Point taken there, BengeBoy.

By the way, have you ever noticed (and this is just a general comment, not directed at the OP), when you are asked for advice and you give good, sound advice—the person who asked for the advice does exactly the opposite? Why is that?

Back on topic: Any bike with a few eyelets, that you're comfy on will do the job as it's been described. Discounts don't often figure into my thinking when I'm considering such a purchase. Again, just me.

My wife and I decided to have kids just so we could enjoy many years of that precise phenomenon.

I'm not at all convinced that a "light" tourer would make any difference. You're talking about 5 lbs difference in bike weights, more or less. Assuming the motor is in decent shape, it's not going to amount to very much on the road, unless you are trying to set personal bests.

Recently, I've started riding my LHT on my Saturday group rides. I have few problems keeping up with the roadies on 50 - 60 mile rides. I did ride a semi-organized century a few weeks ago, and noticed that I was NOT able to match my "Litespeed" pace, but the difference was only slightly more than a half hour. The lower gearing on the LHT compensates well for the extra weight.

Interestingly, my neck and butt hurt more after the century on the LHT (conventional touring geometry, Brooks saddle) than they do when I ride my Litespeed (aggressive geometry w/ San Marco saddle 3 1/2" higher than the bars) for similar distances, but that probably is attributable that my body is more adjusted to the Litespeed because I ride it more frequently. I am going to shelve it for the rest of the winter and stick with the LHT and see if it makes a difference by Spring.

AWESOME replies! so glad i asked, because these replies are gold! And sorry for the confusion, I'm not going to wear a backpack while touring (i did learn something in my 1.5 years of lurking after all!) that was just in reference with my minimalist packing style when i hiked the Appalachian trail. I've got some thinking to do for sure, and will sit the bike techs down have a nice chat in review of some of these comments. So now in my mind, i'm really past the idea of a full-on touring bike, and I'm looking into either a cross-bike (i.e. surly crosscheck, etc) or more of a road bike (i.e. salsa pistola) however the cross-bikes will come capatable with a rear rack for panniers, (though I really like the idea of trying to keep the gear in front of me and behind me to aid in aerodynamics.) however, i could just put a nice lightweight drybag on top of the rack and fasten it down (like a trunkbag). On the more roadie side of it, on the back, i would either need to do a saddlebag (i.e. camper or longflap) though the bags seem a little heavier then necessary, i'd imagine i could just get grandma to sew in some reinforcements/attachments to a drybag to fit the 'saddlebag supports' or i could do the seatpost rack with a dry bag again. Which would be a safer bet? which would be lighter? i would definitely stay under the weight limits, (my backpack gear kit is only 5 pounds, but I'm adding a pound of luxury) and i could balance the remaining weight (tools etc) in the handlebar bag. Also, i really like the 'frame bag designs' as it would be very aerodynamic but would cut into my water bottle storage a bit. (http://www.epicdesignsalaska.com/?page_id=4 ) anyone ever use one? I'm amazed at all the feedback before lunchtime!
thanks again!
mike!

You do have some decisions to make. I respect the opinions of the posters here; I've learned a lot from these and other posts, even though I've been touring off and on for 30 years. I think this is the best place for advice on bike touring. My experience has been that folks in local bike shops have little or no experience with touring.

The quest for finding the perfect bike with the perfect components, perfect setup, and perfect equipment to strap on may be a lifelong struggle with no end. For me it seems to be. That's okay; I think it's fun, and I've already arrived at a really good setup that makes touring a joy. I'm chomping at the bit for summer for my next tour!

Here are some thoughts to add to the pile:

Mechanical breakdowns are a drag. I guess they're inevitable, because no matter what I do, I still get the occasional problem. Good equipment choices and proper preparation minimize problems so I haven't had anything major happen for several years. Keeping your load light also helps a lot. But still, it's good to know how to fix problems, from adjusting brakes and derailleurs to replacing spokes and truing a wheel. I approve your choice to travel light (something I'm not good at) and encourage you to fill in any gaps in your bike mechanic skills before you leave - just in case.

