touring bike vs. randonneuring bike
hank greenblatt
I'm interested in people's opinions on the features to look for in a
randonneuring bike. Please feel free to list specific brands and
componentry. Please comment on:
1)geometry(especially length of chain stays to get smooth triple
gearing)
2)components(especially drivetrain and gearing for a triple)
3)type of brakes (sidepull, canti, etc)
4)type of gear shifters (barcons, STI/Ergo,downtube)
5)wheels and tire sizes.
I'm especially interested in differences between the features I see on
"touring bikes" and what you'd consider a great randonneur bike. The
touring bikes seem built much heavier and for carrying heavier full
loads than I'd need for randonneuring. I'd be carrying a rear rack and
rack pack or possibly a seat-suspended pack for randonneuring. So what's
out there that's in between a 17lb.road racing bike and a 29lb. touring
bike that is durable and comfortable for randonneuring?
I realize there may be as many opinions as riders out there but I do
appreciate your feedback.
Hank Greenblatt
Alexis T
Peter,
there was a discussion a while back on disc brakes on tandems, and
according to tests done by German bike magazine, disc brakes are far cry
from rim brakes in terms of how much heat they can take. Most discs
start having issues at ~700wt and very few can dissipate over 900 w/o
damage, where rim brakes take 1100wt, if not more given thicker tube and
extra layer of rim tape.
Yes discs have more power in wet, but as a guy who went down in wet
corners on a few occations, I don't think I need that power ;)
--alexis /Always Look On The Bright Side of Life/
Peter Noris wrote:
>
> I can't speak to several of your concerns since I have ridden a
> recumbent for several years,
> and my previous bike was a Cannondale touring bike (although I believe
> that was closer to 25 -
> 26 lbs. all set upthan 29), but I do have opinionson 2 items you ask
> about.
>
> Barcons vs. other options - barcons - lighter, shift without moving your
> hand around and very
> easy to use.
>
> Brakes - at least a rear brake should be a disc. In wet weather there is
> no comparision. It
> simply continues to work, where any other type takes a substantial
> amount of time to become
> operative and even then not as effective when dry. Also when it IS dry,
> the stopping power is
> enormous. There are design issues about front discs; since I use a
> Schmidt hub it's not
> something I've gotten into a lot, but this web site talks about it in
> depth -
> p://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/index.html
> .
>
> Now if you want to talk DF vs. recumbents...LOL...
>
>
> --- hank greenblatt <der...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ===========================================================
> > Let University of Phoenix make 2004 your year. Evening,
> > weekend or FlexNet® classes – over 130 locations. Look
> > into our programs and get the degree that gets you going!
> > http://click.topica.com/caaccMPaVxiDKa6GUFia/ UOP
> > ===========================================================
> > ===========================================================
> > Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
> > provides your organization with instant remote access to
> > email,files, applications and network resources in real
> > time. FREE TRIAL:
> > http://click.topica.com/caaccMSaVxiDKa6GUFif/ ExpertCity
> > ===========================================================
> >
> > *** Replying to this message will reply to its original sender, reply or
> > send messages to
> > the list mailto:ran...@topica.com as well
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Unsubscribe from Randon by sending a BLANK email to:
> > randon-un...@topica.com
> > ** Any queries? email: pmat...@alphalink.com.au
> >
>
>
> =====
> see ya,
> Peter
>
> "Let's stop for dinner in 80 or 90 miles."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Todd Kuzma
on 5/2/04 9:03 AM, hank greenblatt at der...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I'm interested in people's opinions on the features to look for in a
> randonneuring bike. Please feel free to list specific brands and
> componentry.
I'd look for comfort, durability, and versatility. A lower bottom bracket
raises the handlebars relative to the saddle for a more upright riding
position. An extended head tube has a similar effect. The frame should
have clearance for at least a true 700x28 tire PLUS fenders.
Touring bikes are designed to be stable with a very heavy load. You don't
need the steering to be THAT slow, but a racing bike front end can be
difficult to handle when you are tired.
For gearing, especially on longer brevets, consider the gear you would need
to get up a steep climb. After 200 miles (this will likely be a lower gear
than you would need when you are fresh).
I like handlebar bags since they allow for easy access to food while riding.
They also usually provide a good place for a cue sheet. Typically, Campy
Ergo shifters or bar-end shifters work better with handlebar bags than
Shimano STI shifters.
Either cantilever or "standard" reach (47-57 mm) calipers will work well for
brakes and provide sufficient tire and fender clearance.
For chainstay length, I would tend to go longer rather than shorter. Longer
chainstays give a better chain line with triple cranks, and a longer
wheelbase gives a smoother ride. You don't need to go as long as a touring
bike, though.
