Chuck Naill

In a way, this thread reminds me of a through hiker I met wearing Sears work boots, blue jeans, and a cheap frame pack. He was doing just fine.

ve9vic

My research for a new touring bike lead me to the Forillon bike from Panoramacycles.com
it is a small shop from the province of Quebec. 36 spokes wheels, 700x38 up to 44
all the attachments you can wish for, steel, disk brake and more, so far it seems like a good choice
for me as it not very far from me for shipping.
Anyway, on my next bicycle, I will put my own Saddle, handlebar, pedals, etc...
I will also install the chainring and cogs that I like and need.

12MM THRU AXLES

12MM THRU AXLES

ClydeClydeson

All your options sound great, but the primary consideration, in my opinion, is to make sure the bike fits and is comfortable to ride. You can begin the process of fitting and fine-tuning the fit by comparing any bike you buy to a known good-fitting bike you already have, either in person or using geometry charts on the manufacturers' websites. Then don't be afraid to tinker with things like stem lengths and rises, saddle position and angle, bar shape... you get the idea - consider 'buying' the bike to be step 1 of a multi-step process.

The other thing I have discovered as I am also a bigger cyclist (about the same weight as OP, a bit taller, and likely a bit higher power output, mainly because I am younger, is that a few 1000s of kms under a full-size and full-power rider requires a good quality rear hub, even if the rest of the bike is a cheapie. Shifters and derailleurs and handlebars aren't going to fail under normal, even heavy, use, but the bearings in the rear wheel, with a 115kg rider carrying 20kg of gear, will.

Don't listen to anyone (especially in this thread) who has a list of 'rules' regarding fit or equipment that are required to achieve your goals. Every person is different - body shape, flexibility, comfort requirements, and expectations, and relying on someone else's personal requirements, even if they are a Gambler named Gord, aged 53, is as likely as not to lead you to less-than-ideal results.

stardognine

These are very good points. 👍 And things we don't immediately think of, with the potential to really jam things up. 😲😵

EDIT: And don't forget, the single most important thing is, it has to be the right COLOR. 😁😉

Tourist in MSN

I have three touring bikes, one with a Rohloff and two with derailleurs. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. I bought my Rohloff from an internet seller in Germany nine years ago, by buying it that way I saved roughly $500 compared to buying from any source in the USA.

My last tour was on my Rohloff bike, the tour before that was on a derailleur bike and my next tour will likely be on a derailleur bike. If my tour is all on pavement, it will likely be on a derailleur bike. That said, my Rohloff bike is my only S&S bike, so if I fly out of the country and have to take my bike on the plane with me, I will be taking the S&S bike, thus the Rohloff bike.

Rohloffs are great. But a good derailleur system is great too. A few years ago I wrote up a lengthy comparison if anyone is interested, it is here:
https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/1...l#post21144689

If someone has done their research and chooses a derailleur bike, I do not try to change their mind. That said, I have read some very strange misconceptions about Rohloffs, when I see those I try to give an accurate answer and correct mis-conceptions.

Within the past nine years since I bought my Rohloff, I have only seen one other touring bike with a Rohloff on a tour within USA. The owner of that touring bike was from the Netherlands, I met him in Bryce National Park. There are two additional Rohloffs in my community based on a trip log I saw on Crazy Guy, but I have not actually seen them yet. And a neighbor is a bike mechanic, thus every day he sees bikes coming into the shop he works at and he has only seen one Rohloff bike, that is mine. That really shows how rare they are within USA. That said, on my month long tour in Iceland, I saw eight other Rohloff bikes, they appear to be much more common in Europe than in USA.

phughes

Thanks for chiming in. I thought you had a Rohloff. They really are a very nice hub, there is no question about it. They are definitely rare in the US though, which is why I am not surprised at not seeing them while touring. As I said before, I have seen only one in the last eleven years. I saw a guy riding though my town on tour. He had a Rohloff. Other than that, I have seen no others in the wild.

What is your gearing setup on the Rohloff and how does the low and high range compare to your derailleur bikes?

