Dheorl

Ok, first things first, for the purpose of this thread can we please forget the whole "drop bars are much better", "oooh look at all the shiney hand positions", "your a complete nutter" comments.

Now thats out the way, heres the question. If I wanted a flat bar bike designed for long distances, what are my options?

Would I just need to build up something like a LHT with flat bars, or would something like a sirrus be fine (last time I looked it was a very similar frame to the roubaix). Do any companies specially make long distance bikes with flat bars, what would even be good to look for when buying a long distance bike if I want one with flat bars?

Basically what makes a long distance bike a long distance bike (I presume all round more comfortable), and any recommendations on bike with flat bars which would fit this use?

Thanks in advance fo the help.

Bacciagalupe

I may be wrong, but I don't think LD bikes need to be that specialized. They need to be rugged, comfortable, and have the appropriate gearing. So as far as I can tell, most hybrids should be decent, especially the "flat-bar road bikes." (E.g. Specialized Sirrus, Trek FX)

I expect that converting a drop-bar bike to flat bars will be a pain, as you'd likely have to ditch the brifters. Plenty of frames should work fine, if you wanted to do your own build.

For what it's worth, though, a touring bike like the LHT might be a tad slow. Depends on your preferences, I guess.



P.S. drop bars are better.

chewybrian 

I'm going 200k Saturday on flat bars, so I hope it's not that bad. But, I am also trying to figure out the 'preferred' long distance set-up, so I can build it. There really does not seem to be much consenus on anything (except the drop bars). I'm leaning towards an old touring frame for a base, but...? I hope you get a good answer to both of those questions.

Do you mean because all touring bikes are 'a little slow', or something about this bike in particular?

City_Smasher

Touring bikes have longer chain stays giving the bike a longer wheelbase, and they are generally sturdier. Most have extra braze-ons for three water bottles, and for adding front panniers, for a fully loaded bike.

That being said, people tour on hybrids (flatbars), road bikes and mountain bikes (flat bars). Loaded touring on these kind of bikes can result in 'heel strike' on the rear panniers. For credit card touring any of these bikes would be suitable for most people, but for long distance loaded touring, some will swear by touring specific bikes only, while others will choose a different type of bike.

chewybrian 

That explains my lean to the touring frame. I would like to be able to do both fully loaded touring AND brevet riding. But would a touring frame be slower (without the full load) on the brevet rides? If you lose 1 mph over 40 hours, aren't you giving up a few hours of sleep that you might really need?

Bacciagalupe

As far as I can determine, a touring frame will be a slower than a road bike (probably due to aerodynamics of the frame & rider position). However, it is plausible that if the touring bike is more comfortable after X number of hours, that could make it easier for you to ride longer.

One plausbile compromise is something like a cross bike, particularly one made for general purposes rather than racing: Bianchi Volpe, Surly Cross Check, Kona Jake, Jamis Aurora. Cross bikes also have a bit more ground clearance, so they work well on dirt & gravel. Audax or randonneuring bikes will be similar. You might want to modify the gearing, but otherwise should have most of the characteristics you want for both touring and LD, while being a little zippier than a full touring bike.

City_Smasher

Not all touring bikes are slow. The Surly LHT is a heavy bike due to the 4130 chromoly that's used, and the thickness of the tubes.

Bacciagalupe

Frame weight is, in almost all cases, inconsequential to bike speed.

Aerodynamics will slow you down far more than weight. Touring bikes tend to have an upright position, a high spoke count, non-aero frame tubes and wide tires, all of which increase drag and slow you down. Lower PSI tires will increase rolling resistance, and will also affect speed. The long wheelbase will make the bike feel slower but won't really effect your overall speed.

It's possible that many of those aspects will make the bike more comfortable, though, which in turn would make it possible for you to maintain a given speed later in the game.

YungBurke

The jamis coda line is top notch from what ive heard. I have a satellite which is a very similar bike but with drops, and its smooth as butter - very comfortable for at least a century. Edit: I just looked at it again, and +1 to myself on the '09. It has nice(ish) steel, upright positioning, wide gear MTB like gear range but 700c wheelset, and the bars are slightly curved back. Seems like an optimum flat bar distance bike.