You can tour successfully on just about anything. Based on the quality of your choices, I'd say the bike you ultimately choose will be successful. Agonize as much as you want about it, then try to avoid regrets that you may have made the wrong decision.

Will the bike you buy become your regular ride after the tour is over? If so, that might be a consideration. Which bike would be most satisfactory as an everyday ride? In my case, I wanted a bike specifically for fully-loaded touring, so I bought an LHT, and I'm very happy with my choice. It's an okay everyday ride, but a little heavy, so I bought another bike to be my everyday-er. The LHT can rest between tours.

Enjoy! You're going to have the adventure of a lifetime!

I always found that sending home even two pounds of stuff when on tour made a pretty noticeable difference. If some of that weight is rotating weight it would be all the more so.

I notice what I feel is a very big difference when I ride a century on my touring bike vs my road bike. I don't think we are that far apart though since I consider a half hour to be a very big difference. So some of this is just expectations your "just a half hour" really isn't that different from my "the difference was huge, it was like a half hour" other than the interpretation :)

I saw a similar difference when I had been riding nothing but my touring bike and then rode my new road bike on a century. The touring bike had the bars maybe 3-1/2" below the saddle and the road bike about 5". I was worried that the road bike would be a bit much on a long ride. I was pleasantly surprised that it was the most comfortable century I have ever ridden and fairly fast (not the fastest though). It was easier on my butt, back, neck, hands, and arms. Some of the difference was that it is lighter, has closer spaced gears, and is generally faster, but I still plan to experiment with lower bars on the touring bike. I had no complaints with the bars 3-1/2" below the saddle on a 73 day tour, but I plan to experiment to see if lower is ultimately better or worse for me.

Mike,
this depends a great deal on just how much you will carry. But since you said lite...

This is what I do on a sagged trip. I use a Carradice bag supported by a Bagman. My frame is a Gunnar Sport ( wonderful bike, with skinny tires it can hang with most, with medium sized tires you can credit card tour). I use sturdy wheels, 32 spokes. For you I'd suggest something like the Rivendell
Ruffy Tuffy tires, 27c. I used them for years and loved them. They don't need a lot of air; and the low pressure gives them a nice ride.

Other choices with what is now called relaxed geometry ( we use to just call it
a road bike. A racing bike we called a racing bike. It was a simple time.) are the Surly Pacer, Specialized Roubaix and quite a few others.

Another choice if you don't need racks is the Habanero Road. Really sweet riding bike www.habcycles.com

Gunnar is Waterford's 'budget' line. It's really a non-custom base level Waterford with a simple paint job. If you could afford the midlevel or their
top of the line, my hat's off to you. Amazing bikes. But I have to say I love mine.

If you do need a rack, I like my Tubus Fly. It weighs 12 ounces, half a typical rack and a third of what some weigh. It's plenty tough if you aren't throwing 40-50 pounds on them. Had mine several years now, been on several trips with it. I prefer a bike without racks, but if ya gotta have a rack, this is as good as it gets, IMHO.

I've done both as has my much smaller wife. Both of us have found that the bikes handle better and we couldn't be more different in physique and center of gravity.

Cantilevering a lot of weight off the back of the bike...especially a short wheelbase one...ends up with a wag the dog situation. The center of gravity shifts rearward and a little upward which leaves the bike with a rather vague feeling in the front end. Mounting the bags low over the front wheel moves the center of gravity forward and down while also dampening the steering somewhat. On a bike that has quicker handling, dampening the steering would be a plus. And you could avoid any issues with heel strike.

