Expedition Touring; replacing my trusty mountain bike
01-29-19, 05:04 AM
#26
Senior Member
Hobbes,
well expressed and reasonable comments, especially about newcomers thinking about this activity.
Clearly many of us here have been doing this for a while, and also clearly most of us are pretty passionate about bikes and love and appreciate the differences between bikes, riding bikes and maybe even working on bikes.
Heck I know so many people in the world can barely afford one bike, and then there are people who own multiple houses and cars and planes....so it's all relative isn't it?
well expressed and reasonable comments, especially about newcomers thinking about this activity.
Clearly many of us here have been doing this for a while, and also clearly most of us are pretty passionate about bikes and love and appreciate the differences between bikes, riding bikes and maybe even working on bikes.
Heck I know so many people in the world can barely afford one bike, and then there are people who own multiple houses and cars and planes....so it's all relative isn't it?
01-29-19, 05:19 AM
#27
Senior Member
Oops, made a mistake
re my wife's 10 spd chain wear vs my 9 spd
I forgot that her bike didn't have a bike computer on it for 2017, so when I looked at the kms on it the other day when cleaning it, in the end that chain has similar kms to my 9 speed chain, so very similar wear....
so in line with a projected 5000kms more or less before getting to that 1/16 stretch point, which has been a pretty consistent average for me over the years.
re my wife's 10 spd chain wear vs my 9 spd
I forgot that her bike didn't have a bike computer on it for 2017, so when I looked at the kms on it the other day when cleaning it, in the end that chain has similar kms to my 9 speed chain, so very similar wear....
so in line with a projected 5000kms more or less before getting to that 1/16 stretch point, which has been a pretty consistent average for me over the years.
01-29-19, 07:14 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,182
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3455 Post(s)
Liked 1,454 Times
in
1,133 Posts
On 8 or 9 or 10 speed, there was some discussion on chain longevity. And over the years I have seen a lot of debate on chain life with different chains. On that I have no opinion.
But I bought a bike last spring with 10 speed gearing, my other derailleur bikes have eight or fewer sprockets. One thing that I have noticed with the 10 speed cassette versus the eight speed is that I spread my usage and therefore wear across more sprockets when the cassette has more sprockets. That is because there is a smaller incremental change between sprockets on the 10 speed. Specifically, 80 or more percent of the time on the eight speed cassette I am using three middle sprockets. But with the 10 speed cassette I am using five or six middle sprockets about 80 percent of the time.
I do not know if that means that a cassette will last longer with 10 sprockets compared to eight, but it might. I am sure that sprocket thickness and hardness will come into play to, as well as the total range of the cassette, so it might not be a simple comparison.
I have been sticking with eight speed systems for two reasons. I have several bikes that all share the same cassette and chain sizes, which makes maintenance simpler. And I have found that I can buy eight speed chains virtually anywhere. For those reasons, I have no plans to change from a preference for eight speed, but if a 10 speed cassette might last longer, that could be an important consideration. The only reason that I added a 10 speed to the fleet was that I got an outstanding price on a complete 10 speed bike where my other bikes are ones that I built up from the frame, thus I chose the components on my other bikes.
It is apparent that my subtle attempt at some mild humor failed miserably.
But I bought a bike last spring with 10 speed gearing, my other derailleur bikes have eight or fewer sprockets. One thing that I have noticed with the 10 speed cassette versus the eight speed is that I spread my usage and therefore wear across more sprockets when the cassette has more sprockets. That is because there is a smaller incremental change between sprockets on the 10 speed. Specifically, 80 or more percent of the time on the eight speed cassette I am using three middle sprockets. But with the 10 speed cassette I am using five or six middle sprockets about 80 percent of the time.
I do not know if that means that a cassette will last longer with 10 sprockets compared to eight, but it might. I am sure that sprocket thickness and hardness will come into play to, as well as the total range of the cassette, so it might not be a simple comparison.
I have been sticking with eight speed systems for two reasons. I have several bikes that all share the same cassette and chain sizes, which makes maintenance simpler. And I have found that I can buy eight speed chains virtually anywhere. For those reasons, I have no plans to change from a preference for eight speed, but if a 10 speed cassette might last longer, that could be an important consideration. The only reason that I added a 10 speed to the fleet was that I got an outstanding price on a complete 10 speed bike where my other bikes are ones that I built up from the frame, thus I chose the components on my other bikes.
With the greatest of respect everybody does not need three touring bikes.
Sure, if you want to race across country with a credit card in your back pocket, then cycle down the GDMBR, then do the Pamir Highway, three different bikes sure will make a difference. But the majority of cycletourists do not do that.
I don't expect to change your mind, but for anyone interested in touring on a bicycle, yes the bicycle is important, but not as important as what's going on between your ears.
No bike, no matter how well designed/specced will get you to your destination if your head is not in the right place. Mind you, a well adjusted head on some bikes won't get you everywhere, either - but it will get you most places. A little bit of common sense is required.
It's easy to fall into the trap reading and watching about touring that you need x,y,z otherwise......disaster! Statements like the above reinforce that opinion.
