Hey everyone. I've searched and read (a lot, actually), but would greatly appreciate your feedback.

So, my question is: is the Jamis Aurora the right bike for me? I mean, I know I have to get one that feels good, but in terms of what I intend to do, and the budget consciousness I have, is the Aurora the right steed?

I went to the a few bike shops in my area and saw a total of 2 touring bikes (and probably 2 cyclocross bikes). One shop had a 62 cm Aurora in stock, so I took it for a ride. (I'm 6'3", with fairly long legs, and pretty long arms. Also weigh ~215 or so atm).

The Aurora felt good, though honestly I don't have much to compare it against except my cheap x-mart mountain bike.

I intend this bike to be used mainly for fitness/road riding. I want something that I will be happy with as a road bike. I want something that will be comfortable on long rides, I want something that will be reasonably fast and light. Though given my size, I don't think there's much point in worrying over a pound or two.

However, I want the ability to take the bike onto the local rails to trails, and someday I'd love to do the C&O canal/ATA trail from Pittsburgh to Washington DC.
I would also like to do some tourning. How long, I don't know.

Budget is, unfortunately, a big consideration. Quite frankly, this would be a big purchase for me, so I like the price of the Aurora relative to the Randonnee/LHT/520...

It seems like the Aurora is basically a Nova with longer chainstays and tiagra vs. 105 components. So, in that regard, if I wanted to take the Aurora off road, I should be able to.

So, any input is welcome and appreciated here.

The only negative thing I could see would be the gearing up front (52/42/30) but you would only need lower gearing if you're doing fully loaded touring where there is hills.

The frame and fork are really nice. 520 Reynolds DB for the frame. It's got all the brazeons and eyelets needed and it has lowrider brazeons on the front fork.

I would go for it but see if they can switch out the crankset for a trekking or MTB style with lower gears.

I posted this a few months ago in this thread.
I agree the small ring could be smaller for loaded touring, but it worked fine for our Oregon Coast and Central Oregon loaded tours. From what I read about the Appalachians though, I'll probably look for a 28 or 26T for our TransAm next year.
In addition to touring, I ride this bike everywhere, commuting, rain, centuries, even some light off-roading. I put more miles on this bike each year than any of my others. Oh, and ditch the saddle. Replace with a Brooks.

I have a 2006 Aurora and I can't say enough good things about this bike. I use it for short rides (daily commuter, 13 miles round trip), weekend training rides (20-40 miles) and longer events (MS150). I customized it with SPD pedals, Brooks B17 saddle, fenders, rear rack, lights and cyclocomputer. I had to replace the rear wheel when I hit a pothole really hard but otherwise I haven't had any problems in 2800 miles. I frequently ride with 30-40 lbs in the rear panniers and the bike handles well, without much squirreliness. I haven't done any touring so can't comment on that.

I live in Pittsburgh as well and the gearing works fine for the hills. With 30x32 you can spin up just about any hill, while the 52x11 lets you charge down the other side. I've ridden on some short stretches of packed stone trails but I'd want to fit wider tires (700x32?) for a prolonged ride.

I looked at the Randonnee and Trek 520 as well, but I think the Aurora is the better value.

Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. I do have a couple more questions.

Really, is there anything that a cyclocross bike can do that a touring bike can't? It seems that the answer is no, that the tourer might give up a few pounds, but otherwise, no.

I see so many positive posts on here about the Surly LHT. First off, the LHT will likely be at least $150 more expensive (budget, again, is important), though it comes stock with wider tires and lower gearing.

My main use of the bike, though, will be a combination of road riding for fitness and riding on crushed limestone rail trials. I want the ability to tour in the future, but honestly, that will not be the bike's primary use.

So given that, which is basically my desire for a road bike (but one that can take wider tires and fit racks/fenders), would the better choice be the LHT or the Aurora? Would the LHT be heavier?

Or is it more that once one settles on a touring bike in that price range, is it just preference on fit/color/bar-end v. STI shifters/etc.?

Thanks again.

