Gunnar bike for touring

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 26 Nov 2006 01:47:51
From: Jack Murphy
Subject: Gunnar bike for touring

I have a Gunnar sport that I overload for long weekend tours. Am beginning
to plan for a full touring bike. I see from Gunnar that they will customize
one of their frames to give it more of a full on touring geometry for not
much more than stock, and several hundred less than the Waterford.

Anyone know about these bikes? I'd like to get a steel frame touring bike,
and don't want to spend a fortune.

Thanks for the info

J Murphy

Date: 04 Dec 2006 18:50:10
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> >> The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> >> solution for the OP.
> >
> >No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.
>
> I'm the OP
>
> My "problem" is I don't know WHAT I really want. ha!
>
> I'm 48 and sometimes think I should investigate a bent
> for any serious LONG distance touring. But would I use
> that bent on a daily basis as a commuter? Maybe not.
>
> Maybe an upright is better as a daily commuter? If
> only wanting to own ONE god bike for now does it
> beehoove me more to have a god touring upright and use
> it that once or twice a year for LONG tours.
>
> I just don't have the money to have multiple expensive
> bikes right now. Plus I'm a bit unsure of what exactly
> I need....bent? Upright? Folder?
>
> So the idea of going cheap and "playing"around some has
> merit for for me.

Yes, that does have merit. A good place to start would be with a solid
but inexpensive touring bike, to use for commuting and touring. No
sense in paying extra for fancy components, fancy paint or some
nebulous concept of "cool", until you figure things out through
experience.

Date: 04 Dec 2006 10:59:24
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> > for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> > lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> > then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> > in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> > for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> > to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> > New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> > and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> > more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> > sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> > Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
>
> Though I agree with the Windsor for the OP, I'd have no problem touring
> on a $20 thriftstore Miyata with $100 of new bits. Fresh hyperglide FW
> and chain should make the drivetrain happy, and you'll usually just
> lose 11 and 13t cogs. Some fresh tires, repack bearings, service
> cables, freshen bar tape and you're good to tour. Friction shift? Why
> not? It's not like you're fighting in a peloton. But for somebody that
> expects modern effortlessness, perhaps not a great choice. It's indeed
> silly to throw money at such a bike in most circumstances.

S'funny you should mention a $20 Miyata specifically.

My current commuter is a Miyata 210 that I found at a garage sale for
C$20. Here's the mods I had to make:

-replace freewheel (old one had come apart and dumped its ball bearings
at the garage sale) $0, more or less, because I had a usable freewheel
in my parts pile.
-add fenders, $20.
-new bar tape (old cloth tape disintegrated after a month or so), $6.

The 210, being a tourer, had canti brakes. As powerful as anything out
there today.

I have a perfectly good racing bike in my shed, but this is my
rain/winter/commute bike. For anyone handy, garage sale bikes are a
great start.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 13:37:23
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know
> >what the parts spec will be, but the spec on the Windsor isn't bad at all.
> >I'm sure Surly will spec it with barcons, which make more sense on a touring
> >bike, if for no other reason than it makes mounting a handlebar bag easier.
>
> Is this why tourists like bar end shifters?

It's a reason v. STI, but not v. Ergo.

>
> I always wondered why

They (barends) are less likely to fail than are brifters of any brand
(to date), less likely to be damaged in a fall/crash and, they offer a
friction option in case other things go awry.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:27:10
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > ...
> > The affairs of the Chinese are their business. The idea of the US
> > sticking it's imperialist nose in other countries business *is*
> > bullshit. How can we speak to the Chinese about human rights while we
> > commit atrocities in the Middle East and other places? No wonder we are
> > hated around the world.
>
> Ozark Bicycle missed the point.

The one on the top of your head, Tom?

Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:19:32
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> ...
> The affairs of the Chinese are their business. The idea of the US
> sticking it's imperialist nose in other countries business *is*
> bullshit. How can we speak to the Chinese about human rights while we
> commit atrocities in the Middle East and other places? No wonder we are
> hated around the world.

Ozark Bicycle missed the point. The (scenario of) the US imposing
tariff's on imports from countries with poor to non-existent labor
rights and environmental protections would be no more or less
interfering in the internal affairs of China than the Chinese (actual
practice) of convincing manufacturers to move production from the US to
China by suppressing labor rights and not having significant
environmental protections.

Why should international agreements protect capital, but not labor or
the environment?

