Nyah

For the most part, I like everything about the Kona Sutra. Bikes which I'd normally think would compete with it have one deal-breaker or another. Trek 520 now has an aluminum fork. Surly Disc Trucker doesn't offer the 700 wheel version in a frame size that's appropriate for me. I would just go and get a Kona Sutra and be done with it, except that the only drive-able dealer I can find doesn't normally stock the size that would be most appropriate for me.

So are there other 700-wheel, disc brake, bar-end-shifter, triple-ring crank, cro-mo touring bikes that I should be looking at? Road triple cranks are even preferable (although I only see MTB cranks on touring bikes now, so not holding my breath).

ndrose

Sounds like we have similar ideas. I’m just at the beginning of the process myself, so I will be watching this thread for suggestions. Other bikes I’m looking at: Jamis Aurora Elite, REI Co-op ADV 1.1, Salsa Marrakesh.

Also thinking about some touring-capable bikes in other categories, like the Jamis Renegade and Surly Straggler or Midnight Special, though all those come with certain tradeoffs.

I’ll be interested to see what you ultimately decide.

Tourist in MSN

Have you looked at the Fuji Touring bike? I just did a google search, there are several sources for under $1k USD. I have not looked at a Fuji for years, but several years ago i recall thinking that they offered a lot of value for the price.

Not disc, but a good disc brake bike will likely sell for more than the Fuji.

Not a road triple, but road triples on touring bikes are quite rare. Over a decade ago a road triple was much more common on touring bikes, but they often had a granny chainring of 30 teeth which was a pretty high gear for hill climbing. Thus, the common mountain cranks now.

MarcusT

Try Bombtrack bikes

djb

What size frame do you use?
I ask because 700 wheels on a smaller frame will most likely involve toe overlap, almost certainly with fenders on.
Just be aware.

cyccommute 

As well as other compromises on reach...they have longer top tubes in proportion to their size then bikes that use smaller wheels...as well as standover height.

If you are small enough to need a bike smaller than the range of LHTs that use 700c wheels, Nyah, you could benefit from the smaller wheels. There is nothing inherently wrong with 26 inch (559mm ETRTO) wheels. With equivalent tires, they are lighter than 700c (622mm ETRTO), they are geared lower...a plus for loaded touring..., and they are stronger than a 700c. The The shorter spokes are harder to break. LHT also uses a longer frame with a longer chain stay. The longer chain stay means you can move the load a little forward and not have heel strike issues. The longer frame (and wheelbase) means that the bike is more stable and is a little more comfortable.

If your heart is set on a Sutra, by all means buy one. But don't dismiss the LHT without considering the advantages that it offers.

Nyah

My 1999 Trek 520 frame measures 28 inches from ground surface to where the top of the top-tube meets the seat-tube. I'm not sure what size frame that is but it was either a 17 inch or 19 inch, the two smallest sizes of that year. Sitting on this bike and holding onto something to keep myself upright, I can foresee my toe possibly contacting a fender. I can't be sure though. Kona doesn't think it will happen with the Sutra, and its tires are even wider than my 35mm. Jamis doesn't think it will happen with the Aurora Elite (thanks for the suggestion, Ndrose. I hadn't heard of that one).

Fenders (and disc brakes) are the main reason I want an upgrade from my 1999 Trek 520, so I will probably only try bikes that are already setup with them. Fenders with tires no narrower than 35mm.

I was hoping to stay with 700 wheels because that's what I'm accustomed to riding. I would think smaller wheels will make the bicycle more squirrely at higher speeds, in comparison to 700.

If it comes with a road triple, I'll be glad to have the 52t chainring and just swap one (or both of the) other(s) to get the bike that does everything that I want.

alan s 

I have 700c and 26” touring bikes. I prefer the 26”, but really don’t notice much difference. Maybe because I run larger tires on the 26”, which makes for a similar overall wheel size. Who knows? If you cannot make up your mind, there is always 27.5.

cyccommute 

You should be able to put fenders on the Trek. It’s designed for them. As to the disc brakes, frankly, they are overblown as an upgrade. I have bikes with disc, linear and cantilever brakes. They all work equally well and equally effectively.


