Are touring bikes old fashioned?

[GideonReade]

Spa.

[andrew_s]

How do you adjust a paper map?

You don't, but the changes are similar.

BitD, you'd get out your paper map, look at it for a bit, decide on a route, and ride off. Occasionally, on expiry of memory, or if you wanted to adjust the route due to a puncture delay or similar, you'd get out the map again and have another look, and refresh your memory or pick an adjusted route. By the time you'd been riding an area for 4 or 5 years, the map was largely superfluous as you knew your way around.

These days, it's all following a pre-plotted route on a GPS, and "planning" the route on some app (often by just by picking something automatically generated by the app, rather than actually planning which roads to follow yourself). Of sourse, the end result of just following the line for a few years is that if the GPS batteries die, you've no idea where you are or how to get home.

[CJ]

I've seen some things that just seem to make sense for touring:
Mounts and racks that are much more solid and designed to be mounted from day one. See a Trek 1120 or a Pipedream A.L.I.C.E fork etc.
Geometry which takes a lead from mountain bikes rather than twitchy road bikes.
Internal frame or hub gears (only the cost puts me off).

Despite advancing age, I try to keep my mind open to new ideas (as commented above, I happily tour on Ti and carbon - yes moving on too), but I check innovations against half a century of touring experience and what I remember of my university studies and early work as a design engineer. Intrigued by the above comment, I thought I'd better take a look at this Trek 1120. Here's a picture of the rear rack, designed to be mounted from day one.

Frankly I'm not impressed. You don't need to be an engineer to know that the best way to support a load is to stand it on something. That's why conventional rear carriers have legs, bolted to the rear frame ends. Original attachment there was via the axle nuts: strong but inconvenient. Then for much of recent memory, carriers were attached via the mudguard eyes or extra 'braze-ons' the same 5mm size, which frankly aint big enough. M5 rack bolts are notorious for rattling loose and better designed touring frames now have 6mm carrier eyes. But 5mm will do if the load is moderate, the way is smooth and the tightness checked often.

I digress. Supporting a load on what engineers call a cantilever, like a shelf bracket sticking out from a wall, is second best, something you do only when you can't put a prop directly under it - as would be the case on a full-suspension frame. A cantilever structure must be heavier, or else it may fail. It seems like we have a bit of both here. Before I get onto that however, let's look at the attachments. The horizontal distance from the load C-of-G to those bolts is two or three times the distance between the top and bottom bolts, so if you do the simple maths of bending moments, the force upon them is two or three times that carried by the legs of a conventional carrier. The top ones at least should be M6, even though the rated carrying capacity of this rack is only 12kg, but they appear to be the same size as bottle cage bolts on the same bike, so only M5.

The measure of luggage efficiency is the ratio of weight carried to self-weight. This 12kg capacity rear rack has a RRP of £88 and weighs 701g (according to this review), so it's efficiency is 17:1. I'll compare it to the Racktime Light-It: a much cheaper conventional rear rack that's likewise welded from large diameter alloy tubes, costs £55 (here), carries 20kg and weighs only 600g. So it's almost twice as efficient at 33:1 and is lighter regardless of how little you want to carry. Being a German rather than US/UK product it is of course designed for attachment by M6 bolts at the rear ends (M5 is fine for the upper seatstay attachments of conventional carriers).

Is this rather inefficient Trek design at least strong enough? I've expressed my doubts over the attachments and it seems there is indeed a problem. Whilst trying to discover the weight of the 1120 rack (which Trek don't mention) I came across this comment in Singletrack forum:

The rack design or it’s attachment points are prone to causing frame cracking. I’ve read that on the latest versions welded lugs are used throughout rather than just on the upper mounting points. There’s a rack mod which uses vertical bontrager rack legs to spread the weight more.

What did I say? Put a prop under it!

The Trek 1120 frame does also have conventional rack eyes at the rear dropouts, but sadly only M5 sized. So much for "more solid" then. Appearances can indeed be deceptive.

