Help finding a suitable touring frame? (long)

[Paul Myron Hobson]

Hey y'all,

So I got some bad news from the orthopedic surgeon yesterday: my healing
has pretty much just plateaued. He said I should find a good
stopping/break point in my graduate research and spend some more time in
a cast :( (all that physical therapy down the drain)

In the mean time and for a while afterwards, I seriously need to take it
easy - multiple gears and handlebars fairly high up. Coincidentally,
I've also be looking for a good frame that can double for *light*
touring (3 or 4 days over to my parents' house) and somewhat speedy road
rides. I pretty much have all the components, just need a frame, fresh
fork, headset, and appropriate stem. I prefer caliper brakes over
cantis right now, b/c of the adjustment is so easy. But, I'm cool with
cantis if need be. My current SS commuter which has felt dern stable
loaded up (with beer :p) has a 1025 mm wheelbase.

I'm torn between getting a "relaxed" road frame like the Soma Smoothie
ES or something more hardcore like the Soma Double Cross. The Smoothie
ES (1007 mm WB) can take 32 mm (as big as I go) tires with fenders and
standard (57 mm) reach caliper brakes. It's got double eyelets on the
rear and single on the front. It's a pretty light frame to boot.

Then there's the Soma Double Cross (1026 mm WB). For all I can tell,
it's a slightly lighter Surly Cross Check. Double eyelets front and
rear, canti bosses, clearance for 38 mm tires w/ fenders.

Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check and Long Haul Trucker. I
think the LHT may be a bit much for me. Cross Check seems more
reasonable, has a 1014 mm WB (1064 mm for the LHT). Both have rear
double eyelets. Only single in the front for the Cross Check, which
comes with horizontal drop outs - maybe a plus? I could definitely go
SS easily...but that's not really a selling point right now.

I checked most major bike companies and didn't see anything labeled as a
tourer that really caught my eye. Did I miss someone? If I bought a
complete bike, I'd definitely part it out since I currently have nicer
stuff just laying around.

Thanks!

\\paul

[anth]

On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 11:10 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> I've also be looking for a good frame that can double for *light*
> touring
>
> I checked most major bike companies and didn't see anything labeled as a
> tourer that really caught my eye. Did I miss someone? If I bought a
> complete bike, I'd definitely part it out since I currently have nicer
> stuff just laying around.

It might be worth taking a look at a Giant OCR or Specialized Tricross.
I don't know if Giant sell just the frame, and Specialized only do so
for the (silly priced) S-Works versions, so they'll probably fail your
requirements on that point. Otherwise they seem a pretty good mix of
performance and practicality.

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:10:05 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson wrote:


> I checked most major bike companies and didn't see anything labeled as a
> tourer that really caught my eye. Did I miss someone? If I bought a
> complete bike, I'd definitely part it out since I currently have nicer
> stuff just laying around.
>
> Thanks!
>

Not interested in the Jamis Aurora? or was that what they jacked from you?

I *lurve* my Aurora.

-Luigi


--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[RBrickston]

In article <f8adgc$nkc$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>, phobson@gatech.edu says...
> Hey y'all,
>
> So I got some bad news from the orthopedic surgeon yesterday: my healing
> has pretty much just plateaued. He said I should find a good
> stopping/break point in my graduate research and spend some more time in
> a cast :( (all that physical therapy down the drain)
>
> In the mean time and for a while afterwards, I seriously need to take it
> easy - multiple gears and handlebars fairly high up. Coincidentally,
> I've also be looking for a good frame that can double for *light*
> touring (3 or 4 days over to my parents' house) and somewhat speedy road
> rides. I pretty much have all the components, just need a frame, fresh
> fork, headset, and appropriate stem. I prefer caliper brakes over
> cantis right now, b/c of the adjustment is so easy. But, I'm cool with
> cantis if need be. My current SS commuter which has felt dern stable
> loaded up (with beer :p) has a 1025 mm wheelbase.
>
> I'm torn between getting a "relaxed" road frame like the Soma Smoothie
> ES or something more hardcore like the Soma Double Cross. The Smoothie
> ES (1007 mm WB) can take 32 mm (as big as I go) tires with fenders and
> standard (57 mm) reach caliper brakes. It's got double eyelets on the
> rear and single on the front. It's a pretty light frame to boot.
>
> Then there's the Soma Double Cross (1026 mm WB). For all I can tell,
> it's a slightly lighter Surly Cross Check. Double eyelets front and
> rear, canti bosses, clearance for 38 mm tires w/ fenders.
>
> Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check and Long Haul Trucker. I
> think the LHT may be a bit much for me. Cross Check seems more
> reasonable, has a 1014 mm WB (1064 mm for the LHT). Both have rear
> double eyelets. Only single in the front for the Cross Check, which
> comes with horizontal drop outs - maybe a plus? I could definitely go
> SS easily...but that's not really a selling point right now.
>
> I checked most major bike companies and didn't see anything labeled as a
> tourer that really caught my eye. Did I miss someone? If I bought a
> complete bike, I'd definitely part it out since I currently have nicer
> stuff just laying around.
>
> Thanks!
>
> \\paul
>

