Yan 

17mph vs 17.01mph is the same logical fallacy I just explained to you. If you can't comprehend it I'm not sure if there is any more point in me explaining again.

elcruxio

I'm confused. You're here arguing for fast but as I've understood you ride marathon plusses? That's not a fast tire. Surprisingly fast for what it is yes but still a slow tire.

If you truly cared about fast you'd be riding tubeless supple tires and wouldn't be so concerned about width. Width matters less than tire choice.

Personally I like my tires 40+mm because I've only ever done road tours in developed countries and by doing so racked thousands of clicks of gravel. It would seem that the most interesting routes are often gravel.

Yan 

I use different tires depending on the terrain I'm expecting to experience on a particular tour. I have some Marathon Pluses in the closet yes, but I also have some Marathon Supremes. I have 21mm road tires too that I use for credit card tours. Different tour, different tires depending on conditions.

I can't do tubeless because I fly to many tours and flying with the sealant mess is a pain.

elcruxio

So take a bottle and fill em and pump em at destination.

21mm is obsolete. Not even the pro's use 21mm anymore. That's track width these days. There really isn't a single good reason for 21mm on the road.

Yan 

Obsolete since what cutoff date? I've had these tires in my closet for going on ten years. They rarely get used. But I'm not going to throw a pair of tires out just because I saw something on TV. They will be thrown out when they are worn out or when they rot from age, whichever is earlier.

mstateglfr 

Ok, this explains a lot and makes discussing the topic further a dumb thing to do.


Hey OP- good luck on finding the bike you want. A Fairlight Faran would be sweet!

I clearly didnt stay away from the touring forum long enough.
All this thread needs is cycco to chime in.

Yan 

​​​​​
I bought them years ago when I was an expat in China riding their ungodly perfect roads. Now I'm back and these tires don't see much use. As I keep saying, ride tires that suit the condition.

​​​​​

Germany_chris

Because Yan showed up

phughes

And once you are at speed, the extra mass act like a flywheel in a car, which makes maintaining the speed easier.

phughes

Looking like another add for the ignore pile.

indyfabz

Can’t ignore that, and how, others chose to respond.

Time to bounce.

GamblerGORD53

This bike is a gravel 2x 29er I guess, so reasonable enough to call it speced to be a tour bike. This seat is way up for a basketball player type it looks like, 3" above the stem, not normal at all. The rack mount height isn't bad at all compared to the high tires. It's slope isn't much more than 2", hardly any resemblance to Surly Troll type bikes that have a brace at the seat tube/ TT joint. Does that make sense?? NO.

mstateglfr 

My road bikes and gravel bike have 3" of saddle to bar drop. It's quite common to see, actually.
My touring bike has 2.5" of saddle to bar drop.

^ that is determined by body geometry- arm length, torso length, and leg length. Your ignorance thru judgment is showing out big time.

As for you saying that tip tube angle isn't much, it's more than the amount you said looks bad, which is why I posted it- to show it actually isn't bad looking. Can you even follow your own criticism?

veganbikes

That Fairlight is pretty nice I think I am close to sold on it. Reynolds 853, plenty of tire clearance or so it seems. 2x compatible, a nice looking Carbon fork with internal dynamo and brake routing (though curious on max rotor size they say 140/160 but no max listed) and it looks quite clean. The Faran which is 631 and has a Surly style zit fork is pretty nice as well I wish they had the head tube of this on the Secan and I would Secan and destroy my bank account to buy one. I could swap the fork with one of those Cinq forks or Rodeo Sporks which I think can do 180 but at least can mount racks.

Back to your topic most of my road bikes have a similar saddle to bar drop though I am kind of liking something a little less droppy these days. Like you said it is all based in body geometry and of course your own comfort but that is again heavily based back into fit. I know people who are most comfortable in those more "aero" positions and I know people who are riding a chopper heck I have seen one guy who has long arms and bars probably 2 feet up and he rides a lot and seems comfortable.

