Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.

To disable ads, please log-in.

Shop at TeamEstrogen.com for women's cycling apparel.

Results 1 to 15 of 17

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5

    let's take a look...

    A touring bike is designed for (a) heavy loads, (b) reliability and (c) comfort over long distances. That's all. No, they're not "meant" for off-road use, but you can use them for that purpose because they're sturdy and reliable. Some bikes are designed for off-road touring using 26" wheel MTB geometry.
    I started touring in 1976, on and off road. Mountain bikes didn't exist, triple cranks were handmade if you had one, indexed shifting didn't exist, wheels were 27" 5-speed. In those days tourers used friction downtube shifters and centerpull brakes. Nobody used barcons because they are not easily fixed (tulip, have you ever personally tried to fix a broken index barcon five miles from home?) I don't like sidepull brakes since they're easy to misalign, but I have to observe that most century riders use them. The new touring bikes scare the heck out of me, they all look incredibly unreliable, and the dizzying variety of brakes is marketing hype.
    A couple of items for practical advice for short women - I'm 5'2" 110 lbs.
    1) I gave up trying to use drop bars, because braking was too dangerous. I use upright bars with very short reach stem and small-hand levers. Amazing improvement. I also pick frames with the top-tube length less than 21" for the same reason, and use a stem with a 40mm reach. Any brake will work if you have good levers you can reach easily and they're set up properly.
    2) Remember that you weigh 100 lbs and your bike plus load cannot weigh as much as you do. You simply won't be able to use many of the features of a loaded touring bike, because you're never going to lift the bike with 60 pounds of gear on it. The bikes are overdesigned for a 300 lb guy with 100 pounds of gear. When you think about this carefully, it says that any sport bike like the Symmetry will work just fine, because *you'll* never be able to carry that huge load even if your bike can.
    3) Any bike that you're comfortable on, however seemingly inappropriate, will work just fine- the only modern piece of technology I'd add to my 1976 bike is a cellphone. -B aka Stronglight99

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Between the Blue Ridge and the Chesapeake Bay
    Posts
    5,203
    Friction shifters are more easily fixed than integrated shifters. Downtube shifters are an easily-repairable option, too, but I don't like to drop my hand down to shift. I did it all the time (I didn't get a bike with integrated shifters until 2004), but for me, I like to keep both hands on the bars.

    Sidepulls get out of whack. I like cantilevers, some folks like centerpulls.

    The main things to remember is to get a bike that fits properly and to keep it simple. Steel is more comfortable than aluminum, in my opinion. I like the LHT and the classic Trek 520. They have what's needed, and not much that's not needed. I've heard good things about the Jamis Aurora, but I haven't checked it out in person.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2

    Thanks everyone

    Thank you to everyone, it was all helpful. I'm taking my time to bring it all together and I always have my Terry! Ride on.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I'm the only one allowed to whine
    Posts
    10,557
    Side note about friction/index barcons: I messed up my rear shifter and things got stinky with the indexing. Flipped the selector to "friction" and was able to ride happily for another month until I could get into my LBS.

    Luuuuuuv my bar-end shifters.
    "If Americans want to live the American Dream, they should go to Denmark." - Richard Wilkinson

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,024
    I really second the rec to try touring on your symetry. In fact, my touring bike is an older steel isis (same geometry as your symetry) that I had s/s couplers installed on, and added cantilever brakes to use 32mm tires. However, the symetry as spec'd will accept 28mm wide tires, which is plenty for many touring applications, and a rear rack. So, why don't you try that, see if it limits you, and if so then consider another bike. The geometry on the older symetry/isis is not that different from the older classic/madeleine (tourers). The biggest diff. is the tourers accept wider tires and fenders and a front rack, and came stock with larger rear cogsets but you can easily put a mountain cogset and der. on your symetry if you need it (I did do this on my isis).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    270

    Barends

    I also love my barends I have them on two of my bikes.I like the simplisty and the way they look on the handlebars. Yeah barends!!!!!!

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •