Lightweight Touring Considerations

All about touring, whether you are a local or visiting from overseas.

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Wed Aug 07, 2013 10:26 pm

STC67 wrote:Sabbath are yet to get a geometry chart to me...

Shane, the important dimensions of the Silk Route - the actual seat tube length and the equivalent top tube length are published in this table on the Sabbath site. I would suggest that your wife will almost certainly need the XS frame.

And to keep the bike even lighter the September frame would also be worth considering. The main difference would be the tyre sizes the frames can accommodate.

Finally, since you plan to use an LX crankset which uses a Hollowtech bottom bracket, it will come supplied with three spacers, and the chain line is easily adjusted by the arrangement of the spacers under the bearing cups. A bias toward the more frequently used middle and inner chain rings is actually a good thing, and it is in fact how I've set up the chain line on my Sabbath.

BTW, I've had my radar out for wheels, and have found these quality 36 spoke Handspun wheels with LX hubs, Dyad rims and DT Champion spokes on eBay at very good prices. I'm going to buy a set to put on my Sabbath when it's in light touring configuration.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

by BNA » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:41 pm

BNA
 

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby GregLR » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:41 pm

The August/September edition of the UK Cyclists' Touring Club magazine "Cycle" has a review by the technical editor Chris Juden of two touring bikes (Ridgeback 'World Panorama' and Claud Butler 'Dalesman') that makes a comment on the MTB vs road crankset issue and on the square-taper vs external bearings bottom bracket choice, as follows:

"...with STI levers, the front mech must be road, so the chainset has to compromise between correspondingly big roadie outer rings and the smaller inner that is wanted for winching a load up steep hills. The usual compromise is an MTB crankset with somewhat bigger rings. Unfortunately these chainsets have an awefully wide pedal track, being designed for tyres hugely fatter than anyone wants on a tourer. So you'll pedal like a duck, with a 'Quack-factor' exceeding 180mm - all the worse to flex the bottom bracket !

The gears functioned adequately, though the middle chainrings being so far from the frame didn't drive the bottom sprockets as smoothly as I'd like. Much neater chainsets, with closer chainline, are available - you'll find them on tourers from smaller manufacturers. But I was glad to see a square-taper axle unit on the Panorama: they tend to last longer than external bearings."

Spa Cycles is one of the "smaller manufacturers" Chris Juden is referring to, using the 110/74mm BCD Sugino XD-2 or Stronglight cranksets they offer on this page: http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m2b0s109p0 My post earlier on this thread described the TA-modified XD-2 cranksets and square-taper bottom brackets I fitted to my and my wife's touring bikes.

In view of the more recent discussion above, I just thought I'd mention again the alternative approach that can be taken with cranksets for touring bikes.

Greg
GregLR
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:15 am

GregLR wrote:The August/September edition of the UK Cyclists' Touring Club magazine "Cycle" has a review by the technical editor Chris Juden of two touring bikes (Ridgeback 'World Panorama' and Claud Butler 'Dalesman') that makes a comment on the MTB vs road crankset issue and on the square-taper vs external bearings bottom bracket choice, as follows:

"...with STI levers, the front mech must be road, so the chainset has to compromise between correspondingly big roadie outer rings and the smaller inner that is wanted for winching a load up steep hills. The usual compromise is an MTB crankset with somewhat bigger rings. Unfortunately these chainsets have an awefully wide pedal track, being designed for tyres hugely fatter than anyone wants on a tourer. So you'll pedal like a duck, with a 'Quack-factor' exceeding 180mm - all the worse to flex the bottom bracket !

The gears functioned adequately, though the middle chainrings being so far from the frame didn't drive the bottom sprockets as smoothly as I'd like. Much neater chainsets, with closer chainline, are available - you'll find them on tourers from smaller manufacturers. But I was glad to see a square-taper axle unit on the Panorama: they tend to last longer than external bearings."

Spa Cycles is one of the "smaller manufacturers" Chris Juden is referring to, using the 110/74mm BCD Sugino XD-2 or Stronglight cranksets they offer on this page: http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m2b0s109p0 My post earlier on this thread described the TA-modified XD-2 cranksets and square-taper bottom brackets I fitted to my and my wife's touring bikes.

In view of the more recent discussion above, I just thought I'd mention again the alternative approach that can be taken with cranksets for touring bikes.

Greg

I can comment on this, since I have an LX Hollowtech crankset on one tourer, and a Stronglight Impact crankset on the other. I disagree with Juden, in fact his statement that the Q factor exceeds 180mm is sheer exaggeration. From the riders perspective I doubt the difference in Q factor is discernable. I can't detect any difference between either tourer and my road bike. And since the OP is currently riding an MTB, it won't bother him at all.

