touring on racing frame?

[mick skinner]

how much difference does the geometry really make?

in july i took three days to get from coventry to portsmouth got the ferry to bilbao then took two weeks to get to les deux alps, where i stayed in a chalet, going out on day rides with no luggage. i did this on my racing machine and was reasonably comfortable riding all day and virtually (one day off) every day.

my bike was a steel framed fondriest, i used one of those racks that bolt on to the seat post for the panniers (filled with camping gear etc) and a large handlebar bag.

my only grip with the bike was that i didn't have a low enough gear to tackle any of the pyrrenen climbs.

no-the-less i have now caught the touring bug and want to do it more.

since then i have aquired a lightspeed vortex and set it up for racing.

next summer i intend to do a similar trip on my litespeed, with the the adaptation of a triple chainset, so i can take in the pyrenees on route.

i will probable use a trailer instead of panniers, so there's no need for the bike to be suitable for carrying panniers

is it really worthwhile investing in another bike specifically for touring just for the sake of the more laid back geometry?

[vernon]

how much difference does the geometry really make?

in july i took three days to get from coventry to portsmouth got the ferry to bilbao then took two weeks to get to les deux alps, where i stayed in a chalet, going out on day rides with no luggage. i did this on my racing machine and was reasonably comfortable riding all day and virtually (one day off) every day.

my bike was a steel framed fondriest, i used one of those racks that bolt on to the seat post for the panniers (filled with camping gear etc) and a large handlebar bag.

my only grip with the bike was that i didn't have a low enough gear to tackle any of the pyrrenen climbs.

no-the-less i have now caught the touring bug and want to do it more.

since then i have aquired a lightspeed vortex and set it up for racing.

next summer i intend to do a similar trip on my litespeed, with the the adaptation of a triple chainset, so i can take in the pyrenees on route.

i will probable use a trailer instead of panniers, so there's no need for the bike to be suitable for carrying panniers

is it really worthwhile investing in another bike specifically for touring just for the sake of the more laid back geometry?

Of course it's worthwhile buying another bike. The optimum number is Bikes currently owned + 1

A touring bike offers a greater degree of ride comfort not only through its relaxed geometry but also through the wider tyres.

My Galaxy is certainly more accommodating as a solo bike over 200km rides than my road bike.

Of course, if you are happy with your existing bikes then there is no need to buy another bike but you will miss out on the pleasure of deliberating over specs before chosing and buying a new toy.

[Cyclefrance]

Well, I have gotten on pretty well touring with an old Raleigh Record Sprint for the last 7 years. I have a hybrid as well but still like the old Raleigh.

I'm not sure about all this geometry talk - load my bike up with a panniers back and front and it still handles well - I can't imagine a proper tourer faring any better.

I tend to use panniers both ends to share out the weight over the hubs as this saves wear and tear on the rear set. Otherwise I have fitted Armadillo tyres for puncture protection with low rolling resistance, a decent ergonomic saddle for less wear and tear on my own personal rear set, and a set of gears that includes a low ratio cog folr help with the hills (the limitations of 12 gears overall has been overcome with this adaptation).

Added to that, when I take the luggage off at my various stops, I have a comfortable and light-weight cycle for local riding.

[vernon]

Well, I have gotten on pretty well touring with an old Raleigh Record Sprint for the last 7 years. I have a hybrid as well but still like the old Raleigh.

I'm not sure about all this geometry talk - load my bike up with a panniers back and front and it still handles well - I can't imagine a proper tourer faring any better.

I tend to use panniers both ends to share out the weight over the hubs as this saves wear and tear on the rear set. Otherwise I have fitted Armadillo tyres for puncture protection with low rolling resistance, a decent ergonomic saddle for less wear and tear on my own personal rear set, and a set of gears that includes a low ratio cog folr help with the hills (the limitations of 12 gears overall has been overcome with this adaptation).

Added to that, when I take the luggage off at my various stops, I have a comfortable and light-weight cycle for local riding.