It's really not true. The bike should be 1) Comfortable, 2) Strong enough & stable enough to carry you and your gear where you want to go and 3) ideally, well understood by yourself to keep it running and to identify potential issues before they cause serious problems.
This is an interesting thread, not least because of the challenge of the proposed tour. I don't mean to take it off-topic, and I'm sure some of the long-timers here will disagree, but my post is directed at the people who are starting out, are nervous about the idea of heading away with just a bicycle to get them from A to B and are wondering what they need.
And, in my opinion, they do not need three touring bikes.
Sure, if you want to race across country with a credit card in your back pocket, then cycle down the GDMBR, then do the Pamir Highway, three different bikes sure will make a difference. But the majority of cycletourists do not do that.
I don't expect to change your mind, but for anyone interested in touring on a bicycle, yes the bicycle is important, but not as important as what's going on between your ears.
No bike, no matter how well designed/specced will get you to your destination if your head is not in the right place. Mind you, a well adjusted head on some bikes won't get you everywhere, either - but it will get you most places. A little bit of common sense is required.
It's easy to fall into the trap reading and watching about touring that you need x,y,z otherwise......disaster! Statements like the above reinforce that opinion.
It's really not true. The bike should be 1) Comfortable, 2) Strong enough & stable enough to carry you and your gear where you want to go and 3) ideally, well understood by yourself to keep it running and to identify potential issues before they cause serious problems.
This is an interesting thread, not least because of the challenge of the proposed tour. I don't mean to take it off-topic, and I'm sure some of the long-timers here will disagree, but my post is directed at the people who are starting out, are nervous about the idea of heading away with just a bicycle to get them from A to B and are wondering what they need.
And, in my opinion, they do not need three touring bikes.
01-29-19, 10:47 AM
#29
Senior Member
On 8 or 9 or 10 speed, there was some discussion on chain longevity. And over the years I have seen a lot of debate on chain life with different chains. On that I have no opinion.
But I bought a bike last spring with 10 speed gearing, my other derailleur bikes have eight or fewer sprockets. One thing that I have noticed with the 10 speed cassette versus the eight speed is that I spread my usage and therefore wear across more sprockets when the cassette has more sprockets. That is because there is a smaller incremental change between sprockets on the 10 speed. Specifically, 80 or more percent of the time on the eight speed cassette I am using three middle sprockets. But with the 10 speed cassette I am using five or six middle sprockets about 80 percent of the time.
I do not know if that means that a cassette will last longer with 10 sprockets compared to eight, but it might. I am sure that sprocket thickness and hardness will come into play to, as well as the total range of the cassette, so it might not be a simple comparison.
But I bought a bike last spring with 10 speed gearing, my other derailleur bikes have eight or fewer sprockets. One thing that I have noticed with the 10 speed cassette versus the eight speed is that I spread my usage and therefore wear across more sprockets when the cassette has more sprockets. That is because there is a smaller incremental change between sprockets on the 10 speed. Specifically, 80 or more percent of the time on the eight speed cassette I am using three middle sprockets. But with the 10 speed cassette I am using five or six middle sprockets about 80 percent of the time.
I do not know if that means that a cassette will last longer with 10 sprockets compared to eight, but it might. I am sure that sprocket thickness and hardness will come into play to, as well as the total range of the cassette, so it might not be a simple comparison.
I also share this view, and also think of it for the chainrings also.
This is why I mentioned why for slower paced touring, which for me clearly happens with a more heavy load and always in hilly terrain, that I find a mtb triple to be so useful.
In the past, the bikes Ive toured with had larger mid rings, too big big rings, 50/40/24, 50/39/26 (changed out the 30 to a 26) and invariably I'd hardly ever get into the big ring, nearly all the time in the mid ring and climbing in the small ring.
As you mention, back in the 6 and 7 spd days, the same few cogs would get used in the back, but at least with 9 speeds, it began to share out the cogs more, but I still would mostly be in the mid ring.
with the mtb triple 44/32/22, I really found that I used all three chainrings more, and the only time I found it a bit annoying going back and forth between the 32 and 44 was when I was only on the flats, like when riding in France along a river all the time, where my average speed was such that I was up at the end of cassette in the mid ring more often, probably around 25kph or so. I'm not keen on riding in the small sprockets of 13 and especially 11 for any extended period of time, so would go up to the large ring at that point.
like you have noticed, I really do have the impression that I spend a lot less time in certain cogs, or at least more time using the cogs and large chainring that I didnt use as much before, and that has to be good for both chain, cassette and chainring wear over time.
I figure a good gearing setup for a given use--ultimately the bike+load weight and terrain you're riding in--is that you consistently use all the range of your cassette and chainrings regularly. That will be different for different situations and diff factors, but its a good one to strive for.
touching on the strength of 10 spd stuff---who knows? I suspect that it has improved a lot as 10 spd is certainly not new at all, but specifically MEV's case, he is a big, very strong guy, and I'm sure he puts a heck of a lot more power into his chain than I do, so this could be something that should at least be looked into and taken into consideration-especially for going off to far off eastern Russia.
Last edited by djb; 01-29-19 at 11:01 AM.
01-29-19, 11:13 AM
#30
Senior Member
Mev, another thought that has gone through my head is frame stiffness and how you would know beforehand how a given bike is going to feel like with you and your stuff on it.
