robow

You read it so much on this forum that it becomes considered an unquestioned truth just by the fact that it has been stated over and over again, but here goes: I would like to argue that many of TODAY'S mountain bikes can make for great touring bikes and not just mtb's of the late 80's and early 90's. My example will be a 2008 Trek 4500 compared to Trek's 520 dedicated touring bike.

Wheelbase MTB 42.1" (520) 41.4"
Chainstays MTB 16.9" (520) 17.7"
Seat angle MTB 70.0 (520) 70.0
Bottom bracket MTB 11. 5" (520) 10.6"

All things being equal (which they rarely are) 26" MTB wheels are more durable than 700c which must be more overbuilt to withstand the abuse that MTB wheels were designed to take in the first place.

MTB frames are often stiffer with larger tubes designed again to take more abuse. They should flex less under load as well.

People often comment about the "geometry" of older MTB's being similar to today's touring bikes but as shown above, both will have the same seat tube angles and if anything the MTB will have a more slack head tube angle as well. The head tube is larger on the MTB so you can get your handlebars more easily raised if that is your desire. If one just purchases the MTB a size larger than he might normally ride on the dirt, you'll probably can get a similar eff. top tube in order to be laid out a little more and less upright. Heck even some of the dedicated touring bikes now have a sloping top tube, ex. Rocky Mtn. Sherpa. Someone will have to explain to me the disadvantages here.

Both have nice braze ons for mounting a rear rack. Here's the one thing I concede, but not completely and that is the 520 might be easier to put a front rack on BUT using an Old Man front Sherpa rack or a Delta rack made for a front shock is quite easy as well.

Now if you don't like the front shock because it is more likely that something can go wrong, ditch it for an inexpensive front steel fork for $75. Although it would be difficult for me to figure out how things could go so wrong that you wouldn't be able to ride it all?

The MTB only has two water bottle cage mounts and the 520 has three but several touring bikes only have two such as the Fuji, Jamis, Windsor and others. No biggie.

The mtb already comes with very adequate lower tour gearing and the 520 will need that crank swapped out if you're going to be hitting any serious hills.

Switch out the flat bar of the mtb for a trekking bar $15 or add bar ends (even less) and your hands are comfortable for touring and the added durability of thumb shifters vs. Tiagra STI shifters. Bar end shifters probably still have the edge in durabilty though.

Remember, that 4500 MTB at $580 msrp is less than HALF the price of a new 520 $1239 so you have a bunch of $ to modify with.

OK, now tell me where I'm wrong

Cyclist0094

so tour on your MTB and quit your whining about what everyone else rides. You are jealous because you can't buy a real touring bike like us real cycle tourists have. naw na na na naw!

Niles H.

I'm glad you brought in the price issue. Competition and economies of scale may be involved here. DTB's tend to be significantly more expensive for a given component level.

ATB's also have the advantage of being quite a bit more versatile for off-road use.

The shorter stays are usually not that much shorter -- it isn't like night and day; it's often fairly subtle.

The bottom bracket height is similar. It's also often fairly subtle.

(And the center of gravity shift applies to the rider, not to the bike itself or the touring load on the bike -- so even if the BB height is nine tenths of an inch higher, the center of gravity will be raised by less than that amount. It does not make for a significant or even noticeable change in handling for most of those who have actually done the comparison in the real world, rather than imaginarily.)

Niles H.

Many of the more recent mountain bikes are also quite a bit lighter than both the older ATB's and most of the DTB's (older ones and contemporary ones).

1-track-mind

I guess the main drawback of the 4500 vs. the 520 for me would be the aluminum frame rather than steel.
I toured on a nid-nineties Giant MTB and it worked fine.

KonradNYC

Sure, you can tour on a MTB. It's also a matter of what kind of touring you plan on doing. If you'll be on a lot of dirt roads, a MTB is probably even a better choice than a road bike.

However, I MUCH prefer riding a road bike on paved roads...even if those paved roads are poor quality. Also, I find road bikes to be more comfortable than MTBs for any kind of distance riding. I think shocks are almost entirely unnecessary for anything other than really rough off-road riding. Finally, the difference in price between the $1100 I paid for my 520 vs. the $700 I would pay after swapping handlebars & fork on the 4500 is not worth it to me in terms of the loss of comfort and enjoyment...

