nans

I'm planning to do some moderate touring with my old steel frame Raleigh Compettion and everyone is telling me i should have a lighter frame for going long distances.

I really dont see the advantage of having a lighter frame that bounces 5 feet into the air every time i hit a little bump. Heavier steel frame bikes can absorb the road a little better and seem to just stick to the road better

Am i wrong? My goal is not to break any records on travelling distances so Im beginning to think that lighter frame lovers are just buying into the fact that carbon frames are lighter newer and cost more so they are way better then older steel frames.

Im by no means a pro cyclist and Im actually kind of new to cycling so I would like to hear your opinions as to why you like a steel frame or lighter carbon frame is a better choice.

gomango

Steel is just fine.

I'd worry about tires, a good saddle, and frame fit/individual fitness before I'd get worked up/worried over frame materials.

I rode this to our cabin and back this summer.



Three of us made the trip.

Round trip distance?

500+ miles.

b dub 

You know we're going to say 'Don't listen to THEM!'

Who's everybody anyway?

Btw - PICTURES please...

illwafer

worst case scenario, your steel frame is 2lbs heavier. likely less than 1lb heavier though. i think that's the least of your worries.

gmt13

Lighter? When you add the weight of the stuff you have to carry for touring, the weight penalty of steel is insignificant. Also, it's amusing to hear comments about saving a pound on a bike, when the person making the comment has 20+ extra around the waist.

If your bike fits and you are comfortable with it, by all means use it. BTW, I have a '74 Raleigh Competition and can say that it is certainly a nice riding bike.

-gmt

4Rings6Stars

I've found that the only weight that actually makes a difference is in the wheels.

I love seeing a weight weenie on a 16lb carbon bike where he meticulously and expensively shaved every gram possible, carrying two frame mounted water bottles weighing over a pound each...

prathmann

I agree with the comments above that an extra pound or two on a touring bike is insignificant and also wonder who the "everybody" is since many (most?) current bicycle tourers are still using steel frames and avoid much of the lightest equipment due to concerns about reliability. Your Competition should perform fine as a touring bike.

But I disagree with the idea that a lighter bike would be bouncing up into the air on bumps. In car racing it's very desirable to minimize 'unsprung weight' specifically because this allows the tires to maintain more consistent road contact. On a road bike the main suspension component is the rider and the whole weight of the bike is essentially unsprung weight. Reducing this weight relative to the rider's own weight actually makes it slightly easier to maintain control and avoid having the bike bounce into the air upon hitting bumps. But if you're on such bad terrain that this is a common problem then I'd suggest switching to a mountain bike with at least front suspension.

balindamood

I think someone said "It is not about the bike."

If what you have works (safely), and you like it, who cares? Unless you are racing at a high level (Cat 2+), it does not matter.

JohnDThompson 

They drank the Kool-aid.

blaise_f

For touring especially, you SHOULDN'T be straying away from steel. All the above information is also correct.

wphamilton

Don't people recommend bikes like the Raleigh Competition as almost ideal touring bikes?

Captain Blight

Why are they saying it? Cuz they ig'nan't.

DVC45

They are not bright.

bradtx

nans, Nothing wrong with what you have. Maybe an overhaul to freshen up the bits and bobs and some consideration to your gearing, which mainly relies on how much you'll carry and the terrain to be traveled.

Brad

gomango

The reason I don't build a full on tourer is the simple fact I don't like riding fully loaded rigs.

Nor do I like over built touring rigs w/o a load, as they quite often ride like tanks.

At least my Bruce Gordon was great off-road, so it had some redeeming "added" value in that regard.

The Hollands I have above is made from Columbus EL and is fairly light, yet super comfortable.

None of us on our ride brought tents, cooking gear, sleeping bags, or other "stuff."

Rain gear and our wive's credit cards were essential though.

I am losing weight through riding and fewer BBQ ribs.

Not by buying weight weenie super bikes.

BRAZUCA

Are you talking about the Raleigh Competition GS ? Pardon my ignorance but I thought they were racing bikes, when I think touring, I was thinking Trek 720 and similar. What are the Raleigh Touring or Sport-Touring bikes?

sailorbenjamin

One item I'd look at on a Competition frame in particular is the derailler hanger. Mine have Huret specific hangers. If the Huret is good enough for you, that's fine but I like a little more range than they were built for because I live in the hills. It's not an insurmountable problem, in fact it's a small one but one to be aware of.
Also check that it's got 24 TPI bottom bracket threading. Most of them do but there are a few that have 26 TPI. That's another problem for which there are several easy solutions.
Beyond that, I'd take a Comp over just about any other bike except maybe my Super Course. It's not about the weight except when you're accelerating or hill climbing. It's about the feel of the thing. Nothing feels better than a 531 Raleigh.

wphamilton

I was looking at https://sheldonbrown.com/retroraleigh...mpetition.html, supposed to be pretty comfortable and not all that heavy.

Pompiere

People were telling me I should get rid of my old steel bike, so I bought a new steel bike.
https://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebik.../11_quest.html

RaleighSport

Steel is sexy, especially a Raleigh Comp! I rock a Super Course as one of my "lighter" bikes and I have no issues going all day...

Road Fan

Can't say I've seen that, and if it's the first gen black one with Nervex lugs and tubulars, it's a rare beast. Very light for it's price and its day, it came with tubulars, and was a fast hot bike in 1968 and 1969. Later versions were a little more sport-toury. Whichever one you have, the frame should be just fine for nearly any touring short of self-supported cross-Asia.

If you're doing lighter day or credit-card tours, I'd even recommend you stay with the tubulars if all is in good condition. But if you're going to carry heavier loads, consider that a set of 36-hole clincher wheels might be more sturdy.

So: frame no issue, but make sure the rest of the equipment is up to the job.

Same as setting up for a tour with any other bike.

Sixty Fiver

Beat me to it...

The preferred material for touring bikes is still steel and I do not see this changing any time soon... and in this I am talking about real touring bikes that are expected to carry some weight besides a credit card and a few water bottles.

The Competition is a beautiful bicycle... we will need pictures.

javal

Comfort beats weight anyday. If longer touring is your game wheels (rims,tyres) is significant. And as always, a saddle a la carte!

look171

That's funny. I remember when I was about 16 sitting on the grass at the start line waiting for my race to start with my Puch, a Senior III rider said, look that Medici there, it is the best touring bike ever made. Not a Raleigh.



Nans,

Haven't you learn by now, everyone has to have something to say when they only know just a little about the subject.

iab

On both counts.

A couple of pounds wont make any significant difference when riding. And a lighter bike will not necessarily be a harsher ride.