Road, touring or cross bike?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article NGOWc.308577$%_6.93685@attbi_s01,
Peter Cole wrote:
"gds" wrote in message
. com...
My view is that if you are getting a bike mainly for fitness rides up
to 60 miles then a road frame will be the best way to go. Touring
frames are geat for touring but you will probably find them
unresponsive on single day rides. To me a cross frame has no purpose
other than puttering around town- for which they are great. But if you
want to do 50-60 mile rides you will want a lightweight responsive
frame.

What does (un)responsive mean?



_ It means your roadie friends don't think you have a cool
bike...


_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQSzlu2TWTAjn5N/lAQGPXAQAjWppRqySLMKcaGahF+0CEdAN43YSUbTV
mPvdJcWYOYH24VF/AfORL43qs2SWT1NR5Rvobj4on83TvSko18DoNXfvpG++vCGZ
qs6Fg36JGnAUX8fNL8xZfydyjODOfzoksClrMCvd00dw7zP5Eg tDfb5TjezURLxa
NAa0NKaZt2U=
=1WML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Compared with a road bike, a tourer gains in being able to carry
weights. What does it lose? There must be a trade-off.

Frank Krygowski wrote in message ...
Yellowstone Yeti wrote:

My question
is: do I buy a touring bike, road bike, cross bike? I've done quite
a bit of touring in the past on a mountain bike. In fact, that is my
"road" bike right now-an early 90s steel Fisher mtn bike with slicks.
It is heavy, slow, and the perfect bike for losing weight. Do I keep
it as my touring bike and buy a faster, lighter road bike? Or do I
buy a decent touring bike and use it for all of my road riding? Will
I notice the difference between a road bike and a bare touring bike,
especially at my size?

I don't think you stated your size, but: I think the differences you'll
notice in a road bike (vs. touring bike) are twitchier handling and lack
of low gears.

A touring bike will probably feel more stable and relaxed in its
handling, but you may prefer the "sporty" response to steering inputs.
OTOH, I've ridden with folks that were always dodging left and right 6"
at a time, unintentionally. I think their hair-trigger bike geometry
might have been part of the cause. And remember that even if you like
that twitchiness at mile #5, you may hate it at mile #95.

The road bike won't be "faster." The touring bike will have the same
aerodynamics, and with the proper tires it'll have the same rolling
resistance, practically speaking. That's what effects your speed.

By
the way, I'll be using the bike primarily for fitness rides of 20-60
miles, but working up to a century ride. I'll also be doing 1 or 2
two week fully loaded tours/year.

To me, that would settle it. A touring bike is essentially as good as a
road bike for unloaded riding. A touring bike is unbeatable for loaded
touring.

Incidentally, I don't understand the current fashion of choosing a
cyclocross bike for, say, touring. Seems to me like it's just a fashion
thing. "Hey, I'm too cool for a touring bike. I got a macho bike
that's designed to be carried through the mud! But, er, I'm going
touring on it."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
Libuser wrote:
Compared with a road bike, a tourer gains in being able to carry
weights. What does it lose? There must be a trade-off.


_ The frame is somewhat heavier and the slacker angles make
it less squirrelly/responsive. I wouldn't reccommend criterium racing
on a touring frame, but 99% of road bikes never see a race
course. In short, a tourer makes a pretty acceptable road bike
if you don't race, but a road bike (ie. criterium racer ) makes
a very lousy loaded touring bike.

_ Booker C. Bense


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQS0fkmTWTAjn5N/lAQEkqwP/XnvkWRHRpFPDnsEjaEfIyrWyHGFYUqDv
kGR2oWsm/FmwOXE9kp2LBZS+Ez6IYk04wJAvXjp/m0Njzm6CEW3NdPSD46qFAok/
WvAIPimaJfuVVAt/1t3Oo74bAaka4hJvssWkiPAJv9Xv0GCAf3bs9Sw0OK1UTuk/
3fZb19gO4Ro=
=XiYv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Booker C. Bense wrote:

In short, a tourer makes a pretty acceptable road bike
if you don't race, but a road bike (ie. criterium racer ) makes
a very lousy loaded touring bike.

And just a little clarification, based on my admittedly small
experience: if the "racing" is a time trial, and assuming you're not
going to buy a special TT bike, a touring bike isn't bad there, either.

When you do a time trial right, you're absolutely exhausted at the end.
Under those conditions, I wouldn't have wanted very twitchy handling.
I had enough trouble keeping my touring bike going straight!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

I'll be using the bike primarily for fitness rides of 20-60
miles, but working up to a century ride. I'll also be doing 1 or 2
two week fully loaded tours/year.


