Surly Long Haul Trucker

Peter Cole wrote:
These days, "touring" frames are considered something special, but
really they're just standard frames from a historical point of view.

That may be true, but most of the current "standard" frames for road
bikes are unsuitable for touring. "Standard" ten or fifteen years ago is
very different from today's "standard." You really wouldn't want to use
one of today's standard compact geometry aluminum frames on a tour. Even
Trek realizes this and continues to offer the 520, which has non-compact
geometry steel frame.

The other negative about the Cross Check is that it doesn't have a
triple crankset. Changing this would cost a couple of hundred dollars.

landotter wrote:

So what are you saying? *That a touring bike is best
over a cross bike if one is only "touring" once or
twice a year?

What about a high bottom bracket on a road going bike appeals to you?

Confused.... not understanding

Peter Cole wrote:

As landotter said, if you want to change your bike, change the
tires. I have a huge "library" of tires, everything from deep treaded
tires with carbide studs to fat skinwalls to very skinny and thin racing
slicks. They make a much bigger difference than frames. At the frame
level, all that touring", "cross", "racing" stuff is just hype.

Ok thanks got it now

On Jan 24, 4:52*pm, SMS wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
These days, "touring" frames are considered something special, but
really they're just standard frames from a historical point of view.

That may be true, but most of the current "standard" frames for road
bikes are unsuitable for touring. "Standard" ten or fifteen years ago is
very different from today's "standard." You really wouldn't want to use
one of today's standard compact geometry aluminum frames on a tour.

Really? That statement does not hold water in reality. There is
nothing bad about compact or sloping top tube aluminum frames for
touring or utility use. Nada. There's good stuff, though: cheap and
cheerful alu frames are nice and rigid when loaded up, and they don't
rust when you chip the paint.


Just because you don't like the aesthetics of something is no excuse
to spread false memes--especially the one about "roadside frame
repair" that I think is coming up. If you tour in the third world on
a fairly new aluminum frame--the chance of it breaking are
infinitesimal. But if *I* did--I'd rather someone overnight me a
Nashbar touring frame for a hundred bux, than trust some yahoo to weld
a steel frame.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:13:56 -0330, Rex Button wrote:

I do not own one, but {:-)

What do you want to do with it?

Briefly, light touring.
100 - 150 km per day (occasionally 200km) for a week or two straight.
No front bags; just two rear and maybe a bar bag up front.

Maybe even some brevets later; but it seems to me the LHT is a bit heavy for
that?

LHT is available with 26" or 700 CC wheels; I'm small enough to get away
with the 54cm frame, so 26" is an option, and i'm thinking the better one
for what I've got in mind.

That is the core of why I'd never buy one. That chain stays are far too
short for the touring I like to do. I like unsealed back roads and with
that comes the problem of mud. Some of our mud is exceedingly sticky and
can create problems on bicycles with close tolerances on the chain
stay. Dragging a loaded touring bicycle up and down hill because the mud
builds up on the chain stay area and jams the wheels takes a lot of fun
out of the trip.

If that isn't a problem for you, then.....


In terms of terrain, we're talking eastern Newfoundland. Max altitude around
600 feet, but it's all up and down, with short grades often at 7% and
sometimes 10%.

Other people have mentioned the weight. How much do the alternatives
weigh? Whether it is significant depends on your overall weight and how
many times you are going to drag it up and down hills each day.

How can anyone possibly think outdated and ugly impractical barend
shifters are better than STI? The Motobecane cross bikes on
bikesdirect.com have rack mounts.
Front mounts arent necessary unless you are actually touring. My 01
Cdale XR800 cross has rear eyelts and is an ideal all round bike. Tire
swaps allow great flexibility.


On Jan 24, 4:09*pm, landotter wrote:
On Jan 24, 2:35*pm, Big Jim wrote:

Why would he have to stick with surly? *They are fine but are just a
house brand likely produced in some asian factory. *A Cannondale (or
many others) 'cross bike with a carbon fork will weigh less. *be fast
as many road bikes with skinny tires and handle light off road with
cross tires. *Handling will be quicker and comfortwill be similar..

