Veloria

I have always thought the terms "cyclotouring" and "randonneuring" were synonyms, but lately I have seen them presented as distinct from each other, without elaboration as to what the difference is. Could someone please clarify?..

tashi

This should cover it:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...stance-Cycling

JunkYardBike

Cyclotouring is non-competitive long distance riding, sometimes loaded sometimes not.

Randonneuring is organized, endurance cycling including events that have time and distance limits and which offer "friendly" competition.

BF has forums dedicated to both:

Touring: https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php/47-Touring
Rando: https://www.bikeforums.net/forumdispl...urance-Cycling

Veloria

Okay I must have not been paying attention very carefully not to notice randonneuring included in a BF subforum!

So, next question: Why would the two disciplines (which are very much related, other than the competitive aspect) necessitate different types of bicycles? I was reading some back issues of Bicycle Quarterly and it is mentioned that such and such a bicycle is "more suitable for cyclotouring than randonneuring". Is the basic difference that a cyclotouring bicycle need to be able to carry more weight, and that speed is more important for a randonneuring bicycle?

JunkYardBike

I think you have it right, though you can do either with any bike. However, if carrying a heavy load, a "touring" specific frame would be ideal. And if you are "competitively" randonneuring, you want a fast bike.

Jan Heine detractors are quick to point out that most of the top finishers of the Paris-Brest-Paris brevet ride carbon fiber performance bikes. Most seem to miss his point, however, that the top finishers probably wouldn't be significantly slower on a traditional randonneuring frame, and in fact with the comfort and control afforded by wider tires, it's possible they could finish in a faster time.

Veloria

Right. You could make the argument that the guys on the CF bikes tend to be racers in the first place, which is why popular culture beliefs lead them to choose CF models. It would be interesting to put those guys on traditional randonneuring bikes and measure changes in performance.

dbarnblatt@usa.

I think it comes down to a bicycle that is used for pleasure (cyclotouring) and a bicycle used for a competition with rules (randonneuring.) A randonneuring bicycle has to conform to a set of specifications that are somewhat similar to FIA style regulations for European automotive road racing.

https://www.audax-club-parisien.com/E...p?showpage=312

And by similar I mean that the rules are sometimes old and from tradition and provide a challenge for manufacturers to come up with interesting solutions to skirt the added weight, space, etc. For example, for an Auto manufacturer to qualify to compete in a race these high tech race cars have to have things like a passenger seat (a small pad next to the driver's seat) a spare tire (even though it will never be used), a luggage compartment large enough to hold a Loius Vuitton day bag, etc.

A Randonneur bike has to have lighting, fenders, and able to carry belonging, tools, etc. The rando bike has the best solutions to accommodate the requirements but still keep the performance edge.

IanHelgesen

From the site: "Any form of human-powered vehicle is acceptable. The only stipulation is that the vehicle must be powered solely by the rider."

Unlike racing bikes, randonneuring bikes aren't regulated beyond safety requirements (lights for events involving night riding, etc). I believe fenders used to be required for some of the major events, but that was removed. People complete randonneuring events on recumbents, tandems, Moultons, and just about anything else you can think of.

Also, randonneuring events are explicitly not competitive. I believe there's actually a rule that results are to be published in alphabetical order rather than by completion time, to prevent it from being percieved as a race.

Veloria has it right. Randonneurs are concerned with a time limit, and so tend to travel light, often with only a handlebar bag and/or saddlebag for luggage. They basically need enough clothing to deal with whatever weather they're likely to encounter, enough food to make it to the next stop, and tools to fix anything that breaks. Cyclotourist tend to carry more comforts (often including a full set of camping gear), and move at a more relaxed pace.

Veloria

While technically there is a wide range of bikes allowed at randonneuring events, you are right in that I am especially curious about "classic randonneuring geometry" vs "classic touring geometry". It seems to me that in practice, the terms are used pretty much interchangeably (i.e. people will refer to their touring bike as their "randonneur"), but the nuances of the differences are extremely interesting to me. Also, I suppose "touring" will mean different things to different people (in terms of the amount of stuff they'll want to take), which could also explain the overlap.

noglider 

Veloria, you're asking questions I was just about to ask!

Tom

Sixty Fiver

A rando bike might share the same comfortable geometry of a touring bike because when you are spending as much as 90 straight hours in the saddle and riding long preliminary events and doing long training rides comfort becomes rather important.

Because a randonneur does not have to carry the same kit as a tourist they can ride lighter bikes that might not be as well suited for full on touring where strength to carry extra loads becomes very important.

You might see a randonneuring bike equipped with some very lightweight components that many tourists would not see as being essential... high end road groups are more common on randonneuring bikes.

