Originally Posted by
Kapusta
I was going to point out the ways in which many of the bikes you see people touring the world on are different from a 1990 mtb, but then I realized it is all beside the point.
What does being able to tour the world (which less than 0.1% of cyclists will ever do) have to do with "practicality" the the other 99.9% of cyclists that are not going to do that?
Talk about niche and special purpose......
Originally Posted by
Trevtassie
What do world touring bikes have to do with practicality? Well, when you are in the middle of nowhere you want a bike that is simple to fix, uses common parts, is robust, doesn't have stuff that if it fails it's a show stopper and doesn't look too fancy. Pretty well practicality right there. Now what do these very practical bikes look like? 1990s rigid MTBs. Maybe with drop bars if that's your thing. Threaded bottom brackets. Triple chain rings. Sedate geometry. Longer chain stays. Mostly the difference comes down to how many braze ons there are. If you are handy with a brazing torch you could grab a high end MTB in good condition, add some barnacles and set off. Likely it'll already have 36 spoke wheels with eyelets, 3 x 7 or 8 and a SGS rear derailleur so you can go bigger on the rear cassette.
Hopefully this thread can get back on track..or it'll get locked and some good info will never come out.
RE the above quotes..
I too have in interest in understanding more about this. This past summer I did a drop bar conversion on a '93 Trek 970..it's now a touring bike for me and, after about 1000 miles(600 fully loaded for touring), seems to work quite well. I continue to research the MTB-tourer as I find it interesting.
It's pretty well known the Trek MultiTrack series share the same frame geometry with the 520 touring bike. As it turns out the early 1990s Trek 900 series(950/970/990 at least) rigid MTB also have the same frame angles/wheelbase..etc.. as the Multitrack(730/750/790) and the Trek 520. This may also be true of the 800 series Trek MTBs, but I haven't checked. I suspect the Spec Stumpjumper & Rockhopper are the same, though I haven't found frame geometries for older Spec MTBs. Fast forward to now..I recently used BikeInsights to compare the Surly LHT and Salsa Marrakesh and Trek 520..they are all essentially the same frame. In all these bikes (LHT, Marrakesh, vintage and newer 520, Multitrack, 900 MTB series....) they have a 71 degree headtube angle and a 73 degree seat tube angle. Wheelbases are either the same or within a few mm of each other.
Qualifiers in the above:
>I looked specifically at 56-57cm frames in road type bikes and 20-21 inch frames in hybrids and MTBs. These sizes would typically fit the same person(me in this case).
>Tubesets, forks, and components certainly change between the bikes, but the frame angles are either the same 71HT/73ST, or within a fraction of a degree of each other.
Given all that..
>>What are the major and minor changes between the vintage MTN bikes and modern (expedition) tourers? One thing that's obvious is the higher stack in modern bikes. DB conversions typically require some steerer tube extension means to raise handlebars to a near saddle level height.
>>Top tubes of some/many vintage MTN bikes got very long in the latter half of the 90's. (early 90s 900 series Treks had shorter top tubes)
>>The bikes I've mentioned mix 26 inch wheels and 700c. Do the same frame(angles) designed for the two wheel sizes really impact rideability(beyond impacts of wheel size itself) in a touring application?
In short.. I just find it interesting the 71HT/73ST has been a constant for decades across so many bike types and manufacturers. So many bikes being sold by different mfgs into so many categories that are very much the same bike.
..this may be too much to unpack..my apologies..