A Cannondale costs $400 more for the base cross model with lesser spec
shifters, mech, crank, and wheels. It also does not have proper
provisions for a rear rack and mounting fenders is tight and awkward
due to there being no chainstay bridge. Forget about ever mounting low-
riders. Can't see why misusing a cross bike is smart, especially one
that's no value in any way.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:48:58 -0800 (PST), landotter
wrote:

On Jan 24, 4:52*pm, SMS wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
These days, "touring" frames are considered something special, but
really they're just standard frames from a historical point of view.

That may be true, but most of the current "standard" frames for road
bikes are unsuitable for touring. "Standard" ten or fifteen years ago is
very different from today's "standard." You really wouldn't want to use
one of today's standard compact geometry aluminum frames on a tour.

Really? That statement does not hold water in reality. There is
nothing bad about compact or sloping top tube aluminum frames for
touring or utility use. Nada. There's good stuff, though: cheap and
cheerful alu frames are nice and rigid when loaded up, and they don't
rust when you chip the paint.

Agree with you on the material thing; however, I think there's a bit
of truth in Grant Peterson's ravings over at Rivendell about tire
sizes. You want to mount anything bigger than a 23 tire, some of
today's "standard" bikes won't let you. Today's "cross" bikes will
usually let you get up to 28-32, and modern (and older) "touring"
bikes will let you use even wider tires, up to 35-38 or sometimes even
bigger. Wider tires are useful for touring, and useful for
clydesdales, and easier on the butt on lumpy roads.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Big Jim wrote:
Why would he have to stick with surly? They are fine but are just a
house brand likely produced in some asian factory. A Cannondale (or
many others) 'cross bike with a carbon fork will weigh less. be fast
as many road bikes with skinny tires and handle light off road with
cross tires. Handling will be quicker and comfortwill be similar..

People always make a big deal over "touring" frames. It usually boils
down to a little (& I mean little) extra length in chain stays, a little
extra tire clearance, and a little extra BB drop -- all things that make
a bike a little more versatile. There's no downside, really. It's just
the way bikes used to be made -- even racing bikes. Much ado about nothing.

I was just comparing apples to apples. I think if you compared a
Cannondale "touring" to a Cannondale "cross", you'd see the same thing.

SMS wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
These days, "touring" frames are considered something special, but
really they're just standard frames from a historical point of view.

That may be true, but most of the current "standard" frames for road
bikes are unsuitable for touring. "Standard" ten or fifteen years ago is
very different from today's "standard." You really wouldn't want to use
one of today's standard compact geometry aluminum frames on a tour. Even
Trek realizes this and continues to offer the 520, which has non-compact
geometry steel frame.

My point is that these days there isn't a "standard" frame -- that would
be much too boring. Today's "touring" frames mostly resemble yesterday's
plain old frames. The "improvements are gratuitous.


The other negative about the Cross Check is that it doesn't have a
triple crankset. Changing this would cost a couple of hundred dollars.

I was restricting the discussion to frames -- whole bikes gets us into
very deep water in comparison.

Big Jim wrote:
How can anyone possibly think outdated and ugly impractical barend
shifters are better than STI?

How can they be "outdated" if they're still sold?

How can they be "impractical" when they are so simple?

As for "ugly", I just don't see that.

STI is a Rube Goldberg by comparison. STI is just the thing for crit
racing, but I really can't see the need for something that baroque
otherwise.


The Motobecane cross bikes on
bikesdirect.com have rack mounts.
Front mounts arent necessary unless you are actually touring. My 01
Cdale XR800 cross has rear eyelts and is an ideal all round bike. Tire
swaps allow great flexibility.

Limiting the discussion to frames, I see no benefit in short chain stays
and high bottom brackets. Likewise, I don't see the benefit of omitting
"braze-ons" for fitting accessories. These aren't features for an "all
round" bike.