NO ..N+1,
I actually have 4 bikes which are tour worthy, 3 different wheel types..
[2 have double racks, and If I had pre packed the bags I could go tomorrow]

5 if you accept you can tour on a Brompton..

I have an old Trek 720 and a Cannondale CAAD9 as my regular bikes. The CAAD9 is probably 10 pounds lighter than the 720, has much lighter wheels, thinner tires, etc.

I agree with the poster who said that a light road bike feels faster than a touring bike. And the CAAD9 *is* faster than the 720, but not as much as you'd think. I find that on average it's around 1-2 MPH faster for me.

But which bike do I use more? The 720, by a long shot. It's my usual commuter, I use it if it's wet (or might be wet), longer day rides, overnight rides and longer. The CAAD9 gets used on sunny dry days.

I don't regret having the touring bike at all! If I were to keep one bike, that would be it.

Mountain bikes, being heavier, with very wide knobby tires, and suspension are "significantly" slower than a road bike.

Touring bikes (even the Surly LHT) are only a "little bit" slower than a road bike. Cross bikes are similar (some of them are more like road bikes than others).

No, you would not necessarily be making a mistake. Many people use these bikes for day rides.

I'm looking at steel or aluminum in the 1000 to 1500 range. I'm thinking of staying away from carbon because I don't want to crash, drop, scrape, my bike and then worry about the carbon integrity being lost. The only mechanical problems I ever seem to have is keeping wheels true. I really pedal hard up hills etc. Cycle cross bikes are about 500 more than standard road bikes similarly set up.

No but I weight a bit less than you do. There isn't a huge difference between my road bike and my touring bike (talking about mountain bikes isn't really useful).

I think what you should consider is something that allows you to have the option of using wider tires (28 or 32) with robust wheels (this could be a cross bike or a tourer) and reasonable (low) gearing. True "road bikes" typically don't allow you to use tires wider than 25 mm.

That's a reasonable amount to expect.

Keep in mind that road bikes are (typically) faster (by a large part) because the rider position is more aerodynamic.

I would be kind of unhappy with a touring bike as an only bike, but many are fine with that option. I really only ride the touring bike when carrying a touring load. A road bike is enough more fun to ride that I always take it rather than the touring bike if not carrying a full touring load. These days I have been packing in a minimalist fashion and don't even use the touring bike when camping and cooking with ultralight gear and a minimal packing list.

How much faster is the road bike? Enough that people I ride with say I am harder to keep up with on the road bike. I think that is mostly climbing, accelerating away from stops and out of corners.

How much faster does it feel? A lot, in my opinion, but obviously that is subjective.

My advice, test ride some bikes and decide based on how they feel to you.

Good point. I've heard (and read) from a variety of sources that the difference in rolling resistance between, say, a 23 and a 28 or even a 32 tire is surprisingly small. The rubber compound, for example, or the tire construction, can be more important that the tire width for rolling resistance. But there's a big difference in comfort and the ability to avoid flats between 23s and 28s/32s.

David, Thank you--so much for spell check.

A touring bike has been my only bike for 35 years......I'm happy.It's capable of going fast,it's 23 pounds with all of the crap off of it,might be 20-21 pounds with some lighter wheels.......but it needs me to be much younger if it wants to go fast again.

At the risk of adding to the information overload...

I own a typical aluminum road bike (Specialized Allez) as well as a Surly Cross-Check, which is mostly stock and configured for an upright position and uses 28c tires that are fast and robust (but not cheap ). I use the road bike when I'm doing a club ride and want to ride fast; I use the Cross when out for a relaxing ride, dealing with dirt/gravel paths, and on tours.

I'm going to guess that you are not a mechanic, you're looking for a complete bike. So:

• I have made significantly better performance gains with crude interval training than I ever got by switching bikes.

• However, the road bike is a tad faster than the cross bike at speeds above 15mph. My best guess is this is due to aerodynamic factors that could be mitigated with a more aero rider position, narrower rims/tires, caliper brakes, taking off the rack...

• The road bike has twitchier handling than the cross bike. Some people incorrectly perceive that as "being slower."

• The Cross bike is more comfortable than the road bike.

I tried to use the Cross-Check as my "do everything" bike, and it could do everything except the fast club rides. At the time I had some slight regrets, but it's worked out fairly well.