The Stronglight Impact is a re-badged Sugino XD2. It's a very nice crankset, but you can't fit a 22T chainring to a 74 BCD chainset, so it cannot acheive the low gearing that an MTB crankset can.

Also, should you choose the Stronglight, don't waste your time trying to deal with the eccentric owner of Spa Cycles - you'll likely find it an exercise in frustration and disappointment. You will get better service from Dotbike.
Last edited by RonK on Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby barefoot » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:47 am

RonK wrote:Finally, since you plan to use an LX crankset which uses a Hollowtech bottom bracket, it will come supplied with three spacers, and the chain line is easily adjusted by the arrangement of the spacers under the bearing cups.


... so long as you're happy for BOTH pedals to be moved left or right to achieve the desired chainline.

There is no way to adjust chainline symmetrically on the HT2 system. The pedals are a fixed distance apart, and moving the entire assembly left or right at the BB will result in one pedal being further from the centreplane of the frame than the other.

That's not necessarily a bad thing - after all, how symmetrical is the rider? - but it's more likely to be a bad thing than a good thing.

tim
User avatar
barefoot
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Ballarat

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:52 am

barefoot wrote:
RonK wrote:Finally, since you plan to use an LX crankset which uses a Hollowtech bottom bracket, it will come supplied with three spacers, and the chain line is easily adjusted by the arrangement of the spacers under the bearing cups.


... so long as you're happy for BOTH pedals to be moved left or right to achieve the desired chainline.

There is no way to adjust chainline symmetrically on the HT2 system. The pedals are a fixed distance apart, and moving the entire assembly left or right at the BB will result in one pedal being further from the centreplane of the frame than the other.

That's not necessarily a bad thing - after all, how symmetrical is the rider? - but it's more likely to be a bad thing than a good thing.

tim

We are talking about 2.5mm here. :roll:
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby barefoot » Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:12 am

RonK wrote:
barefoot wrote:
RonK wrote:Finally, since you plan to use an LX crankset which uses a Hollowtech bottom bracket, it will come supplied with three spacers, and the chain line is easily adjusted by the arrangement of the spacers under the bearing cups.


... so long as you're happy for BOTH pedals to be moved left or right to achieve the desired chainline.


...and it sounds like RonK is happy for both pedals to be moved.

There is no way to adjust chainline symmetrically on the HT2 system. The pedals are a fixed distance apart, and moving the entire assembly left or right at the BB will result in one pedal being further from the centreplane of the frame than the other.

That's not necessarily a bad thing - after all, how symmetrical is the rider? - but it's more likely to be a bad thing than a good thing.

tim

We are talking about 2.5mm here. :roll:


Left pedal in by 2.5mm, right pedal out by 2.5mm.

Given the choice, I'd take a half-a-gear misalignment on my chainline than a 5mm asymmetry on my feet, thanks.

But since we're rolling our eyes... if you really want to know... I didn't have that choice. I'm running road cranks on a frame with wide chainstays, and I had to move my right crank out slightly to stop my rings from touching my chainstays. And thus, had to move my left crank in slightly. I don't notice it... but there were a few fitment issues that I didn't notice on my old bike until beyond the 200km mark, where minor things start to niggle. I haven't done a long ride like that on this bike yet.

If I had the choice of a symmetrical fit on the bike or having my chainline out by 2.5mm, I'd take the symmetrical fit. But neither is a show stopper.

tim
User avatar
barefoot
 
Posts: 970
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Ballarat

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:11 pm

barefoot wrote:If I had the choice of a symmetrical fit on the bike or having my chainline out by 2.5mm, I'd take the symmetrical fit. But neither is a show stopper.

As I've already posted, I chose to have the chainline biased toward the middle and inner ring by placing the spacers for my 68mm bb shell according to the Shimano tech doc. Presumably this is a symmetrical arrangement.

I have since ridden more than 6000kms including 3000kms of loaded touring using this setup and have encountered no physiological or mechanical issues. I'd recommend it for touring bikes vs the standard chain line, since the big ring is rarely used.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby GregLR » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:59 pm

RonK wrote:...The Stronglight Impact is a re-badged Sugino XD2. It's a very nice crankset, but you can't fit a 22T chainring to a 74 BCD chainset, so it cannot acheive the low gearing that an MTB crankset can...