I always remember being pleasantly surprised how well my aluminum mtb bike frame rode with two heavy rear panniers, or even one heavy rear pannier after doing some shopping--compared to my old steel touring bike from 1990.
I know you weigh quite a bit more than me, and you carry quite more than me also, so its tough to know how any of these bike suggestions will actually be riding them loaded.
You would know right away if a bike would feel too noodly for you, but its not like you can show up at a store and load 70, 80 lbs or more on a bike for a test ride--or can you?
I guess the only way to go is to try to find trip reports from folks riding on diff bikes on tough trips with a similar bike+rider+load total weight.
I always remember being pleasantly surprised how well my aluminum mtb bike frame rode with two heavy rear panniers, or even one heavy rear pannier after doing some shopping--compared to my old steel touring bike from 1990.
I know you weigh quite a bit more than me, and you carry quite more than me also, so its tough to know how any of these bike suggestions will actually be riding them loaded.
You would know right away if a bike would feel too noodly for you, but its not like you can show up at a store and load 70, 80 lbs or more on a bike for a test ride--or can you?
I guess the only way to go is to try to find trip reports from folks riding on diff bikes on tough trips with a similar bike+rider+load total weight.
01-29-19, 11:53 AM
#31
bicycle tourist
Thread Starter
Thanks for additional inputs and insights. A few additional notes and thoughts on some of the questions:
= Disc vs caliper; while it isn't on top of my bias list, the reason behind my bias is that I am both heavy and cautious. As a result, I use my brakes a lot. As a result, after many kilometers of cycling, I eventually wear down the rims. Photo below was my last Russia trip where the rim had split after many kilometers. Someone lighter or less cautious might make other choices.
= Number of speeds in cassettes. I was using 8 speeds on my Trek mountain bike because that is what it came with (bought in 2011). I was using 9 speeds on my Trek 520 because that is what it came with (bought in 2007). At the largest cities in Russia in 2009, 9 speeds wasn't an issue. In Latin America in 2016, I found 8 speeds but also got impression 9 was also relatively available. So no strong biases, and in part my idea with starting with recent mountain bike is to use whatever it comes with as stock.
= One doesn't need three touring bikes. Absolutely agree.
= Frame stiffness. I've use two Aluminum bikes on extended tours. One was the mountain bike I showed at start. The other was a Cannondale 1000 that I cycled around Australia in 2001. In both cases the tubes were a bit larger than steel might have been and I believe this helped rigidity/stiffness. All else being equal, when I've loaded things down, have liked the ride on both. My Trek 520 (steel) flexes just slightly more but it isn't a big deal. However, given that the mountain bike frame eventually cracked was reason for my (weak last on the list) bias of steel over Aluminum.
= Disc vs caliper; while it isn't on top of my bias list, the reason behind my bias is that I am both heavy and cautious. As a result, I use my brakes a lot. As a result, after many kilometers of cycling, I eventually wear down the rims. Photo below was my last Russia trip where the rim had split after many kilometers. Someone lighter or less cautious might make other choices.
= Number of speeds in cassettes. I was using 8 speeds on my Trek mountain bike because that is what it came with (bought in 2011). I was using 9 speeds on my Trek 520 because that is what it came with (bought in 2007). At the largest cities in Russia in 2009, 9 speeds wasn't an issue. In Latin America in 2016, I found 8 speeds but also got impression 9 was also relatively available. So no strong biases, and in part my idea with starting with recent mountain bike is to use whatever it comes with as stock.
= One doesn't need three touring bikes. Absolutely agree.
= Frame stiffness. I've use two Aluminum bikes on extended tours. One was the mountain bike I showed at start. The other was a Cannondale 1000 that I cycled around Australia in 2001. In both cases the tubes were a bit larger than steel might have been and I believe this helped rigidity/stiffness. All else being equal, when I've loaded things down, have liked the ride on both. My Trek 520 (steel) flexes just slightly more but it isn't a big deal. However, given that the mountain bike frame eventually cracked was reason for my (weak last on the list) bias of steel over Aluminum.
01-29-19, 12:54 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 782
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked 45 Times
in
32 Posts
I bought a Surly Troll because of all the various configurations.
Multiple mounting points on the fork for bottle cages or a rack.
Disc brakes or rim brakes.
Rohloff or conventional derailleur.
26" wheels or 700 c wheels (with disk brake only)
I started with the frame and bought all the parts on-line.
The only thing I question is it's flexibility. It is very much a noodle when using a loaded front rack (not low-rider rack). The noodle is very pronounced when standing on the pedals going up hill. I'm not sure if this is a function of steel vs aluminum. This is my first steel bike. I generally don't use a front rack and I'm not a very strong rider so this really doesn't bother me but it might bother you.
I later found a used wheel set on-line that had a dynamo hub and Rohloff. I love them! The 36 hole Cliffhanger rims will never fail but the whole thing is heavy and pretty much maintenance free and unbreakable.
The hydro disk brakes came in the mail all ready to go and just attached to the bike. No maintenance or adjustment for three years now. Unbelievable!
Multiple mounting points on the fork for bottle cages or a rack.
