Sharpshin

I have two bikes, both more than twenty years old.

One a stock '89 Schwinn Voyageur, bought for me by a dear friend after I suffered a knee injury. The mountain bike craze came in about that time and the Voyageur mostly hung on the wall.

The other is an '88 Rockhopper rigid mountain bike, a premier bike of the genre in its day. Road bike-like geometry on the mild steel frame, the bike fits me like a glove and is fun to ride.

I've worked up to a twenty mile round-trip daily commute now, and in addition I have put in fifty milers on each. The Voyageur is wearing 27" x 1 1/4" Pasolos at 95psi, the Rockhopper 26" x 2.0" Serfa Drifers at 65psi.

I have been surprised to find that my times for these trips are about the same on either bike, tho' the Voyageur is noticeably quicker rolling downhill.

Both bikes have rear racks and I can fit the same saddlebags on each, setting them further back on the rack on the Rockhopper on account of the shorter chainstays. I presume both can be fitted with front racks and that either bike could pull a trailer.

A 2,000 mile self-supported camping tour to New York State from Texas is on my bucket list and I am working towards that goal. Hopefully I can manage 500 miles every seven days, I know I will have to train on a loaded bike too.

I will observe that fat tires have gotten very good over the last twenty years.

Is there any compelling reason NOT to choose the Rockhopper over the Voyageur?

Thanks,
Mike

bikemig 

No; in fact just the opposite, as I think there are plenty of good reasons to choose the rockhopper over the voyageur. I have done a fairly large number of extended camping tours both in the US and Europe. I have always used a 700c wheel bike. Traditional touring bikes work great; no complaints. That said, I decided on my last tour (a cross country trip) that I was going to make the switch to 26 inch for three reasons. The first reason is that 26 inch tires are more readily available than 700c. I was running 700 x 32c tires and I couldn't find a source for them through most of MT and ND. The second reason is that you're not going that fast on a tour and a fat cushy tire is just more comfortable over long days at touring speeds. Yeah you can get a pretty fat 700c but that's a big wheel and many touring bikes aren't set up to handle a big 700c tire. Third, everything else being equal, the 26 inch wheel should give you a stronger wheel.

I'm planning on converting my 1989 stumpy comp to a touring bike and I'm retiring my 1982 Trek 720 from active touring duty (so to speak, . Yours in mtn bike touring health, Mike.

jbphilly

I'm a big fan of fat tires even on the road. My Troll has most of its 3000+ miles on pavement and on 26x2.3-inch Kenda Kiniptions that it came with. I don't find that the fat tires slow me down terribly, and they are really nice to have when riding on rough surfaces, which I like to do a lot of.

However, some people find fat tires really feel slow, and if you're riding on all but the most horrible paved roads, they're probably overkill.

bikemig 

True enough but you can always go down to 26 x 1.5 if you feel the need for speed.

Tourist in MSN

I think you should decide based on the bike, not just wheel size. Does one frame feel more flexy when loaded with camping gear? Does one hold a straight line better when you are day dreaming and not concentrating on the road? Does one handle better loaded if you suddenly have to steer around a pothole or obstruction? Does one feel more solid going down a hill fast with a load? Does one have wider gearing with the ultra low gears you will want to climb steep hills? Does one have a geometry that would feel better for a long day in the saddle? If one is drop bar and the other flat bar, if so which do you prefer? Does one have more reliable components?

Regarding 26 inch tires, I actually like a narrower tire for pavement than 2.0 width. I used Schwalbe Marathon 559X40 (or 26X1.5) on a trip in summer 2012 and they worked great. I do not recall the pressure rating but I think I was running about 80 psig rear, 65 or 70 psig front. The specific tires were the plain Marathon with Green Guard adn wired bead, I mention this because Schwalbe makes so many tires with the word Marathon. The bike in the photo below has these 40mm wide 26 inch tires.



My point on tires is that you can buy a 26 inch tire that will hold the higher pressure and roll as well as a 700c tire that is 35mm or 37mm wide. But you won't find these in stores along the way, so if you might want to use tires like these, start the trip with them instead of trying to upgrade later.

The other tire in the photo, I am not sure what size tire that is but it looks kind of heavy.

Sharpshin

Thanks for the input, I find the 26" by 2.0 tires on the Rockhopper really user-friendly on the rough margin of the asphalt I ride on much of the time, and moving off and back onto the road surface when necessary seems much surer-footed with the smaller wheels/wider tires.

