Thoughts on Jamis 1998 Aurora
 

I picked up a used 1998 Jamis Aurora kind of accidentally. 56cm frame, Shimano RSX components, triple crankshaft, brifters. Color is electric blue (so it is 1998.) I think it's a touring bike from what I have read, also it has front and rear brazons for racks and also centerpull brakes.
700c wheels. It has a Reynolds 525 chromalloy frame from what i read.

I have some other old steel framed road bikes that are lighter that are not touring bikes. 1983 Trek 760, 1983 Specialized Sequoia, 1982 Trek 311 (even this one is lighter than the Jamis i think.)

I have never owned or ridden a touring bike before. I find this Jamis to be kind of like an old Chevy Impala sedan, kind of heavy feeling in the ride and the actual weight. I read one person reviewing this model bike that its a good bike but a little pig-like (meaning the frame is a little heavy.)

It had a list price of $600 in 1998. I am assuming it was cheaper than a Trek 520.

Here's my question- if i got a Trek 520 or a Surly LHT new would it be/feel significantly lighter or sportier in ride? I am trying to figure out what to do with this Jamis (I got it just to ride recreationally on an upcoming trip rather than ship my other bikes-- trying to figure out if i want to keep it post-trip or not) and I am wondering if it's good for the intended use of touring (it's already heavy unloaded) or maybe commuting, or if i got serious for these purposes if i would find those other brands-models significantly better in ride.

Right now it has brand new inexpensive 25cm tires and Im not impressed with the ride. It seems an odd combination of heavy bike and thin tires. I told this to my local bike repair tech and he didnt think it would feel/ride any better with better or thicker tires. I asked him if the bike was like a Trek 520. He said it is more like my Trek multitrack 720 (which is heavy too, that is a hybrid bike.)

I am not doing any touring or commuting now, just recreational rides but i may start doing touring and commuting soon.

http://www.bikepedia.com/quickbike/B...rora&Type=bike

From the above link it appears best suited for most touring duties short of fully loaded, unsupported touring. 25 mm tires are small for touring, 32 mm or even 28 mm tires would be better for touring and commuting, IMHO.

The LHT and 520 are very robust and heavy bikes aimed primarily at the unsupported/expedition cyclist, I doubt they'd be lighter or more sporty feeling than the Jamis. As an aside I can compare two bikes I have, both Cannondale, one a roadie and the other a tourer. The touring bike is a tad over seven pounds heavier and because of the touring geometry and longer wheelbase rides very differently. Boils down to different mission statements for the two designs.

Brad

I had the 25mm tires installed because they were readily available from a small store where i go, they were inexpensive but decent quality and my immediate goal with this bike was just to ride it recreationally on an upcoming trip-- not for touring and commuting. It is just accidentally that i got this bike that happens to be a touring frame bike so now i am wondering if/when i want/need a touring bike is this one good enough or will i want/need a Trek 520 or Surly LHT because maybe it's a lighter, better handling bike. Right now for recreational rides this Jamis feels clumsy and a little bit like a pig of a bike ( as someone online in a review described it). It doenst seem to match with 25mm tires very well. My other road bikes are more sporty rides. But having never ridden a Surly LHT or Cross Check, or a Trek 520 I dont know how they compare. Thats why i am asking. These other bikes are about $1100 new and i got this Jamis cheap.

I'll try to rephrase my previous reply... They're basically going to ride the same. I don't know what your Jamis weighs, but most loaded touring bikes nudge 30 lbs. stripped.

A touring bike, and even some CX bikes will handle lazily compared to road bike based on a race frame. It isn't so much because of the added weight, but due to a longer wheelbase and slacker head tube geometry inherent in the touring frame's design.

Riding a touring bike was a new thing for me earlier this year so that memory is still fresh. I had a couple of near OOPS moments cornering at speed, but that was it. I find the touring bike to work very well on those relaxed pace recreational rides as well as a those where I've set a mileage/time goal. For how you're using the Jamis now and for you future plans, I think the Jamis is a good choice.

When I want to rail some turns I grab the crit bike.

Brad

Hi. Judging by the pictures of this 1998 Aurora it seems that toe overlap might be a problem. Can anyone confirm or refute?
(There's one for sale in cca 58cm size, not too far from me, still it would take a bit of travel.)

toe overlap is pretty darn common but unless the dude from L.A pops back in here after 13 years (and his was a 56) I suspect you're going to have to do more internet searching, but I suspect the answer is yes.
I have a couple of 700 bikes and they have a bit of toe overlap, especially the one with fenders. Similar bikes I had in the 80s had it, 90s also and 2010 also.
My 26in tourer doesnt have it, which I also use off road touring, and it is nice not to worry about that when see sawing for balance at slow speeds, on or off road, panniers or not.

I think zombies have smaller feet than they did back in 2011. :D

You're right, the shoes, as well as the toes get scuffed and worn down from all the shuffling, so voila! No more toe overlap!

Thanks for the jokes, guys.
Anyway, if I get close to one of these bikes I will report here.

just kidding around for fun, but seriously, toe overlap is pretty darn hard to know how much a given bike will have without seeing the bike in person.
There is also tire size, foot size of the person, how your foot sits on the pedals. Even with spd or any clip in pedals, the cleat can be in a slightly different position that can affect where the front of the shoe is. I personally like my cleats farther back on the shoe, putting my foot a bit more forward on the pedal, so even that can make up that little bit that has or has less or doesnt have toe strike.

tire size on a bike from this era is probably limited to a certain size, and I don't know this frame, so who knows, but you can see how a 38 or 35 will have a slightly larger diameter than a 28mm slick for example.

I personally don't find a small amount of toe strike a problem, it usually doesnt occur, but I guess that's personal also-- how much it bugs you or causes awkward moments at slow speeds.

no problem at all


I didn't have toe overlap issues so far (except maybe for one bike). But this Aurora seems to have really long chainstays and not that long top tube. I would link a picture here but cannot (as a newbie). If you would like to have a look, I think googling "New (to me) bike day! 1998-1999 Jamis Aurora" should take you to one on ******.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d4aa407fb7.jpg

Thanks, cb400bill!