Dave W wrote:I wonder what percentage of the cycling population are in fact true 'Tourers' - probably not that many these days.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but it might be more than you think. Touring is actually a broad definition, perhaps more easily understood by reference to what it
isn't than by what it
is.
It isn't;
- racing
- commuting
- structured training
- riding to the shops
but that leaves a lot of other cycling going on that is in some form or other, 'touring'. I'd argue that it effectively covers any kind of cycling that isn't racing or utility cycling of some kind, where the riding is being done primarily for pleasure, and outright speed is not the primary goal.
A bike that can be used for the widest variety of on-road cycling purposes might be described as 'a touring bike'. We think of it these days as something that is meant for loading up with panniers but actually anything that is being ridden for pleasure and ever carries anything more than just its rider is arguably some kind of 'touring bike'; I'd include audax bikes, hybrids, clubman's machines, roughstuff bikes in this category; they are all 'touring bikes' in some way shape or form because they are not racing bikes or commuting bikes and they are used for 'touring purposes'.
So anyone who rides these bikes is a 'tourer' or a 'tourist'; not a trendy description perhaps but an accurate one. Many people buy a machine that they
could use for 'proper touring' even if they don't do it that often; in any event, in any of these uses, I'd argue that the balance between performance, cost and ease of repair ought to be slanted in the same way, i.e. more in the direction of reliability and ease of repair than towards the high performance end of the spectrum, especially if there is any perceived reduction in reliability or ease of repair should performance parts be used.
So I'd argue that there are very many tourists; they just don't know it...
cheers