True, of course - but with a 26" wheel on the Sherpa my wife has a low of 24/34=18.4", while for a 700c wheel the low would be approx. 19.1". Still pretty low, I think. Plus I prefer the aesthetics of the Sugino XD2 vs an MTB crankset & the external bearing cups :D
barefoot wrote:..I'm running road cranks on a frame with wide chainstays, and I had to move my right crank out slightly to stop my rings from touching my chainstays...

I had this problem with my old touring bike when Shimano brought out the Octalink crankset & BB in the late 90s, which was eventually solved by having a framebuilder crimp the chainstay prior to having the frame repainted, so that the inner ring on the triple could no longer scrape it. Prior to that I used a driveside spacer to hold the BB, & thus the crank, a few mm further out (& the other one correspondingly closer in).

Greg
GregLR
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby grasshopper » Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:34 am

STC67 wrote:I am trying to confirm it with Salsa but have not had a reply. Also no reply from the local Salsa dealer. I was keen to put a MTB triple on the front

I looked at the Vaya too but they simply didn't bring it in and weren't interested in doing so. That's a few years ago though. Good luck.
User avatar
grasshopper
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby J Quinton » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:00 pm

Slap some slightly wider, more robust wheels on a carbon fibre roadie with a large saddle and handlebar bag.

If you're doing the Gibb River Road or similar get an extra wheel with panniers.

I think when I left Kunnunarra for Derby on the Gibb the entire setup weighed about 20-25kg.

More panniers just means taking more stuff you don't need.
J Quinton
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:52 pm

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby ldrcycles » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:29 pm

Well I did a long ride on my carbon roadie yesterday with just a small saddlebag to take extra food and a credit card in my jersey pocket to deal with the majority. Eventually I will be doing 2 day rides around the 6-800km mark so will be getting a frame bag as well but that's not really "touring" as I would define it, I think a tour is more like 4 or 5 days plus, and you would need more storage to carry at least one change of clothes.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby STC67 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:27 pm

grasshopper wrote:
STC67 wrote:I am trying to confirm it with Salsa but have not had a reply. Also no reply from the local Salsa dealer. I was keen to put a MTB triple on the front

I looked at the Vaya too but they simply didn't bring it in and weren't interested in doing so. That's a few years ago though. Good luck.


I tracked down the new Australian distributor for Salsa - "Dawson Sports" Salsa will be hitting our shores hopefully around December this year. At this stage they referred me to My Mountain in Melb who were happy to take my name and will contact me when they arrive. Actually the little correspondence I had with My Mountain bike shop was quite positive, the most proactive of any bike shop I have spoke with recently, but lets see if they call me back :) . Prices for frames will be about 10% more than the US online price (whatever that means) depending on exchange rates etc.

I think we will go the Salsa Vaya path. Not the lightest but one step back from a LHT. We I will build up one with a slightly lighter componentry spec for wifey.

I now have till the end of the year to work out componentry.

Has anyone considered a MTB double on their tourer?
STC67
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:06 pm

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby GregLR » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:30 pm

ldrcycles wrote:Well I did a long ride on my carbon roadie yesterday with just a small saddlebag to take extra food and a credit card in my jersey pocket to deal with the majority.

That's good and I do the same on my ti roadie, provided the weather forecast is good ! When it's not I use a bike with a rack & mudguards so I can take a decent rain jacket (eg, paclite GoreTex), etc, in a rack top bag ('rack pack') that will keep me dry if it rains consistently for a couple of hours or more - I know from experience that it's pretty unpleasant if I'm underprepared for bad weather. That's also what I would take for 600km in two days which is an audax distance, as well as for longer audax rides - I have experience in this since I've done the 1200km Paris-Brest-Paris (PBP) successfully twice (including 2007 when it rained a lot) amongst many other long audax rides.

I've learned that being comfortable & prepared for adverse weather is wiser than trying to ride a lightweight roadie with little carrying capacity over long distances. While I certainly appreciate that others take a different approach, I remember looking at some who were lined up for the start of the 2007 PBP on their lightweight roadies with little carrying capacity and looked very underprepared for the bad weather which appeared certain over the following 4 days (in fact it started raining before the wave I was in started). It was no surprise that the drop out rate, at about 28% of the 5160 riders, was twice what it had been for earlier editions that didn't have bad weather.

J Quinton wrote:Slap some slightly wider, more robust wheels on a carbon fibre roadie with a large saddle and handlebar bag. If you're doing the Gibb River Road or similar get an extra wheel with panniers...More panniers just means taking more stuff you don't need.

Agree with the comment re extra panniers but still I'd prefer a bike that's better suited for the purpose when touring, with built-in carrying capacity (ie, steel or ti frame with front & rear rack braze ons).

Just my view...

