rhm

I realize you can ride long distances on just about any bike, and in most cases, if a bike fits you well enough for a 50 mile ride, it will be fine for 100 or 200 miles. If you have only one bike, it will be set up in a way that suits all your riding as well as possible.

But if you're setting up a bike specifically for long distances, days of 400 km, 1200 km over four days, &c, is there a particular frame geometry or setup for that bike?

Fatter than usual tires are certainly popular, but not everyone loves them. Low trail gets a lot of press, but not everyone loves that either. What's your experience? Have you figured it out, or are you perpetually adjusting?

I understand the value of a good handlebar bag. A good handlebar bag, in my opinion, is big enough to hold anything I might want to grab while riding; the lid should hinge forward, so it's out of the way when it's open; the bag should be a little forward of the handlebar, so it doesn't interfere with bike handling. I like the top of the bag flush with the top of the handlebar or a little lower, but not higher. And the top of the bag is ideal for a map case (usually used for a cue sheet).

If the handlebar bag is going to have any significant weight in it (and I'm not going to quantify what 'a significant weight' is), it will affect bike handling. Do you move your handlebar back, to make more room for the bag? Do you move both the handlebar and the saddle back, to keep weight balanced fore-aft?

Does moving the handlebar up, or down, affect handling?

_______

Why do I ask...

I'm quite happy with the bike I've been riding, a modified Holdsworth racing bike from the 70's, except for one thing: the front end is liable to shimmy. The shimmy is worse when the bag is loaded. When the bag is loaded, I really can't take my hands off the handlebar, even for a second. At higher speeds, taking even one hand off the handlebar doesn't seem prudent.

At first I thought shifting my weight forward would reduce shimmy; that didn't work. More recently I shifted my weight backward --changed the stem from 10 cm to 7 cm, and moved the saddle back about 2 cm; and this seemed to help. So Yesterday I moved the saddle back a little farther, and riding to the station this morning I found shimmy had got much worse. So this afternoon I'll try loading the bag to the limit and see what that does.

Advice is welcome, of course; but I'm not looking for advice. I'm looking for other people's experience with successfully setting up a bike for grand randonnee type rides.

Tourist in MSN

This is over a decade old, so it reflects older equipment. Use your own judgement on whether or not it is still pertinent or not.
https://theeverydaycyclist.files.wor...onneurbike.pdf

And this is also old.
https://postrestant.co.uk/wp-content/...quipsurvey.pdf

***

Shimmy is something that can be hard to solve. I had a bad shimmy on my old LHT and the only way I got rid of the shimmy was to strip all the parts off the frame and put the frame in a metal recycling bin, that permanently got rid of the shimmy.

The wheels and most other parts went onto a Velo Orange Pass Hunter frame, no shimmy.

unterhausen

The consensus is that bags and forks with short rake don't go together that well. I have ridden a couple of bikes that I couldn't ride no-handed, and it worked out okay. I probably will ride one of them tomorrow. I haven't run into a situation that I thought was dangerous. Well, the bike I plan on riding tomorrow is dangerous if you ride it no-handed. There is some sort of alignment problem with it that I haven't tracked down yet. I am thinking about building a fork for it, hopefully that will take care of the shimmy. And I should be able to make a fork with more rake.

As I understand it, the issue with short rake and handlebar bags is not having the weight balanced over the wheel.

I'm a lot happier with bigger tires. Mostly because the roads in Eastern Pennsylvania tend to have a lot of potholes. When I rode with 25mm tires, I would get the occasional pinch flat unless I ran with higher pressures than I like. I settled on 32mm last year, I'm thinking of going up to 38mm.

clasher

My rando bike, a 2013 specialized roubaix. I have it set up with dill pickle brand bags, the saddlebag is a lot like a carradice but made with modern fabric. They are both fantastic bags. I can ride no-hands on this bike, even with my load for a 1200. I also use this sme setup for credit card touring. I wish the bike could fit 32mm tires and/or fenders but I have crud racer clip-on fenders that seem like they will work. I did spend 6 hours or so riding in a downpour on the granite anvil last year, as well as 8 or 9 hours on a 600 in 2016. For use in cold rain I would like fenders but otherwise I am ambivalent about them now. In 2016 I used the wheelset off the miyata 1000 (linked below) so it was a bit heavier back then but I did a full SR on it without a lick of problems from the bike or any fit-related issues.