Disc brakes or rim brakes.
Rohloff or conventional derailleur.
26" wheels or 700 c wheels (with disk brake only)
I started with the frame and bought all the parts on-line.
The only thing I question is it's flexibility. It is very much a noodle when using a loaded front rack (not low-rider rack). The noodle is very pronounced when standing on the pedals going up hill. I'm not sure if this is a function of steel vs aluminum. This is my first steel bike. I generally don't use a front rack and I'm not a very strong rider so this really doesn't bother me but it might bother you.
I later found a used wheel set on-line that had a dynamo hub and Rohloff. I love them! The 36 hole Cliffhanger rims will never fail but the whole thing is heavy and pretty much maintenance free and unbreakable.
The hydro disk brakes came in the mail all ready to go and just attached to the bike. No maintenance or adjustment for three years now. Unbelievable!
01-29-19, 01:34 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,182
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3455 Post(s)
Liked 1,454 Times
in
1,133 Posts
I generally prefer steel, but generically you can expect more flex with steel than aluminum. I say generically because a lot goes into the design, tubing diameter, butting, wall thickness, various alloys, etc.
I put one steel touring frame in the metal recycling bin, it handled like a wet noodle with a load. But that was a defective frame that the manufacturer refused to cover under warranty. Unladen however it handled quite nice.
If I recall correctly, Cyclocommute has commented on the stiffness of his aluminum touring bike.
And a friend of mine has crossed the country from coast to coast three times on his aluminum frame Cannondale. He has replaced rims or wheels, a couple of cranks, at least one bottom bracket but the frame so far is doing nicely.
I put one steel touring frame in the metal recycling bin, it handled like a wet noodle with a load. But that was a defective frame that the manufacturer refused to cover under warranty. Unladen however it handled quite nice.
If I recall correctly, Cyclocommute has commented on the stiffness of his aluminum touring bike.
And a friend of mine has crossed the country from coast to coast three times on his aluminum frame Cannondale. He has replaced rims or wheels, a couple of cranks, at least one bottom bracket but the frame so far is doing nicely.
01-29-19, 01:54 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18354 Post(s)
Liked 4,502 Times
in
3,346 Posts
I'm primarily a hard surface road rider. And, one of these 26" MTB conversions would drive me bonkers on the road.
I've tried some gravel with my Clement X'Plor USH tires, and didn't like the feeling on loose gravel, and had troubles getting the perfect inflation for about 3" gravel stones.
I'm looking towards more of an off-road bike for certain roads/trails. But, certainly won't be giving up the idea of a light fast road touring build.
When I was in Missouri, the Colnago Super with either 23mm or 25mm tires was the bike of choice for the groomed crushed limestone Katy Trail, although I don't think I ever had it heavily loaded on that trail (it has been loaded elsewhere) (comments elsewhere, working on flex issues with road bikes).
01-29-19, 02:40 PM
#36
Senior Member
I bought a Surly Troll because of all the various configurations.
Multiple mounting points on the fork for bottle cages or a rack.
Disc brakes or rim brakes.
Rohloff or conventional derailleur.
26" wheels or 700 c wheels (with disk brake only)
I started with the frame and bought all the parts on-line.
The only thing I question is it's flexibility. It is very much a noodle when using a loaded front rack (not low-rider rack). The noodle is very pronounced when standing on the pedals going up hill. I'm not sure if this is a function of steel vs aluminum. This is my first steel bike. I generally don't use a front rack and I'm not a very strong rider so this really doesn't bother me but it might bother you.
I later found a used wheel set on-line that had a dynamo hub and Rohloff. I love them! The 36 hole Cliffhanger rims will never fail but the whole thing is heavy and pretty much maintenance free and unbreakable.
The hydro disk brakes came in the mail all ready to go and just attached to the bike. No maintenance or adjustment for three years now. Unbelievable!
Multiple mounting points on the fork for bottle cages or a rack.
Disc brakes or rim brakes.
Rohloff or conventional derailleur.
26" wheels or 700 c wheels (with disk brake only)
I started with the frame and bought all the parts on-line.
The only thing I question is it's flexibility. It is very much a noodle when using a loaded front rack (not low-rider rack). The noodle is very pronounced when standing on the pedals going up hill. I'm not sure if this is a function of steel vs aluminum. This is my first steel bike. I generally don't use a front rack and I'm not a very strong rider so this really doesn't bother me but it might bother you.
I later found a used wheel set on-line that had a dynamo hub and Rohloff. I love them! The 36 hole Cliffhanger rims will never fail but the whole thing is heavy and pretty much maintenance free and unbreakable.
The hydro disk brakes came in the mail all ready to go and just attached to the bike. No maintenance or adjustment for three years now. Unbelievable!
The main caveats though are
-I'm a light rider
-I am very careful of loading and change distribution to get rid of imbalances and any head shaking by the bike
-have very solid front and rear racks
-setup my panniers so that they have no looseness or moving around on the racks
-have been using wide slick tires that give lots of grip and very nice give/suspension in the corners over bumps
I always have found the Troll front fork to be rather stout, and even with heavyish front panniers and a handlebar bag, I always had complete confidence in the front end.