Greg
GregLR
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:50 pm

J Quinton wrote:Slap some slightly wider, more robust wheels on a carbon fibre roadie with a large saddle and handlebar bag.

If you're doing the Gibb River Road or similar get an extra wheel with panniers.

I think when I left Kunnunarra for Derby on the Gibb the entire setup weighed about 20-25kg.

More panniers just means taking more stuff you don't need.

Jeez, I'm with you there, my roadie is getting a bit long in the tooth - I've had it since 2006, and maybe it's time to think about a new one.

Perhaps a Specialized Roubaix SL4 Expert Disc

Image

Then I can just clip on one of these...

Image

and one of these, and I'll be ready to tour as well...
Image
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby clackers » Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:59 pm

That rack looks interesting, Ron.

I've got a Topeak seatpost one which claims 7kg capacity, but I've got my doubts about that number.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby ldrcycles » Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:36 am

clackers wrote:That rack looks interesting, Ron.


+1, I like what I see.
When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.
User avatar
ldrcycles
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: Kin Kin, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:04 am

I've been using one of these - no need for a rack at all and very capacious. It travels very nicely, no swaying or sagging. It has a big 16L capacity and they say 10kg load limit, though I'd personally never put this much weight in it. It's great for Audax rides.

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18265
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:48 am

ldrcycles wrote:
clackers wrote:That rack looks interesting, Ron.


+1, I like what I see.

This one is rated at 6kg Clackers, and since it's made by Arkel I'd be inclined to believe it.

It could be perfect for Lachy with his long distance aspirations and so many bikes to choose from.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:52 am

il padrone wrote:I've been using one of these - no need for a rack at all and very capacious. It travels very nicely, no swaying or sagging.

Carradice - aren't they just for hipsters IP? :D
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby il padrone » Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:37 am

Never seen any hipsters around here using them. If it flat-out works that's all that matters to me.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18265
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby clackers » Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:37 am

RonK wrote:This one is rated at 6kg Clackers, and since it's made by Arkel I'd be inclined to believe it.


I do like that some of the load is borne by the saddle rails, instead of 100% by the post.
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby WarrenH » Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:12 pm

When it comes to travelling light weight, off-road and MTB bike-packers know what it is about. Exclude me from that weight-wheenie group, although I'm an off-road rider, I don't mind hauling weight. I like the exercise.

Manufacturers who cater for light-weight bike packers.

Bike Bag Dude Custom Frame Bags Australia.
Jandd Frame Packs.
Fun Works.
Spok Werks.
Alpkit.
Shift Bikepacking.
Lone Mountain Innovations LLC.
Relevate designs LLC.
Wildcat Gear.
Barking Bear Bagworks.
F3 Designs.
Nuclear Sunrise Stitchworks.
J-Packs Adventure Cycling Frame Bags
and Bike-Bag.
... and the list goes on and on and on.

Warren.
"But on steep descending...Larson TT have bad effect on the mind of a rider" - MadRider from Suji, Korea 2001.

"Paved roads ... another fine example of wasteful government spending." - a bumper sticker.
User avatar
WarrenH
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:58 am

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby J Quinton » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:39 pm

When I toured around the UK I had a carradice saddle bag. I strapped my sleeping bag on top, put my 1kg Vaude tent in the side pocket, sleeping mattress on the other side, and clothes on the inside. No need to carry food in the UK. Even when the Scotts tell you you're in the middle of nowhere there's a deli 10 mile along the road. Snacks for the day in your jersey pockets.
J Quinton
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:52 pm

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby J Quinton » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:09 pm

RonK wrote:Jeez, I'm with you there, my roadie is getting a bit long in the tooth - I've had it since 2006, and maybe it's time to think about a new one.



Some of the newer models have greater wheel clearance like the BMC Gran Fondo. That's what I'd buy for a tourer.

Image

Here is the rig I took on the Gibb (Darwin to Perth). Only difference I would want is greater wheel clearance as mentioned above. Tiny gravel rocks occasionally got stuck in the brakes. Other than that, totally awesome.

Image
J Quinton
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:52 pm

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:16 am

J Quinton wrote:Here is the rig I took on the Gibb (Darwin to Perth). Only difference I would want is greater wheel clearance as mentioned above. Tiny gravel rocks occasionally got stuck in the brakes. Other than that, totally awesome.

Very impressive way to quiet the doubting Thomases. Can't really see what brand/model your bike is James. What wheels are you using - they look to have plenty of spokes?

I've had that problem with stones in the brakes too - jammed the brake pad onto the wheel but unfortunately I didn't discover it until the next morning. Disc brakes should not have that problem.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

PreviousNext

Return to Touring Australia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit