Touring bike

Quoted message said:

Can someone explain to me the differences between a touring bike and any other bike for example a
racing bike or mountain bike. I looked some up on site and they are very expensive.

Rory

I'm no expert on touring bikes but afaik here are the differences. Feel free to correct me where I'm
wrong or add to the list where necessary.

1. Longer wheelbase than a racer to promote stability.
2. Normally made out of Steel for strength for load bearing. Racers can be made out of aluminium,
carbon fibre, steel or more exotic materials. Mtbs are normally made out of aluminium, but also
get steel, titanium, etc.
3. Mtbs normally have fat knobbly tyres. Tourers normally have thinner, treaded slick tyres.
4. Tourers don't come with suspension. Mtbs do.
5. Racing bikes normally have ultra-light parts, light saddles, forks etc. Mtbs are also normally
made for lightness, though some (freeride, DH, etc) are made for strength. Touring bikes are
normally kitted for strength, comfort, etc.
6. Won't find disk brakes on racers or tourers. Mtbs need them mainly for plugging through mud.
Disks tend to be heavier than V's, cantis, etc.

That's all I can think of atm.

A touring bike has the facilities to carry heavy loads up front on the front forks and handlebars as
well as on the rear panniers. They are normally made from steel tubing as weight is not a high
priority but strength and flexibility are. Tyres are not normally slick and thin they are more half
way house between a road and a MTB. They need to offer puncture resistance, good load bearing, grip
and give a comfortable ride.

That's my twopeneth for what it is worth.

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone explain to me the differences between a touring bike and any other bike for example a
racing bike or mountain bike. I looked some up on site and they are very expensive.

Rory

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, it was written:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can someone explain to me the differences between a touring bike and any other bike for example a
racing bike or mountain bike. I looked some up on site and they are very expensive.

Rory

I'm no expert on touring bikes but afaik here are the differences. Feel free to correct me where
I'm wrong or add to the list where necessary.

1. Longer wheelbase than a racer to promote stability.
2. Normally made out of Steel for strength for load bearing. Racers can be made out of aluminium,
carbon fibre, steel or more exotic materials. Mtbs are normally made out of aluminium, but also
get steel, titanium, etc.
3. Mtbs normally have fat knobbly tyres. Tourers normally have thinner, treaded slick tyres.
4. Tourers don't come with suspension. Mtbs do.
5. Racing bikes normally have ultra-light parts, light saddles, forks etc. Mtbs are also normally
made for lightness, though some (freeride, DH, etc) are made for strength. Touring bikes are
normally kitted for strength, comfort, etc.
6. Won't find disk brakes on racers or tourers. Mtbs need them mainly for plugging through mud.
Disks tend to be heavier than V's, cantis, etc.

That's all I can think of atm.

Touring bikes probably aren't that much more expensive than racing bikes. Since MTB's are very
popular, a lot of "entry-level" bikes are MTBs.

One difference between tourers and racers that might be useful for commuting, is that tourers
usually "come" equipped with luggage racks and mudguards as standard. Racers often don't (and often
don't have anywhere to put them). Having said that, a "hybrid" with similar functionality would
probably cost a lot less and would suit most people just as well.

Dan (who is saving up for a Dawes Galaxy)

--
Daniel Auger - [email hidden] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)

1. Tourers are perhaps a little heavier and more often made of steel - bit longer wheelbase than a
"racer" and are designed for more comfort on a longer journey. They are designed for taking on
longer cycle rides on the roads in comfort and with load carrying capabilities (front & rear).
Wheels are built to take this load capacity so are a bit heavier/more spokes/stronger rims than a
race bike.

2. Expense - have you seen the price of some MTBs/racers???? Several thousands of pounds is not that
unusual or unknown...

3. Besides which, a well-built "road bike" be it a racer or a tourer, is a thing of beauty to
behold. MTBs aren't.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email Mail sent to it is dumped My correct one can be gleaned from
h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*ol*$*.*$$c$om*$ by getting rid of the
overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~

Rodders said:

Can someone explain to me the differences between a touring bike and an=

y

Quoted message said:

other bike for example a racing bike or mountain bike. I looked some up=

on

Quoted message said:

site and they are very expensive.