Randochap

Rather than disagreeing with some of the conventional wisdom on this thread, I'd sooner invite you to check out the bike pages on my website that contain heretical statements such as lower pressure, wider tyres are faster.

Then again, the manufacturers are starting to blaspheme as well. :-)

Longfemur

Since you seem to think that there must be some kind of bike brand which is best for flat bars and touring, I would have to suggest that you immediately abandon the idea of cycling even moderate distances, let alone long ones. Start riding around your neighbourhood for a few years first until you develop some basic knowledge about cycling, at least until you can properly ask a question that makes sense.

That might seem a little harsh as a reply, but that's what you get when you ask a question by first imposing pre-conditions to the answer. You obviously already know what you want to hear. All I can say is that if you expect to ride or tour long distances like that, you may want to sign up on a carpal tunnel syndrome forum or a forum for some other wrist problem. Despite the other masochists you might hear from here, the mountain bike bars are Ok for mountain biking, but the wrist position is so unnatural that it's asking for trouble if you intend to ride long with them.

You can listen to and join the other refuseniks and other assorted contrarians, or you can listen to reason and experience (not mine, but the experience gained over a century of cycling).

chewybrian 

(Oh, wait, that was you)

(Machka)"I have seen all kinds of bicycles being used including...tandems...recumbents...racing bicycles...touring bicycles...mtn bikes...fixed gear..."

Hardly broad agreement; I did not expect it. Looking at Rando's website, I see solid LD builds(also eye candy!). And Machka later said: "I have a custom sport touring bicycle." So, a combo of touring and race seems to be the default choice.

I have been through several centuries on flat bars, w/o issues. That doesn't mean they are ideal for the purpose, and it does seem odd to build a bike around them, if distance is the objective. But if you are determined...

(Also Machka)"...there's a guy who rides the STP (not a randonneuring event, but still a long distance) on a unicycle."

City_Smasher

Frame weight is one of the variables in the factors that affect speed. If frame weight was inconsequential, you wouldn't have super light road bike frames.

Carbonfiberboy 

Butterfly bars . . . https://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/h...ars/index.html
Make certain your shifters and brake levers will fit. That seems to be a problem with some. I agree that flat bars are contraindicated, but these puppies work great and give a similar riding position, if that's the point.

Bacciagalupe

So you're relying on the behavior of bicycle manufacturers to support your position? Seriously?

There are many of reasons why you have super-light road frames, few of which relate to a randonneur's needs:

1) Pro and advanced amateur racing are one of the few areas where 0.25 of a second after 4 hours of racing is actually going to make a difference to the outcome.
2) Lots of non-pros like to emulate pros.
3) It's a marketing thing, and it appeals to emotion and expectations rather than science and engineering.
4) It's marginally easier to climb.
5) IIRC, lighter bikes have more responsive handling, which may feel faster but doesn't actually effect typical performance.

Keep in mind that the only time weight matters at all is when you are a) accelerating b) climbing c) descending and d) carrying the bike. Once you've gotten up to speed your primary enemy isn't gravity, it's friction (aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance). When climbing weight still isn't a huge factor, and that effect is partially offset by the increase in your descending speed. (Exceptions made for something like L'Etape du Tour....)

So, let's run the numbers (per the Kreuzotter calculator). Let's say that all other things being equal, you do 100 miles on a 21 pound bike, and the ride has an average grade of 2%. That'll take you 8 hours even. Increase the weight to 31 pounds, and it will take you 8 hours and 11 minutes.

Mind you the formulas might be off by a bit, but probably not by an order of magnitude. If you're competitive, and the 21 pound bike is every bit as comfortable and rugged as the 31 pound bike, then for you it may be worth it. But I'm willing to guess that for most randonneurs, 10 minutes after 8 hours isn't a big deal.

City_Smasher

Umm...no. And trying to use backwards logic to convince people you're right, is an exercise in futility and desperation!