I honestly don't know too much about the geometry of this bike compared to other ones out there but I don't think it's a low trail design. I think the geo on most of these modern endurance frames probably isn't too far off the older bikes.

I really don't like to put a lot of heavy stuff in the bar bag anyway, clothes all go in the saddlebag since I stop to change anyway. The wheels I have are really light and certainly don't follow the old "36 spokes at least" rule for heavy dudes but they saw about 5000km of use last year and a lot of pothole encounters and have remained true. IDC pro-lite wheelset. They are a lot lighter than my shimano/mavic open-pro wheelset.

I started riding in 2015, and on 400Ks and a 600K with this miyata 1000 and it worked okay for the 400K but I think the Q-factor on the MTB triple bothered my legs, or I had the seatpost too high, and I abandoned with a leg cramp at the 300K mark. I don't remember any shimmy on this bike either. I think the geometry should be fairly easy to track down too. The ability to fit wide tires was the reason I rode this bike but I have since found most of the time I get along fine on 28mm tires. I even take my roubaix on gravel without too much discomfort, but I find the gravel in Ontario is mostly smooth clay with only giant potholes that are easy to dodge and the occasional washboard.

kingston 

One of my bikes has a shimmy if I have too much weight on the rear rack. It shimmys less if I over-torque the stem cap. I'm sure that shortens the bearing life, but it's worth it to me to eliminate the shimmy. You could try a needle bearing headset. Rivendell sells one, but it's out of stock right now.

Tourist in MSN

A friend of mine that I bike tour with has a shimmy on his Habanero Titanium frame bike with rear panniers on it, but when he shifts the weight as far forward as he can and still have adequate heel clearance, the shimmy is reduced. He uses Ortlieb panniers, the pannier hooks can be adjusted fore and aft.

I always try to set up my panniers with minimal heel clearance to reduce that tail-wagging-the-dog handling.

jlippinbike

RHM wrote: I'm looking for other people's experience with successfully setting up a bike for grand randonnee type rides.

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
I don't really see much of a difference between riding a 1000k event and a 1200k event. One is three days, and the other is three-plus days. I feel the same after I finish either one. Last year I successfully completed both a 1000k event and a 1200k event. I rode my Felt CX (cyclocross) bike during the 1000k event. And I rode my Cinelli Xperience road bike during the 1200k event. I never use a handlebar bag on any of my rando rides because I find it difficult to ride no-handed with a bag up front. I've never had a shimmy problem with a handlebar bag. I just have a problem balancing on a bike riding no-handed when a handlebar bag is attached.

I typically wear a small backpack during my rando rides, and this has taken the place of a handlebar bag if I were to use one. I used an Arkel Seatpacker 15 on my Cinelli during the 1200k event which was a huge loop course. I packed everything I needed in it and did not take advantage of the drop bag services offered by the event organizer. Worked out wonderfully. The 1000k event was a clover-leaf type. So after each day's ride I returned to the same motel room. As a result, I had no need for my Arkel Seatpacker 15. I simply had my tire repair kit under my saddle. That setup worked out wonderfully, too. I guess what I am saying is that a good bike setup depends on the course.

I chose to use my Cinelli for the 1200k because the roads were nice and there was some serious climbing involved. The Cinelli has a triple on the front and a nine-block on the back – i.e., 27 speeds. And the tires are 23 mm. I chose to use my Felt for the 1000k because the roads were kind of rough and there was not much climbing involved. The Felt has a double on the front and a 10-block on the back – i.e., 20 speeds. And the tires are heavy 35 mm. Again, I'll repeat myself – a good bike setup depends on the course.

I am very picky when it comes to saddle position, saddle height, and handlebar position. I try to set up all my bikes so these things are the same. I'd have lots of problems moving a saddle forward or backwards in order to try to eliminate a handlebar shimmy, for example. For me the saddle position, saddle height, and handlebar position take precedence over all else when it comes to setting up a bike.

I had a dyno hub and matching headlight during both the 1000k and 1200k. I used the same front wheel and headlight for both events even though I rode different bikes. I use battery powered tail lights, and I use a Garmin eTrex 10 (or 20x) to navigate the route. The eTrex is powered by two AA batteries. The tail lights are powered by two AAA batteries. I do not use a cue sheet during rides. So I don't have to have a place to put one. This is another reason why I don't miss using a handlebar bag. Many rando riders attach their cue sheet to their handlebar bag.

This year I'm planning to enter two events where I might want to use triathlon or TT bars. One is the Lap of the Lake (LOL) in NY which will be 1000k and the other is the Mac & Cheese 1200k in Michigan. Neither ride is going to be particularly hilly, and probably will involve significant headwinds to contend with. It's the winds that I hope to deal with most effectively by using TT bars on my bike. If the courses were hilly, then I would not bother with the TT bars. But if the courses were hilly, then wind would probably not be a problem. I'm planning to set up a 2011 Dahon Speed P8 with 23 mm tires and TT bars for these two events. I have two other 1200k events I've entered this year, and I'm planning to use my Cinelli in both of them. It appears that the Felt isn't going to go long this year.

Carbonfiberboy 

A typical modern LD rig is something like a Kestrel 1100 or Cervelo r3. The best LD bike setup info I've read is here: Coach Hughes: Points of Contacts, pt. 1
whether or not you plan to use clip-on aerobars. Aerobars are incredibly helpful except for PBP.

I've found the best bar bag is just large enough to hold snacks, a light wind jacket or vest, spare gloves, no larger. The last thing you want is handling hassles. I don't use a bar bag at all except for touing, to spread the load. For LD I use a top tube bag instead: https://www.amazon.com/FuelBelt-3454.../dp/B000V9AA1Y

Good bar bag/size: https://www.topeak.com/global/en/pro...-handlebar-bag
Best rack and bag: https://www.arkel-od.com/en/arkel-randonneur-rack.html

I'm one of those people who doesn't want to spend any more time in the saddle than necessary to get where I'm going. Big advantages: more sleep, fewer butt and upper body issues.

Clip-on aerobars are very light, maybe one pound. That adds about zero time on hills and very quickly makes the time up on descents and flats. I have them on the bike I use for most day and LD rides.

kingston 

Good suggestions but I've never used a pannier on that bike. Just a trunk bag.

rhm

Oh come on, you can't seriously think that's what I was implying or asking! But I'm glad to see you write something I can completely agree with

Okay, now, this interests me.

I understand the principle that there is a prefect bike fit and setup for any given rider+bike and that one can achieve it if you have enough data. (But I readily admit that I also question how true it is, if at all).

So let me (as a non-athlete dilettante agnostic) ask you (as an experienced athlete and believer): how do you, or did you, determine that perfect fit? Are you using the same principles today as you did 35 years ago, and have the results changed as your body has aged?

Do you use the same handlebar, and the same saddle, on every bike? If not, what dimensions do you use, to determine the correct setup?
With what handlebar?

jlippinbike

RHM wrote: There is a prefect bike fit and setup for any given rider+bike.

JLIPPINBIKE'S response:
I don't remember using the word “perfect” in any comments I made earlier. I was taught a long time ago about certain principles that should be followed when fitting yourself to a bike. The first principle is that the saddle should not be so high as to cause you to pedal on your tip toes. The second principle is that the saddle should not be so low that you can push your heels below the axle of the pedals when the pedal is closest to the ground. The third principle is that while the crank arms are parallel to the ground and you are seated squarely on your bike's saddle at the proper height according to principles 1 and 2, then the little knot in your knee over the front-most pedal should be directly over the axle of that pedal. And the fourth (and last principle) is that the handlebars are out in front of you so you can breath well and get in a pretty good crouch position. This usually means that when you are on the drops of your handlebars in a crouch and you look down to see the bike's front hub the axle will be obscured by the handlebars. So if you understand the relationship of these four principles, then the geometry of the bike is irrelevant. Everything relates to where the rider is positioned in relationship to the bike's bottom bracket. This bike set up can be mimicked from bike to bike. Once a rider gets used to this position muscle memory kicks in. And the rider would be foolish switching this position when he or she goes from one bike to another. It's actually the muscle memory that creates a “perfect” fit.

