Aggressive touring bike?

madness

Hi there,

I'm looking for a road bike (capable of speed when unladen) which would be suitable for touring, rather than the other way around. Could you call it an aggressive touring bike?! Maybe this is an unobtainable holy grail i'm not sure. It seems like a few of kinesis bikes might do the trick. I would be indebted to your advice. Any recommendations?

MrChuck

madness wrote:

Hi there,

I'm looking for a road bike (capable of speed when unladen) which would be suitable for touring, rather than the other way around. Could you call it an aggressive touring bike?! Maybe this is an unobtainable holy grail i'm not sure. It seems like a few of kinesis bikes might do the trick. I would be indebted to your advice. Any recommendations?

I'd say it depends what you mean by 'laden' and where you'd be going. You could fit plenty of road bikes with a rear rack and a bar bag, but obvioulsy you wouldn't be able to carry as much or go the same places as on a Galaxy or whatever.

The current RTW record holder did it on a Genesis Croix de Fer I think so maybe some sort of cross bike if you'd want to be able to do a bit of rough(er) stuff?

AidanR

What do you mean by "capable of speed"? Do you mean lightweight, or with aggressive geometry to put you in a lower, more aerodynamic position?

General touring bikes will be slower because

a) Heavier - only an issue in hilly terrain (or stop-start)
b) Less aero - this is generally due to position of rider, which will usually be a bit more upright for comfort, but of course can be varied (changing bar height)
c) Worse rolling resistance - this is just tyre choice

Then there's "speed" of handling - generally touring bikes will have a more "relaxed" geometry (more trail, longer wheelbase) that will make them more stable but with slower handling. This doesn't actually affect the speed you go.

andymiller

I think the first thing to do is forget about marketing catehories and BS terms like aggressive touring. the main things to consider are:

- short wheelbase but the chainstay length needs to be ling emough so you have clearance for larger tyres - IIRC that means something like a chainstay length of 410-420mm

- mounts for a rack

- frame material. Personally I'd prefer steel but there's nothing in the book of rules to say you can't tour with an aluminium-framed bike;

- wheels. Avoid factory-built wheels with less than (say) 30 spokes;

- gearing. Most tourers seem to prefer a triple with MTB-style gearing but there are other possibilities eg a compact double depending on how fit you are and how light you are travellng.

Some possibilities to consider:

- Planet-X Kaffenback
- Cotic Roadrat
- Condor Fratello.

AidanR

I'm not sure I agree about the wheelbase length. Why short? A longer wheelbase will create a slower, more stable ride, but you have to consider the interactions with other geometry issues when it comes to handling anyway. Short is all well and good, but you must consider it int he light of the following...

Wheelbase is affected by:

Chainstay length - as you point out, you don't want this too short otherwise you can't fit larger tyres and mudguards.
Top tube length - this will be determined by the size of the rider (and their fit preferences). Too short and it will need to be compensated for by a longer stem, which will have far more effect on quickness of handling.
Frame angles - steeper angles will shorten the wheelbase, but generally this is a poor way to shorten the wheelbase as it will affect the effective top tube length.
Head tube angle / fork trail - a slacker head tube angle and more fork rake will push the front wheel out away from the rider without affecting the steering quickness (if balanced and within reason - you don't want to create wheel flop). This can be necessary with smaller frames top avoid toe overlap, and if you want larger tyres and mudguards even medium sized frames may be affected by this.

I agree with the other points, save for the gearing - go for a triple if you're touring. You could get away with a compact if you paired it with a mountain bike rear derailleur and cassette, but you won't find this off-the-peg. You don't want to have to miss out on certain areas when touring because you can't make it up a hill!

For a "fast" tourer I suggest Thorn's Audax models.

MichaelW

Regarding wheelbase, you need chainstays long enough to give your required tyre clearance and to ensure that the weight of rear luggage is mainly inside the wheelbase, not hanging out behind the rear axle. If the weight is behind the axle, the bike becomes very light at the front and handles badly.

You need a brake system that supports your required tyre clearance, that is probably long drop calipers, cantilevers or disks.

An Audax/winter training bike can be used for light touring. You could probably fit some lightweight camping gear but would be hard pressed to take a full camp-cooking system with food supply. I can carry a Euro camping load without cooking in 2 med panniers + bar bag.

madness

Thanks for your replies.

Certainly interested in Thorn's audax offering, and the genesis that was the sort of thing I was looking for.

I am after lightweight more than race geometry. I want a bike that I can use for sunday rides but not races, say a bike capable of a healthy 100k time but also ok for light-medium touring.

I would be mainly doing euro stuff and carry approx 8-10kg at the moment on my mountain bike:

- topeak bikecamper tent
- 2 litres water
-clothes
-stove, gas, pan, cutley, food
-tool kit
-electronics
-sleeping bag

Ideally I would carry a little on the rear and a little on the front, maybe a handlebar bag.