They aren’t squirrelly at all. I’ve been riding them on mountain bikes since my first mountain bike 35+ years ago. I’m not shy about speed and have had mine up to the mid 40 mph range with knobbed tires. It’s not a problem and as stable as my road bike. I can go faster on my road bike but that’s a function of the tires rather then the wheels.

Wilfred Laurier

This is not correct. If you removed the 700c wheels from a bike designed for them and simply swapped in a set of 26" wheels, then, yes, it almost definitely will not handle right, and probably as you said, the 26" wheel would be more twitchy. But nobody is suggesting putting 26" wheels on a 700c bike - a bike that comes with 26" wheels will have geometry (head angle, fork rake, wheelbase) designed to work with 26" wheels, and that will make the bike handle (if not exactly, than close to) the same as the 700c bike. The key dimension is a derived dimension called 'trail' which is the distance between the point where an imaginary line drawn down the centre of your head tube intersects the ground, and the contact point of the front wheel. I would bet that if you found the 'trail' dimensions for a 700C and a 26" LHT they would be damn near the same....

Update:

I just went to this site:
Bicycle Trail Calculator | yojimg.net
which is a trail calculator, and using the geometry specs for the 700c and 26" LHTs - 37mm tire on the 700c and 50mm (2") tire on the 26", and the trail is exactly the same, 64mm.

Furthermore, the 26" bike has a slightly longer wheelbase, probably because of the slightly more slach head angle (pushing the front wheel out a bit further) which will tend to add stability, as well as ensure you don't have toe overlap like you probably will on a 700c bike (which is, I believe, why Surly doesn't make smaller LHT frames with 700C wheels. There really is no downside to the 26" wheel touring bike, and whole bunch of upsides.

djb

well no matter what, the Sutra is a really nice bike. The 48/36/26 crankset is great, and you can easily change the 26 to a 24 or even 22.
re toe overlap, you should be able to find out on the interwebs if recent sutras have that problem for a given frame size, they may not.

re concerns about squirrely handling with 26in, as others have said, this is not an issue of wheel size, but frame geometry and frankly, all these touring bikes are set up to be stable and have non schitzo handling properties---add a crapload of stuff on a bike and the steering slows down even a looooot more, so dont be concerned.

26in wheels still have the advantages mentioned earlier (advantages I appreciate on my 26 wheeled touring bike) and a loaded touring bike on pavement just doesnt change its touring bike average speed when loaded up with 700 or 26, in my experience riding both for decades---face it, we are slow donkeys touring loaded up, plain and simple.

its too bad you cant test ride bikes.

Tourist in MSN

By squirrely, I assume you mean does not hold a straight line as well. Generally long trail bikes hold a straight line quite well. Short trail bikes, not so much. Trail is the result of frame and fork geometry, and to a lessor degree wheel radius. My rando bike has a shorter trail, when I turn my head round to look behind at traffic, it is much more likely to deviate from the direction I was riding than my touring bikes that have longer trail.

That said, a larger and heavier wheel has more gyroscopic effect which does add a bit of stability to a wheel. My small wheel folding bike can steer quite easily, does not hold a straight line very well, smaller wheel has less gyroscopic effect. My road bike also has a very light weight wheel compared to my touring wheels, less weight and less gyroscopic effect.

I have two 26 inch touring bikes and a 700c touring bike. I also have some other 700c bikes that are not for touring. None of my 26 touring bikes have toe overlap. All of my 700c bikes with fenders have toe overlap. The bikes range in size from 58 to 61 cm seat tube length, thus all much larger than your size.