And that's what touring is all about right? Enjoying the trip. If you're happy on the 4500 (or any other MTB for that matter), than that's what you should ride. I prefer a dedicated touring bike, so that's what I ride.

bokes

I don't like the attitude of the thread title

foamy

Just one more thread about mtb vs. a dedicated tourer. I've got a mtb that is the only bike I've ever toured on. I bought a touring bike. Why? 'Cause I don't like 26" wheels on the road, first and foremost. Next there's the size problem. I bought the mtb to go mountain biking with. Why would I buy it a size larger? There's no point in that. Thats just silly. Mtb's come with shocks these days. Shocks might be nice to trail and mountain ride with, but I sure don't want them on the road. Tour on what you want to, everybody else does. I, for one, don't want to road tour on a mtb bought one size too large with shocks, flat bars and 26" wheels. But then, thats just me.

NeezyDeezy

Most of know that MTB's are passable touring bikes, but I don't think you pointed out any lies at all.

becnal

+1. Though maybe just because I've been drinking all day.

Bacciagalupe

H'm, let's see, what are you missing...

1) Many people prefer drop bars and barcons or STI to flat or trekking bars.
2) If you tour on the road, a road-style bike will be more appropriate.
3) You left out all the fork geometry aspects, which affects handling. A modern MTB is going to be more responsive than a touring bike, thus slightly less stable when loaded.
4) You also left out BB height. The 4500 has a very high BB, which puts the center of gravity much higher than on the 520. This will affect both stability when loaded and ride feel.
5) Alternate uses. I rarely ride off-road, so for me an MTB tourer would collect dust. Instead, I'm now using a cross bike, which is quite capable of handling off-road and rough pavement. I also use that bike for long distance and "recreational" rides.
6) In the 80s, MTB's were very popular for general use. With the rise of the "hybrid" category, new MTB's are more specialized for off-road.
7) The advantages of 26" wheels for touring is less "strength," and more "wide availability of tires." It's tough to get 700c wheels in many parts of the world.
8) re: 4500 vs 520 on price, I agree the 520 is a little pricey; but the components do seem to be at least 1 notch up in quality. Compared to a Jamis Aurora or Surly LHT, and the outrageous cost of an Old Man Mountain rack, the 4500's price advantage is narrowed.


Is any of this a deal-killer? Heel strike and expensive racks, maybe. But if I didn't do much off-road and wanted an upright-style bike for touring, I'd probably look at a hybrid rather than a new MTB.

jaypee

I don't know about most people but I want my touring bike to flex a bit. This makes for a more comfortable ride over long distances.

nun

What's it like putting racks on a mountain bike, do they have the right braze ons?

I like the idea of people using whatever suits them to tour, however, I think a
mountain bike would be hard work on a long road based tour, maybe if you put some
26x1.5 or 1.25 tyres on it would work out

pacificcyclist

Heh bud,

Your analysis is the norm and I do agree somewhat, except for the fact that you missed the sizing issue.
Not all touring bikes have a great selection of sizes either, namely the Cannondale T series.
The difference between a properly sized touring bike than an improperly sized mountain bike can be extremely noticeable. From pain and discomfort and the loss of efficiency as your body tries very hard to conform to the bike which isn't sized to you!

I think people seemed to have missed the point and that is, sizing is very much an important issue with bike touring than anything else. Sure, you've ridden 70-160km before. But imagine this distance being repeated over and over and over again sometimes for several weeks or months or even years!

Speed on MTB is really not an issue, except if the bike isn't sized properly for you. A lot of efficiency is lost simply due to how your body weight is distributed among the saddle and handle bar and the seat angle.
I've seen people tour on MTBs with Schawlbe Marathon XRs that beat people riding on expensive 700c touring bikes day in and day out. Again, the reason is sizing. Too many people are attracted to the brand name of the bike rather than the sizing, when experienced shop owners tell them otherwise.

nun

How would you describe the Thorn 26" bikes? The look more MTB than road tourer to me. Do people that buy them use them on or off road mostly?

robow

[QUOTE=Bacciagalupe;5848910]H'm, let's see, what are you missing...


2) If you tour on the road, a road-style bike will be more appropriate.
Why? Playing Devil's Advocate here

3) You left out all the fork geometry aspects, which affects handling. A modern MTB is going to be more responsive than a touring bike, thus slightly less stable when loaded.
See above where MTB has a longer wheel base. I'm not sure I follow your logic


4) You also left out BB height. The 4500 has a very high BB, which puts the center of gravity much higher than on the 520. This will affect both stability when loaded and ride feel.
No, I didn't. Again see above, bottom bracket height is mentioned and there is .9" difference to the 520. But is that more than negated by where you place your load on the bike and the person's seat height? I don't know.

