Originally Posted by
The Golden Boy
I was really hoping you'd respond!!
Grant actually suggested the Canti-Sam- and now this goes into the whole "what do I need/ what do I want/ and why" thing. From what I've read... The Sam is a more... beefier bike than the Homer. By that I mean, from what I read- the frame of the Sam is (or was) a more 'heavy duty' frame than the Homer. (I base this on the results of a Google search on "Sam Hillborne vs A Homer Hilsen") If you'll notice the bikes in my sig- most everything is "tourer." Most of my bikes are built for bearing weight and most have 45+ cm chainstays. Not a lot of "lightweight" in that collection. I do like that my bikes ride like the equivalent of a 1972 Cadillac Eldorado (big car show in town tomorrow!), glorious, smooth, cool.
I think what I want for this bike is somewhat akin to the old Specialized Sequoia (but with cantis and clearance). While "Sport Touring" bikes were generally always entry/mid-level bikes- The early 80s Sequoia was a sport tourer with a premium tube set with fender/rack braze ons and specced with Suntour Superbe and other class A components. An early 80s "all-rounder" beyond, yet still stuck within the confines of its time. I look at the Homer as an extension of that- premium tube set... attachment points for fenders, racks, bottles, clearance for wide tires... Take that, braze on some cantis and build it uncompromisingly dominant. Superbe, XC Pro, XTR, XT, Phil Wood... **** yeah. Or maybe the concept is more of a shorter wheelbase tourer with thinner tubing...
My 1986 Trek 400 Elance shares a lot of the same geometry and metallurgy with my 1985 Trek 620. (I don't know about wall thickness- which is more important- but I *assume* similar thicknesses) They're both 531 main frame, CrMo fork and stays- the 400 Elance has 42.5 cm chainstays compared to the 620's 47cm chainstays and the fork offset is different. I believe the Elance to feel more stout than the 620- it rides heavier. IMO- the 720 rides heavier than the 620. You know how there's a give and take between "flexy" and "stiff?" IMO- my 620 has a flexiness that the 720 doesn't have. Here's where we get to what I perceive as the difference in the Sam and Homer- the difference between the 620 and 720.
I've got the load bearing thing covered.
I guess I want a bike that rides light; a bike that the "give" with a reasonable load takes precedence over the "stiff" ... to a point.
Maybe it's a whole lot of overthinking it- but the long and the short of it is I want a spritely, lightweight sport tourer that can take wider tires with cantis and the Rivendell aesthetic- from what I see- that's a US made Canti-Homer. I'm frustrated because I'm waving the ****ing money around and being told they can't make it anymore.
If you could bend at all on the canti requirement, the new made in taiwan Homer looks to be a pretty great bike. (And is supposed to have lighter tubing than the Sam.) I didn't see if you stated a preference for 700c or 650b. I'm sure you've already looked at it though. Have you considered looking for a used Homer? It might be a long shot trying to find a used one that also has cantilever brakes, but I'm sure they're out there. Have you checked out the RBW Google Group?
As someone with a Sam, I think I'd have to agree that it's probably not what you are looking for. It's a great bike, but it's not "spritely." It's a beautiful, stable, tough bike that rides amazingly well...but you already have a bunch of those.
I've also owned quite a few different vintage Treks. I'm surprised to hear you say that your 720 rides "heavy." I briefly owned a 1983 720 and found it pretty light and noodly. That, combined with the limited tire clearance is why I sold it. I've also owned a 1984 Trek 620, which was one of the nicest riding bikes I've ever had.