touring on a trad touring bike?

[Si]

for xmas I was given the Adventure Cycling Handbook (as reviewed in the CTC's cycle magazine).

There's some very interesting and informative things in it, written by people far more experienced and knowledgeable about big long tours in the back of beyond than I will ever be..

But there are one or two strange things in there too.

For instance in discussing the type of bike to use they suggest that the traditional British touring bike (such as the Galaxy) is not up to cycle camping and especially if any dirt roads are involved, being really only good for road based tours to hostels. This I find quite surprising. I've used my 1991 Galaxy for cycle camping using dirt tracks and bridleways and it performed admirably. I'm sure that newer models are even better.

As far as handling it was as good as you re going to get with a rigid, loaded tourer (not of the fatbike persuasion). As far as carrying everything it was fine - I had space to spare, no toe or heal strike, nothing fell off and the bike was well balanced. So I can only guess that they think such a bike will fall apart after several months of such treatment.

Yet people have been touring all over the world on such bikes for decades without suffering sure and certain death. And strangely enough they go on to say that it you can't afford a serious Surley or Thorn Expedition bi9ke then you can convert an old 1990s rigid MTB. Well, yes, you can, but the quality wont be any better than a proper tourer and there will be compromises that a proper tourer won't have.

All seems a bit strange and unjustified.

[simonhill]

Interesting!

I have the second edition which says about the Ultra-Galaxy "Galaxies are strong enough to handle potholed roads and rough tracks". They are one of the recommended stock bikes.

This was when Stephen was the author/editor. Obviously the new authors don't agree.

[tatanab]

For instance in discussing the type of bike to use they suggest that the traditional British touring bike (such as the Galaxy) is not up to cycle camping and especially if any dirt roads are involved, being really only good for road based tours to hostels.

Stupid modern thinking caused by marketeers having to invent ever narrower niches. Try telling them that I started my timetrial career on a 3 speed hub roadster with all steel equipment. Impossible they'd say because you need a carbon fibre, sub 20lb bike with disc wheels to go 20mph. Similarly you need tractor tyres and special equipment to ride off smooth surfaces. So my Roberts touring bike with slick 25mm tyres should be suitable for almost nothing, and certainly not the cycle camping uses I put if to.

[horizon]

I tried my 1.5 Marathons on my Sardar on the New Forest cycle tracks and they slid around on the gravelly surface. I also buckled a rear wheel on my Galaxy in Spain on a rough track.

I think they have a point. The bike is strong enough but for loose surfaces and fully loaded over bumpy roads, a nice soft wide tyres and smaller (stronger) wheels is I think desirable.

[m-gineering]

For instance in discussing the type of bike to use they suggest that the traditional British touring bike (such as the Galaxy) is not up to cycle camping and especially if any dirt roads are involved, being really only good for road based tours to hostels. This I find quite surprising. I've used my 1991 Galaxy for cycle camping using dirt tracks and bridleways and it performed admirably. I'm sure that newer models are even better.

You can go touring on any sort of bicycle, be it a penny farthing, an Apollo, a Flying Pigeon, a fixie, whatever. You just have to accept the limitations.

That said, a wider tyre will have a higher load capacity, give more comfort, ride better on rough terrain and will give less trouble. When touring that translates in a much greater freedom to pick the worst maintained (ie quitest) roads or tracks and you won't feel quite so battered at the end of a day in the saddle.

You can live with narrowish tyres, especially if you are light on equipment, but you will probably find you will adjust your route to fit the bike. 40 years ago that wasn't too bad (on my first tour I bought a Michelin Map 1:1.000.000 and did 4" a day along the route nationale ) but with modern traffic conditions i find it more relaxing to be able to ride where I want instead of where I can.

[Barrenfluffit]

Also the availability of spares is relevant. I can't remember if the 91 Galaxies had abandoned 27 1/4 wheels but from awkward personal experience I can attest that tyres and wheels in this size are not readily available in France.
I do use it "offroad" but not in the sense of remote multi-day tours on gravel tracks; its not its forte.

[PDQ Mobile]

IMHO and experience the traditional touring bike will take you further in a day than other types.
Large easy rolling wheels, geometry that holds a line well, light weight (of bike) and hopefully comfort.
Limitations off road for sure. But horses for courses.

[Vantage]

Large easy rolling wheels, geometry that holds a line well, light weight (of bike) and hopefully comfort.
Limitations off road for sure. But horses for courses.