Maybe the front back difference, or lack of difference, has to do with the amount of gear we're carrying.

cyccommute, you mentioned in your first post that you notice a difference when the panniers are heavily loaded. In my case, each of my panniers carries about 12-13 lbs of gear, which really isn't that much. My panniers are also quite small, and if I mount them all the way back on my rack (and facing the correct direction), I don't have any issues with heel strike. In addition, I have a handlebar bag with about 5 lbs of gear, so it isn't like I don't have anything on the front.

The differences I did notice were:
-- I preferred to have the weight in the back on steep descents.
-- I preferred to have the weight in the front if I was walking and pushing my bicycle up a steep hill.
-- When I rode with a front rack, I struggled with hand pain.
-- When my front rack was removed, the hand pain went away. Rowan explained that one to me ... something to do with flex, I think.


Now in the case of the OP who wants to travel fast and light, he could pick up a sport-touring/audax bicycle, like I suggested, with a rear rack, and ride Randonneuring style ..... using a Carradice, like Rowan suggested, with his bivy strapped to the rack. This setup would still give him the option of getting small panniers, if he felt that the Carradice and rack weren't quite enough.

Yup, depends on you and the bike (shorter wheelbases are likely to give more trouble). I did have an old mtb converted tourer some years ago that didn't behave very well -though I have to say was still ridable, but nowhere near the handling I've got with my current tourer (with the same rear pannier bags too). I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either front or rear panniers though -I think you have to experiment to get what works for you. I found my bike handling wasn't quite right when I put front low riders on mine -I prefer the rear pannier setup (though I'd go with front as well if I needed to carry more), but whatever works....

Check out the Bob Jackson and Mercian touring frames. They are an excellent value right now due to the rising value of the dollar vs. the pound. I just ordered a Jackson World Tour frame and it only cost about $600; custom geometry adds about $300 to the price. It has all of the mounts and braze-ons needed for touring, yet its made from lighter and higher quality steel than the Surly LHT. The Jackson Audax might also suit your needs.

Mercians will run a little higher, but are full custom. The King of Mercia or Audax models could be used for touring, depending on the load.

Both the BJs and Mercians can be painted in just about any color/decal scheme at no extra cost. They both are quality built, lugged steel frames. They also are designed for touring, unlike models such as the Salsa Casseroll (which has no provisions for a front rack and too-short chain stays).

I have consciously lightened my touring load over the past few years. I ride a Rivendell Rambouillet
and believe it's the perfect bike for light fast touring. I keep my load to 25lbs max carried in a Nelson Longflap saddlebag, a handlebar bag, I strap my tent underneath my saddle and carry my sleeping pad and cooking gear on a small front rack.

Brit frames used to be a pretty good deal, but then the dollar dropped. I think they're roughly equivalent, pricewise now.

I really like Rivendell. But the Rambouillet has been discontinued. I think you
get more bang for your buck with Gunnar or Waterford. Besides, Waterford makes (or used to make) a lot of Rivendell's frames. The new frame is the Sam Hillborne which is a bit beefy for a light kid that wants a lite tourer.
And the frame will cost as much as a Gunnar.

Nun: thats LIGHT. I've only managed to get mine down to 42 pounds, including the weight of an extrawheel trailer and a Jandd Touring Handle Bar Pack I handlebar bag.

so thats like probably 30 pounds of actual gear. I'm not including water here. my first tour I started at around 60 including weight of front and rear panniers.... kept sending gear home on that trip.

I'm liking how I do it now, but still could drop more weight off. Seems like I notice EVERY extra pound when climbing those huge passes. FOr me this is true when riding loaded, or an totally unloaded racing bike. ALWAYS into loosing weight...

I don't know why, but I'm currently obsessed with seeing whether the wise heads contributing to this thread could come up with a bike (or bikes) that fit the OP's original question - given that he could buy a Salsa, Surly, Rocky Mountain or Scott at a discount, which should he buy? He didn't mention how much of a discount he can get, but I'm guessing he could get a Crosscheck complete for $700 to $800-ish. Does he need to spend more?