I've used a 12 speed Raleigh Equipe., a ridgeback Hybrid and a dawes Galaxy over the past four years. As a rather porky person, no amount of cassette replacements would make a 53/39 chainset useable for the LAkedistrict and the lumpier bits of the C2C for me. The hybrid was fine. The Galaxy has proved to be the most comfortable over extended periods of time. Until you have sampled the alternative(s) it is difficult to imagine improvements but trust me, a tourer is, in my opinion better suited to touring than a road bike no matter how much it has been modified.

You can of course stick with what you've got if you're happy with how it meets your needs.

[mick skinner]

vernon wrote:

.....but you will miss out on the pleasure of deliberating over specs before chosing and buying a new toy.

true, that is the most fun part!

so far i've got my eye on a van nicholas yukon with veloce triple groupset.
thinking about mavic open pro rims (36 spoke) built on mountain bike hubs; any opinions about the most durable wheelset on the market?

[vernon]

vernon wrote:

.....but you will miss out on the pleasure of deliberating over specs before chosing and buying a new toy.

true, that is the most fun part!

so far i've got my eye on a van nicholas yukon with veloce triple groupset.
thinking about mavic open pro rims (36 spoke) built on mountain bike hubs; any opinions about the most durable wheelset on the market?

I've destroyed two Mavic 319 rims with spokes pulling through and am about to try a Mavic 719 laced onto a Deore hub with 13/14 single buttted spokes drive side and 14 plain guage spoke on t'other. My from wheel is Mavic 319 laced onto a Deore Hub which has performed faultlessly over the past two years. My new wheel was handbuilt by my local bike shop in Leeds.

I'm no lightweight at 21+ plus stones and with full camping/touring gear will challenge the durability of most wheel sets.

Spa Cycles's wheel sets are highly rated in the comics as are Hewitt's.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

In very general terms as there are of course varitiations of each type, frame materials also play a part in how a bike feels for example, here are some general guidelines regarding frame geometry, well I say general but I have gradually built this post up to give more and more information so it is now quite detailed, I have used a 56cm frame as a guideline as frame geometry varies with size:

Race bike:
73 degree seat, 73 degree head tube with tight clearances, will feel stiff, lively and fast, least comfortable and stable when compaired to those below; many use a full on race bike for fast day rides, especially when the owner is feeling feeling a little bit frisky in the speed department (as I get older this happens less, normally one week in May and one in August, except of course when I have a tail wind), plus it can be rather pleasing to sit with your mates remembering how good you once was and how super your bike is; no harm in that, it's what cycling is all about Often not especiially robust for touring with narrow section tyres and often using a frame material that although stiffer will be more delicate, if you are prepaired to compromise it can be done of course, providing you can weather proof it sufficently to meet your requirements and get what you need luggage wise on it then if you find it comfortable enough then it is your call. Most prefer a bike with guards, luggage carrying capacity, a more comfortable geometry and lower gearing like the two examples below for touring though.

Audax and fast day ride bikes, I have listed both in same catergory as they often share similar geometry::
73 degree Seat, 72 degree head with slighty larger clearances for slightly larger tyres than a race bike with space for mudguards, as you can see the seat tube angles are similar to what you would find on a full-on race bike, whereas the head tube will have a slightly shallower angle to give a bit more comfort, yet still proide a fast ride, I only notice a difference over a race bike when sprinting/climbing out of the saddle, cruising in the saddle it will feel much closer. Some Audax frames will be same 73/73 geometry as a race bike but again with larger clearances, a traditional steel frame builder will still often build like that, although most modern manufacturers have a bike along the lines of 73/72 to cater for the fast day ride bike sector, which is why I have listed that geometry first, it is indeed for many manufacturers this sector that we have seen the largest growth interms of sales. From the larger manufacturers we have, for example, the fair weather Specialized 'Roubaix' range, sales for which have indeed grown to the extent that it out sells their similar priced flagship race bike ’Tarmac’ range, Trek currently have their Pilot range and most other leading manufacturers also have a similar styed bike. Many are set up more for fast days rides than Audax though, Roubaix will not take full guards for example, where as Van Nicholas Yukon and Enigma Etape are aimed more specifically at the European market so can take guards and pannier rack as well.