The bike does have pretty good components some of which I had put on (we found it in a pawn shop, mid-nineties). The back wheel however, tho' 36 spoke, is not original to the bike. What it has now is simple no-name brand wheel; a Formula hub on what is probably a Wellgo rim.

This bike has the old-style narrower chainstays from when seven-speed freewheels were the norm.

Obviously the back wheel is a critical component on a loaded tour. Does anyone know where I can get a premium quality seven speed rear wheel in that size?

Thanks,

Mike

Tourist in MSN

I do not know what you mean by narrow chainstays.

If the frame has 135mm dropout spacing, maybe upgrade to an 8 speed wheel with cassette? I have no idea what an 8 speed shifter would go for, used probably can be gotten for a reasonable price. I think my old Bridgestone uses a 7 speed wheel with 135mm spacing.

If narrower dropout spacing, you might want to build up a wheel or have one built. Some communities have bike shops that sell used bikes, some of those shops occasionally sell used wheels too.

bikemig 

I like handspun wheels. They're readily available, well made and not too bad price wise.

Sharpshin

Dropout spacing, that is the term I was looking for. Twenty years back when there were seven speeds and again eight speeds it was said that eight speeds used a wider wheel.

Turns out I must have the 135mm spacing, at least that is the width of the present rear wheel at the outer nuts ("outer nuts"; another term I'm doubtless wrong on ).

Point of interest; the dropout spacing without a rear wheel on is a bit more than 140mm.

As fortune would have it I just bought a primo-quality eight speed wheel off of ebay for my 90's mountain bike, I'll see if it fits.

As far as shifters go I believe grip shifters are the ne plus ultra: Always right there, never mind the numbers just keep clicking 'till it shifts to where you want, and more than anything far easier on my once-broken right thumb. I was gonna go there anyway

Thanks,
Mike

digibud

+1 to Bikemig. I would go for 1.5" tires on the Rockhopper if you are going to stay on pavement. The wider tires could be very useful if you're going to want to roll on dirt, but if not I don't see much of an advantage. If both bikes are strong enough for touring and you'll stay on the road it's mostly a matter of which is more comfortable for you and which feels best when fully loaded. I'd definitely load them both down and get a feel for each of them. The handling on a loaded bike is quite different, and if you do that, be sure to try them on some downhills. That's where things get dicey and handling becomes critical.

Tourist in MSN

I am not sure if you are taking the right measurements. I suggest you review this for spacing.
https://sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

kingsqueak

On my Ogre which is a 700c wheel setup, I went from 40mm Schwalbe Mondials on 23mm rims to 33mm rims with 60mm (2.35") Big Apples. If anything my avg speed is up with the Big Apples and the ride comfort and handling over loose surfaces is much better.

I'm a casual/fitness rider and I tend to plod along at 14'sh mph avg speeds.

I'm pretty sold on the big fat tires, it makes the ride a lot more pleasant and enjoying the ride is why I ride.

lenA

the closest I ever got to going down touring was in pavement ruts and breaks in the same part of the road surface that you describe, especially on the rural roads that I usually travel.

I'm on 26x1.85 and I'll never go narrower then that......much more to be gained then lost

LeeG

That makes sense, Mondials are tough and good for crappy surfaces but a bit hard. My only experience with Big Apples was 2.0 x20" on a folding bike and it was faster riding than the mixed tread 1.5" tires the bike came with. On smooth roads the contact patch was only 3/4" wide but any bump or dicey surface put a lot more in contact with the road which was very desirable on a fast 7mile descent coming around turns at 35mph and coming across rocks or gravel in the road.

bicyclridr4life

my opinion, use the rock hopper. Justification: 27 inch tires are getting almost impossible to find anywhere but online. 26 inch can be had almost anywhere - including a hardware store in the middle of nowhere (aka "Kansas")

alan s 

The term "fat tires" has taken on a whole new meaning with the advent of the Pugsley and even fatter fat bikes.

I currently commute 150 miles weekly on 26 x 2 Marathon Supremes, combining road and dirt paths. The tire is not ideal for either surface, but is the best compromise I have found. The BAs are a bit too heavy and slow for the road, and anything skinnier offroad is torture. For all road touring, I go skinnier than 2.0, but not by much.