RHM wrote: How do you, or did you, determine that perfect fit?

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
I applied the above four principles a long time ago when setting up a bike that I wanted to ride. Then I practiced riding it during something called “training.” You know, the thing athletes have to do to get good at their sport. And the training created muscle memory regarding that perfect fit. And if I ever dared to change that perfect fit, then most (but not all) of my training would go to waste. I'd have to start all over again learning how to ride using a new riding position. This actually happened to me back in 1978 while at a Jr National Cycling Team Training Camp at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs. I was told by the head US Coach at the camp that my saddle was set 2.5 inches too high for me. Said another way, I was told I had to lower my saddle by 2.5 inches so I would have a perfect fit on my bike for ideal athletic performance to be attained. It took me almost a month to get racing fit again but this time riding my bike with the saddle 2.5 inches lower.

RHM wrote: Do you use the same handlebar, and the same saddle on all your bikes?

JLIPPINBIKE's response: For the most part. I use the same saddle and handlebars on my road bike and CX bike. My mountain bike used to have the same saddle on it that I use on the road and CX bikes, but it broke and I replaced it with a somewhat similar saddle which is not the same brand. The mountain bike handlebars are not the same, but I can get many of the same positions on them as I do on the on the other two bikes. I had to figure out the correct length stem so this would be possible.

You caught on when I said I was going to set up a folding bike with TT bars. I don't think I mentioned this, but the folding bike will also have bullhorn bars instead of drop bars like the ones I use on my road and CX bikes. Again, like the situation with the mountain bike, I will be able to get many of the same positions using the bullhorn bars as I can get on conventional drop bars. Of course, I won't be going down on the drops when using the bullhorns. Handlebar positions are important, but they are not nearly as important as saddle position. At least this is what I think, what I've been taught, and what practice and training has proven TO ME. Stem choices are very important so the bars, even if they are not identical, can keep the rider's bike position very close to being the same from bike to bike.

After doing some long rides last year, I am of the opinion that for long rides it is advisable to use a saddle that is a little wider than one normally rides with. The width of the saddle doesn't seem to affect riding position and muscle memory. So it is OK to go with wider and skinnier saddles from time to time. But you move the saddle forward or backwards and you change the position of your knees over the pedal axles. That change is bad, and should be avoided. It affects riding position and muscle memory.

rhm

Okay, we're getting into classic bike fit questions, the KOPS principle etc. My attitude toward this is not dismissive, but agnostic. I know there are believers; I know there are doubters; as for me, I don't know, I listen, I ask questions, and I ride.

Training? I know what it is , and you know I don't do it so let's not go there.

I disagree with what you say about saddle width. I'm increasingly convinced that there is a relationship between (ideal) saddle width and (ideal) handlebar height. I'm less convinced that anatomy ("sit bone" width) is a part of that equation.

Re shimmy, my experiments in the last couple weeks have brought me to thinking there is an important relationship between saddle width and saddle position (fore-aft). Assuming there is an ideal fore-aft saddle position, then in that ideal position there will be a firm connection between the rider's body and the bike frame, and this serves as a damper on the system, reducing the likelihood of shimmy.

But we digress! Let me rephrase the question: if a rider wants two bicycles, one to be used for fast rides up to 100 km or so; and the other for randonnees and grand randonnees 200-1200 km; would you design different frames, or set them up differently? Same saddle, same bar? Any difference in geometry? Or would you tell the rider no, that is not the reason you need two different bikes (though you may need two different bikes for some other reason, hills, road surface, whatever)?.

jlippinbike

RHM wrote: Are you using the same principles today as you did 35 years ago, and have the results changed as your body has aged?