Going around corners fast on the troll loaded up was a real pleasure, as I very much had confidence in how it handles, and I have even slipped my bottom off the inside of the seat a bit at times to get my weight lower and more inwards with some tight cornering, something I have done a lot on motorcycles, but never on a touring bike-I trusted it that much.
I can stand and pedal and it behaves very well, just as my aluminum old mtb Rockhopper, as well as my aluminum 2010 cross bike used as a tourer.
My 1990 steel tourer was and is waaay more noodley standing up loaded, basically I didnt do it, but I think thats typical of bikes from that era.
01-29-19, 09:38 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Thanks for additional inputs and insights. A few additional notes and thoughts on some of the questions:
= Disc vs caliper; while it isn't on top of my bias list, the reason behind my bias is that I am both heavy and cautious. As a result, I use my brakes a lot. As a result, after many kilometers of cycling, I eventually wear down the rims. Photo below was my last Russia trip where the rim had split after many kilometers. Someone lighter or less cautious might make other choices.
= Disc vs caliper; while it isn't on top of my bias list, the reason behind my bias is that I am both heavy and cautious. As a result, I use my brakes a lot. As a result, after many kilometers of cycling, I eventually wear down the rims. Photo below was my last Russia trip where the rim had split after many kilometers. Someone lighter or less cautious might make other choices.
I haven't invested in wheel builds with expensive hubs and dyno's so eventually replacing one wheelset for another hasn't felt like an onerous task yet but I suppose if I did go that route I would want to protect the rim for as long as possible.
Keep us informed of your decision making process as it's creating a lot of good discussion
01-30-19, 02:36 PM
#38
2-Wheeled Fool
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,346
Bikes: Surly Ogre, Brompton
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked 677 Times
in
457 Posts
Thanks for inputs so far.
A few general reactions and some of my general biases as I look:
-- Wheels, I have had good experience with these particular 26" wheels, even compared with the 700c experiences with my Trek 520. Some of that is disc brakes as well. So a bias towards 26", but I haven't ruled out a 29er as starting point. Many of the areas I am headed there isn't much of anything at all. Magadan has population of ~100,000, Yakutsk has ~250,000, Chita ~300,000 and in between large stretches where other than a very small village almost nothing at all. So basics like spare tires and tubes I bring and something severe enough I end up in one of Chita/Yakutsk/Magadan anyways. When I was there in 2007, Chita had 700c bike components.
-- Tire sizes. I'm still learning more about the road choices. 2" is my starting point. Depends also a bit on durability of tires available. Past experience gives me a Schwalbe bias.
-- Frames, current frame is 24" and I liked having a slightly larger frame; this is where the crossover gets interesting since some manufacturers seem to split to have smaller frames with 26" and larger with 29ers.
-- Custom, I had a bad experience with a custom bike that turned out to be a lemon, so I am a bit more wary in that area - so want to look first at existing models as a base. I will put money into replacing things like wheels.
-- Bars; I like multiple hand positions. If the bike starts with flat bars, I'll put in risers.
-- Material; the aluminum bikes (both this Trek and earlier Cannondale) were still enough and comfortable enough riding, they also eventually cracked for different reasons - though after many many kilometers. Frame material is not the top of my consideration list - but all else being equal I'd bias towards steel.
So roughly speaking my biases in rough priority order:
* Frame that fits and is comfortable
* Wheel durability, support similar wheels to DT Swiss combo that got me across South America
* Ability to add front and rear racks
* Tire width that supports durable tires, Schwalbe bias
* Disc brakes over caliper brakes
* 26" bias over 29er
* Stock bike starting point favored over custom
* Steel slightly preferred over Aluminum
As I go further down in the list, I am more flexible particularly if I am getting more higher in the list.
A few general reactions and some of my general biases as I look:
-- Wheels, I have had good experience with these particular 26" wheels, even compared with the 700c experiences with my Trek 520. Some of that is disc brakes as well. So a bias towards 26", but I haven't ruled out a 29er as starting point. Many of the areas I am headed there isn't much of anything at all. Magadan has population of ~100,000, Yakutsk has ~250,000, Chita ~300,000 and in between large stretches where other than a very small village almost nothing at all. So basics like spare tires and tubes I bring and something severe enough I end up in one of Chita/Yakutsk/Magadan anyways. When I was there in 2007, Chita had 700c bike components.
-- Tire sizes. I'm still learning more about the road choices. 2" is my starting point. Depends also a bit on durability of tires available. Past experience gives me a Schwalbe bias.
-- Frames, current frame is 24" and I liked having a slightly larger frame; this is where the crossover gets interesting since some manufacturers seem to split to have smaller frames with 26" and larger with 29ers.
-- Custom, I had a bad experience with a custom bike that turned out to be a lemon, so I am a bit more wary in that area - so want to look first at existing models as a base. I will put money into replacing things like wheels.
-- Bars; I like multiple hand positions. If the bike starts with flat bars, I'll put in risers.
-- Material; the aluminum bikes (both this Trek and earlier Cannondale) were still enough and comfortable enough riding, they also eventually cracked for different reasons - though after many many kilometers. Frame material is not the top of my consideration list - but all else being equal I'd bias towards steel.