A tourer has evolved to carry a reasonable amount of luggage at a fair=20 speed for long distances
in a good degree of comfort. You can get=20 faster bikes (racers), tougher bikes (MTBs) and bikes
that carry more=20 gear (freighters), but when it comes to doing *everything* at least=20 reasonably
well you'll have trouble beating a tourer. It's possible to=20 get a bike which is a different set
of compromises (say, a hybrid) which =

might suit individual needs better, but quite a few people find a tourer =

suits them best, especially if they go, errrrr, touring!

Yes, they tend to be expensive compared to mass market machinery, but=20 there again they're higher
specification. Tourers start at about =A3450 =

for full price current model, and it's *very* easy to spend just as much =

or more on a racer or MTB. There aren't cheap 'n cheerful tourers=20 because there'd be no market
for them: people wanting a tourer generally =

want a relatively serious piece of kit, and that means paying more.=20 Riding 500 miles with
camping gear it makes a bigger difference having=20 everything Just Right than nipping down to the
local shops!

The "Canonical Touring Bike" is probably the Dawes Galaxy, but there's a =

fair bit of variation available. You're not forced to use drop bars if=20 you prefer flats (with or
without bar ends), for example, and my main=20 bike is a tourer but is a recumbent (see=20
hpvelotechnik.comindex e.htmlOpen ↗). But though=20 it looks nothing like a
Galaxy it shares many characteristics: it's very =

solidly built, uses good quality, reliable componentry and carries=20 luggage very well, and can
manage a fair turn of speed without=20 compromising comfort too much.

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can someone explain to me the differences between a touring bike and any other bike for example a
racing bike or mountain bike. I looked some up on site and they are very expensive.

Rory

Welcome to uk.rec.dawes, sometimes known as uk.rec.cycling !

Graham

<snip snip>

Quoted message said:

3. Besides which, a well-built "road bike" be it a racer or a tourer, is a thing of beauty to
behold. MTBs aren't.

Cheers, helen s

That one isn't fair. LOL

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Yes, they tend to be expensive compared to mass market machinery, but there again they're higher
specification. Tourers start at about £450 for full price current model, and it's *very* easy to
spend just as much or more on a racer or MTB. There aren't cheap 'n cheerful tourers because there'd
be no market for them: people wanting a tourer generally want a relatively serious piece of kit, and
that means paying more. Riding 500 miles with camping gear it makes a bigger difference having
everything Just Right than nipping down to the local shops!

ME :

Agreed... If you look at the kit on a 450 quid tourer (theres only really 2 of them right?) its
probably of a similar spec to a 450 quid racer. The stuff that goes down to 300 quid will have all
sorts of odd compromises like using freewheels, obsolute gearing etc. (but as its a more popular
genre there may be OK things at less than this, especially in french supermarkets).

OTOH the big difference _was_ that for about 260 quid, you could get a rigid MTB with similar level
of kit to your 450 quid tourer. Apart from a few extras like the guards and rack, it was just the
amount of them sold that made them much cheaper. Anyway - you don't get those any more either.

Also we don't know what "very expensive" was for the OP. The very cheap stuff available tends to
make reasonable "ford fiesta" standards of bike kit seem rather expensive anyway.

W K said:

OTOH the big difference _was_ that for about 260 quid, you could get a =

rigid

Quoted message said:

MTB with similar level of kit to your 450 quid tourer. Apart from a few extras like the guards and
rack, it was just the amoun=

t of

Quoted message said:

them sold that made them much cheaper. Anyway - you don't get those any more either.