If you are really interested in the ideal randonneuring bicycle, look at
some of the older French randonneuring bikes. Constructeurs such as Rene
Herse refined the design of these bikes over decades and developed some
great solutions. Nearly everything we use today for randonneuring looks
like a hodge podge of parts in comparison. Jan Heine's excellent Vintage
Bicycle Quarterly often profiles such machines:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~heine/bikesite/bikesite/index.html>
Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL
http://www.heronbicycles.com/
http://www.tullios.com/
Todd Kuzma
on 5/2/04 11:54 AM, Peter Noris at PNo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Brakes - at least a rear brake should be a disc.
I don't believe that disk brakes are the best solution for road bicycles
yet. Perhaps they would be with some further development. Some
considerations:
- A rim brake IS a disk brake with a larger diameter rotor and greater swept
area than the disk brakes currently on the market.
- Both rim brakes and disk brakes require longer stopping distances when
wet. There is often an advantage to disk brakes on mountain bikes that ride
through mud, puddles, or creeks since the rotor will be further from the
source of the water. In the rain, they are both affected similarly. In
either case, however, the extra stopping distance required is not
significant.
- Disk brakes require narrower flange spacing on the hubs. On the rear,
there is some debate as to whether this is a disadvantage or not. Some feel
that the narrower bracing angle reduces lateral stiffness. Others feel that
the smaller difference in spoke tension between the left and right sides
makes a more durable wheel. On the front, the narrower flange spacing means
that the front wheel must be dished. This isn't a good thing as the front
wheel will typically see greater lateral forces than the rear.
- Rear disk brakes require much stiffer (i.e. heavier) tubing in the rear
triangle to handle the torque of the brake.
- Front disk brakes require a much stiffer (i.e. heavier AND harsher riding)
fork to handle the torque of the brake.
- Dry weather performance is similar. If the disk brake did indeed offer
much improved dry weather performance, I would not put one alone on the
rear. The front brake does vast bulk of the braking. An exceptionally
strong rear brake relative to the front would tend to lock up. The rider
would have to feather the rear brake thus negating any performance
improvement.
- Heat dissipation under continuous braking is better with rim brakes than
most disk brakes. Since weight is always a concern, most disk brakes have
rotors that are too small and light to be very effective at dissipating
heat. The result seen from testing has been warped rotors, melted plastic
pieces, boiling fluid, glazed pads, and other heat-related failures. The
only way for disks to be more effective than rim brakes in heat dissipation
is to use a larger, heavier rotor. Some of the newer, downhill-specific
rotors may do this, but note that these rotors trasfer even more torque into
the frame and require heavier frame tubing still. One MTB manufacturer
recently had to recall some bikes equipped with 8" rotors to replace them
with 6" rotors because the larger rotors were causing frame failures.
The best application of disk brakes in is wet condition off-road bicycling.
The disk brake will offer much greater mud clearance than any rim brake and
since it is situated further from the ground, will be less likely to be
contaminated with mud or water.
For road applications, disk brakes have the disadvantage of weaker wheels
(at least in the front), greater weight, and a harsher ride (with a front
disk) without any real increase in performance.
For randonneuring specifically, there is also the concern that a rotor
failure, either from crash damage or heat-induced warping, will mean the end
of the brevet or at least removal of the rotor. Be sure to bring a
Torx-head wrench in your tool kit.
Don Perley
Todd Kuzma wrote:
The
> only way for disks to be more effective than rim brakes in heat dissipation
> is to use a larger, heavier rotor. Some of the newer, downhill-specific
> rotors may do this, but note that these rotors trasfer even more torque into
> the frame and require heavier frame tubing still. One MTB manufacturer
> recently had to recall some bikes equipped with 8" rotors to replace them
> with 6" rotors because the larger rotors were causing frame failures.
Consider that as the rotor diameter increses, the force distribution
gets closer to what you would get on a rim brake. So if the larger
brake is designed to have the same stopping force with better heat
dissapation (the goal), then the fork stress should be less.
>
> The best application of disk brakes in is wet condition off-road bicycling.
> The disk brake will offer much greater mud clearance than any rim brake and
> since it is situated further from the ground, will be less likely to be
> contaminated with mud or water.
Randonneuring is closer to off road in this respect than most road
riding since the rides go on regardless of the weather.
> For road applications, disk brakes have the disadvantage of weaker wheels
> (at least in the front), greater weight, and a harsher ride (with a front
> disk) without any real increase in performance.
If you ride in the rain then rim brakes give you weaker wheels because
grit sticks to the rims and your brake acts like a lathe cutting into
the sidewall. This is my usual reason for having to replace a mountain
bike rim. The grit also causes high wear on your brake shoes. I have
seen a rider have to buy new pads during a rainy 400k. Mine lasted
through the ride, but I put new ones on the next week.
Some of the extra weight of the disk is offset because you can use
lighter rims with no braking surface. These are available in 26 inch,
but maybe not in road size yet.
Peter Noris
I can't speak to several of your concerns since I have ridden a recumbent for several years,
and my previous bike was a Cannondale touring bike (although I believe that was closer to 25 -
26 lbs. all set upthan 29), but I do have opinionson 2 items you ask about.