So roughly speaking my biases in rough priority order:
* Frame that fits and is comfortable
* Wheel durability, support similar wheels to DT Swiss combo that got me across South America
* Ability to add front and rear racks
* Tire width that supports durable tires, Schwalbe bias
* Disc brakes over caliper brakes
* 26" bias over 29er
* Stock bike starting point favored over custom
* Steel slightly preferred over Aluminum
As I go further down in the list, I am more flexible particularly if I am getting more higher in the list.
I did a great deal of research and comparisons, and read a lot of owner reviews on a bunch of different bikes. My final decision was to go with the Surly Troll because I felt that it was the most bang for the buck, and certainly the most-versatile frame you can buy. In fact, I can't think of a single thing that would improve my Troll frame other than it being a lugged frame instead of tig-welded. Oh sure, a custom lugged frame from a competent builder would be sweetest, but double the price. At least with the Troll, you'd be out less money if it were ever stolen.
01-30-19, 03:42 PM
#39
Senior Member
the other Surly I had forgotten about, the Bridge Club, is a newer less expensive option than the Troll and Ogre, and uses wheelsets inbetween the Troll 26in and Ogre 29in --the new flavour of 27.5 inch wheels, which apparently is the new mtb thing for a few years now.
It doesnt have the horizontal rear dropouts that can easily take a rohlof, but makes wheel removal and fender use easier, and a few less braze ons (no rim brake mounts for example)
Seems to me the price is a good chunk less than the other two
**until just looking now, I hadnt realized that it's sold only as a complete bike, not ideal for you mev, as it has a double crankset and 32 spoke wheels, so not really great as you would change out all this stuff.
It doesnt have the horizontal rear dropouts that can easily take a rohlof, but makes wheel removal and fender use easier, and a few less braze ons (no rim brake mounts for example)
Seems to me the price is a good chunk less than the other two
**until just looking now, I hadnt realized that it's sold only as a complete bike, not ideal for you mev, as it has a double crankset and 32 spoke wheels, so not really great as you would change out all this stuff.
01-30-19, 08:16 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join the modern world - forget all the 1980s tech!
Aluminum has far more vibration than steel, titanium has less vibration than steel, vibration is hard on yoour wrist.
Not another aluminum frame for me.
9 speed last longer than 8 speed, 10 speed last longer than 9 speed, 11 speed chains last longer than 10 speeds. why? better material.
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...n-on-a-bicycle
Time to learn something. Watch the video.
Join the modern world - forget all the 1980s tech!
Some of these guys seem to want to trick you into buying a bad bicycle instead of a good one.
Aluminum has far more vibration than steel, titanium has less vibration than steel, vibration is hard on yoour wrist.
Not another aluminum frame for me.
9 speed last longer than 8 speed, 10 speed last longer than 9 speed, 11 speed chains last longer than 10 speeds. why? better material.
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...n-on-a-bicycle
Time to learn something. Watch the video.
Join the modern world - forget all the 1980s tech!
Some of these guys seem to want to trick you into buying a bad bicycle instead of a good one.
01-30-19, 08:44 PM
#41
Senior Member
Maybe post in the MTB section asking for suggestions of heavy duty MTB frames, new or old? Maybe some of the old guys there would have some suggestions of stout frames from before full suspension became standard for serious MTBing.
01-31-19, 01:33 AM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Join the modern world - forget all the 1980s tech!
Aluminum has far more vibration than steel, titanium has less vibration than steel, vibration is hard on yoour wrist.
Not another aluminum frame for me.
9 speed last longer than 8 speed, 10 speed last longer than 9 speed, 11 speed chains last longer than 10 speeds. why? better material.
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...n-on-a-bicycle
Time to learn something. Watch the video.
Join the modern world - forget all the 1980s tech!
Some of these guys seem to want to trick you into buying a bad bicycle instead of a good one.
Aluminum has far more vibration than steel, titanium has less vibration than steel, vibration is hard on yoour wrist.
Not another aluminum frame for me.
9 speed last longer than 8 speed, 10 speed last longer than 9 speed, 11 speed chains last longer than 10 speeds. why? better material.
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair...n-on-a-bicycle
Time to learn something. Watch the video.
Join the modern world - forget all the 1980s tech!
Some of these guys seem to want to trick you into buying a bad bicycle instead of a good one.
01-31-19, 11:12 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,182
Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3455 Post(s)
Liked 1,454 Times
in
1,133 Posts
If you look at mountain bike frames, keep in mind that you might not get the chain stay length you might want for a heavy load on the back. A shorter chainstay will push the center of gravity of your loaded rear rack further behind the rear axle, which can impair handling.
And if there is any flex in the frame, the further back that the load center of gravity is, the more that the bike will have a tail wagging the dog kind of feel.
My touring bike chainstays (three bikes) are 445, 450 and 466mm. My rando bike is 435mm and my road bike is 430mm. My errand bike is an early 90s steel frame mountain bike, the chainstay is about 425mm.
Thus, the shortest chainstay I have is an old steel mountain bike. I often load that bike down with a heavy load of groceries, from that I can say that the handling is not great with a load, but the bike cost me $5 USD at a garage sale and the grocery store is only a few miles away so I put up with the poor handling.