I wish that was true of mine. The steering is twitchy as an Iranian terrorists trigger finger and she weighs at least 31lbs off the shelf.
Built like a sherman tank though and the only offroading it hasn't done that I did do on my mountain bike is more to do with my own fear (having aged a few years) than the bike breaking.

I prefer it's 'classic' looks to those 26" wheeled european bull handlebarred things though.

[khain]

Maybe they're thinking more about cycling in countries where 700c parts aren't readily available.

You certainly can use a traditional British tourer for cycle camping and I'd imagine most are designed to cope with it. At the same time, the gearing on most trad-700c tourers is quite high for carrying a heavy load and the brakes a bit weak. For people new to cycling touring a rigid mountain bike is probably a better bet, particularly if doing any off-road cycling.

Thorn cycles also recommend 26" wheels for loaded touring. You need pretty heavy 700c wheels for off-road cycle camping, unless you're a very light rider.

[kylecycler]

Thorn cycles also recommend 26" wheels for loaded touring. You need pretty heavy 700c wheels for off-road cycle camping, unless you're a very light rider.

This blog post by 'bretonbikes', a member of this forum, tends to confirm that. It's not based on theory or belief, just experience, after years and many thousands of miles hiring his fleet of bikes out to cycle tourists and having spokes break on 700c wheels, even hand-built ones (and I don't think they even go off-road all that often). The benefit of using 26" wheels wasn't just (or maybe not even) because they're stronger, but he reckons it was also because of their greatly increased tyre volume and their ablility to run lower pressures...

http://www.bretonbikes.com/homepage/cyc ... 700c-vs-26

That blog post really was an eye-opener. Downside is, a large frame with 26-inch wheels looks awful, although you can't see a bike from the saddle, but AFAIK the original mountain bikes in Marin County were designed for 650B (584mm), or it might even have been 650A (590mm), can't remember, but anyway there weren't enough tyres available in those sizes, whereas there were for 26" (559mm), so that's the only reason 26" wheels were adopted.

Do you think maybe the ideal touring bikes of the future will (eventually) have 650B wheels (yeah, I know, it depends on how you define 'eventually'! )?

[FarOeuf]

I've ridden for years loaded and offroad on 700c wheels (self built mind you). I wouldn't take Thorn's recommendations as far as I could chuck loaded Nomad. Perhaps they should be recommending customers learn to build wheels instead of recommending bike formats they prefer to sell?

EDIT: 38mm tyres on now, but mostly 28mm in the past. Never a puncture, and ended up riding singletrack or piste a lot of the time off-road.

[robgul]

The book - which I thought was poor - has a very strong focus on touring in remote and inhospitable places ... not the more typical on-road European stuff that probably 99% of readers on this forum are likely to undertake - of which I would guess half wouldn't be camping* ... so a wider range of bikes would be fine.

My 1975 Galaxy (OK the frame and forks are 1975, the rest is modern) has served me well touring for thousands of miles - initially on 32mm and latterly on 28mm Marathons.

Rob

* I have no data for these statements - just gut feel based on what I've seen when touring myself.

[pete75]

You can't get much more trad than this.



http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/r ... ing-19253/

[pete75]

I've ridden for years loaded and offroad on 700c wheels (self built mind you). I wouldn't take Thorn's recommendations as far as I could chuck loaded Nomad. Perhaps they should be recommending customers learn to build wheels instead of recommending bike formats they prefer to sell?

The main message from Thorn's long and rambling web adverts seems to be our bikes are wonderful everyone else's are crap.

[pwa]

I've ridden for years loaded and offroad on 700c wheels (self built mind you). I wouldn't take Thorn's recommendations as far as I could chuck loaded Nomad. Perhaps they should be recommending customers learn to build wheels instead of recommending bike formats they prefer to sell?

The main message from Thorn's long and rambling web adverts seems to be our bikes are wonderful everyone else's are crap.

I have a Thorn 26" wheel tandem which they said would fly down hills and frankly, it doesn't. It's stable and easy to control, and I like riding it, but it is slow on tarmac and I put that down to the 26" wheels and 1.75" tyres. I would not choose that for a solo tourer to be used in Europe, mainly on roads and decent tracks.

Thorn seem to think that the apex of touring is jetting off to far flung parts of the planet, seeing the world and destroying its atmospheric equilibrium as you do so. They seem to prefer designing bikes to do that. I prefer European touring, without air travel, and not going out of my way to find rough surfaces.