EDIT: Never mind, I just read your linked thread, and saw your gearing choice for the Rohloff, but there was not a direct comparison between it and your other bikes.

greatbasin

I wouldn't hesitate to choose Rohloff or a pinion gearbox if money was no object. For me, the wide range of gears would be a benefit, but much more so the ability to downshift at a stop. I realize I could get that with a Nexus/Alfine, but those aren't normally on touring bikes because of the modern perception of their gear range being too narrow. I ride a TA triple with Suntour GT derailleurs and a 5-speed freewheel that is even narrower overall than an 8-speed hub but that would have been considered wonderful for touring in a previous generation. A Gates drive belt would also be welcome on tours where it's hard enough to keep my clothes clean without a greasy chain. Even so, the TCO on a high-end touring bike is at least 4X or 5X what I've put into mine. I'm satisfied with my equipment and I would be unhappy if I had many thousands of dollars into my touring bike and not my two sons' also. As it is, we're not touring often enough or ambitiously enough to justify Rohloffs for everybody. The OP, on the other hand, stated money was no object, and later added they didn't care for Rohloffs, so I would suggest a pinion gearbox with belt drive -- a wide range of gear, downshifts at a stop, clean drivetrain, and freedom from even trifles like chain drops and greasy hands.

Tourist in MSN

My Rohloff bike gearing for touring with a 36T chainring, 16T sprocket, 14 evenly spaced gears from 16.2 to 85.1 gear inches. That is with a 57mm wide 26 inch tire.

I use a 44T chainring when riding the unladen Rohloff bike around home, that has higher gearing but with an unladen bike, or maybe only a pannier of groceries I do not need the really low gears I use for touring. That gear range is from 19.8 to 104.0 gear inches. Since I use different chainrings on my Rohloff bike to raise or lower my gearing range, a belt would be rather impractical for me. It is easy to add or remove four links from the chain, I decided on chain drive before I ordered the frame as I planned to run different chainrings.

My two derailleur touring bikes both have the same drive train, a 3X8 half step plus granny system, chainring is 46/42/24, cassette is a Sram 11/32 eight speed which is 11/12/14/16/18/21/26/32. I try to avoid using the two most cross chained gears for each chainring, thus use 18 of the possible 24 gears. One bike is 700c, typically with 37mm tires and the other bike is 26 inch, usually 40 or 50mm tires, 40 for pavement and 50mm for gravel.

The 700c bike has closer spaced gearing above about 50 gear inches, wider spacing below 50 gear inches because of the two larger and single smaller chainrings, ranges from 20.7 to 115.5 gear inches.

The 26 inch bike has slightly lower gearing due to smaller wheel diameter.

These links provide more data on that gearing:
https://gear-calculator.com/?GR=RLSH...N=MPH&DV=teeth
https://gear-calculator.com/?GR=RLSH...N=MPH&DV=teeth
https://gear-calculator.com/?GR=DERS...N=MPH&DV=teeth

So, you can see for touring my Rohloff gives me much lower gearing than the derailleur bikes. But I am more inclined to need lower gearing with that bike as I likely am carrying a heavier load on that bike, it is my expedition bike. I might be carrying over a week of food on the Rohloff bike, but likely have no more than two or three days of food on the derailleur bikes.

This is my Rohloff bike, this is pretty close to the heaviest that I have ever loaded it.




And this is my Lynskey, the 700c derailleur bike, I consider this my light touring bike:

elcruxio

The bottle thing is an issue regardless with small frame sizes. Not easy fitting two 1,2 liter bottles inside a 54cm frame. With a large frame it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Gangly seatpost means a massive increase in ride comfort. It also means the frame is stiffer and more stable.

All the racks I've used have had adjustable stays so I don't quite understand the awkward seat tube mounting. Then again I always mount the rack stays on seatstay eyelets anyway so perhaps that is the explaining factor...

saddlesores

another thing about sloping top tubes.....

most of the broken frames i've seen on tour...........some being ridden held together with duck tape and wire.....were aluminum mtb frames with about 18" of seat tube exposed. i'm guessing the extra leverage of a big butt on rough terrain may be enough to crack the welds at the top tube.

haven't seen that with steel frames, but that could be there aren't that many here in asialand compared to aluminium.

Tourist in MSN

Generically, Zinn has written on aluminum frames being more prone to fracture than steel due to inherent properties of the alloys common to those two elements.
https://www.velonews.com/gear/techni...nkarm-fatigue/
and,
https://www.velonews.com/gear/tech-f...frame-fatigue/

I have a rather tall seatpost above my frame on my heavy duty touring bike, that has a very strong and heavy steel frame. Thus I am more concerned about potential seatpost failure on it than frame breakage.