Your trek photo did not show fenders, so I am not sure if fenders is part of your plan or not. One more advantage of a 26 inch bike is that you are less likely to have toe overlap. All of my 700c bikes that have fenders have toe overlap. But none of my 26 inch bikes have toe overlap, even the ones that have fenders and 50 or 57mm tires do not have toe overlap. I can't say that ALL bikes fit this rule of thumb, but it might be a useful comparison if you plan to have fenders.
And if there is any flex in the frame, the further back that the load center of gravity is, the more that the bike will have a tail wagging the dog kind of feel.
My touring bike chainstays (three bikes) are 445, 450 and 466mm. My rando bike is 435mm and my road bike is 430mm. My errand bike is an early 90s steel frame mountain bike, the chainstay is about 425mm.
Thus, the shortest chainstay I have is an old steel mountain bike. I often load that bike down with a heavy load of groceries, from that I can say that the handling is not great with a load, but the bike cost me $5 USD at a garage sale and the grocery store is only a few miles away so I put up with the poor handling.
Your trek photo did not show fenders, so I am not sure if fenders is part of your plan or not. One more advantage of a 26 inch bike is that you are less likely to have toe overlap. All of my 700c bikes that have fenders have toe overlap. But none of my 26 inch bikes have toe overlap, even the ones that have fenders and 50 or 57mm tires do not have toe overlap. I can't say that ALL bikes fit this rule of thumb, but it might be a useful comparison if you plan to have fenders.
02-01-19, 02:14 PM
#44
Senior Member
Rigid Steel Off-road Touring Bikes (with Plus Tires) - BIKEPACKING.com
"26+ VS. 27.5+ VS. 29+ VS. WIDE TRAIL, IN BRIEF
There are pros and cons to each wheel size. Generally speaking, the larger the wheel, the smoother the ride. The smaller the wheel, the more nimble the handling. Which plus tire size is best for you will likely boil down to two main factors. The first is the availability of replacement tires in the areas you live or intend to travel. The second is your own stature. The larger diameter the tire, the less clearance you’ll have for a seat pack or front roll, especially if you intend to use suspension at some point (remember to allow for the fork’s compression). At the time of writing, the largest availability of tires is in the 27.5″ size, which will likely suit most riders.
Worth noting too is that bikes with plus-size clearances often overlap with ‘wide trail’ clearances in the next wheel size up. For example, 26+ generally fits 27.5 x 2.4” and 27.5+ often has clearances for 29 x 2.4” tires. This allows you to reinvent your bike and helps futureproof your frame. If you’re planning to experiment with wheel and tire sizes, be aware of the potential impact on bottom bracket height, which will affect pedal clearance. One last factor to consider: the smaller the wheel, the easier it will be bag and box your bike for overseas travel. We’ll be taking a deeper, more granular dive on such matters in a future article.
"
I vote for:
custom titanium 26er with clearance for 26 x 2.8 tires, and good geometry and bottom bracket clearance for 26 x 2.1 tires
11 speed 1 x 11-46
mechanical disc brakes.
"26+ VS. 27.5+ VS. 29+ VS. WIDE TRAIL, IN BRIEF
There are pros and cons to each wheel size. Generally speaking, the larger the wheel, the smoother the ride. The smaller the wheel, the more nimble the handling. Which plus tire size is best for you will likely boil down to two main factors. The first is the availability of replacement tires in the areas you live or intend to travel. The second is your own stature. The larger diameter the tire, the less clearance you’ll have for a seat pack or front roll, especially if you intend to use suspension at some point (remember to allow for the fork’s compression). At the time of writing, the largest availability of tires is in the 27.5″ size, which will likely suit most riders.
Worth noting too is that bikes with plus-size clearances often overlap with ‘wide trail’ clearances in the next wheel size up. For example, 26+ generally fits 27.5 x 2.4” and 27.5+ often has clearances for 29 x 2.4” tires. This allows you to reinvent your bike and helps futureproof your frame. If you’re planning to experiment with wheel and tire sizes, be aware of the potential impact on bottom bracket height, which will affect pedal clearance. One last factor to consider: the smaller the wheel, the easier it will be bag and box your bike for overseas travel. We’ll be taking a deeper, more granular dive on such matters in a future article.
"
I vote for:
custom titanium 26er with clearance for 26 x 2.8 tires, and good geometry and bottom bracket clearance for 26 x 2.1 tires
11 speed 1 x 11-46
mechanical disc brakes.
Last edited by chrisx; 02-01-19 at 02:19 PM.
02-01-19, 07:55 PM
#45
Senior Member
"I vote for:
custom titanium 26er with clearance for 26 x 2.8 tires, and good geometry and bottom bracket clearance for 26 x 2.1 tires
11 speed 1 x 11-46
mechanical disc brakes."
I like this choice, however one thing to be aware of is that should the frame crack it cannot be easily repaired by a garage mechanic. It can only be repaired by someone with the skills, equipment and material to work on titanium. Steel or aluminum frames can be repaired by most people with a tig welder.
custom titanium 26er with clearance for 26 x 2.8 tires, and good geometry and bottom bracket clearance for 26 x 2.1 tires
11 speed 1 x 11-46
mechanical disc brakes."