Quite so, and you can still get a Sensible Rigid Hybrid for ~=A3200-250=20 which clearly benefits
from economies of scale. In terms of some=20 notional bang/buck value exercise it comes out better,
but if you find a =

long distance trip on a bike designed with drops works better than flats =

then again it's being Just Right (or as near to it as you can get at=20 your price level) that may
well be more important. Just a matter of do=20 you have the cash and are you willing to spend it?
Bangs/Buck may well=20 be secondary to just plain Bangs. There's pretty much nothing I=20 actually
*do* on my Streetmachine that I didn't do on my very vintage 12 =

speed drop bar tourer before it, and it cost a helluva lot more. No=20 regrets when I'm in the comfy
chair though!

Quoted message said:

Also we don't know what "very expensive" was for the OP. The very cheap=

Quoted message said:

stuff available tends to make reasonable "ford fiesta" standards of bik=

e kit

Quoted message said:

seem rather expensive anyway.

Also agreed. Though the perception that a Yugo is a false economy while =

a vanilla Fiesta isn't exists for cars amongst the general public, this=20 has yet to extend to
bikes AFAICT. I still hear "but I could buy a car=20 for that!" a fair bit, as if any old POS with
an engine is better value=20 for *any* job than my bike. In the new local GigaTescos t'other day,
I=20 noticed that their full suspension MTBs were going for the same price I=20 paid for the pair of
panniers I was carrying: I do not expect such a=20 bike will last as long...

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

(wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX) said:

2. Expense - have you seen the price of some MTBs/racers???? Several thousands of pounds is not
that unusual or unknown...

True. A good bike of any kind costs money, although after a certain point the returns diminish...

Quoted message said:

3. Besides which, a well-built "road bike" be it a racer or a tourer, is a thing of beauty to
behold. MTBs aren't.

Oh, I can't agree with that. Many hill bikes are also beautiful. I really like both of mine.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. Besides which, a well-built "road bike" be it a racer or a tourer, is

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing of beauty to behold. MTBs aren't.

Oh, I can't agree with that. Many hill bikes are also beautiful. I really like both of mine.

Vive la difference!!

Personally, I agree with Helen -- a beautiful road bike with skinny tubes, skinny tyres and wheels
made finest lace is a think of beauty that no chunky MTB with lumpy forks, girder frame & obese
tyres can match.

That said, I like a dirty weekend away with the MTB from time to time :~)

ouch said:

<snip snip>

Quoted message said:

Indeed :-) An MTB can be a very effective machine for it's job - cycling off-road on lots of
lumpy-bumpy-dirty bits, but it's not a visual thing of beauty. But a road bike (tourer or racer)
can be an effective tool for its purpose *and* aesthetically stunning.... thinking Colnago... De
Rosa... etc., etc...

Cheers, helen s

I think beauty is subjective. My plan for 2004 is going to consist of:
1. Titanium frame
2. Rohloff hub internal gearing

In the frame, a la Nicolai, or in the wheel?

The more I think about it the more the Nicolai solution looks like a real winner.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; lovely alternative to rice.

<snip snip>

Quoted message said:

In the frame, a la Nicolai, or in the wheel?

The more I think about it the more the Nicolai solution looks like a real winner.

I was thinking along the lines of a conventional bike. I've been to Nicolai's website but can't find
a XC bike that allows placement of the Rohloff in the frame.

I'm also not interested in Nicolai's DH or FR range because I don't really see the need for such a
meaty bike with the sort of riding that I do. They're also a bit heavy. I'm not a 'weight weenie'
but don't want to part with cash just to get a bike heavier than what I already have for the riding
I don't do. A hardtail would also suit me fine. I like bike maintenance but a hardtail offers plenty
of opportunities without making things more complicated.

I've also always wanted a Titanium framed (maybe Litespeed, Dean or On-one) bike. I should really
try riding one somewhere before I embark on a project but it sounds more appealing than a 'normal'
Al bike. I'll have to investigate whether a Rohloff would actually work with one of these frames but
it's still a little way off so I haven't done the research yet.

Last but not least I think there's always great satisfaction in building your own and having a
unique bike.

ouch said:

<snip snip>

Quoted message said:

In the frame, a la Nicolai, or in the wheel?