Another option is an "endurance" road bike like the Specialized Secteur. They're designed to be in the same speed range as a normal road bike, but more comfortable. The Secteur has an aluminum frame, and the Apex version will have very low gearing, which will help your knees on the climbs.

I suspect that the OP isn't an experienced road rider (nothing wrong with that).

Wider tires will be more comfortable but they are also better suited for his weight and experience (wider tires will reduce the likelihood of wheel problems). If he's hard on wheels (for whatever reason), wider is going to be much better.

It appears that he's looking for his "last bike". What he probably needs is a bike that will work for now and a fairly long while (if not quite forever). There's no reason something like a cross bike couldn't work for what he needs now and for many years (they work fine for many people).

If he's starting out, something like a cross bike will allow him to reasonably consider riding on gravel (with 35mm+ tires) or a bit of light touring (carrying stuff). Or let him ride without worrying so much about "trashing" wheels. A road bike is going to limit what he can try (for a tiny increase in speed).

Almost all of it is due to rider position. Using the drops instead of the hoods is the cheapest/simplest thing that people can generally do to improve speed.


Yes. Most people are riding in straight lines and don't actually need "twitchier" handling.

It would seem that the OP is just starting out. Targeting "fast club rides" in preference to other his immediate needs might not make sense. When he's ready for "fast club rides", he will be in a much better position to pick a bike suitable for them but only if he rides now.

What's the widest tire you can put on it?

He should have the option of using 28mm (maybe, even 32 mm) tires (in my opinion).

At your size a touring bike or cyclocross bike would be a good choice due to the stiffer build quality and more comfortable ride set up although you will want to look at the wheel set to see if it is suitable as if there is going to be a failing, it will be here.

You are going to be putting the stock wheel set at it's load limits and even if the wheel set has the right specification for spoke count and rim quality, it will be well worth your while to have a professional wheel builder make sure they are properly tensioned and tuned.

A new Trek 520 comes in at $1500.00 Cdn and is a lighter and quicker bicycle than the Surly LHT which is a serious expedition level touring bicycle and unless you really do a lot to your GT to improve the aerodynamics the touring bike will go faster as it allows for better road positioning. The Trek 520 has a nicer ride and lighter feel when it is unloaded as compared to the Surly LHT and unless you are racing would be a good choice for a great all round bicycle.

Just set my friend up with a new 2012 Trek 520 which she will be using for a commute that is half gravel and to that end, we installed some moderately aggressive cyclocross tyres to replace the stock slicks and she should not suffer too much loss in speed and gains a lot in ride comfort.

My expedition bike is akin to an LHT build wise but handles like a lighter bike... the ride is much improved as it runs on 26 inch tyres that also roll out quickly and people who have ridden with me are usually amazed that a touring bike on 26 inch wheels is as fast as it is.

Mucht of that stems from the position I can get on the bike as the bike itself curbs out at 35 pounds before any gear goes on and I am only 150 pounds so that also makes a difference and on flat ground weight is pretty much meaningless in the equation as it is all about aerodynamics.

Cyclocross bikes are racing bikes and they are designed that way. Incidentally, a properly fitted cyclocross bike gives you about 1cm shorter reach and a 1cm shorter seat tube against a standard road geometry. Guess what, my 51cm Masi Speciale CX is 1cm shorter reach and 1cm shorter on the seat tube against my 52 cm Trek 5000 carbon race bike yielding similar riding characteristics -- better acceleration than a touring bike, but not as good as a dedicated race bike and a more comfortable upright riding position. But how often people buy bikes and utilize a professional fitter to fit them properly?!? Pretty rare. I think most likely, it's a parking lot test ride but that gives absolutely no basis of the cyclocross bike characteristics.

Cyclocross has similar quick steering response like a racing road bike. Obviously, it's designed for racing so you need quick steering (similar toe overlap you find on racing road bikes). A dedicated well designed touring bike has a more benign steering response with no toe overlap. Why, because you just need the bike to keep straight by itself for hours with minimal feedback from the rider. That's difference #1. Difference #2 is that the longer chainstays found on cross bike is to accommodate mud clearance and fatter 30c to 35c cross tires. A typical racing road bike probably has shorter caliper brakes and has clearance up to 28c or maybe a 25c but most are sold with 23c. The confusion arises because people equate longer chainstays as touring capable. Not true, but this confusion extends to cross country mountain bikes where they too have long chainstays. But the chainstays aren't long enough to provide the load stability and the natural suspension like a touring bike. Why didn't they make the chainstays longer? Well, it's a racing bike so you need the ability to accelerate quick and short chainstays allow quick acceleration especially in cyclocross where there's a bit stop and go and portaging.