I like this choice, however one thing to be aware of is that should the frame crack it cannot be easily repaired by a garage mechanic. It can only be repaired by someone with the skills, equipment and material to work on titanium. Steel or aluminum frames can be repaired by most people with a tig welder.
02-02-19, 06:38 AM
#46
2-Wheeled Fool
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 2,346
Bikes: Surly Ogre, Brompton
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked 677 Times
in
457 Posts
"I vote for:
custom titanium 26er with clearance for 26 x 2.8 tires, and good geometry and bottom bracket clearance for 26 x 2.1 tires
11 speed 1 x 11-46
mechanical disc brakes."
I like this choice, however one thing to be aware of is that should the frame crack it cannot be easily repaired by a garage mechanic. It can only be repaired by someone with the skills, equipment and material to work on titanium. Steel or aluminum frames can be repaired by most people with a tig welder.
custom titanium 26er with clearance for 26 x 2.8 tires, and good geometry and bottom bracket clearance for 26 x 2.1 tires
11 speed 1 x 11-46
mechanical disc brakes."
I like this choice, however one thing to be aware of is that should the frame crack it cannot be easily repaired by a garage mechanic. It can only be repaired by someone with the skills, equipment and material to work on titanium. Steel or aluminum frames can be repaired by most people with a tig welder.
02-04-19, 08:30 PM
#47
Senior Member
hey mev, not frame related, but what bb system do you prefer? Which has been more reliable, number of kms on square taper vs hollowtech 2 or whatever. I assume the 520 was hollowtech?
Just wondered as a big guy, if you have a preference for longevity from all your touring experience.
Just wondered as a big guy, if you have a preference for longevity from all your touring experience.
02-05-19, 07:47 AM
#48
bicycle tourist
Thread Starter
No strong preferences, in part because of two reasons: (1) I've been fortunate with relatively few failures (2) often have had some advance warning of the failure or in cases like my South America trip, replaced entire drive train including bottom bracket proactively.
I believe my Trek 520 was Octalink and until this last crank replacement (with hollotech), kept replacing it with Octalink replacements. The shift was more related to what was available and we'll see...
I believe my Trek 520 was Octalink and until this last crank replacement (with hollotech), kept replacing it with Octalink replacements. The shift was more related to what was available and we'll see...
02-09-19, 08:52 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Left Coast, Canada
Posts: 5,126
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2236 Post(s)
Liked 1,314 Times
in
707 Posts
Not related to Mev's build but the discussion got me thinking about my own 1992 Marin Pine Mountain hardtail which is now somewhat redundant for the road as I have a better touring rig and a nicer commuter/gravel bike. I also have an e bike someone gave me for parts and on it was a SR Suntour suspension fork so I decided to swap it out and turn the hardtail into more of an off road tourer. I added some 2.15 knobbies and kept the front fenders by taping the stays to the forks and the bars have undergone some changes over the years (as has most of the bike parts actually ). I've ridden it a bit with the forks now and it takes some getting used to but does reduce the vibration on trails. If I like it I might upgrade to a lockout model and use some better clamps for the fender mounts. Kinda wanting to do an off road / gravel tour now to test it out.
Before:
After:
). I've ridden it a bit with the forks now and it takes some getting used to but does reduce the vibration on trails. If I like it I might upgrade to a lockout model and use some better clamps for the fender mounts. Kinda wanting to do an off road / gravel tour now to test it out.Before:
After:
Last edited by Happy Feet; 02-09-19 at 09:03 PM.
02-10-19, 08:51 AM
#50
Senior Member
two things --first, I'd be very careful of mud with the fender clearances, as it would be pretty easy to catch stuff and or build up stuff and fold the end bits of the fender under the wheels. I've only ridden in sticky mud a few times, but it did surprise me how much it stuck and built up and had to scraped off with a stick where the tires were close to the frame---but again, not a common occurance, but be aware anyways.
My limited impression is that with knobbies, stuff accumulates worse, specifically mud, compared to more roadish tires.
second--about a suspension fork, and back to mev's specifics.
I was mightily impressed by how mev's front suspension fork didnt have problems on his Americas trip. So many kilometers and a pretty heavy load, I would be concerned about the Russia trip about fork problems, but then I guess its no different than being out in South America, isolation wise.
I could see how a suspension fork certainly could be nice if you would be on roads like in the photos, and I guess if thats the way you want to go fork wise, you would certainly want a similar robust, simple fork. Goes back to the old, "if it aint broken, don't fix it" thing.
My limited impression is that with knobbies, stuff accumulates worse, specifically mud, compared to more roadish tires.
second--about a suspension fork, and back to mev's specifics.
I was mightily impressed by how mev's front suspension fork didnt have problems on his Americas trip. So many kilometers and a pretty heavy load, I would be concerned about the Russia trip about fork problems, but then I guess its no different than being out in South America, isolation wise.
I could see how a suspension fork certainly could be nice if you would be on roads like in the photos, and I guess if thats the way you want to go fork wise, you would certainly want a similar robust, simple fork. Goes back to the old, "if it aint broken, don't fix it" thing.