Trek 520

[landotter]

On Jul 26, 10:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:

> Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check

Always a good choice for an all rounder. It has a purty crowned fork
to boot. I also do like the Soma Smoothie, at least by the looks and
specs.

If you want something on the cheap, Nashbar's got their aluminum
cxcross frame for a hundred right now. It ain't pretty, but it'll get
the job done. Add their carbon cxcross fork and you'll hit right
around 250 with shipping. You'll have to go canti, but some Oryx
cantis are pretty affordable.

[RBrickston]

In article <1185494685.482793.240770@l70g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
landotter@gmail.com says...
> On Jul 26, 10:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check
>
> Always a good choice for an all rounder. It has a purty crowned fork
> to boot. I also do like the Soma Smoothie, at least by the looks and
> specs.
>
> If you want something on the cheap, Nashbar's got their aluminum
> cxcross frame for a hundred right now. It ain't pretty, but it'll get
> the job done. Add their carbon cxcross fork and you'll hit right
> around 250 with shipping. You'll have to go canti, but some Oryx
> cantis are pretty affordable.
>
>
Isn't the BB mounted higher on this bike than a normal non-cross frame?

[landotter]

On Jul 26, 7:11 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1185494685.482793.240...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
> landot...@gmail.com says...> On Jul 26, 10:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check
>
> > Always a good choice for an all rounder. It has a purty crowned fork
> > to boot. I also do like the Soma Smoothie, at least by the looks and
> > specs.
>
> > If you want something on the cheap, Nashbar's got their aluminum
> > cxcross frame for a hundred right now. It ain't pretty, but it'll get
> > the job done. Add their carbon cxcross fork and you'll hit right
> > around 250 with shipping. You'll have to go canti, but some Oryx
> > cantis are pretty affordable.
>
> Isn't the BB mounted higher on this bike than a normal non-cross frame?

It doesn't look abnormally high in the pics online. Chainstays still
slope down towards BB. Don't have the exact specs, though.

[RBrickston]

In article <1185501674.075072.130160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
landotter@gmail.com says...
> On Jul 26, 7:11 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <1185494685.482793.240...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
> > landot...@gmail.com says...> On Jul 26, 10:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check
> >
> > > Always a good choice for an all rounder. It has a purty crowned fork
> > > to boot. I also do like the Soma Smoothie, at least by the looks and
> > > specs.
> >
> > > If you want something on the cheap, Nashbar's got their aluminum
> > > cxcross frame for a hundred right now. It ain't pretty, but it'll get
> > > the job done. Add their carbon cxcross fork and you'll hit right
> > > around 250 with shipping. You'll have to go canti, but some Oryx
> > > cantis are pretty affordable.
> >
> > Isn't the BB mounted higher on this bike than a normal non-cross frame?
>
> It doesn't look abnormally high in the pics online. Chainstays still
> slope down towards BB. Don't have the exact specs, though.
>
>
I perhaps put my question inartfully. Cross bikes universally have a
higher BB, for obvious reasons. Does this upset the geometry the OP is
looking for?

[landotter]

On Jul 26, 9:49 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1185501674.075072.130...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
> landot...@gmail.com says...
>
> > On Jul 26, 7:11 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <1185494685.482793.240...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
> > > landot...@gmail.com says...> On Jul 26, 10:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check
>
> > > > Always a good choice for an all rounder. It has a purty crowned fork
> > > > to boot. I also do like the Soma Smoothie, at least by the looks and
> > > > specs.
>
> > > > If you want something on the cheap, Nashbar's got their aluminum
> > > > cxcross frame for a hundred right now. It ain't pretty, but it'll get
> > > > the job done. Add their carbon cxcross fork and you'll hit right
> > > > around 250 with shipping. You'll have to go canti, but some Oryx
> > > > cantis are pretty affordable.
>
> > > Isn't the BB mounted higher on this bike than a normal non-cross frame?
>
> > It doesn't look abnormally high in the pics online. Chainstays still
> > slope down towards BB. Don't have the exact specs, though.
>
> I perhaps put my question inartfully. Cross bikes universally have a
> higher BB,

Than what? A tourer? What? Universally higher than what? The frame
angles on the nashbar frame aren't anything radical. The BB will be a
bit higher due to the wider tires compared to a pure road bike.

