Hi
Hope you can help.
After lots of procrastination I decided that the new bike that would suit my needs best would be a Touring bike. I use the bike for holidays, commuting, shopping and general getting around. It seems to be a bit speedier than a hybrid with the practical bits already attached.
The ones I've researched generally come with a pannier rack, mudguards and bottle cage; perfect. Dawes seem to be the ones to go for.
Reading up on here I'm now thrown by the introduction of Audax bikes. They seem much sportier and closer to a road bike but with less of the practical parts thrown in. Do you fit them after?
I'm overwhelmed and not sure where to turn so would really appreciate your advice.
Thanks.
Touring v Audax
Re: Touring v Audax
I had the same "problem" a few years back. I was buying a new bike as my old one was too painful after a couple of hundred miles. Mine was mostly for Audax riding now but I wanted to keep my options open for my later years.
Consider how much load you will carry and for what percentage of your riding. Both types of bikes can do the others job but one type is a bit more suitable at times than the other.
Another important difference is an Audax bike will limit you to tyres no larger than 28mm on the whole, if you will want to fit larger you have to go to a tourer frame BUT you can fit as tiny tyres as you like to the tourer frame. When it comes down to it the wheels and tyres are more important than the frame in my opinion.
Another point to note is that anybody can call a bike whatever they like. Look beyond the name to what you are actually getting, in particular many "Audax" bikes are sold with double cranksets, very few Audax riders around here ride with a double.
In the end I went for a bike called a light tourer/Cyclocross, though I think cyclocross riders would deny that it is suitable for cyclocrossing. It isnt as good at Audaxing as the Audax frame model but it is better at carrying loads and can accommodate ice tyres when needed.
My distinction of the bike types is based on their brakes as that is harder to change than a crankset etc.
Road have shallow caliper brakes (49mm) allowing tyres to around 25mm
Audax have deep caliper brakes (57mm) allowing tyres to 28mm and mudguards.
Light Tourers have cantiposts allowing much larger tyres and mudguards.
Cyclocross will (as a poor rule of thumb) have even more space in the forks for larger (or muddy) tyres.
I repeat again that if the are any rules about classifying bike types, they are frequently broken.
Consider how much load you will carry and for what percentage of your riding. Both types of bikes can do the others job but one type is a bit more suitable at times than the other.
Another important difference is an Audax bike will limit you to tyres no larger than 28mm on the whole, if you will want to fit larger you have to go to a tourer frame BUT you can fit as tiny tyres as you like to the tourer frame. When it comes down to it the wheels and tyres are more important than the frame in my opinion.
Another point to note is that anybody can call a bike whatever they like. Look beyond the name to what you are actually getting, in particular many "Audax" bikes are sold with double cranksets, very few Audax riders around here ride with a double.
In the end I went for a bike called a light tourer/Cyclocross, though I think cyclocross riders would deny that it is suitable for cyclocrossing. It isnt as good at Audaxing as the Audax frame model but it is better at carrying loads and can accommodate ice tyres when needed.
My distinction of the bike types is based on their brakes as that is harder to change than a crankset etc.
Road have shallow caliper brakes (49mm) allowing tyres to around 25mm
Audax have deep caliper brakes (57mm) allowing tyres to 28mm and mudguards.
Light Tourers have cantiposts allowing much larger tyres and mudguards.
Cyclocross will (as a poor rule of thumb) have even more space in the forks for larger (or muddy) tyres.
I repeat again that if the are any rules about classifying bike types, they are frequently broken.
Yma o Hyd
Re: Touring v Audax
If you are not going to carry a heavy load, would appreciate the (slight) extra speed, and don't mind the slightly rougher ride and having to bolt racks etc on, then an 'Audax' bike is a viable choice.
However, much as I like zipping along good roads on ~25mm tyres, I do find that I often see 'interesting' bridleways that I would like to explore and can't easily ride on. Then I wish I'd come out on my 35mm tyres, fitted to a bike with bigger mudguard clearances etc.
With hub generator lighting and a few other features such as enough luggage capacity, moderately wide tyres, good mudguard clearances, and wide range gearing, a good touring bike can become a real go-anywhere-go-anytime machine. As per the previous post, a bike that ticks these boxes mightn't be sold as a 'touring bike' even if that is what it in fact is...
cheers
However, much as I like zipping along good roads on ~25mm tyres, I do find that I often see 'interesting' bridleways that I would like to explore and can't easily ride on. Then I wish I'd come out on my 35mm tyres, fitted to a bike with bigger mudguard clearances etc.
With hub generator lighting and a few other features such as enough luggage capacity, moderately wide tyres, good mudguard clearances, and wide range gearing, a good touring bike can become a real go-anywhere-go-anytime machine. As per the previous post, a bike that ticks these boxes mightn't be sold as a 'touring bike' even if that is what it in fact is...
cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Touring v Audax
Polite wrote:Reading up on here I'm now thrown by the introduction of Audax bikes. They seem much sportier and closer to a road bike but with less of the practical parts thrown in. Do you fit them after?
Yes, it's normal to have to fit carriers and lights yourself.
There isn't a properly defined view of what an "Audax" bike is.
Many are what would have been, and still are in some cases, called "winter trainers" - i.e. a road bike with a bit of extra clearance for mudguards. Brakes are sometimes standard reach so you could struggle with larger tyres. There may or may not be rear rack attachment points, and there almost certainly won't be any for a front rack. Ribble etc will sell this style.
Others have come from more of a slimmed down light tourer direction, with cantilevers replaced by 57mm dual pivots (max 28mm plus mudguards or 32mm without, normally), and with a slightly tightened up rear end, but still with a reasonably complete set of braze-ons for the attachment of pannier racks, including front rack points sometimes. Thorn Audax bikes are like this.
I've done quite a bit of cycle camping on a Thorn Audax. The frame isn't really stiff enough for heavy loads so it takes a day or two to get used to the frame flex, but it's OK after you have.
Re: Touring v Audax
Much as I love my road and audax bikes, my touring bike (Ridgeback Panorama) is far more comfortable to ride, has better load lugging capacity and came equipped with guards, pump, racks (front and rear) and interruptor brake levers. If I didn't do club group rides, I use the Panorama all the time.