Frame weight is one of the variables in the factors that affect speed. If frame weight was inconsequential, you wouldn't have super light road bike frames. If frame weight was inconsequential as you say, racers wouldn't be seeking out the lightest frame they can get their hands on.

A 32lb bike is going to be slower going up an 8% grade, than a 15lb bike.

When was the last time you saw someone riding in the Tour de France or the Italia' de Giro on a 30+lb bike?

Bacciagalupe

How much do you know about pro racing?

In the 2008 Tour de France, Sastre beat Evans by 58 seconds. That's after more than 87 hours and 2200 miles of racing. Sprinters win races by a fraction of a second. A tough climbing stage can mean 20,000 feet of climbing with a 120 mile distance. I.e., pros are in situations where a performance difference that is inconsequential for a non-pro -- even a dedicated (albeit non-competitive) randonneur -- actually matters. As I mentioned in my last post.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, time trial bikes (including those used by pro road racers) are typically heavier than a standard road bike (by 4 pounds or more), but substantially faster. Similarly, aero wheels are both heavier and faster than standard wheels. I know the reason why.... Do you?


Yes, it will. By about 0.4 miles per hour. On a 1-mile 8% grade climb, that's 41 seconds slower. Critical for a pro racer, meaningless for a non-competitive randonneur.

By the way, a 30 pound steel road bike will run you about $1,000. Compare that to $7,000 for a 15 lb carbon fiber road bike. Doesn't sound worth it to me.

ConstantRider

A potential issue with the Sirrus might be tire clearance and the ability to put on fenders/racks. I know on my Roubaix, the widest tire I can fit is a 700x28c and it's a tight fit. And there are no eyelets/braze-ons.

If you're looking to build something starting with a frame, a couple you might consider along with the LHT are the Soma Double Cross and the Salsa Casseroll. Both are basically do-everything bikes with enough clearance for wider tires and fenders, the braze-ons you'd need for that, and relatively relaxed geometries that will work well with flat bars. The Novara Randonnee would also be a candidate, but is sold onlly as a whole bike; you'd have to replace the bars, brifters, etc.

As someone else mentioned earlier, butterfly bars (or as they're also called, trekking bars) are flat bars that will give you multiple hand positions. Or you could just get a traditional pair of mountain bars and put bar-ends on them.

Dheorl

I'm sorry but I'm really not sure I get what your trying to say here. I cycled merily all day on a bike with flat bars, and I've seen plenty of bikes in the thread at the top with flat bars, so they obviously can't be that bad. I don't think there is a single bike brand which is best for what I want, thats why I'm asking for suggestions of good bikes to look at, the ones in the OP were just a few ideas I had.

I would have said my question was very open ended, I only put one condition on the answer, and that was I didn't want to use drop bars. I just don't find them comfy.

P.S. Thankyou to everyone else who has posted, I'll keep those frames in mind if I end up building.

City_Smasher

When was the last time you saw someone riding in the Tour de France or the Italia' de Giro on a 30+lb bike?

supcom

Probably not since that someone had to carry his own change of clothes, food, water, tools, and spare parts. Not since that someone rode 400 Km stages. And not since that someone was required to repair his bike with no outside help.

In other words, not since that someone was more like a randonneur than one of today's racers.

Hocam

Why is your question relevant?

If you like flat bars you'll end up with a bike that either uses down tube or thumb (mountain bike style) shifting. I'd recommend down tube just to get your hands moving around frequently.

City_Smasher

Exactly, I rest my case.

rebizap

I can give you the opinion of a buddy i ride with on a regular basis.

He has tried flat bars on both his road bike and a cyclocross bike.

Both were fine for him at distances less than 50 miles.

His hands just couldn't take it longer than that.

With a flat bar you just dont have options for hand placement you do with road bars.

Your experience may be different.

I do regular rides 100-200miles and i need the ability to switch up where the weight is distributed on my hands.

Dheorl

I may try bullhorns, and run aero barkes on the horns and cross brakes on the inner bit and just get a wide set so I can use them like normal flat bars. The only position on drop bars I find comfortable is the drops, hopefully bullhorns will be different.