Touring:
72 degree Seat, 72 degree head with even larger clearances, longer fork rake and overall wheel base than Audax, they will often be fitted with even larger tyres and mudguards, most common for load carrying and as such need to be set up to be more robust than the two catergories above, not only with larger tyres but more heavy duty wheels and more often than not more robust frames as well, bikes like the Dawes Galaxy range for example, very stable, very comfortable but will feel less lively for out of the saddle effort. Still popluar with those who like a traditional mile eating comfortable bike, although to an extent the Audax, fast day ride bikes have taken over for many, as apart from heavy load carrying and rougher terrain they will do the majority of the tasks that a tourer will do, yet quicker and just as comfortable, such is the impact that modern materials have had, no longer do you need relaxed frame geometry like a full on touring bike to achieve comfort. This shift in demand is reflected in what is available of course, where as the Audax, fast day ride styles are ever increasing so the choice of traditional tourers is diminishing.

Paul Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk

how much difference does the geometry really make?

in july i took three days to get from coventry to portsmouth got the ferry to bilbao then took two weeks to get to les deux alps, where i stayed in a chalet, going out on day rides with no luggage. i did this on my racing machine and was reasonably comfortable riding all day and virtually (one day off) every day.

my bike was a steel framed fondriest, i used one of those racks that bolt on to the seat post for the panniers (filled with camping gear etc) and a large handlebar bag.

my only grip with the bike was that i didn't have a low enough gear to tackle any of the pyrrenen climbs.

no-the-less i have now caught the touring bug and want to do it more.

since then i have aquired a lightspeed vortex and set it up for racing.

next summer i intend to do a similar trip on my litespeed, with the the adaptation of a triple chainset, so i can take in the pyrenees on route.

i will probable use a trailer instead of panniers, so there's no need for the bike to be suitable for carrying panniers

is it really worthwhile investing in another bike specifically for touring just for the sake of the more laid back geometry?

[Mick F]

I've done lots of miles with panniers and a trailer on my "race" bike. By definition, it's "Race" coz it's angles are 73/73 and it has close clearances. BUT it's made from 531c - steel gives a comfortable ride, alu doesn't.

I don't consider my bike as "Race", just "Fast Tourer". A more apt name for what I do. Never been in a cycle race in my life.

[fatboy]

I'm intrigued what a "fast" bike feels like. I went from a hybrid to a tourer (tyre widths stayed the same) and the tourer feels like a rocket in comparison. Since the key thing that determines how fast you can go is wind resistance that must be what set the "top speed" for a particular rider. So my question is this. Is a fast bike one that accelarates fast, or one that is nicely aero or both? I suppose I'm interested to know that if I rolled up to a cycle club on my tourer would I get left behind any more on it rather than a "fast" bike?

From my rowing days I'm deeply suspicious of people claiming things to be "fast". If a new boat was bought and it was shiny and carbon fibre/kevlar within 20 metres of the landing stage it would be pronounced "fast" by someone in all seriousness. But if a boat was declared to be "slow" that was that and no-one wanted to use it!

[Milfred Cubicle]

I'm sure a dedicated bike is probably best. However, I've done some of my longest tours, including LEJOG, on a converted mountain bike. I really think it's all down to comfort and preference. One of my bikes was a '93 Kona Cinder Cone. Bikes around this time were on the quest for lightness. This bike came off the peg at 23-25lbs, as a mountain bike. With narrow road tyres, it was less. Take a look at some of the Thorn bikes at the moment. Steel frame, 26 in wheels, eyelets. Sounds familiar...

[Mick F]

Hi Fatboy,

A Race Bike isn't any faster than any other bike really. Speed comes from wind resistance, rolling resistance and rider power.

What makes a "fast" bike is it's ability to accelerate and react quickly. This comes down to: light wheels requiring less power to overcome rotating weight, low rolling resistant tyres, efficient frame geometry to allow the rider to get the power to the pedals, and an efficient and light gearing system with carefully chosen ratios.

It's akin to a sports car. Sports cars are not necessarily any "faster" than a 2ltr Mondeo. But they are quicker at accelerating and much more fun to drive!