I did the Pittsburgh to Washington trip last month on an Aurora and it worked well (https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/keith). It's definitely a great trip and you should do it the first chance you can.

Here are my thoughts about the Aurora:

-- The bike is laid out nicely and it's good quality overall but it's got quick steering so it's a bit dicey jamming on it out of the saddle. It was VERY unstable pulling a BOB trailer since the frame is pretty flexible. You'll need to adjust your riding style when it's loaded down (no standing).

-- The saddle that comes with it is passable but I put on a Brooks Champion Flyer (a B17 with springs) for the GAP/C&O trip and it was worth the extra weight. Definitely recommended for the gravel trails.

-- The Ritchey seatpost SUCKS and kept slipping in my training rides. Replace it with something heavier duty that clamps. I got a deal on a Bontrager post that clamps the seat more rigidly.

-- Same with the seatpost bolt. We had to replace that in the bike shop before I bought it to keep it from slipping. Get a bigger bolt on there.

-- The tires are decent and good for commuting but I upgraded them to Schwalbe Marathons (700x35) for the rail trails and haven't had a flat.

-- The gearing (as mentioned above) is too high for the Pittsburgh/DC area. I had a 26 tooth gear put on and it was still a bit too high for me (maybe you are stronger though). I'd go to a 24 tooth for the low gear if possible even if it means dropping the other gears down a bit as well. I never use the topmost ratios and unless you are a super athlete I doubt you would either.

Overall, I am happy with the bike but given that it's needed so many little upgrades it may make sense to spend a bit more for a higher end bike. I'll likely keep it for a few years unless I decide to do a cross-country trip or something.

It sounds to me like the Jamis is exactly what you are looking for. Why do I say this:
1. It fits your budget. 'Nuff said.

2. It fits your needs. What you need is a versatile road bike, and touring bikes are very versatile.
-You can go fast on pavement, though it's not for racing.
-It can haul a load better than a racing bike.
-It can ride in a little dirt, like hardpack/crushed limestone trails. I even took my Nashbar touring bike on some singletrack recently after equipping it with some cyclocross tires, and it did pretty well.

Since you haven't described "racing" as something you might want to do with your bike, then what you need is a touring bike, and the Jamis is the one that seems to fit your budget. I happen to like Jamis' stuff. They make great bikes at an affordable price. Their Dakar mountain bikes are now a 10 year old design that have been copied by everyone else.

You can quibble over parts, but things like seats are changeable. The Aurora's frame is great quality. You won't go wrong or be sorry you bought a Jamis.

Rich (who is not in any way associated with the Jamis company, other than owning a Jamis Quest currently).

Jamis makes some very good bikes. The Aurora will be good for most road riding and long rides.

It won't be super-fast, but a bike built for pure speed a) won't be particularly comfortable, b) won't work well for touring, and c) won't get you any more or less fit than a touring bike.

The LHT is really more of a pure touring bike, by the way. If touring is a minor concern, and the Aurora fits, go for it.

I bought a 50cm 2008 Jamis Aurora and love that it's geometry is so similar to my Soma Double Cross. It even has the rear brake cable routed along the side of the top tube for limited cyclocross and occasional hike a bike action. Most of the my components were immediately swapped out for slightly better but slightly used Ultegra and LX I had laying around though.

I have three comments:

Budget for a second well built 32-spoke road wheelset and run the 700x28c Zaffiro Tires on them. They aren't quite enough for rail trails and crushed limestone stuff. Running wider tires on a 30-40 milers also makes them much tougher than they have to be.

Put some wider tires on the OEM wheels ans use them for the rail trails and such. Make sure a good wheel man goes over them for proper tension and stress relieving. You may have to let a little air out to get tires with big, 37mm or larger casings between the rear brakes.

I use mine in the rain a lot and the stock brakes suck in the wet stuff. Get some Kool Stop Salmon Thinline pads on there. They will also help with the rear brake clearance.

Concerning the gearing on the Aurora.
I've ridden an LHT in the past, which I believe has a low gear of something like 26tx34t. The Jamis, as mentioned, has a 52 42 30 chainwheel with an 11-32 cassette.