>for obvious reasons.

>Does this upset the geometry the OP is
> looking for?

I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
Cross Check.

[Paul Myron Hobson]

landotter wrote:
> I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> Cross Check.

Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).

My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
them back up.

re: Wheelbase...
Now, my understanding is that a longer wheelbase is more stable under
load, especially on descents. I'm not planning on doing any totally
unsupported, long tours (for now). We're talking "debit card" touring
at best. I'll take my tools/supplies, a little food, and another two
days worth of clothes, and a light sleeping bag - tops. Point is, I'm a
lightweight. All that stuff + my 135# has got to be less than most of
the roadies on Madones I see around here. Is wheelbase that much of an
issue for me? (whether or not it's the bike I need, I *really* like that
silver Soma Smoothie ES, http://somafab.com/smoothieES_brik2.jpg)

re: Trail
What determines the trail? Is that the rake of the fork? How's it
affecting my decision here?

thanks,
\\paul

[RBrickston]

In article <1185505081.474096.242110@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>,
landotter@gmail.com says...
> On Jul 26, 9:49 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <1185501674.075072.130...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups. com>,
> > landot...@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > On Jul 26, 7:11 pm, RBrickston <rb20170REM...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <1185494685.482793.240...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
> > > > landot...@gmail.com says...> On Jul 26, 10:10 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Lastly, there's the Surly line: Cross Check
> >
> > > > > Always a good choice for an all rounder. It has a purty crowned fork
> > > > > to boot. I also do like the Soma Smoothie, at least by the looks and
> > > > > specs.
> >
> > > > > If you want something on the cheap, Nashbar's got their aluminum
> > > > > cxcross frame for a hundred right now. It ain't pretty, but it'll get
> > > > > the job done. Add their carbon cxcross fork and you'll hit right
> > > > > around 250 with shipping. You'll have to go canti, but some Oryx
> > > > > cantis are pretty affordable.
> >
> > > > Isn't the BB mounted higher on this bike than a normal non-cross frame?
> >
> > > It doesn't look abnormally high in the pics online. Chainstays still
> > > slope down towards BB. Don't have the exact specs, though.
> >
> > I perhaps put my question inartfully. Cross bikes universally have a
> > higher BB,
>
> Than what? A tourer? What? Universally higher than what?

Most other bikes.


> The frame
> angles on the nashbar frame aren't anything radical. The BB will be a
> bit higher due to the wider tires compared to a pure road bike.
>
> >for obvious reasons.
>
> >Does this upset the geometry the OP is
> > looking for?
>
> I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> Cross Check.
>
>
>
>
>

[landotter]

On Jul 27, 1:49 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:

> re: Trail
> What determines the trail? Is that the rake of the fork? How's it
> affecting my decision here?
>

Cap'n Bike sez:

"Trail is the distance from the contact point of the front wheel with
the riding surface to the intersection of the steering axis (head
tube) with the surface. The trail is a function of the head angle, the
fork rake, and the tire diameter. Trail has a major effect on the
handling of a bicycle. More trail increases the bicycle's tendency to
steer straight ahead. A bicycle with a largish trail dimension will be
very stable, and easy to ride "no hands". A bicycle with a smaller
trail dimension will be more maneuverable and responsive."

http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/trail.html

That said, don't worry about it except to keep in mind that pure
touring bikes do feel quite different than "sport touring" all
rounders like the Volpe and Cross Check. It's just fun to learn about
so you can be the smartest bike nerd in the room. ;-)

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <f8c4hh$j3f$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:

> landotter wrote:
> > I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> > light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> > your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> > Cross Check.
>
> Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
> 75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
> cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
> see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).
>
> My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
> now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
> decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
> them back up.

Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
fenders.

A CX bike works fine as a road-race bike as well. You give up a tiny
amount of aerodynamics, and some will argue that cantis are a little
fussier to set up than caliper brakes (and they'll probably be right).