The list of great bikes on this thread is long impressive - but why not recommend a bike that this young, first-time tourer could purchase at a discount? Does he really need to spend the $$ on a custom British frame, a Waterford or a Rivendell?

Me, I'd get one of the cross bikes he can purchase at a discount; I don't know enough about the Scott or Rocky Mountain options to compare them w/the Crosscheck.

If I weighed 145 (like the OP), I'd figure out how to do it on the Pistola.

I've always admired your setup—and your bike. You were a big influence in my decision making. I still carried quite a bit more than you, but I aspired to get as streamlined as possible.

cycommute, you were a big influence as well. I believe I landed somewhere in between the two of you. When I'm just weekending, I use the front pannier/backrack method. For me, it makes a nice distribution of weight. Looks right too.

The both of you should post your rigs again. They're both good looking, functional and (for me at least) educational.

Wrong thread but hey, thanks very much to you both.

Edit: BengeBoy, just had a look at that Pistola. Very nice. I think you're on to something. A discount figures in very nicely now. True Temper OX Platinum? Around 20 lbs.? Sweet! That's a major selling point for me. Just a rub: no eyelets (I'd figure a way around that, a la nun). The guy's light enough that he may not have to worry about the wheels, but I'd have to.

misc. thoughts, I wish there were folks that made small panniers, I had a pair of small ones that I gave away that would be perfect for this kind of trip, about 9"x9"x4".

A low bb is a nice attribute, I had an Argos road bike that was incredibly secure feeling for fast descents. The original steel Specialized Sequoia fits the op description. I rode one up and down the mtn on Maui. I wonder how the present aluminum/carbon ones feel? I have to say the tri-cross is a VERY comfy ride.

The problem with some cyclo-cross frames is that they have high bb like criterium bikes which is unnecessary for upright riding.

I don't see the need for heavy touring wheels if the 145lb rider is carrying a light load. My main wheels 25yrs ago ,when rims weren't as strong as todays, was 36 straight 15gauge cad plated spokes on superchampion gentleman rims. I rode on dirt roads in Colorado for a stretch on those.

I could see some decent training wheels holding up fine for a light rider not carrying much gear, 32 hole Synergy on the front with 36holeOC on the rear. That's what I've got for light wheels on my LHT. Anything that would whack those out for a light rider would probably be sending bike and rider in different directions anyway.

I have these, which I use, and like, for commuting:

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?c...%3A%20Panniers

heck no,,,the money would be much, much more useful on the road. If there's a $1500 budget I'd much rather hit the road on a $500 bike with $1000 for adventures along the way. The focus on what's possible is partially driven by what's available,,and that's primarily because there's a bunch of nuts willing to spend $2k-$3k for a bike.

Go for the best value for the least amount of money, not the biggest discount on a $3000bike.

Nothing wrong with that!! :D

Trek 520 touring bottom bracket height 27.7 cm

Trek XO cyclocross bottom bracket height 27.6 cm

I don't think you could tell the difference of 1 mm, heck your tire choice or inflation pressure could easily make that up.

In order of usefulness for touring

LHT
Rocky Mountain Sherpa
CrossCheck
Casserol

The CrossCheck and the Casserol are distant 3rd at almost a tie.

The Pistola and any of the Scotts would be just silly. If you are going to ride across the country, you should at least have some provision for a rack.

If you are going to load up a bike and ride it across the US (even with a light load), why reinvent the wheel? The LHT and the Sherpa have had some thought go into what they are intended for.

british bikes
 

You are missing the point - $600 for Bob Jackson touring frame IS cheap. That is an incredible value for a frame on par with Rivendells costing $1500 and up. You also would be getting a frame is designed for touring, with features not found on sport touring or cyclocross bikes. You could easily build up a brand new BJ World Tour for less than $1,500 total, and much less than that if you already have some of the parts. And you would end up with a bike fully capable of loaded touring across the country.

I wish I weighed 145 so I could try...:)

:)