LeeG

So what are you getting? My $.02 ruling out frame materials is kinda silly since design and geometry determines optimum use. Determine your preferred riding posture and make the seat/bars fit that. Make sure the tires have air. Once you’re riding all the stuff about specs doesn’t matter. What other people ride is what other people ride.
Do you know where you like the bars to be relative to the seat? Do you have a preference for drops or upright bars? If you haven’t figured that out then the other stuff is putting the cart before the horse.
From my old and out of shape perspective 90% of popular bike design is skewed towards high energy output and responsive handling that 75% of the riding public doesn’t have the skills to utilize. I used to race in my 20’s and owned a bike shop during the 80’s and presently have a 26” wheel Surly LHT, Rivindell ClemSmithJr, Surly Cross Check, REI DRT 2.2. The CrossCheck has drop bars and the rest Jones bars.
I wouldn’t look to four panniers for light touring.

LeeG

What is the weight you would carry in a 70L pack?

indyfabz

I did a week in Glacier National Park with 55 lbs. gross weight. IIRC, the pack is 85L. My guide carried 78 lbs. gross in his big Dana Designs pack. That was way back in ‘03. Today, my tent and sleeping bag alone would shave probably 5 lbs.

Tourist in MSN

When I did Glacier Waterton loop with ACA about a decade ago, I had a pair of Ortlieb front loaders (25 liters), pair or back loaders (40 liters) and a handlebar bag (roughly 5 liters) that summed up to about 59 pounds including the pannier weight and empty handlebar bag weight. I also had another rack top bag, but not citing the weight of that as that would exceed the 70 liter criteria you specified. This does not include the rack weights and does not include water bottle weights.

One day I got very bored waiting at the campground for others to roll in, since I had a luggage scale with me I measured the weights, thus have a rather precise weight for those specific bags. That is the only time that I have actually measured my bag weights on a trip.

ADDENDUM ADDED A DAY LATER:

Some people on this forum compare backpacking gear with bike touring gear. I am much more careful about weight with backpacking, as that weight is on my feet, not on wheels. This past summer did two weeks of backpacking. My 70 liter pack weighed about 42 pounds at the start, that included about 12 pounds of food (6 days of food, re-supplied another 6 days of food after a week) and about 3 pounds of water. The empty weight of that backpack is 5 pounds and 1 oz. Subtracting food, water, and pack weight, the contents of the 70 liter pack was about 22 pounds. Thus, for backpacking my weight is a lot lighter than the bike touring weight cited above.

indyfabz

Heh. I did that loop with the GF back in ‘09. Except for one three day trip, I hadn’t done a tour since’00. Roosville, Sparwood, Pincher Creek then Waterton Village, where we were supposed to have a rest day. We learned that the west side of Logan was not going to be open, so we rode to St. Mary the next day and then did a century around the park to W. Glacier and on to Sprague Creek Campground so we would at least have a chance to ride some of the west slope of GTS. The GF was so spent she walked into the men’s room by accident.

While the east side didn’t open, we were able to make it to Logan Pass sans gear and then back down. Had a great meal at the lodge that night. Headed back to Whitefish the day after that.

I don’t know how much weight I was carrying, but it was a lot. The 3P tent was 6.5 lbs. Fun trip.

drlogik 

With camera and fishing gear from 50 to 60 lbs on a 5 day trip. On a 3 day trip I carry less food so I take a smaller pack but it still weighs around 45 to 50 pounds with the same gear.

drlogik 

I haven't made up my mind yet but leaning toward a Surly Disk Trucker or the Fairlight Secan, but I need to call them to see if the Secan can handle quad panniers.

Chuck Naill

Wow, good for you. I never wanted more than 30-35 lbs.

drlogik 

​​​​​​​

Yeah, minus the camera and fishing gear my pack would weigh about the same.

mstateglfr 

The Secan fork is not built to handle front panniers. It is built to hold 'anything' cages and a max of 3kg per blade.

The Faran frame with its steel fork is designed to handle a front rack and panniers.