The more I think about it the more the Nicolai solution looks like a real winner.

I was thinking along the lines of a conventional bike. I've been to Nicolai's website but can't
find a XC bike that allows placement of the Rohloff in the frame.

I'm also not interested in Nicolai's DH or FR range because I don't really see the need for such a
meaty bike with the sort of riding that I do. They're also a bit heavy.

No, I agree with you. I'd really like to see a lightweight cross-country frame with the Rohloff in
the suspension pivot, but that doesn't seem to be what Nicolai are doing - at least not yet.

However, the approach has to be a winner on a lot of levels

* Protecting the gears from all the crud and dirt
* Keeping the unsprung weight down
* keeping weight out of the ends of the bike

Another related solution might be to take the mountaindrive concept to its logical conclusion and
build a multi-speed epicyclic gearbox into an oversized bottom bracket.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; lovely alternative to rice.

Rodders said:

Can someone explain to me the differences between a touring bike and any other bike for example a
racing bike or mountain bike. I looked some up on site and they are very expensive.

Clearance for wider tyres and mudguards, braze-ons for racks, geometry that still gives a stable
ride when heavily loaded, usually heavier gauge tubing such as 531ST, usually drop bars with
bar-end shifters. Many mountain bikes can be converted into reasonable tourers if they have the
appropriate braze-ons - Cannondale MTBs used to have mounting points for everything, even the
hardcore racing models.

Most tourers are steel, but Cannondale (again) have made aluminium ones for years. The hardened
cross-continent riders prefer steel because in theory you can get it fixed by anyone semi-competent
with a brazing torch. When aluminium breaks, you always need a new frame.

Tony W said:

Personally, I agree with Helen -- a beautiful road bike with skinny tubes, skinny tyres and wheels
made finest lace is a think of beauty that no chunky MTB with lumpy forks, girder frame & obese
tyres can match.

MTB == Raleigh Grifter with more gears. They even have twist-grip gears sometimes ;-)

And if you don't believe
me...http://www.kelman99.freeserve.co.uk/images/Grifter.jpg

Note sloping top tube, seat tube extension and knobbly tyres. The Repack stuff is all a myth - the
Grifter was the original MTB (OK, the twist grip operates a 3 speed Sturmey Archer hub and those
cranks look as if they have cotter pins, but this was the 1970s!)

Zog The Undeniable said:

Tony W said:

Personally, I agree with Helen -- a beautiful road bike with skinny tubes, skinny tyres and
wheels made finest lace is a think of beauty that no chunky MTB with lumpy forks, girder frame &
obese tyres can match.

MTB == Raleigh Grifter with more gears. They even have twist-grip gears sometimes ;-)

When ATBs first hit the streets a friend of mine called them Adult BMXs.

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quite so, and you can still get a Sensible Rigid Hybrid for ~£200-250 which clearly benefits from
economies of scale. In terms of some notional bang/buck value exercise it comes out better, but if
you find a long distance trip on a bike designed with drops works better than flats

(your posts never end up quoting right)
ME:I've done plenty of 100km rides with flat bars. OTOH it would be quite nice to see a 200 quid
hybrid with drop bars - would be a nice low cost tourer - and as things never fit quite right
with such bikes its not a great loss not to have the 800 quid alternative - I'd still not ride it
enough and have sore hands.

I'd be happier with flat bars+tribars really. OTOH all this scrimping on a "decent" bike means I do
have the money to go for any of the alternatives (!) - but also means I'll probably stick to the
slicked-up MTB.

Quoted message said:

In the new local GigaTescos t'other day, I

noticed that their full suspension MTBs were going for the same price I paid for the pair of
panniers I was carrying: I do not expect such a bike will last as long...

MF:They can be OK, and the <10 quid racks seem as good as "bor-yeuh", and 10x better than the 15
quid rack I bought from ha**** in 1999. A 100 quid supermarket bike with the 10 quid rack would
be good enough for many many cycling tasks.