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
Yes. I use the same principles today as I did 35 years ago. The principles are just as applicable today as they were 35 years ago. I'm not sure what you mean by “have the results changed as I've aged?” Proper saddle height won't change due to a person's age unless they shrink physically. However, the handlebar position may change as a person gets older. Typically this is due to the person getting fat as years pass and they are no longer able to comfortably crouch as low as they could when they were thinner. This is more a weight issue than an age issue. It just so happens that people tend to gain weight as they age. Another aging issue is loss of flexibility and/or arthritis. But, again, the principle is the same. The rider needs to crouch as low as possible and still be able to easily breath. When you are older you may not be able to crouch as low as you could in past years and still be able to easily breath.

jlippinbike

RHM wrote: Training? I know what it is, and you know I don't do it, so let's not go there.

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
Actually, I know that you do train. You do not follow a formal training plan. And you don't do a full range of training activities like interval workouts, hill climbing sessions, and pace line group rides. But you get on a bike quite often. Some of the rides are somewhat quick. Especially on days you don't get out of the house on time to ride your bike to the train station. And some of the rides are quite long, which could easily be mistaken for endurance training of some sort. So you do train. And you have developed some muscle memory regarding how you ride a bike.

Let's be honest. You practice the activity of riding a bike VERY frequently. Thus, you train. Sell all your bikes and don't ride one for 12 months and then try to do a 200k brevet. Would that be tough? Sure. Because you would have avoid any form of training. But currently you actually train a lot. Like I say above, you just don't get too scientific about training by putting together a well thought-out training plan and following it.

RHM wrote: I disagree with what you say about saddle width. I'm increasingly convinced that there is a relationship between (ideal) saddle width and (ideal) handlebar height.

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
Say what? Saddle width has some sort of relationship to handlebar height? I prefer a wider saddle for long rides so I can use the saddle more like a seat rather than a “place holder” for my butt. I've never considered there to be a relationship between a wide saddle and handlebar height. However, giving it some thought right now I can imagine there is a relationship. Clearly a skinny person with a small butt is not going to use a wide saddle. But someone with a fat butt very well might want to use a wide saddle. And usually a fat stomach accompanies a fat butt, and thus that person would not be able to crouch over as much and still breath freely. Accordingly, that fat person would have their handlebar height higher.

I never been all that concerned about handlebar height. My main concern with handlebars for a bike fit is how far in front of the saddle are the bars positioned. This involves installing the proper length stem. For me, handlebar height is a simple preference thingy. One day I may want it high. Another day I may want it low. Who cares? Not me. But how far are my handlebars in front of me. Now that is important. That is a bike fit issue big time.

RHM wrote: Re shimmy, my experiments in the last couple weeks have brought me to thinking there is an important relationship between saddle width and saddle position (fore-aft). Assuming there is an ideal fore-aft saddle position, then in that ideal position there will be a firm connection between the rider's body and the bike frame, and this serves as a damper on the system, reducing the likelihood of shimmy.

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
Nonsense. What matters most regarding bike fit is having your right knee over the right pedal axle when the crank arms are parallel to the ground. If changing your saddle width will change that knee position, then you must change the saddle position so the knee is where it is supposed to be.

You seem to think in terms of a “firm connection” to one's bike. The firm connection to one's bike is where the cycling shoe cleats clip into the pedals. And the pedals connect to the cranks which connect to the bottom bracket. And it is the bottom bracket that actually connects the rider to the bike FRAME. But who cares? Not me.

The fore-aft of the saddle position is not important for a connection. It is important for leverage. There is an ideal fore-aft of the saddle position that maximizes a rider's leverage on the pedals. That translates into more power, and probably more speed.

RHM wrote: If a rider wants two bicycles, one to be used for fast rides up to 100 km or so; and the other for randonnees and grand randonnees 200-1200 km; would you design different frames, or set them up differently? Same saddle, same bar? Any difference in geometry? Or would you tell the rider no, that is not the reason you need two different bikes (though you may need two different bikes for some other reason, hills, road surface, whatever)?.