Now, I remember that the LHT felt geared VERY, VERY low. Would that combination be necessary except over the roughest hills with a full load?

Could the bike shop simply replace the smallest chain ring with a 26T cog? (I don't think they could given the road triple)

Would placing an 11-34T cassette be low enough on the Aurora?

I do like the LHT a lot. However, given the riding I anticipate doing the most, I think I'd be happier with STI shifters.




DuckFat- Great writeup on your ATA/C&O trip. I did the C&O canal part when I was a kid. I think it would be awesome riding the whole way from the Pittsburgh Area (especially the Ohiopyle area). I just wish I could do it such that I'd be able to take the time to see, for example, Antietam/Harpers Ferry/South Mountain/etc.

Thanks Everyone

My Aurora is being set up with a 24-38-48 rings but the 30-32 gear has worked for everything I've done so far. I don't even need the lowest gear to climb the 6% hill to get back home with six bags of groceries. Only time I've used it was for a 12% hill while riding in cold, wet, rainy conditions where my body was likely stealing blood from my legs to keep my core warm. I probably won't need the new lowest gear for anything but the most extreme climbs while fully loaded.

A 26T should work fine with an 11-32, but a chain keeper could be necessary with the 16-tooth drop from the 42T. A 28T ring should work fine with an 11-34 too. You should verify the chain is long enough before installing the 11-34 though. I don't think I'd use smaller than a 28T with an 11-34. It usually works but pushes the rated capacity of the rear derailleur farther than I would care to.

The LHT is almost like driving an F-250. Are you going to haul that much that often? I get by just fine with my mid-size Aurora and my compact Double Cross. They get much better mileage.

I'm just getting back to cycling after 20 years out of the saddle, so take what I say in the past tense. My favorite bikes back then were the ones I built myself. They got the most use and there was something special between rider and bike.

I was planning to ride acroos the US, and I had the Trek 720 frame ready to be built up, but I hurt a knee before I could put that plan into any further action.

So if I was going to tour, I would build my own bike. Building your own bike has extra emphasis for touring, I would think, where you may have to do your own repairs on the road.

If you're considering off roading, note that the Aurora does not have clearance for enormous tires. Mine can just barely fit treaded 35s (mythos cx). I'm staring at them right now in comparison to some 32s... and the 32s look bigger. So maybe check on clearance carefully before buying. The longer crank arms will also potentially be a problem off road. The bars are nice because they are shallow, but also narrow. So-so leverage. But for fireroads and such, you'll be decent.

I don't have any experience with other touring bikes, but the Aurora handles really good loaded. Not as good, perhaps, as a loaded LHT, but it's also a little quicker unlaoded. If your frame of reference is road bikes or racey cyclocros bikes, and it may not be super fun to ride, but for me it was a good first road bike, and a great all-rounder. And yes, very comfortable on long rides.

Also, while the gearing may be a *little* steep for loaded touring, 30-32 is still a really low gear. It was fine for me getting over the Oregon coast range. And the higher gears will be good for all your non-touring uses.

It's a great bike, and if nothing else, the component value for the price is awfully good.

Note: I have the 2007 model.

Thanks, everyone, for the replies you've given.

I decided to go with the Aurora. I bought it last night.

I had the shop swap out the stock tires with `32mm slicks. I also had the shop change the rear cassette to an 11-34. I figured this would give me a little bit lower gearing.

Otherwise, I still need racks/fenders/computer/lights/peddals, but all that stuff is less important than having the bike to ride.

Thanks again.

Chief, let us know how you like it. I read in another post that you had just, briefly, ridden it. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on it after you get to know it a little. And post a nice picture if you will.

Greetings from Oregon! I am a newbie to the forum learning a lot from all of you experienced folks. I am looking at a Jamis Aurora for my first road/touring bike. LBS does not have any in stock but is expecting a 53cm soon. The Aurora frame geometry suggests that this could be the right size for me (I am 5'8" with a 32.5" inseam/PBH). As it will be a few weeks before I will be able to test ride this, I would appreciate other Aurora owners sharing their thoughts on sizing/comfort based on their own experiences. Thanks a bunch.

