J.Higgins 

I've been thinking about getting an ECR frame, and putting a set of 29er tires on it. I was thinking of maybe running some 1.5 or 1.75 Schwalbes on it. I like the idea of the ECR because I could run both 29 and 29+ rather easily should I decide to.

Don't get me wrong - I love my LHT - but I could easily pass it along to my wife, or just use it for casual rides, while my ECR gets the full-on long tour duties.

What do you guys think? Do I have my head screwed on right?

manapua_man

As far as the wheels themselves go I think the only thing that'll really make a difference is the maximum width of tire you'll be able to fit rather than rim diameter.

And aren't those 29" rims basically the same as the 700c rims, outside of width? I figure a lot of people have been touring on 700c wheels for kind of a while now..

smith_Jr

What is the different between tour bike and road bike .

manapua_man

The difference is that one is being used for touring

mrv 

I think the ECR would make a good tourer. Then you have the option to run fat tires for off road touring, if that something that interests you. I've been thinking about that SOMA SAGA as a tourer. I can't really afford anything at the moment, though....

- more frame clearance for fatter tires. 32mm at least. I run 38mm on a 700C bike, 1.75in on my 26in wheeled bike
- typically cantilever or linear pull brakes - now disk. Some frames offer the option for either.
- eyelets for racks, front and rear.
- long chain stay. 45cm should be your min. Rivendell goes up to 53cm
- long chain stay = long wheelbase (so feels nice a stable)
- all this means a heavier bike. A nice touring bike will probably be 30lbs before you add racks & fenders
- oh! typically you have room in the frame for fatter tires and fenders
- up right position ~ so maybe a shorter top tube them a slammed road racing bike. Not always. I see lots of people with aero bars on tour bikes.
- everything else is personal preference.

HTupolev

Yes. "700c" is an old French designation typically used when referring to wheels on road bikes, "29er" is a modern term typically used when referring to wheels on mountain bikes. But both terms refer to rims with a bead seat diameter of 622mm.

Snuts

Last year I built my Touring bike based on a Norco Indie 4 Hybrid. It came with 700 X 35 tires, not sure of rim width. This year I built a new Touring bike based on a Marin Muirwoods 29'r. [The Muirwoods is designed and built for riders who want a durable city bike, with the option to move up to larger tires.] They don't call theirs a Hybrid, hmm. I do know this bike has 19mm wide rims, and came with 29 X 1.6 Schwalbe tires.
Rides as nice as my last Bike.

Hope this helps,



-Snuts-

J.Higgins 

I've been selling off my old machine shop equipment, and racking up some extra cash. If I buy that ECR frame, would you guys like to see a build thread here?

HTupolev

Yes.

bikemig 

Yes. I've been thinking of getting the Salsa Fargo or the Velo Orange Piolet as a touring bike.

jefnvk

Umm, does a junky like a fix?

But seriously, I'd love to hear the difference (if any) between 29er and 700c purposeful built wheels.

Id guess 29ers have less spokes and probably have disc brakes, anything else?

Snuts

The way I understand it.
29's and 700C rims are the same diameter (fact). 29'rs refer to mountain bikes (wider rims 19mm or wider). Where as a Hybrid can still have 19mm wide rims and be called a 700C.
My latest bike is called a 29'r as it can handle rubber 2" and wider. Yet comes with pavement tires.

Hope this helps.



-Snuts-

Snuts

Oh, yes always splash photo's around of a build. Even more exciting, ask others what they would use, or do. Then do it your way, watch for the discussions and de-railment.

-Snuts-

HTupolev

Tends to be the opposite.

In the conflict between optimizing for strength:weight and optimizing for aero, MTB tends to lean farther toward strength:weight than road does. This makes sense, as there's more frequent acceleration, more climbing, typically lower speeds, and greater strength demand on the components.

Higher spoke counts reduce the demands placed on the rim, often allowing a wheel to be lighter without giving up strength.

Configurations like 24 rear and 20 front are common on high-end road bikes, while high-end MTB frequently features 28 front and back.

J.Higgins 

QBP makes the Surly and Salsa frames at the same location, so the Fargo might even be a better choice because of the belt-drive compatibility. Let me look into it... hmmm...

ETA: Okay my local Surly/Salsa dealer is closed tomorrow, but I'll definitely be there on Wednesday. This could work! More to come.

bikemig 

Well you have to make a choice up front whether you want drops or not. That's why I like the fargo for a touring bike.

gpsblake

The easy answer. If the 29 inch bike is comfortable for you to ride day after day after day, then it's a great bike for touring. Tubes might be a little harder to find if you are away from LBS shops so carry a few extra of those (spokes also).

kevrider

one important detail difference is that 29ers usually have disc brakes, so quick release 29er rear wheels have hub spacing of 135mm instead of the roadie standard of 130mm. plenty of road and touring bikes are going to discs now, so they can accomodate 29er wheels / mtn bike hubs.

jefnvk

I don't doubt if you're talking racing bikes v MTB, but does that still hold true for general 700 v MTB?

J.Higgins 

I like the drops okay - I'm certainly no stranger to them, but I'm curious how they actually handle. Those cowchippers are wide, surely. I doubt that I's be doing a lot of singletrack, and what parts I did would be slow and steady as she goes. The drop bars would certainly be more efficient out on the road. My one concern would be how well the Fargo frame geometry would act with a Jones H-Bar on it?

bikemig 

Top tube length is likely wrong if you want flat bars. The VO Piolet has a kind of in between geometry so theoretically you can run either flat or drop bars. I think you pick your poison up front. If you want jones bars (and there's a lot to be said for flat bars when the roads get dicey), then get a bike with a geometry optimized for that. If you want drops (and there's a lot to be said for drops when riding long distances on the road), then get a frame optimized for that. Obviously drops can be used off road and flats on road but there are trade offs.

tyrion

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't an ECR have a relatively low bottom bracket with 3" tires on it? It might be really low with 1.5" tires.

alan s 

It's a measurement of tire diameter rather than rim size. The rim diameter of 29 and 700c is the same. 29 rims tend to be a bit wider to accommodate wider tires. The hub determines whether you can use disc brakes, as well as whether the rim has a brake track.

kevrider

i have a fargo with dropbars and the handling is sa-weet off road, the short wheelbase makes easy work of switchbacks. it's also fun onroad, leans towards the stable side compared to a road bike.

that said, there are lots of people riding fargos with jones bars. if you know what ETT you would want for a flatcar mtn bike, you would just get the appropriately sized fargo with that in mind, knowing that changing to dropbars at a later time would give you a really long reach to the hoods. give the higher head tube on fargo, you would have fewer spacers compared to your ideal fargo setup with drops. bonus... a larger triangle for frame bags.

in my case, i have a small fargo. for flat bars, the large is closer to the right ETT for me, tho i could probably use a medium with a 100-110mm stem. i would not be able to run dropbars on either.

Squeezebox

I get the impression through axles are being used more now. Spacing 142 I think?