GamblerGORD53

Oops, I should have said seat stay attachment.
Anyway here's an extreme example of what I was referring to. Too small frame for the rider as well as slopped TT.
This rack does zero to provide a 3rd triangle for strength.


Then here's mine with the attachment level to the rack. It'll support way more weight than my spokes will. >>


To be fair, this summer I met a guy in the park on his empty tour bike and talked to him for 5 minutes.
I thought he had a Rohloff but it was an Alfine11. Then he said he did have a Rohloff for 6,500 miles for his first tour in SE Asia. He said he didn't like the feel and I said it wasn't broken in yet. LOL. So I guess he then did the Trans AM with the Alfine 11's not so low gears. He is over 6' tall.

elcruxio

oh boy...

The rack stays don't really do much in any case. Their one and sole purpose is to keep the rack from moving forwards or backwards. You could substitute them with rope if you could figure out a way to keep the rack from moving forward.

Pretty much 100% of the weight on the rack is carried by the lower mounting points. You can actually try this. Take off the lower mounting bolts and try loading the rack. Can't do it. If however you remove the stays you can load the rack just fine with just the lower mounting bolts. The rack just won't stay in place if you move or the load isn't centered on the rack.

phughes

Thanks for the detailed response. The comparisons will be helpful to anyone considering a Rohloff or other IG hub.

Your two Rohloff setups sort of match my LHT setup. I have 17.6 to 104 on it currently running a triple. I could probably get close enough to that with a Rohloff by getting the low end closer to 17.6. I would still sacrifice a little on the big end, but that really doesn't matter, though I do enjoy spinning out on hills. Truly not necessary. Climbing is more important to me, and you have that covered quite nicely. You have three nice bikes to choose from for touring.

Tourist in MSN

I built up a LHT in 2004, started with a road triple (52/42/30) except I put a 24T granny on it when I built it up. Found that the 52 was bigger than I wanted, so decided to change that to half step with a 46 big ring later, that cost me my highest gear but gave me one more mid range gear. Was pretty happy with that. The LHT frame was defective (Surly refused to warranty it), I put the frame in the recycle bin but kept the fork. Built up my 26 inch derailleur touring bike in 2010 using that same drive train.

Then when I built up my Rohloff bike in 2013, I decided before I even ordered it what my touring gearing would be, I rode up a steep tall hill and did my best to measure my speed and tried to judge what my lowest practical speed was where I had good vertical and directional stability, lower than that speed would have an excessive amount of oversteering, that speed was 3.5 mph. So, for touring I wanted my lowest gear to be perfect for 3.5 mph and I chose a cadence of 72 for that.

But for riding around home I knew from my other bikes that my desired range for highest and lowest gear ratios were, so figured out what that would be for the Rohloff bike too. So, I knew I needed two sets of gears for the Rohloff bike when I ordered the frame.

When touring on the Rohloff bike there have been a lot of occasions where I wished I had higher gears for shallow downhills, but I will not give up my lowest gears to gain higher touring gears. But that experience really convinced me that for touring you should have a wider total range than you would need for other riding. I wish that the Rohloff was a 15 speed instead of 14, it has a total range of 526 percent and I wish that it was about 595 percent. The Pinion 18 on the other hand is 636 percent which would be even better.

Built up my Lynskey in 2017, decided to replicate the gearing from my other derailleur touring bike. I did not need a third touring bike, but I saw the Lynskey frame for sale on Ebay and I had always wanted a titanium bike. So bid low and got lucky. The Lynskey lacked a fork but my LHT fork that had been in storage was almost exactly the same specification as the Lynskey fork for axle to crown race length and fork rake, so got lucky a second time with that bike frame in that I did not need to buy a fork for it.

Yan 

Cheap old regular Surly LHT is all you need. If you have the money to throw around, get any expensive equivalent.

If you will be doing 95% road touring, then you should avoid tires wider than 35mm. It makes no sense to be slow as hell for thousands of miles of asphalt riding, just for the sake of slightly more comfort during a little bit of gravel. Better to just grit your teeth and bump your way through the occasional gravel. Even 32mm tires will work just fine.