I am 5'11" and the 55cm fits me very well. I would think that the 53cm might be a little big for you. You won't really know until you test ride it though.

Yeah the problem with the Aurora is the sizing jumps from 50cm to 53cm. I am 5'7", 30 inseam, and I ordered a 50cm pretty confidently after test riding a 50cm Sattelite that has a similar geometry. I would think a 53 would be fine for you.

ok, how about THIS to
mess ya up...

I'm a fraction over 5'6", have a 30" pant inseam, a 32" PBH (ala Rivendell method), and I've been agonizing between the 50 and 53cm for quite some time now. I had test-ridden a 53cm a while back, and while it felt good, I wanted to compare it to a 50cm before making a final purchase decision. For the last few months though, none of the Chicago LBS's even had a 50cm in stock, and then suddenly, they were all out of Auroras, period.

Then, as luck would have it, I spied a 50cm parked right in front of my health club about a month ago. So I decided to tape a note on the guy's bike, asking if he'd be kind enough to let me take it for a test ride. He returned the message, stating that he was more than happy to oblige. How cool!

Well, after the test ride, I must say that his 50 did in fact feel good, if not a weee bit small...definitely not as stretched out as I was on the 53cm I had test-ridden a few weeks earlier. What's bizarre is that I had test-ridden another 53 even earlier than THAT during the summer (at Rapid Transit), and THAT 53cm felt more comfortable than the one at Barnard Schwinn. I can only attribute this to bike setup. Go figure.

So now, the 2008's arrive at Rapid Transit, and I FINALLY have the ability to directly compare the 50 and 53cm head to head, one right after the other. Yay!!!

Well, the 50 felt pretty decent, everything pretty much within reach, nice, if "maybe" a little small-feeling.

Then I jumped on the 53...

Ahhhh, everything felt more stretched out and comfortable, but in a relaxed sort of way; nice comfortable circles when peddling, no hint of "tiny bike" feeling, more commanding postion (read "higher") on the road. I REALLY liked it.....except for the fact that I had to reach for the hoods just a little bit too much. So the ever-attendant sales guy (Dan) decided to switch out the 53's (100mm) stem for the one on the 50's (80mm), and tilt up the adjustable angle a bit. Btw, I've really put this guy thru the ringer.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh....much better. Not 100% as close as I'd like, but about 98% of the way there, and I don't think I can shorten up the stem any more without going to a completely new one. It would certainly be close enough to enjoy for a while before feeling the need to change things out again.

Now HERE'S the kicker... The guy at my health club who let me try his 50cm was 5'9"!!! Yes, you read that right...5'9", almost 3" taller than myself, and I had to RAISE HIS SEATPOST ALMOST TWO INCHES FOR MY TEST RIDE!!!
And the funniest part? He said he preferred MY seating position better! How funny.

Yes, he seemed to be a newbie who wasn't quite familiar with proper bike fit, was riding on completely mushy tires, and obviously a bit too busy to experiment with adjustments. But hey, I was THRILLED that he let me take his bike for a test ride.

Moral of the story:

1) Setup by the LBS has a LOT to do with your impressions during a test ride.
2) Standover height is NOT as important as overall comfort and reach.
3) Have a bike shop adjust, adjust, swap out, and adjust til it fits ya right.

After comparing the 50 and 53, I could actually "feel" the smallness of the 50. It wasn't terrible by any means, but it wasn't the ahhhh that I got when I stretched out on the 53. I asked the guys at the bike shop, and they basically said it was a tossup..that I was in between sizes and could go either way. In my shoes, I've got fractionally less than 1.5" of standover clearance on the 53, with 2.5" on the 50. For some reason, that 2.5" clearance on the 50 feels disconcertingly large...probably because I've always ridden largish bikes.

Also important was the fact that the 53 gives me about 3/4" extra head tube height, which raises the handlebar to a nice comfortable level, fractionally higher than the level of my seat. Now all I have to do is bring in my Brooks saddle to see if I can bring it close enough to the bar.