You might use Surly as an example... an LHT is an excellent touring bike but if you were looking at finishing within a prescribed time limit you might want a Cross Check which is lighter. The Surly LHT would get fitted with XT or LX and the Cross Check would get 105 or Ultegra.

Vintage Club bikes tend to be good audax bikes as they sit between full on road bikes and touring bikes in design and tend to be lighter than a touring bike and only a little heavier than a racing bike due to them being fitted with more robust parts.

noglider 

Thank you for that explanation, Sixty Fiver. What's an audax bike?

Where you say "The Surly would get fitted ..." I'm sure you mean the Surly LHT.

Sixty Fiver

Audax was and is a form of highly structured, long distance, team cycling but it has also become synonymous with randonees where riders are free to set their own pace and form groups if they choose.

An audax bicycle is best described as a lightweight tourer as again, one will be spending epic amounts of time in the saddle and the goal in an audax is to maintain a pace of 22.5 kmh, audax rides allow for support vehicles whereas randoneees do not.

rhm

A rear luggage rack, with panniers, is pretty much essential touring equipment. Heel strike issues therefore dictate long chain stays. A lot of tourers also have a front rack, front panniers, and handlebar bag; but these are not really essential to touring.

Randonneurs are less likely to have the rear rack and panniers; they don't need that much stuff. So they don't need the long chain stays. The are more likely to have the handlebar bag, though. I think that's because randonneurs may have to consume all their nutrition while riding (I almost said 'eat their meals' which would be wrong; they don't have 'meals' but rather eat more or less constantly). So the ideal randonneuring bike is better suited to carrying a front bag, which has specific implications for the frame geometry.

bibliobob

This is a great thread. Ties together and reinforces what I already knew and adds a lot to it. Like Veloria, I'm sometimes a little confused when reading BQ and, as I sometimes bring contemporary cycling magazines back from England, get plenty of exposure to Audax. This is why I love BF.

AZORCH

I'm certain I'll stick my foot right in it because I've only just begun to research this question myself, but here goes: one of the factors relating to geometry that I see coming up again and again with randonneuring is that of "trail". Racing bikes and touring bikes have an inherently different set of trail characteristics, and many of the ultracylcistas tend to favor the "sports-touring" fork geometry because it allows for better control, at speed, of the bicycle outfitted with a roomy front handlebar bag. I'm certainly not well-versed enough yet to determine all of the characteristics of "low trail" vs. "high trail" - and there are some excellent online resources (here, here, here, here, here, and especially here) and calculators (here and here) to figure those out - but randonneuring on a C&V bike tends to look different from on a modern one in some ways, and there are no end of opinions out there to support those opinions! On-bike nutrition, btw, is also an incredibly important consideration for randonneuring and brevets.

I'm very interested in ultracycling using a C&V bike and I'm spending my holiday break from teaching doing a fair amount of research to figure out what my best options are going to be here. I look forward to reading what others on this forum have to say on this topic.

USAZorro

A couple years ago, I was ready to set the randonneuring world afire, and I bought a Surly LHT.

This was a very versatile bicycle, and would have been very good for touring, but it was a heavy beast, and not the bike one wanted to be on while going up repeated hills of 10 - 15% on the "local" DC Randonneurs death course they called a 200K brevet. I traded it, and pressed my old Fuji Finest into service. Those 4 fewer pounds make a big difference. IMO, a comfortable sport tourer makes a better poor-man's rando bike than a tourer does. Of course, if you're randonneuring in Florida - it won't make much difference.

Velognome 

For what it's worth, the two terms seem to denote the event rather than the machine. I was just reading from The Golden age of Bicycles, ( or rather Golden age of Cyclotouring) that the bikes often were ordered with the latest advances, there are photo's of saddles cut away or mounted directly to Seat tubes to reduce weight, innovative gearing etc. On the commetitive trials the bikes would carry 8.8lbs. All this sounds more like what is described as a Contemporary Rando. bike. The book also goes on to describe Cyclotouring as a response to getting out of the city for the weekend, exploring. All of this seems to have more in common with contemporary Rando. or Sport Touring setups than light touring geometry. But then again ....I'm probably wrong.

Road Fan

I've just started to talk with a local guy who is an experienced rando, with several complete Series to his credit. He's never raced, but likes a minimal-weight, steel Waterford. His reason for that is not that he's always been a racing type, but that in 600km it makes a difference to save as much energy as possible, and to have the ability for speed. The more time you spend or may be forced to spend at a checkpoint, the faster you have to go to keep you time within limits. Also slow climbers will probably have to go faster.

