foamy

Hey staepj1, I was in western Virginia, just off the AT. I don't know how long it took him, but he was moving at quite a clip. He caught me towards the end of the day, rode with me for a few minutes and chatted. We met about twenty minutes later at a hostel up the hill from a church (church sponsored hostel) and spent the night there. I'd see him till he went 'round a bend and that'd be the last I saw of him.

I met quite a few folks who were in a hurry, with time constraints. That, most assuredly, wasn't in my program. Not that I had one, mind you.

BengeBoy 

I've seen a couple on CGOAB of folks crossing the Southern Route in a hurry.

Here's one I just found browsing the journals there, but I think I remember at least one other that I followed about 9 months ago from SD to Florida in just about 30 days.

This was 32 days:
https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?...c_id=3424&v=7D

BengeBoy 

The advantage of this set-up is that you could use any of a number of comfortable sub-20 pound bikes, so there's your extra 5 pounds. Plenty of folks have comfortable, all-day century bikes that weigh in less than 20 pounds...even a CF bike like a Specailized Roubaix could work, wouldn't it?...or the Pistola, which (on paper) seems to be targeted at the all-day rider.

For somebody who's a fit, enthusiastic cyclist and who has a bike that works for them on long distances, this solution is attractive because it's much cheaper than buying another purpose-built touring bike.

I'm interested in this partly 'cause I own a bike that is wonderful for all day rides (my Davidson) but not really ideal for touring. I could make it work, but it would be a bit of a hack job to fit it w/racks. The thought of having an ExtraWheel to throw in the back for short-ish tours is very attractive to me. Would love to see more accounts of folks who have used them but so far have only seen some limited tests.

rnorris

Really appreciate everyone's great advice- these are great bike choices. I'm in a similar situation to the OP but even lighter; all up touring weight of gear, bike, and rider of 170 lbs. or less. (think skinny teenager with wrinkles).

Machka 

And my friend's story of his rather brisk continental crossing,, complete with a photo of his setup:

https://www.rusa.org/newsletter/05-04-04.html

Cave

rnorris
In a sea of suburbia
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Issaquah, WA

Well, you live close to one of the best-known light weight tourers (who also happens to fit your description!)

Look up Kent Peterson.

digimarket

This is an old thread - but I would like to put my 2 cents in for the benefit of anyone else who finds it as I did. There is a lot of good advice here - and good positive discussion.



I have been trying to assemble the ultimate light touring (what I call what the OP probably needs) and the ultimate heavy touring bike for several years now. Along the way I have bought and built about a dozen bikes. What I have learned is that the wheels and tires make more difference in a bike than almost anything else (assuming quality tubing in the frame). You can put skinny tires on a mountain frame, skinny or fat tires on a hybrid, or slightly wider tires on a road racer and completely change the character of the bike.



I did a lot of touring with about 35 pounds on the bike back when I weighed what the OP weighs (145). I weigh 160 now. If I was going to do a fast one weekend tour with less than 20# spread front and rear, I would pick a tire between 26mm and 28mm actual measured width (preferably with kevlar beads but NOT kevlar belts). I would use mavic open pro rims with 32 spokes. It is a tradeoff between strength, acceleration, bump absorption and rolling resistance that optimizes for very light touring. For anything more than 20# or for more dependibilty and comfort on an extended tour I would move to the lightest 32mm tires I can find with wider rims and 36 spokes. I see people buying tires with heavy high rolling resistance thick treads and kevlar belts for touring. This takes all the fun out of it. These would only be needed on an unsupported heavy tour far from any towns.



The Surly LHT frame would be great with the heavy wheels - but it won't flex much with a light rider and little luggage. The OP is correct to think that it is designed for heavy touring - not what he has in mind. The Jamis Aurora is an excellent choice (I have two). An older 531 or Columbus SL frame could do nicely - if he can find one with (relatively) comfortable old-school European road geometry and tire clearance. Too many racing bikes in this country lean towards Criterium geometry instead of good road geometry.



As far as carrying the weight - it should always be split between the front and the back. (I learned this the hard way while fording a stream with a watermellon in my rear panniers. I hit a rock in the middle of the stream and the front wheel came up, and kept coming up. The bike pivoted on the rear wheel like a horse rearing and came down headed straight up stream. I got my feet wet, but the watermellon tasted great.) For under 20# I wouldn't use panniers at all - just a front bag supported on a small rack like the Nitto (not waving around on the handlbars) and a rack trunk on the back. As the weight and space requirements go up, I would add front low riders first, then rear panniers no heavier than the front ones.



As far as the frame goes for touring on pavement - on the light end 73 degree angles with a 45mm fork offset and rear stays in the 43 cm range (no rear panniers - so no heel clearance problems) is just about perfect. On the heavier end - a 71 or 72 degree head angle and 50mm fork offset is good with the longest chainstay you can find and a slightly longer than standard top tube (with a shorter stem). The fork offset is the big point of disagreement in "touring" frame design. In the 60's head angles were shallow, tires were 27 by 1 1/4, forks were ltall with lots of clearance, and forks had a LOT of offset to go with that. This made for a long wheelbase, a lot of shock absorption, and still had reasonably fast steering. In the 70's everybody cranked out a lot of frames - some of which weren't so well designed. Trek made a lot of "touring" bikes with 73 degree angles and 55mm offset - very slow steering particularly on the models with 700c rims and narrower tires. Maybe the thinking was that the handlebar bag would be flopping the steering around so much with a tired, unskilled rider that the steering needed to be really slow.

There were some comments in this thread about how some riders felt "better" after long rides on their racing bikes than on their touring bikes. My guess is that their racing bikes were designed to carry their weight and had proper flex in the frames to compensate for the low air volume tires, where their touring bikes had thicker stiffer tubing to carry the extra luggage weight - they weren't carrying. I would also guess that they overinflated their wide heavy tires for the long distance ride. I've ridden the Davis, CA 200 mile ride on a frame designed for Criterium racing - but with 26mm tires at about 85psi. I will never use a frame like that on long rides again, but I will most definitely use that size tire for long rides.

digimarket

I've just read my own advice from 10 years ago and I still agree with most of it. About three years ago I built up a trek 520 from frameset for loaded touring. It's a great bike but neither I nor my load weigh enough to make it comfortable. The oversized tubing and the oversized 1 1/8 inch fork are too stiff. If your body and load weight are enough to get it up to about 250 lb I would recommend it. I just bought a 1982 Trek 720 double-butted 531 frame that I think is going to be perfect. I have two other old 531 frames that I'm experimenting with. I still like my 20 year old Jamis Aurora also. If your body weight and your load weight are on the light side I think the newer Trek 520 and LHT are over built.