Do I need a touring bike?

This is maybe an impossibly waffly and imprecise question; and maybe
indicative of someone who wants an excuse to buy a new toy.

I returned to cycling two years ago; before I started I decided on a
touring bike; in fact, in the shop I used the term 'hybrid', thinking
'commuter style'. In any case, there was a deal on a Trek 1200 road
bike and that's what I bought. For the first six months I lacked
confidence to use it much; eventually I bought a mountain bike and got
semi-fit on that. Now, I'm able to go 40--50 miles on the road bike.

I still like the idea of a touring bike -- especially as I may
consider occasional commuting via bike (20 miles).
It is unlikely that I would do major touring, e.g. going on holiday
*on*, as opposed to *with*, the bike.

Apart from just likeing the idea of a touring bike, a carrier and
mudguards have some appeal.

Was thinking along the line of Dawes Galaxy; and there was recent
discussion around a Giant SCR that was a good bit cheaper than the
Galaxy.

How would (e.g.) a Dawes Galaxy compare to the Trek road bike? Gears,
weight (though I'm three stone overweight), geometry, ...

Or should I just stick with the road bike and use a small rucksack for
anything needing carried?

TIA,

Jon C.

wrote:

I still like the idea of a touring bike -- especially as I may
consider occasional commuting via bike (20 miles).
It is unlikely that I would do major touring, e.g. going on holiday
*on*, as opposed to *with*, the bike.

Apart from just likeing the idea of a touring bike, a carrier and
mudguards have some appeal.

Check to see if your road bike will accept these anyway. Many have
clearances for mudguards. If a rack isn't on then a seatpost mounted
bag like the Carradice SQR gives a good option for lightish loads.

How would (e.g.) a Dawes Galaxy compare to the Trek road bike? Gears,
weight (though I'm three stone overweight), geometry, ...

Gears, much greater range, though in accordingly bigger steps. So you
can get up more ridiculous hills, but can't optimise gearing on the flat
for the best "sweet spot" so well. You choose, you lose...
Weight: quite a bit more, but it's on typically useful stuff like
mudguards, carrier, chunkier build etc. You choose, you lose...
Geometry, not so radical bum up in the air, so more comfortable but not
as good for getting the most speed out. You choose, you lose...

Or should I just stick with the road bike and use a small rucksack for
anything needing carried?

If you want a New Toy look at an Audax bike, somewhere between road and
touring bike with practical bits like mudguards built in to the design
from the ground up. I think that would maybe suit better than a tourer
as you probably don't need bombproofing and 4 pannier carry options, so
why pay for them when they'll actually degrade performance?

Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent
which lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any
upright while still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open.
That's what /I'd/ do.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent which
lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any upright while
still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open. That's what /I'd/ do.

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles commuting'
involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are near-invisible
to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you ask me.

On Jul 13, 3:08 pm, wrote:
This is maybe an impossibly waffly and imprecise question; and maybe
indicative of someone who wants an excuse to buy a new toy.

I returned to cycling two years ago; before I started I decided on a
touring bike; in fact, in the shop I used the term 'hybrid', thinking
'commuter style'. In any case, there was a deal on a Trek 1200 road
bike and that's what I bought. For the first six months I lacked
confidence to use it much; eventually I bought a mountain bike and got
semi-fit on that. Now, I'm able to go 40--50 miles on the road bike.

YA me AICMFP

I still like the idea of a touring bike -- especially as I may
consider occasional commuting via bike (20 miles).
It is unlikely that I would do major touring, e.g. going on holiday
*on*, as opposed to *with*, the bike.

Apart from just likeing the idea of a touring bike, a carrier and
mudguards have some appeal.

my 1200 has rack fittings and also takles SKS narrow mudguards. The
clearances are /tight/ and I don't know if the more rounded SKS
mudguard profile that they new manufacture would be better or worse
fit

I have also geared down to a compact double (34-48) and a 12-27 on the
back which might go some way to meeting your requirements.

So, in summary, you definitely need to buy a touring bike, possibly
more than one.

hth
james

spokes wrote:

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles commuting'
involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are near-invisible
to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you ask me.

Nobody seems to have much trouble seeing me on mine. Quite the
opposite, in fact.

Do you have any actual evidence beyond supposition that recumbents are
nearly impossible to see?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

spokes twisted the electrons to say:
Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent
which lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any
upright while still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open.
That's what /I'd/ do.
I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles
commuting' involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are
near-invisible to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you
ask me.

Can I ask how much time you've spent travelling across cities in the UK
on recumbents then, as your comments don't match my experience (nor that
of any other recumbent rider I've spoken to)?

Of course, some recumbents are better suited to city commuting than
others. An HPVelotechnik Streetmachine[1] is perhaps a better choice
than the Trice QNT[2] that I commute on most days for instance.

[1] http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/index_e.html
[2] http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/standard_trikes/q.htm
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Peter Clinch wrote:

If you want a New Toy look at an Audax bike, somewhere between road and
touring bike with practical bits like mudguards built in to the design
from the ground up. I think that would maybe suit better than a tourer
as you probably don't need bombproofing and 4 pannier carry options, so
why pay for them when they'll actually degrade performance?

Yeah, "audax" otherwise known as a "fast commute bike" or "day tourer".

I think the problem here is that the type
of bike which (actually) fits many people's
requirments doesn't have a well known
and/or widely accepted name.

BugBear

On 13 Jul, 16:14, " wrote:
On Jul 13, 3:08 pm, wrote:

[...]
confidence to use it much; eventually I bought a mountain bike and got
semi-fit on that. Now, I'm able to go 40--50 miles on the road bike.

YA me AICMFP

After some head scratching ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are...my_five_pounds


I still like the idea of a touring bike -- especially as I may
consider occasional commuting via bike (20 miles).
It is unlikely that I would do major touring, e.g. going on holiday
*on*, as opposed to *with*, the bike.

Apart from just liking the idea of a touring bike, a carrier and
mudguards have some appeal.

my 1200 has rack fittings and also takles SKS narrow mudguards. The
clearances are /tight/ and I don't know if the more rounded SKS
mudguard profile that they new manufacture would be better or worse
fit


Yes, in fact I have a rear mudguard; the fron one of the same type
rubbed and looked like it would sometime tip me over the handlebars.

I have also geared down to a compact double (34-48) and a 12-27 on the
back which might go some way to meeting your requirements.

I must go look what my (two) front rings are and the block. Twice,
I've got caught out on hills and had to walk. But that won't be a
problem on the commute. More likely the direction of the commute --
south-west, which is into the prevailing wind here in north west
Ireland; I suppose better hard in the morning and easy in the evening.


So, in summary, you definitely need to buy a touring bike, possibly
more than one.


That's the answer I wanted. OTOH, I could make the 1200 into a
workhorse and buy a nice new racing bike

Thanks,

Jon C.

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
spokes wrote:

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles
commuting' involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are
near-invisible to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you ask
me.

Nobody seems to have much trouble seeing me on mine. Quite the opposite,
in fact.

Do you have any actual evidence beyond supposition that recumbents are
nearly impossible to see?

It depends on the angle. From in front or behind, no problem - indeed, their
rarity probably makes them even more noticeable/visible ('what the bloody
hell is *that*?). But I have more than once been in a situation where they
suddenly popped out from behind - which is to say, the other side of - a car
that was crossing my path...

Each to his own, of course, but I still reckon they're risky.

in message . com,
(' ') wrote:

This is maybe an impossibly waffly and imprecise question; and maybe
indicative of someone who wants an excuse to buy a new toy.

I returned to cycling two years ago; before I started I decided on a
touring bike; in fact, in the shop I used the term 'hybrid', thinking
'commuter style'. In any case, there was a deal on a Trek 1200 road
bike and that's what I bought. For the first six months I lacked
confidence to use it much; eventually I bought a mountain bike and got
semi-fit on that. Now, I'm able to go 40--50 miles on the road bike.

I still like the idea of a touring bike -- especially as I may
consider occasional commuting via bike (20 miles).
It is unlikely that I would do major touring, e.g. going on holiday
*on*, as opposed to *with*, the bike.

Apart from just likeing the idea of a touring bike, a carrier and
mudguards have some appeal.

Was thinking along the line of Dawes Galaxy; and there was recent
discussion around a Giant SCR that was a good bit cheaper than the
Galaxy.

A Giant SCR is virtually the same as what you've already got - as different
as a Vauxhall Astra is from a Ford Focus. I don't think it would benefit
you any.

How would (e.g.) a Dawes Galaxy compare to the Trek road bike? Gears,
weight (though I'm three stone overweight), geometry, ...

Again, it isn't greatly different. The Galaxy comes with slightly more
relaxed frame angles, and has braze-ons for all sorts of loaded-touring
extras which you will never buy. Apart from that, everything that's
different on the Galaxy (slightly wider cassette; mudguards; racks) are
things you could add to your Trek. The wheels on the Galaxy are also
probably stronger, but if you're not going to do loaded touring that
probably does not matter either.

Or should I just stick with the road bike and use a small rucksack for
anything needing carried?

Don't use a rucksack. It's sweaty, and can be nasty on your shoulder
muscles. Get the weight on the bike. I really believe in handlebar bags -
specifically, this one:

http://www.carradice.co.uk/handlebar...klickfix.shtml

However, if you use those nasty Japanese integrated shifters with the
cables that stick out the sides, you may find it's hard to fit. The
solution of course is to switch to proper Campagnolo or SRAM shifters, but
if that's too radical then next best thing is fit a pannier rack and use
either small panniers or a rack bag.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004