have fenders and front low-rider racks, not shown.)

djb

mobile, did you purposely set up those trekking bars "upside down" like that? I assume you did it on purpose to have the bars lower a bit?
There is certainly no right or wrong, just wondering.

Happy Feet

Yes. I dont think anyone would say this style is better or equal to a modern touring specific build but it does provide a perfectly adequate and less expensive alternative that works.

J.Higgins 

Nice bike. Solid as a rock!

mobilemail

Yes, I did that intentionally. I found that the bar having a slightly downward slope instead of upward allowed for a more natural wrist angle...at least for me and my most favored hand positions.

HobbesOnTour

Hi Mike,

I tour on a 90's MTB. A Basic Trek 800.
Changed out the wheels because the stock back wheel couldn't cope .

Long chainstays so no issues with clearance.

In fact, once out of curiosity, I checked out the specs in comparison to a LHT and they're surprisingly similar.

The fact that it's old and looks kinda crappy means that I don't worry about parking it up. I don't think I could splash out on a brand new Touring specific bike - I'd be petrified every time I walked away from it.

It is a bit heavy..... but then, look at my gear . And besides, speed is not really my thing.

I picked this picture especially for you to give you an idea of what you can do for attaching bottles to the bike

That's an Old Man Mountain (Pioneer, I think) rack on the front attached through the hub and the brake bosses.

Are there "better" bikes out there? Of course there are.... but this one does me just fine.

Enjoy yours!

Frank

Timequake

No. A "touring bike" is a bike you tour with. You do not need to buy a purpose built touring bike to have a good tour. I've put thousands of miles on 90's mountain bikes and they work just fine. The wheels don't "flop from side to side" and the bike doesn't "wander." I understand your need to create excuses for throwing thousands of dollars at new bikes to satisfy your consumerism, but it is completely unhelpful in this conversation. The bike in question will make a fine touring bike.