The Trek 1120 front carrier also lacks the weight-saving prop it could so easily have. And as for Pipedream Alice's fork, I'm not convinced that a lot more trail is a good thing, given that's what gives women's bikes their notoriously floppy steering, when lazy manufacturers specify the same fork across the whole range, only giving the smaller sizes shallower head angles.

[Cugel]

How do you adjust a paper map?

You don't, but the changes are similar.

BitD, you'd get out your paper map, look at it for a bit, decide on a route, and ride off. Occasionally, on expiry of memory, or if you wanted to adjust the route due to a puncture delay or similar, you'd get out the map again and have another look, and refresh your memory or pick an adjusted route. By the time you'd been riding an area for 4 or 5 years, the map was largely superfluous as you knew your way around.

These days, it's all following a pre-plotted route on a GPS, and "planning" the route on some app (often by just by picking something automatically generated by the app, rather than actually planning which roads to follow yourself). Of sourse, the end result of just following the line for a few years is that if the GPS batteries die, you've no idea where you are or how to get home.

Being an ole scrote alive before gizmoiditus infected everyone's brain, I learnt at at early age not just how to read a paper map but how to relate its symbology to the reality of what those symbols represent. If this mode of navigation or "learning the land" is practiced routinely it becomes second nature so that a mere one or two reads of the map are sufficient to navigate a new route and to install it more or less permanently in memory.

Personally I believe that many modern data-processing and/or information summarising or short-cutting technologies are making us stupid. The worst example, though, is not the inability to read the reality of a landscape but the inability to read the reality of a memescape - the vast landscape of ideas and other cultural stuff out there. Many rely, for example, on the notion navigation devices of newspaps and the idiot box, with their potted opinions. No wonder so many are lost in lah-lah land, eh? The veracity, cohesion or "reasonableness" of ideas can no longer be apprehended and understood by thought processes but only read off a page composed by another opinion-stuffed slackwit.

"Convenience technologies". Not at all convenient once they go phut and the user discovers they can barely find and walk to the shop for their newspap.

Cugel, meself largely composed of book, mind.

[CJ]

How do you adjust a paper map?

You don't, but the changes are similar.

BitD, you'd get out your paper map, look at it for a bit, decide on a route, and ride off. Occasionally, on expiry of memory, or if you wanted to adjust the route due to a puncture delay or similar, you'd get out the map again and have another look, and refresh your memory or pick an adjusted route. By the time you'd been riding an area for 4 or 5 years, the map was largely superfluous as you knew your way around.

These days, it's all following a pre-plotted route on a GPS, and "planning" the route on some app (often by just by picking something automatically generated by the app, rather than actually planning which roads to follow yourself). Of sourse, the end result of just following the line for a few years is that if the GPS batteries die, you've no idea where you are or how to get home.

I disagree Andrew, but mildly. I've been navigating by GPS for years and recently moved to a new(ish) area - that I've not cycled regularly for 40 years. At first I was very rusty, but now know where I am and the options for getting somewhere else better than most of the locals. My GPS can die and I'm just fine, really I am. But I do still use a map at home to do the long-range planning, before detailing and digitising the route on PC. Because even though I have a 25inch monitor, the screen-size of a paper map is bigger, with hands-free zoom and scroll just by moving one's head!

I've found that what best builds 'the knowledge' is the process of planning and then leading a ride, however you actually do it. Simply following the wheel in front on a ride planned and led by someone else, simply doesn't help much. Likewise I am sure you are right that one learns very little by following a line on a screen that was planned by someone else, or by the machine. I hardly ever use my GPS as a satnav. But then I am at heart a lover of maps.

[cycle tramp]

I've seen some things that just seem to make sense for touring:
Mounts and racks that are much more solid and designed to be mounted from day one

Intrigued by the above comment, I thought I'd better take a look at this Trek 1120. Here's a picture of the rear rack, designed to be mounted from day one.