But so what? It's otherwise the perfect sawzall bicycle.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Zoot Katz]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:49:21 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
<phobson@gatech.edu> wrote of longer wheelbase for loaded touring:

>All that stuff + my 135# has got to be less than most of
>the roadies on Madones I see around here. Is wheelbase that much of an
>issue for me?

With a shorter wheelbase it's heel clearance that may restrict your
ability to fit adequately sized panniers.
--
zk

[Paul Myron Hobson]

> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:49:21 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
> <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote of longer wheelbase for loaded touring:
>
>> All that stuff + my 135# has got to be less than most of
>> the roadies on Madones I see around here. Is wheelbase that much of an
>> issue for me?

Zoot Katz wrote:
> With a shorter wheelbase it's heel clearance that may restrict your
> ability to fit adequately sized panniers.

Ahh, that's what I've been missing. Thanks!

\\paul

[Zoot Katz]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:25:22 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
<phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:

>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:49:21 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
>> <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote of longer wheelbase for loaded touring:
>>
>>> All that stuff + my 135# has got to be less than most of
>>> the roadies on Madones I see around here. Is wheelbase that much of an
>>> issue for me?
>
>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> With a shorter wheelbase it's heel clearance that may restrict your
>> ability to fit adequately sized panniers.
>
>Ahh, that's what I've been missing. Thanks!
>
It's usually a good sign if there's room enough to mount a frame pump
between the seat tube and fender.
--
zk

[Lynne Fitz]

If the 650b wheelsize doesn't bother you, look at the Rivendell
Bleriot or Kogswell P/R.

On Jul 27, 9:14 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:49 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > re: Trail
> > What determines the trail? Is that the rake of the fork? How's it
> > affecting my decision here?
>
> Cap'n Bike sez:
>
> "Trail is the distance from the contact point of the front wheel with
> the riding surface to the intersection of the steering axis (head
> tube) with the surface. The trail is a function of the head angle, the
> fork rake, and the tire diameter. Trail has a major effect on the
> handling of a bicycle. More trail increases the bicycle's tendency to
> steer straight ahead. A bicycle with a largish trail dimension will be
> very stable, and easy to ride "no hands". A bicycle with a smaller
> trail dimension will be more maneuverable and responsive."
>
> http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/trail.html
>
> That said, don't worry about it except to keep in mind that pure
> touring bikes do feel quite different than "sport touring" all
> rounders like the Volpe and Cross Check. It's just fun to learn about
> so you can be the smartest bike nerd in the room. ;-)

[landotter]

On Jul 27, 11:14 am, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 1:49 am, Paul Myron Hobson <phob...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > re: Trail
> > What determines the trail? Is that the rake of the fork? How's it
> > affecting my decision here?
>
> Cap'n Bike sez:
>
> "Trail is the distance from the contact point of the front wheel with
> the riding surface to the intersection of the steering axis (head
> tube) with the surface. The trail is a function of the head angle, the
> fork rake, and the tire diameter. Trail has a major effect on the
> handling of a bicycle. More trail increases the bicycle's tendency to
> steer straight ahead. A bicycle with a largish trail dimension will be
> very stable, and easy to ride "no hands". A bicycle with a smaller
> trail dimension will be more maneuverable and responsive."
>

Heh, I just measured the fork off set on my older bike that's very
twitchy. The old Tange fork has something like 80mm of offset compared
to a newer Tange which has only 50mm. Now I know why it feels like
it's "oversteering".

Trail is weird when you've come to believe that more fork rake, like
on old roadsters and cruisers increases stability, when in actuality
it's the head angle that does that, and the fork offset decreases the
huge trail these angles can give, providing such beasts with quicker
steering than they otherwise would.

I had to fiddle with a pencil a little till my brain finally got what
the "caster" effect is all about.

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:14:15 +0000, landotter wrote:
<discussion on trail snipped>

Kogswell Cycles has a handy front-end geometry/trail calculator on their
website:

http://www.kogswell.com/geo.php

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jul 27, 3:57 pm, Luigi de Guzman <luigi12...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:14:15 +0000, landotter wrote:
>
> <discussion on trail snipped>
>
> Kogswell Cycles has a handy front-end geometry/trail calculator on their
> website:
>
> http://www.kogswell.com/geo.php
>

And here is a link to a discussion of trail and it's effects from Tom
Kellogg, who really knows whereof he speaks:

http://spectrum-cycles.com/612.htm

[RBrickston]