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
What a person “wants” and what he “needs” are not the same thing. In answer to your question, I think a rider only needs one bike regardless of whether he'll be doing a short or long ride. I admit that if a person wants to enter a TT event, then they can get some free speed by getting a bike designed specifically for time trialing. And I will admit that a bike specifically designed for time trialing will not be ideal for doing 300k and longer brevets. Time trial bikes are used in the Ironman 112 mile bike portion and that comes pretty close to 200k in distance. So I can see someone using a TT bike for a 200k brevet. Maybe this is one of the reasons I don't really consider 200k rides endurance events. Time trial bikes have you crouching over too much for a truly long ride. And typically the frames on TT bikes are stiffer than would be ideal for a 300k or longer ride.

rhm

@jlippinbike, re the relationship between saddle width and handlebar height, this isn't crazy talk. The part of the pelvis that meets the bike saddle, the so-called "sit bones," has a shape like the rails of a rocking chair, but backwards. They are closer together at the front. So if you tip your pelvis forward, the contact points come closer together.

I agree that the fore-aft position of the handlebar is also a part of this dynamic; handlebar height, relative to seat height, is just an easy way to assess the situation at a glance.

As for the "firm connection" I mentioned, remember here the context was shimmy; KOPS, as I understand it, is about pedaling efficiency. You don't ride with a big handlebar bag, so maybe this subject doesn't interest you, but it is a real concern to some of us. A handlebar bag is a great thing to have on a randonnee; but it may contribute to shimmy. Moving the saddle a little may reduce the bike's tendency to shimmy. If so, then we look for a compromise, the position where we get the best pedaling efficiency and the most dampening of shimmy.

jlippinbike

RHM wrote: A handlebar bag is a great thing to have on a randonnee; but it may contribute to shimmy. Moving the saddle a little may reduce the bike's tendency to shimmy. If so, then we look for a compromise.

JLIPPINBIKE's response:
I've argued above that a handlebar bag is not a great thing to have on a brevet if it contributes to shimmy. And I have also argued extensively that saddle position is paramount over any idiosyncrasies of a particular bike. As far as I am concerned, if a bike shimmies because of a handlebar bag, then the handlebar bag should not be used UNLESS you can correct the situation without changing your saddle position. When you talk of moving a saddle to accommodate a handlebar bag I am reminded of the old fable of a king and his tailor. The tailor did a lousy job making a suit for the king and told the king to contort his body to fit the suit. And the dumb kind did exactly that. My recommendation to the king would be more in tune with firing the tailor and hiring a new tailor who can make me a properly fitting custom suit. When it comes to saddle position in my opinion there is no such thing as compromise.

It appears that in this string you were not seeking people's bike set ups for long rando rides in general. My bad. It appears you were seeking some advice on how to correct a rando bike that shimmies when it is loaded with a heavy and big handlebar bag. I'm by no means an expert on that subject.

kingston 

Bike fit is all about compromise for me, including saddle position. If I could eliminate shimmy by shifting my saddle forward, that would put more pressure on my hands, which I may be able to address by tilting my saddle up, which would then put more pressure on my groin. Eventually, with enough micro-adjustments and experimentation, I'll get to something that minimizes my discomfort for that bike and how I use it. Maybe I'll decide that it's worth a little extra pressure on my hands and groin, and perhaps a little less pedaling efficiency, to eliminate the shimmy, maybe not. There are plenty of other things I would try too.

None of my bikes are set up exactly the same way because the compromises I'm willing to make are unique to that bike and the way I use it. For example, I'd be willing to put up with a fair amount of discomfort on a 200k, but not so much on a 400k or longer, or said another way, I can use just about any bike on a 200k, but only certain bikes that are set up for comfort on the longer rides. I also make plenty of adjustments on all of my bikes throughout the season as my fitness improves.

rhm

No, there is another thread for that. The point of this one really was to hear about any differences in bike setup between bikes for longer versus shorter distances. I realized that some people might just say well that's a ridiculous idea on the face of it, so I raised the issue of shimmy and its connection to fore-aft balance and (therefore) handlebar bags. My bike is the inspiration for this discussion, but needn't be its subject.

Spoonrobot 

There's a lot in this thread.