Frankly I'm not impressed. You don't need to be an engineer to know that the best way to support a load is to stand it on something. That's why conventional rear carriers have legs, bolted to the rear frame ends.

Supporting a load on what engineers call a cantilever, like a shelf bracket sticking out from a wall, is second best, something you do only when you can't put a prop directly under it - as would be the case on a full-suspension frame. A cantilever structure must be heavier, or else it may fail. It seems like we have a bit of both here. Before I get onto that however, let's look at the attachments. The horizontal distance from the load C-of-G to those bolts is two or three times the distance between the top and bottom bolts, so if you do the simple maths of bending moments, the force upon them is two or three times that carried by the legs of a conventional carrier. The top ones at least should be M6, even though the rated carrying capacity of this rack is only 12kg, but they appear to be the same size as bottle cage bolts on the same bike, so only M5.


Is this rather inefficient Trek design at least strong enough? I've expressed my doubts over the attachments and it seems there is indeed a problem. Whilst trying to discover the weight of the 1120 rack (which Trek don't mention) I came across this comment in Singletrack forum:

The rack design or it’s attachment points are prone to causing frame cracking. I’ve read that on the latest versions welded lugs are used throughout rather than just on the upper mounting points. There’s a rack mod which uses vertical bontrager rack legs to spread the weight more.

What did I say? Put a prop under it!

You're far too polite if the rear rack has props or legs which run from the platform of the rack to the rear drop outs - then effectly you have a..... rear rack. And if the rear rack looks like everyone else's (because there's only one set of law of physics/engineering principles) and is bolted to a diamond frame..... then surely what you have is a start of a more traditional touring bike... which gravel bikes are reported 'not' to be....

..however the whole evolution of the gravel bike is now a moot point. The uci have step in. Their rules will now dicate any future direction, simply because given the choice most customers will go for a bike which fits the rules.. even if they never intend to cycle in a uci ordained event...

[rareposter]

..however the whole evolution of the gravel bike is now a moot point. The uci have step in. Their rules will now dicate any future direction, simply because given the choice most customers will go for a bike which fits the rules.. even if they never intend to cycle in a uci ordained event...

No.
Like MTBing, the UCI have taken a very back seat to the design and evolution of the gravel bike. They have some stipulations about gravel race courses (length, severity, number of feed zones etc) but the only requirement of the bike is that it should have dropped handlebars.
There's a sentence in there saying that tandems, recumbents and road TT bikes are banned. Otherwise, anything goes.

[mattheus]

Like MTBing, the UCI have taken a very back seat to the design and evolution of the gravel bike.
...<snip>
Otherwise, anything goes.

I would imagine that was roughly how the regulation of road-racing started too.

[GideonReade]

I wuz just reading around that. All sorts of curious options flushed out by gravel or bikepacking.

https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers ... andlebars/

I imagine it must've been a bit like this in maybe the 1890s... Lots of new ideas that suit some people. Can only be good for touring.

My long haul bike (Spa Roughstuff) ended up with a very hi-rise stem/drop bars combo, as a result of finding the height where I could ride for days on the hoods sans aches. So high, in fact, I fitted a second stem and trimmed flat bar to carry the (heavy) barbag and accessories a bit lower and less in the way. It worked, but is elaborate and heavy. So I'm always looking for other options...

[Sweep]

They have some stipulations about gravel race courses (length, severity, number of feed zones etc) but the only requirement of the bike is that it should have dropped handlebars.

Not a sports cyclist but have always been somewhat intrigued by the UCI's dictats. Why would they specify that it HAS to be drops? As I imagine that for racing purposes folks would plump for drops anyway.
Why not up to folks to use flats if they want to? At some disadvantage to themselves I would imagine.
(declaration - flat bar rider here - would never ride drops for my own needs but each to their own)

[rareposter]

Like MTBing, the UCI have taken a very back seat to the design and evolution of the gravel bike.
...<snip>
Otherwise, anything goes.