In article <rcousine-5C5639.18473027072007@news.telus.net>,
rcousine@sfu.ca says...
> In article <f8c4hh$j3f$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> > landotter wrote:
> > > I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> > > light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> > > your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> > > Cross Check.
> >
> > Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
> > 75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
> > cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
> > see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).
> >
> > My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
> > now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
> > decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
> > them back up.
>
> Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
> the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
> responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
> fenders.
>
> A CX bike works fine as a road-race bike as well. You give up a tiny
> amount of aerodynamics, and some will argue that cantis are a little
> fussier to set up than caliper brakes (and they'll probably be right).
>
> But so what? It's otherwise the perfect sawzall bicycle.
>
>
It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
BB does for handling.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

R. Brickston wrote:
> ...
> It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
> geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
> BB does for handling.

I find comfort is optimum with the bottom bracket 15 to 20-cm above
the height of the seat. No problems with handing either above 5-kph.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Paul Myron Hobson]

> rcousine@sfu.ca says...
>> Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
>> the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
>> responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
>> fenders.

RBrickston wrote:
> It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
> geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
> BB does for handling.

I guess the best way to describe what I want is a very sporty, drop-bar
commuter that will act mostly as a practical road bike the majority of
the time, and a light tourer a couple of times a year.

By "light tourer" I mean either two or three day trips from Atlanta to
Birmingham (destination: parents' pantry) or the Bike Ride Across
Georgia (BRAG), which is fully supported over 7 days.

\\paul

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <MPG.21146d9a489d1f6698978d@news.verizon.net>,
RBrickston <rb20170REMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <rcousine-5C5639.18473027072007@news.telus.net>,
> rcousine@sfu.ca says...
> > In article <f8c4hh$j3f$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> > Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > landotter wrote:
> > > > I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> > > > light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> > > > your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> > > > Cross Check.
> > >
> > > Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
> > > 75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
> > > cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
> > > see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).
> > >
> > > My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
> > > now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
> > > decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
> > > them back up.
> >
> > Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
> > the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
> > responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
> > fenders.
> >
> > A CX bike works fine as a road-race bike as well. You give up a tiny
> > amount of aerodynamics, and some will argue that cantis are a little
> > fussier to set up than caliper brakes (and they'll probably be right).
> >
> > But so what? It's otherwise the perfect sawzall bicycle.
> >
> >
> It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
> geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
> BB does for handling.

The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
handle well, more or less.

On one hand, I have been racing, commuting, and club riding on a CX most
of this year. I don't feel any substantial handling differences between
it and my early-80s Miyata tourer (set up as a fendered, racked
commuter). It's lighter.

On the other hand, I suspect my Nashbar "X" CX frame of being rather low
in the BB by CX standards.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:17:44 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson wrote:

>> rcousine@sfu.ca says...
>>> Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
>>> the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
>>> responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
>>> fenders.
>
> RBrickston wrote:
>> It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
>> geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
>> BB does for handling.
>
> I guess the best way to describe what I want is a very sporty, drop-bar
> commuter that will act mostly as a practical road bike the majority of
> the time, and a light tourer a couple of times a year.
>
> By "light tourer" I mean either two or three day trips from Atlanta to
> Birmingham (destination: parents' pantry) or the Bike Ride Across
> Georgia (BRAG), which is fully supported over 7 days.
>
> \\paul

Surly Pacer? clearance for 28mm tires with fenders, much much more
upright & sporty than any of the tourers, and probably cheaper than
equivalent "club bikes" (Independent Fabrications Club Racer, for
instance, or the Heron Road or Rivendell A. Homer Hilsen or Ramboulliet)


--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[anth]

On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 12:17 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> > rcousine@sfu.ca says...
> >> Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
> >> the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
> >> responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
> >> fenders.
>
> RBrickston wrote:
> > It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
> > geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
> > BB does for handling.
>
> I guess the best way to describe what I want is a very sporty, drop-bar
> commuter that will act mostly as a practical road bike the majority of
> the time, and a light tourer a couple of times a year.

I think we understand what you're after, something the British would
call an Audax bike. Possibly the rest of Europe calls it that too, I'm
not sure.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3598

I agree with the suggestion for the CX bike, as the entry level versions
are often similar to this but made to cope with slightly worse terrain.
The high end versions are purely for C racing and lack mounts for
bottles, racks, etc.

[anth]

On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 19:24 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <MPG.21146d9a489d1f6698978d@news.verizon.net>,
> RBrickston <rb20170REMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
> > geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
> > BB does for handling.
> The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
> specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
> handle well, more or less.