GyatsoLa

The Enigma Ethos is worth a look:

http://www.enigmabikes.com/bike/bike-enigma-ethos.html

The Etape is more or less the same, but titanium with a corresponding price tag.

I built an Ethos with S&S coupling up with DT Swiss RR wheels on hope hubs, and a compact dropped bar, and used the lightest stuff I could afford to get the weight down (Ultegra, Hope and FSA parts). I use it for cyclesportifs - the extra comfort at least partly offsets the additional weight on a long ride. The all up weight is about 9.2 kg (20.5 lbs). Its obviously not quite as nippy as a good road bike, but its agile enough to be run to ride on a long downhill. With the build-up I've done, I wouldn't go all loaded touring, but even with those fairly light wheels I'd be happy to go touring with a load of up to about 18 kgs spread across the bike (i.e. not all on the rear pannier).

andymiller

There's a book somewhere of cycling rules which if you break them bad things will supposedly happen to you. I've toured on a bike with very short wheelbase and never had a problem cycling in a straight line, nor did I have the panniers hanging off the end. As for toe overlap I've never understood why this should be such a shibboleth amongst traditionalists (well apart from the fact thatit's in the Book of Rules): it's a completely theoretical risk - you'd have to be very unlucky or very inept for it to become a problem in reality.

There's nothing wrong with the traditional touring frame geometry - and if youcan afford a dedicated touring bike then maybe it's the geometry to go for - but you can tour perfectly happily with other types of frame.

AidanR

Is this the same book that insists that the most appropriate bike for everyone to own is some skinny-tyred road whippet?

hugh1982

I've got a Condor Fratello which whips along for my daily commute or Sunday ride. It's also served me well for touring in Spain and France, although you can't carry as large a load as a proper full on tourer such as a Dawes Galaxy.

It's a great bike and the closest to a 'do-it-all' bike I can think of

mz__jo

Vélocio said that, in touring, comfort is speed over long distances. If you already have a bike on which you are comfortable, try to make sure that you can duplicate at least the saddle to bb axle geometry. measure the distance between the axle and a vertical descending from the saddle. Aggressive modern geometry isn't always the most efficient in comfort terms. on the other hand you can tour on 23 section tyres if the rest is right. I have several clubmates who have tourers like that even if I think it not quite right.
My preference for a light tourer would be with a decent saddlebag at the back and the panniers at the front (just like my french clubmates, except they don't have decent saddlebags). If you want short chainstays this is the best way to keep the weight inside the wheelbase.It also imposes steel forks and a decently strong rear triangle. If I can go lighter then my load goes behind while the french style is to put everything on the forks.
Sorry I can't help with current bike models.

iPete

As mentioned above, I'd look at Audix bike something like a Tifosi CK7 or a CX bike.

As for my own choice, 10,270 miles and counting, 99% with the rack and a bag attached. Smashed out an 80 mile average for 17 days on tour, must have been 20-25kgs of kit. The only error was not having a bike fit before the the tour oh and only having a double up front.

jimwin

madness wrote:

I'm looking for a road bike (capable of speed when unladen) which would be suitable for touring, rather than the other way around. Could you call it an aggressive touring bike?! Maybe this is an unobtainable holy grail i'm not sure. It seems like a few of kinesis bikes might do the trick. I would be indebted to your advice. Any recommendations?

No-one has yet mentioned the dreaded "mudguard" word. If you're touring, you really do need mudguards unless you're in drier parts of the world (and the UK doesn't figure in that list!!). Mudguard clearance will dictate the frame dimensions but you can get good fast frames with just the right clearance for standard road mudguards and 25mm tyres. There are many frames that fit in this niche. FWIW, I use a Van Nic Yukon which does it for me.

- JimW

Flogger

I have a Surly Cross-Check on the way for a London-Rome tour coming up in June. Have no experience of it yet but google it and you'll find it's amazingly popular, very adaptable and seems to strike the perfect balance between road bike/tourer/cyclocross. I think you should seriously look into it.

flashman469

What about the use of a trailer such as a Bob Yak? You can then basically use any bike you wish providing it has a quick release skewer and suitable gearing for the load you are pulling/gradients you are negotiating. I have just bought such a trailer to use with my Mercian audax bike for the very same use.

allezcourage

+1 for the Surly Cross Check. It ticks all your boxes, as well as plenty other boxes you haven't thought about ticking yet...

I've had one for a year now and it's been great for loaded touring, winter training, commuting, sportives and off road too! Brilliant frame that will do whatever you ask of it comfortably according to the parts you run and spec you run.

yossarian82

Another one for the Cross Check here as well. Going to be taking mine for a 3 week tour of France at the end of the month and it easily copes with being loaded up and is very comfortable and still pretty quick unloaded. It is quite heavy which could be a down side but not a huge one.

andrewjoseph

Our road bikes are custom Ti from Burls. Can be fully loaded with panniers.

You spec what you want, Justin Burls tells you if it can be done and if it should be done. He won't build an unsafe bike.

If I want it to go faster I can put different wheels on it.