Jan has also referred to rando bikes (I think this came from his Boulder Brevet review?) as racing bikes that can handle mudguards, lights and light storage. While I don't think racing has anything to do with any brevet at least not in how they're organized, speed can be a part of it.

Way back in the olden days, Velocio took epic rides across France. HAD to carry sleeping gear. Maybe this was cyclotouring?

Other than that, if Jan uses the term, maybe he has it in the glossary on the BQ website.

Road Fan

I think you're probably right - well said.

nlerner

Another concept somewhere between touring and randonneuring is the S240:

https://www.ohiosportsandfitness.com/...ling&Itemid=57

With relatively young kids at home, it's not likely I'll get time to go on a full tour with my buddies, but a day spent riding to a campsite, camping, and then riding home is likely do-able. And I don't think one needs a dedicated tourer to haul the gear needed.

Neal

brockd15 

There are rando bikes and touring bikes in theory, but in the real world I think you're more likely to see a touring bike used for touring than a "rando" bike used for randonneuring. In my brevet experience, I've seen very few (less than 5) actual rando bikes. The vast majority are road bikes....lots of carbon, lots of titanium. In a real-life brevet you just don't need to carry all that much stuff. A large seatbag (sometimes on a seatpost rack) and a camelbak are usually plenty. You see some handlebar bags too for convenience, but most rando bikes I've seen are really nothing like a touring bike. But of course you could easily use a touring bike as a rando bike.

Some of my rando bikes. I've got others too, including steel bikes. Ignore the wheels, they get switched around. Any bike going on a brevet that includes night riding will get a front wheel with a dynamo hub.




My touring bike:

Barrettscv 

This is my version of the Rando C&V bike. I also have a 2008 Soma Double Cross and a made-by-Lynskey Planet X Ti "Sportive" bike. All three bike are very good for century and 200k events.



I switch off between my three bikes for most of my training miles. My 1987 Trek 400 is very comfortable and stable. It now has modern Mavic Open Pro rims & Shimano Dura Ace 36 & 32 hole hubs, and a 20 speed Ultegra drivetrain. My thanks to BiblioBob for helping me to locate the bike, it cost $170. I lose only about 1 mph to my 2008 made-by-Lynskey Ti Sportive bike.



There is a wide range of C&V sports/touring bikes that would be an ideal bike for a cyclist starting their first season as a Long-Distance rider. Most of these bikes will have Reynolds 531 steel frames or better, drop bars, relaxed road bike geometry with a longer wheelbase. 12 speeds or more. My top pick would be a 198x Miyata 912. This bike has Shimano 600x (early Ultegra) 12 speeds, 700c wheels, 72 or 73 degree head tube angle depending on size, 420mm chainstays. Eyes for fenders & racks. Room for 700x28 or larger tires. The bike would weight about 23 lbs with a modern saddle and pedals. A good mid-level sports/touring model was common back in the eighties and every good manufacturer had a model like this. They can be found on Craigslist today for about $250 to $350 in good condition.

No matter which bike a long-distance cyclist selects, new or used, there will be upgrades and customizing to improve fit and performance. I would automatically upgrade the crankset, wheels, saddle, pedals and tires even if these are in good operational condition. I would also install bar-end shifters. Each rider has different needs and priorities.

Chances are that your first long-distance bike won’t be your last. I started with a steel Cyclocross bike, added a ti road bike and a C&V bike. I don’t need three bikes, but having two is important IMO. All of these bikes are excellent for long distance riding.

I would suggest that most eighties sports/touring bikes will make better long distance bikes than most of the lower level road bikes sold today. So many bikes sold today do not provide room for tires larger than 700x25, lack eyes for fenders, have shorter wheelbases that are less stable and don’t always ride well. A current steel Cyclocross bike is a better starting point than a modern low-end road bike in the $750 to $1300 range. A vintage bike is also a great starting point and won’t hold you back.

Picchio Special

One of the defining features of "constructeur" bikes is that they're very puspose built (rather than being built for versatility and swapping racks and light on and off, etc.). A camping bike was distinct from a touring bike was distinct from a randonneuse, etc. This is, I think, reflected in the literature - certainly in the Herse catalog reprints I've seen . The "Randonneuse" is a quite specific model. It is no doubt so because it's intended use is for the specific events that gave it it's name. Of course, as events evolve, the bikes built for them tend to evolve, too.

kroozer 

For touring you can go as light as sport tourer, or use a dedicated tourer, or even an mtb. It really depends on how much stuff you're carrying, what the road conditions are, how long the trip is, etc. I've never rando'd, but I get the impression that the equipment is definitely on the lighter end of the scale, from sport tourers over to racers. Touring and randonneuring strike me as being as different from one another as they are from road racing or bmx acrobatics.