I don't think the BB height is that big a deal either. It would be an
extra 0 to 5cm compared to a racer or tourer. This would be similar to a
track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.

[RBrickston]

In article <rcousine-7F983A.12243728072007@news.telus.net>,
rcousine@sfu.ca says...
> In article <MPG.21146d9a489d1f6698978d@news.verizon.net>,
> RBrickston <rb20170REMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <rcousine-5C5639.18473027072007@news.telus.net>,
> > rcousine@sfu.ca says...
> > > In article <f8c4hh$j3f$1@news-int.gatech.edu>,
> > > Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > landotter wrote:
> > > > > I'd be more concerned with wheelbase and trail than BB height with
> > > > > light touring. Paul seems to want something a bit more sporty than
> > > > > your run of the mill heavy tourer. Thus his musings on bikes like the
> > > > > Cross Check.
> > > >
> > > > Correct. During my continuing recovery, this bike, would probably see
> > > > 75% use commuting, 25% riding for the hell of it (fast, maybe). Once
> > > > cleared from the Doc, commuting goes back to the SS, so this bike would
> > > > see >80% sporty stuff and <20% light touring (optimistically).
> > > >
> > > > My thinking is that I'll keep the fork long and handle bars higher for
> > > > now. When I'm ready, I'll move them down for a sportier feel. When I
> > > > decide to hit the road for a couple of days, I'll easily be able to move
> > > > them back up.
> > >
> > > Buy a cyclocross bike and be happy. The entry-level CX bikes, especially
> > > the ones from North American makers, are supremely versatile: sturdy,
> > > responsive, not too heavy, and yet they mostly have mounts for racks and
> > > fenders.
> > >
> > > A CX bike works fine as a road-race bike as well. You give up a tiny
> > > amount of aerodynamics, and some will argue that cantis are a little
> > > fussier to set up than caliper brakes (and they'll probably be right).
> > >
> > > But so what? It's otherwise the perfect sawzall bicycle.
> > >
> > >
> > It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
> > geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
> > BB does for handling.
>
> The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
> specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
> handle well, more or less.
>
> On one hand, I have been racing, commuting, and club riding on a CX most
> of this year. I don't feel any substantial handling differences between
> it and my early-80s Miyata tourer (set up as a fendered, racked
> commuter). It's lighter.
>
> On the other hand, I suspect my Nashbar "X" CX frame of being rather low
> in the BB by CX standards.
>
>

If the OP is exactly and precisely like you, there is the solution.

[Peter Cole]

anth wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 19:24 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article <MPG.21146d9a489d1f6698978d@news.verizon.net>,
>> RBrickston <rb20170REMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It thought he was looking for a semi-long distance touring bike. The cross
>>> geometry isn't going to be that comfy, imo. Plus I wonder what the higher
>>> BB does for handling.
>> The BB is probably a non-issue. Note that criterium geometry already
>> specifies high BBs (slightly better ground clearance) and those bikes
>> handle well, more or less.
>
> I don't think the BB height is that big a deal either. It would be an
> extra 0 to 5cm compared to a racer or tourer. This would be similar to a
> track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
> higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
> need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
> aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.
>

The reason you want a low BB on a touring bike is so you can "dab"
easier, making starting and stopping with a heavily loaded bike much
easier.

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:46:05 +1200, anth wrote:

> This would be similar to a
> track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
> higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
> need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
> aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.

So is *that* why I can't seem to trackstand my touring bike?

--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <t5Qqi.4256$dA7.2601@newsfe16.lga>,
Luigi de Guzman <luigi12081@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:46:05 +1200, anth wrote:
>
> > This would be similar to a
> > track bike which needs the extra clearance for banked tracks and the
> > higher center of gravity to improve low speed handling (ie you don't
> > need to lean as much to shift your weight to do a track stand). We
> > aren't talking anything close to mountain bike BB heights here.
>
> So is *that* why I can't seem to trackstand my touring bike?

No.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:05:20 +0000, Ryan Cousineau wrote:


>>
>> So is *that* why I can't seem to trackstand my touring bike?
>
> No.

Drat!

Actually, I'm having trouble with fender/toeclip overlap, so I can't yank
the front wheel over far enough. Fooey.




--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

[ttoshi]

I can second the Surly Pacer. It accepts wide tires up to 32 or 28 mm
with fenders. It is very comfortable, and I have carried ~30-40 lbs on
the Blackburn expedition rack that I have mounted without problems.

Toshi