FEATURE STORY
Touring Bike Buyer’s Guide by Mike Deme
|
I've held many job titles in my days at the Adventure Cycling Association, one of which was Information
Specialist. In that capacity, I was charged with answering questions posed to the organization as a whole, which were then, as they are
now, plenteous. At least half of these questions concern touring bikes.
The touring bicycle has been discussed, on and off, in the pages of Bike Report and Adventure Cyclist magazine, for as long as they
existed, but there was never a systematic approach that discussed the availability of these machines. In the March 1996 issue, we published
"The Touring Bike Lives," by John Schubert, because we felt touring bikes were not being well represented in the mainstream bike press. It
was a general discussion of bicycles well suited to loaded touring and how to buy one of these bikes. The article was accompanied by a list
of bike manufacturers from which you could buy one of these machines, and the contact information relevant to them. It was a start, and not
a bad one.
The March 1997 issue saw the birth of the official "Touring Bike Buyer's Guide," by Joe Glickman, and since, we've published a guide in
each March issue. When I decided to write this year's version, I went back and reread each of the previous guides. Not only did I find each
writer's approach very informative but entertaining as well. Despite the positive qualities of the articles, I felt they were a bit
repetitive, but not for any fault of the writers. It's just that there hasn't been any major advances in touring bike design recently, so
there is only so much to discuss. Influenced by these talented people, including Sheldon Brown, Fred Meredith, Tom Shaddox, and Fred
Matheny, I thought I'd try a less technical approach. Carry on.
So why don't people interested in a bike designed for loaded touring have the same options as someone interested in a bike designed for
road racing or mountain biking? The answer is simple: economics. Manufacturers and retailers want to sell a lot of bikes. The more they
sell, the more money they make. And they just don't sell a lot of touring bikes.
For those people who may have a chip on their shoulder about this, please, remove it now. It's not helpful. The reality is that fewer
people like to tour by bicycle than like to participate in almost all other forms of cycling. Sure, I'd like to see the sport grow but I
realize that in a culture enthralled by ease, bicycle touring is just too physically and emotionally challenging for the average person.
Tisk tisk. They'll never know what they're missing.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of bicycle manufacturers are about profit making, and, while it may be inconvenient for us,
there's generally nothing illegal or immoral about that. The best way to convince bicycle makers to build and sell more touring bikes is to
impact their pocketbooks. Become a bicycle touring disciple. Sermonize on the subject and hope more people become involved and seek to buy
one of these excellent machines. Even better, sign your friends up as members of the Adventure Cycling Association!
Let's face it, the bike industry is fascinated with specialty bikes. Some might ask, "But isn't a touring bike a specialty bike?" My answer
is no. To me, they're like Morgan horses in that they possess many fine qualities and are able to perform well in many situations. The
ability to perform well when loaded down with sixty pounds of gear just happens to be one of the fine qualities a touring bike possesses,
but it's no thoroughbred.
I bought Cannondale's T-1000 touring bike in 1993 and have used it for self-supported touring in a variety of places under many different
conditions. It has performed extremely well and has never let me down. Despite my happiness with it, I've modified the bike so that it is
very much different than the stock model I bought because I wanted to make it even more flexible than it already was.
 | |
For a list of touring bikes to
consider, click here. |
|
I prefer a 700c bicycle. I don't know why exactly, but I feel I perform better on one and am generally more comfortable on one. Since the
majority of my riding is done without panniers or a trailer, I wanted my touring bike to perform well whether I was out on pavement during
my lunch hour or on one of the many National Forest Service roads that criss cross western Montana.
Thinking my mountain bike sluggish and overdesigned for many of these roads, which aren't too particularly rugged, I decided one day that I
would try out my touring bike on one. I had a great time, and the bike performed well with only one drawback: the drop handlebars didn't
provide me with the amount of handling I wanted, so I replaced the drops with a straight handlebar. I then added thumbshifters and V-brakes.