If your tires on the bike are planned to be at least 35mm wide, it is easy to find the wider 26 inch and also 700c tires. No disadvantage to either. That said, narrow 26 inch tires that are narrower than 40mm are less common in bike shops, so if you wanted to have skinny tires, 700c has some advantage.

seeker333

Order a Kona Sutra and start riding it asap, with a training load.

I could tell you why you'd likely be better off with a 26" LHT or Disc Trucker, but several others have already hit the key points and I know it's not worth the bother for those sold on the idea of 700 wheels. Enjoy your bike and tour.

Wiggle

I haven't ridden the Kona or the LHT but I can tell you that the 520 doesn't seem harsh on the hands with the aluminum fork.

Wiggle

The 520 disc brakes work well.

I've got Fenders on the 520 and it has no problems with the stock 700 x 38s. They didn't come stock but I had them put on at the shop before I picked it up. They are one of the Planetbike models.

djb

Wiggle, you must have toe strike no? Certainly looks like you would, crank not positioned properly in photo to tell.
and some people have no problem with toe strike, others fall over all over the place. A little isn't a problem, but lots can damage a front fender. Done it myself.

as for disc brakes, they work well, I like them for great braking with less finger pressure, but I use rim still also. Loaded up in mountains disc are nice though.

seeker333

^ Yes, hella toe overlap.

Wiggle

Yes I do have toe-strike. I've never had a problem with it but it's there. Don't think I've ever owned a bike that doesn't have it.

For reference that's a size 57 frame.

indyfabz

When she toured, my ex had no problem bombing mountain descents on the smallest size LHT made (with 26' wheels) whist towing a B.O.B.

djb

Re toe overlap. For me personally, road riding and most general riding it's not an issue, but not all riders have the situational awareness of where their feet are etc.

That said however, if you ride or tour on dirt or loose surfaces, or in very steep hilly terrain, NOT having any toe strike is extremely useful, and is a game changer, really.
So in the end, not having it is a real bonus.

Wiggle

Yeah I hear you, can see it being a deal breaker for some people.

Personally it never affects me until I have to make some kind of dramatic low-speed turn and I usually just employ the "ratcheting" technique for those couple of strokes. But yeah being in a more precarious situation or simply not wanting to have to think about it are all valid.

Maybe I'll change my mind if I ever have a bad incident with it.

Wilfred Laurier

OP didn't mention what their concern was about the aluminum fork, but my assumption is that such comments indicate a person has listened to the myths about bike materials too much and argument would be a waste of time.

seeker333

I do the same instinctively once I have ridden that particular bike for a time. However, when you're in a busy urban area, with lots of traffic and phone-distracted jaywalkers, and you're making a U-turn from a stop when a pretty girl walks by, embarrassment may ensue (above the baseline embarrassment of being a grown man in spandex on a bicycle). So no toe overlap / 26" Trucker is a nice way to go.

Most any <=56cm touring bike with 700c >32mm tires and full fenders and appropriately sized rider will have toe overlap. A quick/cheap remedy is to remove the front fender, which would likely work well for tourists in the arid Western USA.

seeker333

A lot of so-called myths started out as fairly accurate anecdotal reports which unfortunately persisted years after builders had revised flawed designs and largely solved the initial problem. My concern is not the material so much as the apparent sloppiness of fork leg weld joints (and concern for joint integrity/longevity). When the "new" 520 debuted, promo photos showed a fork that looked like something one would expect to find on a $50 Walmart bike, not a ~$1800 LBS bike. Cannondale's Al Pepperoni MTB forks from 25 years ago were fairly reliable and looked a whole lot better with ground/sanded filet joints. From over a year ago:

https://www.bikeforums.net/20521324-post17.html

cyccommute 

I’ve experienced this on my Cannondale T800, T1 and Salsa Los Cruces. I’m not a fan of fenders anyway as they, in my opinion, rattle and buzz tires and just generally get in the way for little benefit. As I live in the West, I don’t really need them all that often. I don’t have them on my bikes when I tour either.