robow

I apologize but I guess I was not able to communicate my hypothesis very well at the opening. This was not supposed to be a thread about MTB vs road bike which has been done to death, although maybe I unfortunately touched upon that area. My question is, " Why are the late 80 and early 90 MTBs considered to be an attractive touring option but not today's MTBs." Now the one fellow mentioned yesterday's steel vs today's aluminum and that is very valid point if you must have steel and its benefits. I'm not sure there are many modern mtbs that aren't aluminum out there. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but trying to unravel the dogma of past MTBs good, today's mtb bad.

ricohman

I would never tour on my MTB.
No fittings for racks, suspension, disc brakes ect. I couldn't be bothered with "making" it suitable for touring. And what will I have when I'm done?
An MTB that is no longer an XC bike and not really a touring bike.
But ride whatever you want. Thats what it's all about.

pauldaley

why would it be hard work ?

if you are in no dire rush to get anywhere in particular, and do expect to come across some off-road tracks, what would be hard about it ?

Im really considering just upgrading my $400 AU dollar Shogun MTB into a tourer ready for australian deserts and tropical rainforest tracks

sure, the majority will be on the bitumen road, but one would think it'd be best to plan for the bumpy bits

i've never ever ridden a road bike, so i have no comparison to what it feels like onroad ... i like the cruizy speed anyway and the ultimate factor right now would be to save an extra 1000 thousand dollars that'll go towards good racks, a new fork, and whatever else i should upgrade on my bottom-of-the-range shogun MTB

I really do like this forum, many different perspective and people are willing to say "hey, you dont NEED to pay thousands to go on tour, you can do it on just about anything"

and also people who are willing to express their love for the comfort and reliability of a dedicated tourer

Niles H.

Re: to unravel the dogma:

There is a lot of unexamined dogma going around. I'm glad you are examining it.

cyccommute 

There are a couple of issues with using current mountain bikes for touring vs using the older ones. First, and probably most important, is that many of the most recent mountain bikes lack braze-ons to mount racks. Kudos to Trek for having them but they aren't in the majority from what I've seen.

Disc mounts cause problems with mounting racks which leads to all kinds of goofy solutions to the problem.

Additionally, the head tube on the 4500...and many other mountain bike...is extremely high to accommodate long shock travel. The 4500 has a 100mm travel fork on it. The head tube has to be raised 4" over a more 'normal' fork. If you wanted to replace the fork with a rigid one, you'll have to get a suspension adjusted fork to make sure the front end doesn't get too steep and make for a squirrely ride. For small people, that higher head tube will cut into their standover height...even on a small framed bike.

Then there's the cost of adapting the bike to touring. If the bike doesn't have a lockout on the suspension or if you don't need the shock, you'll have to get a fork for it. It's not that cheap to find a good suspension adjusted fork. If you don't like the flat bars, you'll need to change them. (I'd not suggest doing extended tours on flat bars...unless you like not feeling your hands for 6 weeks). If you change them for traditional drops, you'll need to change the shifters and brakes. If the bike has linear brakes and you'd rather have STI, you'll need to change the brakes or get travel agents. If you make those changes, you'll need to change the cables. You'll need to change the tires. The cranks a 42/32/22 which is a great low end but a poor high end...even for touring! So you might want to change that too.

All of those changes add up to a lot of money put into a rather mediocre platform. You could easily, with the cost of the bike, add up to the cost of an LHT complete, which is pretty hard to beat!

There's nothing wrong with mountain bikes for touring...new or old...but aren't they that much of a bargain compared to road touring bikes. If you are going to do something that requires a mountain bike...like the Great Divide Trail...then by all means get one. But otherwise, I feel that you are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

toodman

Robow,
You make good points and no apology is necessary. For some folks, dogma trumps logic and try as you might, you won't be able to unravel it.

KonradNYC

And that's why Robow might be better off himself on a MTB.

And for some folks, experience trumps speculation. That's why I'm on a road bike for on long distance rides on the road.

robow

cycco, now we're talking. Increased head tube lengths and adapting for a 100 mm travel shock vs shorter travel shocks. That's a real difference along with steel vs. aluminum.

Ricohman, I apologize for not posting that photo of the Trek 4500 but it does have braze ons for a rear rack and does NOT have a disc brake to contend with so standard racks work just fine.

BTW, did I mention that I own both a dedicated touring road bike and a MTB modified to tour, just so you know that I have both dogs in this fight

tacomee

As a guy who's toured on both MTBs and touring bikes......ride what you got.

The last hardtail MTB to touring bike convertion I did for a friend cost $280 for a Nashbar steel fork, Nashbar frount and rear racks, 4 Nashbar panniers and connecting hardware (also 2 trips to the LBS and 1 to the local hardware store and a whole Saturday of wrenching and drinking beer)

and the bike turned out great!