Top tube looks stiff because it's ovalized or squared. Well, they didn't make cross bikes with a flat bottom end top tube just so you can haul heavy loads. They are made flat so it's easier on your shoulders during the portage section of the course. But I often see bike shops telling B.S that those top tubes are made to resist twisting forces when loaded. Cable routing on the cyclocross bikes are usually on top. This shares similar characteristics to early generation cross country mountain bikes to prevent the cables from getting mud. Mud on cables is bad for shifting and braking.

Other than that, the geometry on the cross bike is more aggressive than a touring bike, but less than a dedicated racing bike. This has to do with the positioning of the rider and his or her C.G (Center of Gravity) in relation to the bottom bracket and has no relations with the K.O.P.S method of bike fitting -- it's just so happen that that fitting yields an almost identical relationship with a more professional custom fitting few people do. This relationship dictates the ability to leverage the bike's gears. Remember that there are 3 contact points on the bike to the rider. Handle bar, saddle and pedals. When the rider rides the bike, these contact points provide the ride with a series of levers and pivot points which is then used to leverage the gears to allow your bike to go faster. These are mechanical advantages. Same thing with a pry bar. A longer pry bar allows less perceived effort to open the nailed crate compared to a shorter pry bar. This is a mechanical advantage. But you wouldn't call a different lengths of pry bars, a "race" pry bar, "mountain style" pry bar, "Cross" pry bar or "touring" pry bar. That would be silly wouldn't it?

In the end, a properly fitted touring bike, cross bike and racing bike will allow the rider to ride at his or her maximum performance level with minimal muscular effort. The aerodynamic and mechanical advantage or frictional loss will then determine the overall cruising speed. The difference isn't much for mortal people like us except for racers because every seconds count towards their G.C, but there are tons of people who buy bikes who are being told by marketers otherwise.

Actual, overnight, long distance rides are relatively rare on my LHT, but not unheard of. Most of the miles come from riding around town and commuting. The bike is neither fast nor light, but then neither am I, so it might not be the bike's fault.

It has occurred to me that probably 75% of my riding has me carrying only a trunk bag or less, which means a full touring bike is probably overkill. But then when going through the mental exercise of selecting a faster bike, I find myself thinking about how much I like the fact that if I unexpectedly need to load up the bike due to an unplanned stop at the grocery or find that I need to bring a lot of extra stuff home from work, I'm suddenly on the right bike for the job. It's not like the bike is unpleasant the 75% of the time that it's only moderately loaded, far from it. It's just not particularly fast or light. I've decided that having a bike that I can load up without thinking twice about it and that is comfortable for long rides, is far more preferable to me than one that is fast and light. However if I never took the bike on any overnight tours, and the only loads I carried were those occasional shopping trips, I would probably go with something a little zippier. But for how I do ride and how I use it, I'm very happy with the LHT as my daily ride.

As you've already said that wheels can be a problem for you, then I'd echo what's already been said: wider, high-spoke wheels are going to be your friend. That does mean that many lighter, high speed bikes may not be the best fit. But my guess is that if you can find a bike that will take a tire of a suitable width, it will be otherwise fine with a heavier rider. If speed is your goal, figure out the wheels you want, then select from the bikes that can handle those tires one that is built most for speed. As a heavier rider myself, and one who tends to carry extra weight besides, I find the wheels to be the weak point, and I wouldn't make any sacrifices there for the sake of speed, but within the limits of a wider, stronger wheel, I think you'll still find zippier options then a full touring bike, if that's your goal. It's not mine. After considering a 2nd bike for when I don't need the full touring set up, I decided what I'd really like as a 2nd bike is a fat tire bike. No speed gains there either. I guess I'm destined to be slow no matter what, and I'm okay with that.

That sounds pretty light for a touring bike. What bike is that? Most touring bikes that I have seen weighed seem to be about 4-6 pounds heavier than that.

I originally bought my Fuji World for both touring and commuting. I still use it for commuting, but built a Big Dummy for loaded touring.

If I could only keep one bike, it would probably be the World. Luckily I don't have to face those kind of either-or choices any more (knock on wood).

My Fuji World weighed in at about that before I put the fenders and Brooks (and later a front disc brake and new wheels) on it. 853 frames are pretty light.