I'll start with saying that I am one of probably a fair portion of riders who have (or would have) no issues using saddle setback and possibly stem adjustments to accommodate to a bike or it's handling. I've tried setback ranging from 10cm to 3cm, sometimes with height adjustment as well as stem adjustment and sometimes not. On the road they all more or less work fine, any issues are lost in the noise. I've since settled on 5.5cm-7cm for the 5 bikes I ride regularly as that is what works best for me when riding my MTB/Gravel bikes as fore/aft body position is much more important for handling than on the road. Made sense to do the same for my allroad bikes as well.

This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't worry about saddle setback or type too much when setting up a long or longer distance bike. I used to be obsessive over using on a certain specialized saddle and then a certain charge saddle but for the last two bikes I've just used the stock saddle and they've been very comfortable for 200k and I plan to use them for the rest of the SR series I'm doing.

What I do worry over for long distances is handlebar height, handlebar flare and bike carrying capacity. I have two different bikes I use for long distance riding, basically trying to make a low-trail bike fit as well as the high-trail bike so I can sell the latter. In process of this I discovered my back has a very specific range it prefers the handlebar height. If it's too high I get a lot of pain in my lower back as well as numb hands due to unnoticed ulnar nerve pressure. This second issue is made worse by no-flare or little-flare handlebars. So I've slowly been working through 6-7 hour rides with different height and handlebars on one bike that's low-trail while I'm totally fine on the other bike that's high trail.

Which brings me to the bike carrying capacity issue. For rides longer than about 200km I need to carry more clothing as the spring rides almost always see wild temperature swings. Using a front rack and bag is best for this IMO, I had the high trail bike set-up this way and found it to be very high utility but the high flop and poor cornering were less than ideal. The lower flop low-trail bike corners much better and rides very well with a modest front load. That's what I want for longer long distance rides. For 100k and shorter I can just use a frame bag and be happy, it's a little faster and the bike feels a little more spritely. For 200k I can carry any clothing and food in a camelbak and be fine, it's uncomfortable but bearable for 8-9 hours. Anything longer and I want that weight on the bike in a way that doesn't necessitate an overly stiff frame and does not create poor handling issues or have other high-flop characteristics. So I end up with a low-trail bike, front rack and bag holding clothes and food.

If one is not using the first bike for something else like road racing or time trials; having two bikes, one for 100k and less and one for 200k and more seems sort of non-sensical, not meant in an insulting way, I mean I cannot make sense of how/why to do so. I could imagine setting the bikes up difference ways for the distances but always keep coming back to the why. If I'm not road racing or something the longer distance bike should be just as good at shorter distances, possibly with extraneous front rack/luggage removed. Maybe with narrower higher pressure tires or fatter lower pressure tires based on how my opinion is blowing in the breeze that week.

Also, my resistance has waned so I will ask; have you tried a needle-bearing headset? For the shimmy?

Happy Feet

I'll bite.

This is a pic of my current long distance bike to illustrate a few ideas I have.

1. Bars and saddle. Level (ish). Though aggressive geometry might be faster it would be hard for me to hold that position for 12+ hours. I have something called Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (a narrowing of the nerve/blood vessel pathways in the shoulder) that causes my hands to numb out so I can't put too much weight on them. If the position is more upright though, I find I place too much weight on my sit bones down through the saddle and my butt gets sore. This seems to be the sweet spot.

2. Aero bars. Same reason as in 1. (T.O.S.). Having the aeros allows me to take the weight off the hands for a bit and wiggle them.

3. Hydration. Two bottles in the frame and a third nests between the aero bars if I need it. All I can say is have a short one for filling at gas station taps that don't allow a tall bottle to fit under.

4. Bags. I just got the Carradry bag and love it. Simple, waterproof and grey goes with my front bag too. Holds quite a bit of stuff and is quite aerodynamic behind my butt I think (haven't been in a wind tunnel to test it). I chose this over a handlebar bag because I plan to use a HB drybag system to hold my bivysack/bag for longer rides. The frame bag holds my tools, spare tube, pump, batteries etc... It has a port for a drinking tube (you can put a bladder in the bag) that I plan to run a cable out of so I can hook my headlight up to an external battery via the usb port. I don't know if I would recommend the Blackburn Outpost Frame Bag for LD riding though. It's a bit overbuilt I think but would have to compare it's weight against a Revelate system to be sure. Gas tank bag holds food and camera/phone.

