General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Road Bike vs Touring bike Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2004-06-15 11:49 AM

User image

Member
531
50025
New Hampshire
Subject: Road Bike vs Touring bike

What major differences are there?

I have a Raleigh R300 Touring bike and I love it. All the racks etc are off and I understand that it is heavier than a road bike but What are the major differences>?



Ta.


2004-06-15 12:52 PM
in reply to: #31523

User image

Champion
4902
20002000500100100100100
Ottawa, Ontario
Subject: RE: Road Bike vs Touring bike
Generally speaking a touring bike will be lengthier because of the relaxed geometry and a longer rake in the fork; this makes for better tracking and easier handling. The main difference in components would be the larger cogs and longer derailler cage to handle the cogs. The triple chain ring, padded seat, and straight bars are optional.
2004-06-15 1:56 PM
in reply to: #31538

User image

Resident Matriarch
N 43° 32.927 W 071° 24.431
Subject: RE: Road Bike vs Touring bike
can you explain what you mean by tracking? I was reading a bike review last night and I have no idea what they meant by "tracking".

thanx
2004-06-15 3:07 PM
in reply to: #31523

User image

Regular
133
10025
Seattle
Subject: RE: Road Bike vs Touring bike
Well, Machiavelo gave you the technical answer... (and I think tracking has to do with steering...)
Now for some non-techie...

I commute to work 2-3 (or more, when I'm motivated) days per week on a touring bike, but do my long rides and races on my wife's road bike (but tri-fit for me).

The touring bike is heavier, yes, but it a "sturdy" kind of way. I don't mind going on the sidewalk, for instance, and I'm less worried about wear. Tires are a bit wider - a touring bike will have ~ 28cm tires, where a road bike is generally 21-23cm (or, at the extreme, 18). It's a comfortable ride, and is holding up well under the strain of commuting (4000 miles last year). Also, because it's not a $2000+ bike, I don't worry about riding in the rain and sludge. It just chugs along.

Touring bike will have more of a general purpose gearing, with a wider array of gears. Good for more terrain, but less options for fine-tuning. For instance, my touring bike has a 52-42-30 triple ring up front, and 12-27 cassette in back. Back cog sizes are something like 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27. My wife's bike is a raodie, with a 13-26 in back. The sizes are 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26. What does that mean? Well, the touring bike has more range (12 and 27), but also a larger gap between the "cruising" gears. Thus, on my wife's bike, I can make lots of small adjustments, but on the touring, each gear change is a bigger deal. But, when I'm going uphill, the touring bike has a 27-cog, instead of a 26, which makes the steep climbs much easier. BTW - for a great comparison of gearing, check out Sheldon Brown's gear calculator: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/ (I set the gear units to "gear inches" since that makes the most sense to me)

Bottom line on gears, the touring bike will have more range, but less fine tuning. As you become a "better" cyclist, and spin more, having more gears in the sweet spot (ie, the cruising gears) means you can make lots of small adjustments without changing your cadence. On the touring bike, I tend to pick a single gear or two, and pedal harder or softer as the terrain dictates.

In my opinion, the weight of a bicycle is overrated. Yes, it'd be nice to ride a 2.3 pound Cervelo speed machine, but you're still talking 15-18 pounds when fitted with wheels, bars, bottles, etc. A standard road bike, fully decked out, might come in around, what 22? Granted, my touring bike comes in near 28 pounds, but... as the saying goes, the easiest part of a bike to make lighter is the rider. And we're all working on that!

One big difference between touring and road, though, is the length. As Machiavelo said, the touring bike is longer, so you get a bit more of a relaxed, comfy ride. There have been several threads about tri-fitting, but the key for me is length. Even on a road bike, if you just slap on some aerobars, you are at risk for leaning too far forward, and compromising your legs/chest. Touring bike only exacerbates that. If you put aeros on a touring bike, be real careful that you are not reaching too far forward! My favorite fitting website is:
http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/bikefit.html

So, what's the bottom line? A touring bike is fine for a triathlon, but will not be a speed machine. But, does that really matter until you're a) competing for AG awards, or b) going longer than 50 miles? I don't think so. Also, consider how comfortable your ride is - better to be really comfortable for 25 miles than to try compromising comfort for speed. Maybe the speedy bike will save you 10 minutes over that distance, but will that leave your back/legs/butt too sore for running? A touring bike is considerably faster than a mountain bike, and not that far from a good road bike, so you're really not sacrificing much. Yes, I would love a $3000 speed machine. Maybe after I rob my next bank. Yes, I do ride a "fast" bike for races, but that's because 1) it fits perfectly, and 2) over 112 miles, the heavier touring bike does take a toll.

-r
2004-06-15 3:23 PM
in reply to: #31566

User image

Champion
6786
50001000500100100252525
Two seat rocket plane
Subject: RE: Road Bike vs Touring bike
Tracking is the tendancy (or lack thereof)
for the rear wheel to follow the same line as the front wheel
when turning or cornering particularly,
but also when riding in a straight line.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Road Bike vs Touring bike Rss Feed