I have ridden both touring and road bikes. Road bikes seem to accelerate and
turn much more quickly to me. So for fitness rides and centuries, I would
definitely suggest a road bike. But then you also go out on fully loaded tours
per year. You could use you old bike for the fully loaded tours. Touring
bikes tend to be heavier then road bikes so having an older heavier bike would
not be that big a deal in touring.
Of course, you could get good touring bike and use it for your fitness rides,
but I think a road bike would perform much better in that role and be worth the
difference even if you could not use it on the fully loaded tours.

Are there any group road rides near where you live? I ask because, if
so, you may want to try a road bike and ride with them. It could be
nicer to do this on a road bike than a touring bike. Might be just a
little easier to keep up. Also, if weight loss is an issue; group
riding will provide an incentivve to keep riding routinly. When you
start with a group you may need all the help you can get just to keep
up.

Frame suggestion ---- definitely steel/aluminum for the price. You
need not worry about saving a couple pounds for weight with titanium,
etc. if you can lose 53 pounds of body weight. The added weight saved
in frame with high tech materials is not worth the added cost here.

---Brink

"Peter Cole" wrote in message news:NGOWc.308577$%_6.93685@attbi_s01...
"gds" wrote in message
om...
My view is that if you are getting a bike mainly for fitness rides up
to 60 miles then a road frame will be the best way to go. Touring
frames are geat for touring but you will probably find them
unresponsive on single day rides. To me a cross frame has no purpose
other than puttering around town- for which they are great. But if you
want to do 50-60 mile rides you will want a lightweight responsive
frame.

What does (un)responsive mean?

The geometry of a road frame results in a bike that can accelerate
faster, turn tighter. etc as compared to a similar quality bike with
touring geometry. Of course it also mens a "harder" ride which is why
long distince tourists often like the softer less responsive ride of
those bikes.

It's all a matter of personal preference and I only listed mine.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
Pbwalther wrote:
I'll be using the bike primarily for fitness rides of 20-60
miles, but working up to a century ride. I'll also be doing 1 or 2
two week fully loaded tours/year.


I have ridden both touring and road bikes. Road bikes seem to accelerate and
turn much more quickly to me.

_ A guy that wants to lose 50lbs probably doesn't need to worry
about accelleration. Your point is valid, but IMHO if you aren't
comfortable on the bike you won't ride it regardless of how fast it
turns. Getting a comfortable fit is much more likely on a touring
bike, plus the wider tire selection would also be of benefit to
a larger rider.

_ Booker C. Bense



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQS42nmTWTAjn5N/lAQH3QQQAiui5chZ++tIzzq5/2pvQoVjqPeKHT+AD
xNgt836uHNGshZfas5qZL/tkM7rJhHfy/zlV7vVQVRvV8BYSHk7eixzrbKuJIBTs
QUzJyss2iD2IacOq7J2YKqf0eMstlUs3lf/gUOc3aZaiPO4ZKfB0JJVrTVfAQg5o
CAcIItp486w=
=kaE7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Frank Krygowski

wrote:

And just a little clarification, based on my admittedly small
experience: if the "racing" is a time trial, and assuming you're not
going to buy a special TT bike, a touring bike isn't bad there, either.

When you do a time trial right, you're absolutely exhausted at the end.
Under those conditions, I wouldn't have wanted very twitchy handling.
I had enough trouble keeping my touring bike going straight!

You'll be just as tired but faster if for your next TT you remove those ugly
fenders, racks, and panniers. Swap the 32s for 23s while you're at it. g

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"gds" wrote in message
m...
"Peter Cole" wrote in message
news:NGOWc.308577$%_6.93685@attbi_s01...
"gds" wrote in message
om...
My view is that if you are getting a bike mainly for fitness rides up
to 60 miles then a road frame will be the best way to go. Touring
frames are geat for touring but you will probably find them
unresponsive on single day rides. To me a cross frame has no purpose
other than puttering around town- for which they are great. But if you
want to do 50-60 mile rides you will want a lightweight responsive
frame.

What does (un)responsive mean?

The geometry of a road frame results in a bike that can accelerate
faster,

Acceleration has nothing to do with geometry.

turn tighter.
At any reasonable speed, turning radius is determined by g-force-lean
angle-tire slip out. At slow speeds, who cares?

etc
??

Of course it also mens a "harder" ride which is why
long distince tourists often like the softer less responsive ride of
those bikes.

Ride "softness" is only a factor of tires. If your frame/brake clearances will
allow it, you can select your "hardness/softness" by choosing the tires.

It's all a matter of personal preference and I only listed mine.
No, you used a vague term, your assumptions behind it are wrong.