5. Saddle. Whatever works. I like my C17 but also have a B67 that I know works. I'm also currently breaking in a VO touring saddle made of insanely stiff leather. If I could choose the C17 again I would have gotten a carved one. Just a bit more flex I think would be perfect.

6. Pedals/shoes. Clipless and shoes that also have a walking tread so I only need one pair of footwear on a trip. Extra cleats in the frame bag.

7. Wheels/tires. Currently running Gatorskin 28c's. Better than the 25's the bike came with but still a bit of an eye ball rattler on rough pavement. I would like to run 32's but have to decide if I want fenders as I can't run both on this frame. Probably fenders (which are on my commuter right now) as I got pretty gritty on my ride this weekend. It's not just about getting wet; the grit isn't good for the drive train. Also toying with the idea of a 650b conversion to reduce that eyeball issue but I just bought this bike a while ago so I have to wait a bit to justify the alteration to my chief financial officer (wife). I will at least wear out these tires and maybe rebuild a different bike to use the 700c rims so it seems logical. N+1!

8. The bike itself is an Al Norco Valence with a Taigra groupset. I got a very good deal on it and it was the best upgrade I could afford at the time that would get me into an endurance geometry frame with disc brakes. I quite like it as it is very comfortable to ride and it seems to whizz along. The mechanical discs are fine as I feel I understand them enough to work on myself, and they certainly stop well enough, but I have a love/hate relationship with brifters. Sure they are nice and all but I know I can't fix them myself and that niggles at me. I would have been just as happy with bar end shifters.

Had a crack up this weekend and learned two things. First, don't try to take train tracks in the rain at a diagonal angle. Second, the dropout/hanger system has a built in failsafe feature (I think). My derailer bent inwards because of the crash and I thought I'd cracked the frame but it seems the hanger is made of Al and is held in place by two small bolts. When stress is placed against the DR the bolts strip out of the hanger instead of breaking the dropout. At least that's what happened to me. I was pretty happy with a $12.99 replacement hanger instead of looking for a new derailer or village smitty who could weld Al.

kingston 

Are you saying you can't understand why someone would want more than one bike? Consider yourself lucky.

Tourist in MSN

I bought my second frame that has a replaceable derailleur hanger this past spring and built up the bike. Other bikes were steel with fixed hanger.

And the bike I bought this past spring was a Lynskey Backroad, hanger held in with two bolts. The bolts felt tight when I received it from the factory so I built up the bike and I thought nothing of it. But, one of the bolts started to unthread on me while I was on a bike tour (four panniers, etc.). To make a really long story really short, that caused my cassette lock ring to start to unthread, and that proceeded to make a small problem a bigger problem. Since I was on a bike tour, I always carry a cassette tool on a tour so I could easily tighten it up again. But if I was not on a tour, that would have been an even bigger problem. When I got home I pulled those two small bolts out and added some blue threadlocker to them so that they will not vibrate loose again. You might consider doing the same.

Oh, my hanger costs something like $40, you are fortunate.

kingston 

Seems like a sensible long-distance setup. I'd be interested in seeing other posts like this with a picture of the bike and the rationale for the setup.

Happy Feet

Good idea. I think I will email Norco first to see if that's a feature or just my good luck as thread locker might hold the bolt in the hanger hard enough to twist the dropout instead of stripping. Dunno?

Thanks Kingston.
I got a lot more interested in long distance riding a year and a half ago, beyond untimed touring that is, and this bike is what I chose to explore that area of interest.

If I find I really like it (timed LD riding) I will then invest in upgrades or a better bike. I figure it's a good financial compromise between struggling along on a crappy bike, being limited by the machine, and overspending on something before knowing if I'll get my moneys worth out of it.

rhm

You know, I'm glad you asked; because yes, I did try a needle bearing headset, and it was a failure and I went back to a regular headset.. But now that you mention it I realize I should try it again, because since I tried it, I have made some major changes to the bike (including replacing the fork). The needle bearing headset might work better now.