[fatboy]

Mick F,

That pretty much confirms what I thought. But since I haven't ridden a racing bike I just wondered. I'm pretty settled with my tourer and if I ever wanted something lighter I'd go down the audax route. I think for the riding I do a bit of stability and the ability to haul panniers, child trailers, child tag-alongs is the key. I would like to have a go on a really quick bike one day though......

[Paul Smith SRCC]

Wheels do indeed make a huge difference to how a bike will feel and ride, race wheels are normally light and rigid with light tyres, the performance comes from how rigid these wheels are as well as the weight, stiffer wheels do not absorb as much energy, both road resinance and of course the riders effort. By comparison a touring bike will for comfort have a less rigid wheel with stronger and as such often heavier rims and tyres, again the performance is not only down to the weight but rigidity.

The same applies to bike frames, infact even more so, a race bike geometry will be tighter and stiffer and feel more responsive, most noticeable for out of the saddle effort like sprinting and climbing or as Mick mentions "they are quicker at accelerating ", less apparent for flat and level cruising; it would feel quicker even if made of the same material as a traditional tourer. back when nearly all bike used Reynolds 531, the competion tubeset did not weigh much less than the Super Touriste tubeset, the difference in performance came from the geometry; along with wheels as MickF mentions.

Lighter tyres and wheels will make most bikes feel quicker, often significantly if the change is dramatic, changing an off road knobly tyre for smooth road tyre on a mountain bike for example. Although the frame geometry also plays a significant part; using cars as a comparison you can stick as much technology into a Range Rover as you like but it will never feel like a Lotus.

An extreme comparison I know, in the end it comes down to compromise, many do long tours on ATB bikes with road tyres, nothing wrong in that if the rider is comfortable, it is not all about speed after all, cruising at 12-15 mph instead of 15-18 mph to many is not important; rightly so, horses for courses as they say, as long as you are happy

Paul Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk

Hi Fatboy,

A Race Bike isn't any faster than any other bike really. Speed comes from wind resistance, rolling resistance and rider power.

What makes a "fast" bike is it's ability to accelerate and react quickly. This comes down to: light wheels requiring less power to overcome rotating weight, low rolling resistant tyres, efficient frame geometry to allow the rider to get the power to the pedals, and an efficient and light gearing system with carefully chosen ratios.

It's akin to a sports car. Sports cars are not necessarily any "faster" than a 2ltr Mondeo. But they are quicker at accelerating and much more fun to drive!

[PW]

Wheel performance is down to revolving weight and also wind drag from the spokes - fewer spokes give less of both at the cost of reduced reliability & component life. "Stiffness" is a red herring, if the wheel is strong enough it is more than adequately stiff, the most flex in the system is from the tyre, no matter how hard you pump it.

[Paul Smith SRCC]

It depends on how sensative a rider is as to if they notice any difference or not and as such if the stiffness differences can be termed as a "red herring or not".

As a younger rider (I am 43 now) I raced full on race bikes for about eight seasons, racing, training and general riding about 10'000 miles a year on nothing but a race bike, even light touring on them. That kind of riding, mileage and experienced allowed to me obtain a riding style and position on the bike that was perfect for me, with a good compromise of comfort of riding efficiency, when set up correctly and with that experience the bike simply feels an extension of you and as such even small changes can be noticed.

Since that time I have ridden mainly Audax bikes, although I also do a 1000 miles plus each year on a hybrid as well as my atb. I still ride race bikes though and although I am no where near as quick as I was I still love that feeling of speed, one thing that hasn't changed is that I can still notice even small alterations; that includes using a pair of wheels that are indeed more rigid/stiffer even with the same tyres fitted.

For sure I agree with PW that nearly all wheels are stiff enough, but it is all relative, the best race bikes wheels may to some only make a small difference in performance, but I definetely notice this difference.

Paul Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk

Wheel performance is down to revolving weight and also wind drag from the spokes - fewer spokes give less of both at the cost of reduced reliability & component life. "Stiffness" is a red herring, if the wheel is strong enough it is more than adequately stiff, the most flex in the system is from the tyre, no matter how hard you pump it.