I have a 520 and a Madone road bike. I really like the fast road bike but also wanted a tourer so I can do a little touring. I actually like riding the heavier and slightly slower touring bike better. It is smoother on the roads, has lower hearing for climbing big hills. When I won't to just get on a bike and go as fast as I can, I get on the Madone. But most days I just want to ride and I find myself taking the 520.

1978 Custom made Shogun touring bike.....Triple butted splined 531 frame,combo of 600 and SR parts....$500 1978 dollars......cost more than a Schwinn Paramount....and about 10 times what a Varsity was back then.

Best money I ever spent on bicycle anything.....Pro-rated over 35 years and a few 100,000 miles....CHEAP!

It would cost more to make the frame today,than a complete LHT cost to buy.

Triple butted 531!! Sweet!! Reminds me of the Miyata I used to ride.. Missed her a lot though.

Hi summerman, i have a road and cx bike (well the cx bike is stolen now but I had them both at the same time).

I love my road bike (Allez). The CX bike (Specialized Tricross) was very comfortable because the geometry was more relaxed than the road bike but especially due to its 32mm lower psi tires. Out of the two bikes I always loved riding the Allez. It was so responsive, so fast, very accelerative. Whenever I came close to green lights, I used to gun it, and sometimes I made it, sometimes I didn't. But on the CX bike, I never made it.

The CX bike was hugely comfortable but and I was always amazed and the excellent ride quality. Alas, that only lasted 10 minutes into the ride when I wanted to go faster again. The CX bike was kitted out for commuting duties so had fenders and this caused toe overlap which I hated but learned to hate less. IDK if the bike would have toe overlap w/o the fenders but I read somewhere that due to the geo of CX bikes, you usually get toe overlap. Another 'feature' of CX bikes are those weird brakes. I dont know if the problem is now rectified, but I read (and experienced) front brake shudder on a CX bike with carbon forks. It's something you have to get used to but it was another thing I disliked.

In the end, I didn't miss my bike getting stolen. At the back of my mind, I might get another CX bike.

You can get a relaxed geo road bike like a Specialized Roubaix (I dont like the looks of the bike myself, but the head tube is exceptionally tall so it suits many people for longer rides; specialized changed the geo around 2007 to appeal to a wider market). You shouldn't worry about 105 level components either (unless there's something about them you particularly like), 2012 Tiagra is pretty good (I still use 2006 Tiagra ).

If you do choose a road bike, you can get stronger wheels of course but usually (always?) these bikes are limited to 25mm tires.. Another choice could be an audax bike. It's kinda like a very relaxed road bike geo, with greater clearances for fenders/racks and wider tires etc, and you can build it up with stronger wheels. IDK much about audax bike prices tho.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: I should have mentioned the CX bike also had panniers attached which are a real drag. Literally. They'r very un-aerodynamic. Even so, my road bike was still faster. I think it was mainly due to lighter wheels on the rb, and a little to do with geometry.

I also recall Trek 520 or Trek Portland, they might be good for you.

If you weight 265, a real road bike is not designed for you. The real deal is it is not designed for people over 180. Of course people do ride them.

The other thing is that most healthy people who weight 265, regardless of their fitness level, have strong legs. I found riding a touring bike after riding an MTB was very sporty. And frankly, the heaviest touring bike made is no more burden to my legs, than the one Lance rides is to his on a body weight/bike weight basis.

For amateurs 2-3 kmph is a lot. That would be 20% on my touring pace. And say 15% on my avrg high end speed.

I'd put 'comfort' further down the list of priorities for touring bikes. The #1 priority is ability, i.e. the ability to carry the stuff you need. While you can tour on anything, a touring bike just makes the whole adventure easier by providing you with the proper tools.

Thanks. Sounds like a sweet ride.

IIRC I noticed the performance effects even when I had the bars lower. Thus, I suspect tires, wheels, hubs, fork design, brake design, rack etc are also adding drag.

Unfortunately, without a power meter I can't effectively test such theories. Maybe in a few years, when Garmin actually releases its pedal-based meters and the price becomes quasi-reasonable....


True, but he asked if anyone regretted using a touring-type bike as a regular road bike. Hence my answer of "yes but only for X." He can decide for himself if that's relevant to his planned use.


Most "endurance" road bikes max out with 28c's.

Again he isn't planning to tour; he's planning to use a touring bike as his road bike. Cross bikes can work, but an endurance road bike may be a better fit.