At the time, a man named Joel Newkirk was making and selling a variety of handlebar add-ons called Newk Bar Ends. I added his drop clip-ons
and voila, I had a handlebar combination for all occasions. I then changed out the largest chainring, one with forty-four teeth, for a
fifty-two, and the bike's downhill and flat-ground cruising characteristics suddenly matched my riding style better. Overall, I now had the
gear inches to meet any situation I typically came across. According to Sheldon Brown's website sheldonbrown.com, gear inches are defined as:
One of the three comprehensive systems for numbering the gear values for bicycle gears. It is the equivalent diameter of the drive wheel on
a high-wheel bicycle. When chain-drive "safety" bikes came in, the same system was used, multiplying the drive wheel diameter by the
sprocket ratio. It is very easy to calculate: the diameter of the drive wheel, times the size of the front sprocket divided by the size of
the rear sprocket. This gives a convenient two- or three-digit number. The lowest gear on most mountain bikes is around 22-26 inches. The
highest gear on road racing bikes is usually around 108-110 inches. Unfortunately, the handwriting is on the wall for all inch-based
measurement systems.
At this point, my T-1000 lacks only one characteristic I want; it cannot accommodate a rear tire fatter than 37c and I would like to use a
fatter tire. So why describe my touring bike to you? Mostly to illustrate one very critical point: once
you've got a frame designed and built for loaded touring, you can equip it with just about any components you want. The only right or wrong
involved is whether the bike works for you or it does not. If it works for you, it's right. If it does not, it's wrong.
I've been in a lot of "what's better" discussions through the years, and not many are worth having. Are drop bars better than straight
bars? Are bar-end shifters better than STI shifters? Are leather saddles better than synthetic saddles? Are steel frames better than
aluminum frames? I could go on and on. The answer to all of these questions is both yes and no. "Better" is one of the most subjective
conceptions constructed by the human mind and only truly applies to personal preferences. Don't get trapped there. It's a house of mirrors
with obsession around every corner.
Most touring activity in the northern hemisphere takes place between April and September, and that's when we see some pretty interesting
machines pull up to Adventure Cycling's headquarters. It's amazing to see not only how people modify their bikes to better suit their
needs, but also the variety of bikes from different categories.
One category that does seem to be profiting from innovation is the recumbent. I've seen tandem recumbents, triple recumbents,
four-wheelers, telescoping frames, and many more that I can't describe clearly and succinctly. The thing that strikes me when I see a
recumbent that makes me shake in wonder is how happy their riders are. They will go on at length about the benefits of their machine until
I start to think perhaps it should be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. If you've never ridden one, you should give it a try. It's a whole
different sensation than riding an upright bicycle. Recumbent advocates describe in detail the level of comfort, lack of pain, and better
visibility they experience, and after riding a few, I certainly can't disagree. Are they better than upright bikes? Yes and no.
Trailers designed for touring have also made an impact on the bike-packing world. Because the forces alleviated by pulling a trailer versus
carrying panniers is so significant, many bikes previously deemed insufficient for loaded touring have become relevant again. We've seen
many people riding bikes from the sport touring category with trailers attached. We've even seen some straight-up road racing machines
pulling trailers without a hitch (pun intended). Are trailers better than panniers? Yes and no.
Another category worth mentioning is folding bikes. These machines are designed to travel in their own suitcases, making their owners much
more agile while using public transportation. I've often thought of these people with envy as I've dragged my ungainly cardboard box
through airports, bus stations, and train depots. If your touring plans involve globe hopping with your bike, you might want to look into a
folding model.
The core of the issue is that I want my touring bike to be a trustworthy companion when I'm exploring places that are new to me. I don't
want to be distracted by a machine when what I want to focus on is the endeavor and experience of bicycle touring and the situations I
encounter when I'm traveling by this most excellent method.
Hopefully, you can use these pages to do some research and find a machine that will let you, too, do just that. Good luck, and if you've
got your own take or want to share some of your experiences regarding this subject, head over to the
Adventure Cycling forums. See list of touring bikes to consider.
Mike Deme is the editor of Adventure Cylist and welcomes comments at;
mdeme@adventurecycling.org.
Photos by Tom Bol and Chuck Haney.
|
|