So, to sum things up, I think that even though most folks my height would probably buy the 50, I'll very likely end up with the 53.

And supposedly, Jamis' are rumored to run large..... Go figure.

Ran

With the size going from 50 to 53, I think most people in that size range could go with either and probably be satisfied with the fit. I was switching out the stem anyway, so I went with a 100mm, instead of the 80. I agree, stand over is not as important as overall comfort, and with so much variance in cockpit adjustment, so I am confident that the 50 will be more than fine. For the person still trying to decide though, it is probably just worth the time to wait and be able to try out both.

Absolutely..try out both.

Now how about THIS...
I was just told that another bike shop has a 51cm Aurora Elite that they just built up. Since the Elite is just a rebadged 07' Nova, the 51's standover height will be right in between the 50 and 53cm Aurora. Problem is, the head tube is almost an inch and a half shorter than the 53 Aurora, so I don't know if I'll be able to get the handlebar up high enough.

Off for another test ride..heh heh..

Ran

Ran, l3ica & DuckFat, Thanks for the great feedback on Aurora fit. I might just have to test ride both 51cm and 53cm whenever the LBS gets them. I will keep the stem and handlebar adjustments in mind. They have a '07 Nova in stock which they suggested I try out to get a rough idea of sizing. Will this give me a true comparison on fit, or is the frame geometry very different from the Aurora?

Ran, curious to hear about your impressions after the Elite test ride. Is this a new model for 2008?

Funny, I'm just shy of 6 foot and the 57 feels just right.

Problem with test riding the Nova is that the geometry is pretty close, but it doesn't come in size 50"...I'm not too sure I understand Jamis' fluctuating sizing on diff. models

Well, I took a 51cm Aurora Elite for a brief demo today at the LBS, Roscoe Village Bikes here in Chicago. It's owned by a seemingly nice couple (Leslie and Alex), and tis a small shop, so not much inventory. But heck, they carry Jamis (and KHS?), and that's all that counts, right? Their inventory of both the 2008 Aurora and Elites sucks at this moment in time, but maybe it's too early in the season, so I cut 'em some slack. Then again, they're a new Jamis dealer, and maybe that's why Rapid Transit has a boatload of Auroras and they don't.

So, after adjusting the seat, I took the Elite for a quick spin. It acutally road pretty nice...almost like a race. Seemed lighter than the Aurora, but the booklet says only a 26.25 vs 27lb weight difference between the two. Weird, since there was like a 3-4 lb difference LAST year's Aurora and Nova. Perhaps the bigger crank and heavier wheels made the difference. Both bikes feel fairly light, and that's a good thing.

Anyway, the Elite has some nice parts on it...105 STI shifters and front derailleur, FSA triple crank, and Ultegra rear derailleur. Better rims than the Aurora too.

So how did it ride? Well, much more racer-like than the Aurora. Definitely harsher. I don't know if it's because the tires were pumped up to over 80lbs or because the 631 steel frame is stiffer, but the ride wasn't as cadillac-like as the regular Aurora. Shifting was VERY smooth and precise, but that seat felt hard as a rock. I was also reaching for the hoods and bent over just a little too much for my own comfort. I know these things can be adjusted, but I'm not sure how much. I'm gonna have to bring in my Brook B17 to try it on both the 53 Aurora and 51 Aurora Elite.

And also...I had some toe overlap with the front wheel on slow, small radius turns, and my street shoes rubbed several times. My shoes size is 8.5M.

Well, that' just test number 1. Gonna have to bring in my B17, and place it on both the 53 Aurora and 51 Elite, and perhaps make some more adjustments. And btw, the standover on the 51 Elite was exactly in between the 50 and 53 Auroras...perfect! But as I've said before, reach is much more important.

Randy

ps-still leaning towards the 53 Aurora, but I'll have the 51 Elite adjusted a bit more before the final decision. And as for price, the shop was willing to give me 10% off (-$135) on the Elite because of a supposed manufacturer shipping error. That would pay for tax here in Chicago.