All this over-marketed crap in the last few years with the 45mm+ tired drop bar "gravel bikes" is just a bunch of BS. If you need 45mm+ tires, you should be riding a mountain bike. When you put 45mm tires on a drop bar bike, all you're getting is a bike that is crap on the road AND crap off road. Figure out what kind of touring you will be doing, then buy the correct type of bike for it. Don't buy a "gravel bike" that is sh*t at both. The only people who should be riding "gravel bikes" are those who are actually doing Tour Divide type adventure riding. They ride off road, they only care about going fast and they are willing to accept a bike that rides like ass. Ok, fine. But very few "gravel bike" owners actually do this kind of riding. Most just ride on asphalt like everyone else. So what's the point?

It's the exact same thing as SUVs. If you're a young guy, get a coupe. If you've got 5 kids, get a minivan. If you need to haul actual cargo, get a pickup. Figure out what you need then buy that thing which is designed for it. If you need to do more than one thing, then buy two separate cars that actually do those things properly. Don't buy a whale of an SUV that drives like sh*t, has the same number of seats as a regular car, and can't haul lumber. What's the point?

Tourist in MSN

The marketing dept really hates people that say that sort of thing.

mstateglfr 

A longer seatpost creates flex and comfort.
Frame bags taking up room on small frames isnt unique to sloping frames.
You make fun of Surly bikes for having a ton of stem space, but you also make fun of sloping top tubes. This is ironic since sloping top tubes help reduce the instances where a lot of spacers are needed to get bars up high. It isnt surprising you dont see the connection.

As for your bike...well I dont want a timeout by the mods.

tcs

Discontinued a few seasons back, so used market these days.

Current: Disc Trucker w/ thru-axle (142mm OLD).

Yan 

I have to agree with the other guy on this one. Sloping top tube bikes are terrible. A bit of slope is ok, and is actually necessary on the smaller frame sizes, but the trend has been getting ridiculous lately.

The stiffness argument isn't a big deal for tourists who are not focused on performance. The main problem for me is that a loaded bike is extremely heavy and when I'm stopped I need to use my legs to control the bike's top tube. On a sloping top tube frame the top tube is too low and the bike flops all over the place. I also cannot rest by sitting on the top tube.

Also it looks ugly. Looks matter. Maybe I'm superficial but I don't want my expensive touring bike to look like a BMX.

indyfabz

That’s the way I approach it. Virtually all my miles have been on 37c tires, even when I have done routes with more than a “bit” of gravel, including unpaved passes​​​​​. I even did a cross-PA tour that included the GAP on 32c tires. And I’m a big guy riding a big frame who doesn’t travel lite. I gut out the rough patches so I don’t have to ride very wide tires on the road.

tcs

Q: In the old days when horizontal top tubes were the only paradigm in town, how did tourists get the bars high enough that they saw the scenery and not just the road in front of the front wheel?

A: Mostly we rode crotch-stuffing frames. Note how little seatpost is showing:

tcs

Just to let our OP know others have different philosophies:

https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-...re-not-slower/

BobG

If you're a little person like me (5'5") a sloping top tube is a wonderful thing. Nothing makes you feel littler than only 2-3" of exposed seatpost. If you're a guy it's good to have plenty of clearance for Mr Johnson and friends when straddling.

Below is my currrent bike with a 44 cm seat tube. The top tube slopes 3" DOWNhill. . The blue line would be the top tube of my previous bike with a level TT and a 54 cm seat tube.The top position at head tube is about the same on both bikes. Bar tops/hoods with stem riser are well above the saddle.

Plenty of room on the down tube for a big bottle. Plenty of room on the seat tube for a small bottle. With front rack now off I've added a bottle cage on each fork blade. No problem with rigidity at curved seatstay rack mount.

Yan 

That article is published by a company that sells gravel tires. Be careful with their conclusions because they have a financial interest in spinning a certain narrative. For example, they dismiss the scientific testing done by www.bicyclerollingresistance.com because "testing in the lab doesn't reflect real world conditions." Why exactly doesn't it reflect?? They don't elaborate. Translation: we ignore any evidence that doesn't support our sales pitch.

Amongst other factors, wider tires are simply heavier, everything else being equal. Every time you try to accelerate you're losing a bunch of energy. That's all there is to it.

For example, the company that published the article above sells a smooth 55mm "road tire" that conforms to their "fat tires better" philosophy. It weighs over 500g which is over double the weight of a normal road tire. Yikes. Try racing that around and then claim it doesn't gimp your performance.

If wider tires were just as fast as thin tires, then all the guys in the Tour de France would be riding fat tires. Get comfortable on those cobblestone sections. Why not?

As always, when evaluating truths vs lies, seek answers in places where the truth matters.