I would imagine that was roughly how the regulation of road-racing started too.

By that definition, you could argue that was how the regulation of MTB has gone and the UCI do almost nothing in that to restrict the bike other than to say it has to be solely human powered.

It's sort of off-topic from the main thread though - some of the innovations in bikepacking / gravel (and even MTB & road) are carrying over into touring and blurring the lines a bit to the extent that a traditional touring bike certainly looks old fashioned next to a modern gravel / bikepacking bike. But then a 1980's road bike looks old-fashioned next to a modern road racer (which sort of suggests that the UCI are not restricting things as much as is often implied...)

[rareposter]

Not a sports cyclist but have always been somewhat intrigued by the UCI's dictats. Why would they specify that it HAS to be drops? As I imagine that for racing purposes folks would plump for drops anyway.
Why not up to folks to use flats if they want to? At some disadvantage to themselves I would imagine.
(declaration - flat bar rider here - would never ride drops for my own needs but each to their own)

Because flat bars turns it into an MTB endurance race.

Have a read of the rules for the Three Peaks CX sometime: http://3peakscyclocross.org.uk/

14. BIKE REGULATIONS
14.1 The race is for cyclo-cross bikes with drop handlebars only. The use of mountain bikes and road bikes is prohibited. Noted the similarities of gravel and cyclo-cross bikes, the only race rules pertaining to cycle design shall be:
• That 27", 29” or 700mm wheels in mountain bike frames will not be allowed;
• The width of the tyre cannot be more than 35mm as displayed on the tyre;
• Suspension of any form is prohibited;
• No flared or flat handlebars are to be used
• Handlebar width shall be no greater than 440mm; and,
• Axles shall be 12mm through axles or quick release only.
For the avoidance of doubt, disc brakes are permitted. The race organising group will not enter into any correspondence on what constitutes a cyclo-cross or gravel bike beyond the points listed above.

That race is not remotely UCI compliant - in fact it doesn't even fit within BC rules and is "allowed" more on the basis that it's always happened than because it is a "proper" CX race. It's utterly unique, they (sort of) make their own rules but there are more restrictions on that one race than in pretty much any UCI gravel race!

Still largely irrelevant to the main point of this thread though.

[mattheus]

[The 3 Peaks CX Race ] is not remotely UCI compliant - in fact it doesn't even fit within BC

I did not realise that. Makes me even more keen to give it a go one day!

(Still just a pipe-dream, realistically ... )

[Vorpal]

I've seen some things that just seem to make sense for touring:
Mounts and racks that are much more solid and designed to be mounted from day one. See a Trek 1120 or a Pipedream A.L.I.C.E fork etc.
Geometry which takes a lead from mountain bikes rather than twitchy road bikes.

As someone who has toured on an MTB based bike, and a traditional touring bike, I feel the need to make a couple of points. CJ has ably addressed the rack mounting on the Trekk 1120.

As for geometry, my MTB and my MTB based hybrid have shorter wheel bases than my touring bike. The longer chain stays mean more room for luggage & better handling when loaded. I have to take care on the MTB & hybrid to put panniers back far enough that I don't have heel srtike, and then if I put too much in them, they shift the weight back on the bike. I've used all 3 bikes on a rough, off-road touring route that I like, and I prefer the touring bike (with wide tyres). It's more comfortable & handles better loaded.

That said, there is a place for MTB based touring bikes, but it requires a different luggage distribution than a traditional touring bike, and is possibly better suited to light touring. There are conditions, for example where it is likely to be muddy, that I would rather have an MTB with knobblies than my touring bike, purely for the traction.

[GideonReade]

...presumably some of the newish flat-bar, fat tyre load luggers from the likes of Surly will combine MTB terrain abilities with load carrying shaped, stiffened, frames?

Obviously at the cost of being pretty lumpy and sluggish in a road environment*.

*Well, actually, our West Sussex roads...