Barcons vs. other options - barcons - lighter, shift without moving your hand around and very
easy to use.
Brakes - at least a rear brake should be a disc. In wet weather there is no comparision. It
simply continues to work, where any other type takes a substantial amount of time to become
operative and even then not as effective when dry. Also when it IS dry, the stopping power is
enormous. There are design issues about front discs; since I use a Schmidt hub it's not
something I've gotten into a lot, but this web site talks about it in depth -
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/index.html .
Now if you want to talk DF vs. recumbents...LOL...
--- hank greenblatt <der...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ===========================================================
> Let University of Phoenix make 2004 your year. Evening,
> weekend or FlexNet® classes – over 130 locations. Look
> into our programs and get the degree that gets you going!
> http://click.topica.com/caaccMPaVxiDKa6GUFia/ UOP
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
> I'm interested in people's opinions on the features to look for in a
> randonneuring bike. Please feel free to list specific brands and
Peter Noris
Hi Todd,
I enjoyed reading your very reasoned response - I would differ with some of your arguments
though. A disc is not as close to the wet road; it will stay drier in the rain, and since the
diameter is less, what water is on it will be wiped on the first pass quicker. There is no
doubt in my mind that in the rain they are more effective; the effect is so obvious it doesn't
seem to be necessary to test.
At least from an subjective viewpoint (which I am the first to agree can be flawed) it seems
more effective in the dry, or at least more effective with less hand pressure (using an Avid).
As far as front vs. rear, I believe I said in my original post I ride a recumbent; it is a LWB
with more weight on the rear than a DF. Even if I could get a Schmidt hub with a disc for the
front, in my circumstance I do not think I would use it.
As far as a bent rotor from a crash needing to be removed, from the placement of the rotor it
seems unlikely that the rotor would be bent (on the road, with no rocks or stumps). An
alternative is to remore the entire brake assembly with a standard multi tool since in either
case you no longer have a rear brake.
--- Todd Kuzma <tul...@theramp.net> wrote:
> ===========================================================
> Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
> Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
> invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
> http://click.topica.com/caaccMMaVxiDKa6GUFia/ Sharebuilder
> ===========================================================
>
> on 5/2/04 11:54 AM, Peter Noris at PNo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Brakes - at least a rear brake should be a disc.
>
> pieces, boiling fluid, glazed pads, and other heat-related failures. The
> only way for disks to be more effective than rim brakes in heat dissipation
> is to use a larger, heavier rotor. Some of the newer, downhill-specific
> rotors may do this, but note that these rotors trasfer even more torque into
> the frame and require heavier frame tubing still. One MTB manufacturer
> recently had to recall some bikes equipped with 8" rotors to replace them
> with 6" rotors because the larger rotors were causing frame failures.
>
> The best application of disk brakes in is wet condition off-road bicycling.
> The disk brake will offer much greater mud clearance than any rim brake and
> since it is situated further from the ground, will be less likely to be
> contaminated with mud or water.
>
> For road applications, disk brakes have the disadvantage of weaker wheels
> (at least in the front), greater weight, and a harsher ride (with a front
> disk) without any real increase in performance.
>
> For randonneuring specifically, there is also the concern that a rotor
> failure, either from crash damage or heat-induced warping, will mean the end
> of the brevet or at least removal of the rotor. Be sure to bring a
> Torx-head wrench in your tool kit.
>
> Todd Kuzma
> Heron Bicycles
> Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
> LaSalle, IL
> http://www.heronbicycles.com/
> http://www.tullios.com/
>
> ===========================================================
> Sponsor a child today through Children International.
> Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter future.
> For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
> http://click.topica.com/caaccM4aVxiDKa6GUFif/ Children's Int'l
Peter Jon White
Todd Kuzma wrote:
>
> I'd look for comfort, durability, and versatility. A lower bottom bracket
> raises the handlebars relative to the saddle for a more upright riding
> position.
This would only happen on very small frame sizes, since the lower limit
on the stem position is efectively determined by the height of the tire.
For most people, it's not an issue.
--
Peter Jon White
Peter White Cycles
24 Hall Rd.
Hillsborough, NH 03244
603 478 0900 Phone
603 478 0902 Phax
http://www.PeterWhiteCycles.com
bo...@melbpc.org.au
hank greenblatt wrote:
>
>
> I'm interested in people's opinions on the features to look for in a
> randonneuring bike. Please feel free to list specific brands and
> componentry.
G'day Hank
Just to add to the confusion have a look at Malcolm Rogers useful article
at:
http://www.aeropannier.com.au/cafe/audaxbike.htm
My view is that one should say hang the expense and have one built for
you. That way you get exactly what you want and not what some stylist/bean
counter/salesperson thinks you want. Remember that you have to spend the
long hours in the saddle not the aforementioned.
--
Cheers
__o
_`\<,
...(*)/(*)
Ian Boehm Mail: PO box 182
Moreland 3058
Australia
Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server