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 02 Dec 2006 06:29:36
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1165034204.660736.42940@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1164991020.415379.145440@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > SMS wrote:
> >> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> >> >> > solution for the OP.
> >> >>
> >> >> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for
> >> >> $1000.
> >> >
> >> > There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
> >> > better, cult following aside?
> >>
> >> It will probably have a much better parts spec, will have the benefit of
> >> being prepped by my LBS, and will come from the factory with barcons.
> >> Brifters on a touring bike, which will likely have a handlebar bag, don't
> >> make much sense.
> >
> > For an additional $400, a Windsor Tourist can be prepped and speced to
> > the "nines", with the exact stuff the rider wants. And the discards can
> > be sold off.
> >
>
> But how many people want to do that, especially entry level buyers(which is
> who a six hundred dollar bike is aimed at)?
>

Correct, the bikes are in different kets. A 40% price difference is
huge.However, both are based on Asian mass-produced commodity frames,
so where does the $400 price diff come off making sense? From being
"preped by [your] LBS"? Don't make me laugh. It comes partially from
parts spec and partially from a different distribution scheme. Do not
delude yourself that the Surly costs anything close to 40% more to
produce. The frames are probably within $25 of each other, and that's
being generous to the Surly.

> >> Plus, Surlys are cool.
> >
> > Worth exactly $0.00!
> >
>
> No. Cool factor is worth quite a bit. That's why iPods sell in greater
> numbers than other Mp3 players.
>

"Cool" is worth something if it comes from superior design and
function. OTOH, "cool" that comes from keting buzz is worth less
than nothing. If both frames were painted the same color w/o logos of
any kind, would you pay more for the Surly? Would it still be "cool"?

> > And I believe they're made in
> >> Taiwan---whereas I'm sure the Windsor is made in China. I'd rather have
> >> my
> >> frame made by a free Taiwanese than an oppressed Chinese.
> >
> > "Free Taiwanese", what Bullshit that is!
>
> Taiwanese aren't subjected to "one child per family".

With 1.3 BILLION people, that seems a good idea.

> They also aren't
> packed off to reeducation camp if they dare to express a religious viewpoint
> unaccepted by the goverenment.

> Bullshit, indeed.
> >

The affairs of the Chinese are their business. The idea of the US
sticking it's imperialist nose in other countries business *is*
bullshit. How can we speak to the Chinese about human rights while we
commit atrocities in the Middle East and other places? No wonder we are
hated around the world.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:36:44
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1164991020.415379.145440@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > SMS wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>
> >> > The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> >> > solution for the OP.
> >>
> >> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.
> >
> > There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
> > better, cult following aside?
>
> It will probably have a much better parts spec, will have the benefit of
> being prepped by my LBS, and will come from the factory with barcons.
> Brifters on a touring bike, which will likely have a handlebar bag, don't
> make much sense.

For an additional $400, a Windsor Tourist can be prepped and speced to
the "nines", with the exact stuff the rider wants. And the discards can
be sold off.

> Plus, Surlys are cool.

Worth exactly $0.00!

And I believe they're made in
> Taiwan---whereas I'm sure the Windsor is made in China. I'd rather have my
> frame made by a free Taiwanese than an oppressed Chinese.

"Free Taiwanese", what Bullshit that is!

Date: 02 Dec 2006 13:09:13
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1165034204.660736.42940@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164991020.415379.145440@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > SMS wrote:
>> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
>> >> > solution for the OP.
>> >>
>> >> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for
>> >> $1000.
>> >
>> > There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
>> > better, cult following aside?
>>
>> It will probably have a much better parts spec, will have the benefit of
>> being prepped by my LBS, and will come from the factory with barcons.
>> Brifters on a touring bike, which will likely have a handlebar bag, don't
>> make much sense.
>
> For an additional $400, a Windsor Tourist can be prepped and speced to
> the "nines", with the exact stuff the rider wants. And the discards can
> be sold off.
>

But how many people want to do that, especially entry level buyers(which is
who a six hundred dollar bike is aimed at)?

>> Plus, Surlys are cool.
>
> Worth exactly $0.00!
>

No. Cool factor is worth quite a bit. That's why iPods sell in greater
numbers than other Mp3 players.

> And I believe they're made in
>> Taiwan---whereas I'm sure the Windsor is made in China. I'd rather have
>> my
>> frame made by a free Taiwanese than an oppressed Chinese.
>
> "Free Taiwanese", what Bullshit that is!

Taiwanese aren't subjected to "one child per family". They also aren't
packed off to reeducation camp if they dare to express a religious viewpoint
unaccepted by the goverenment. Bullshit, indeed.
>

Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:55:41
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote

>>> And I believe they're made in
>>> Taiwan---whereas I'm sure the Windsor is made in China. I'd rather have
>>> my frame made by a free Taiwanese than an oppressed Chinese.
>>
>> "Free Taiwanese", what Bullshit that is!
>
>Taiwanese aren't subjected to "one child per family". They also aren't
>packed off to reeducation camp if they dare to express a religious viewpoint
>unaccepted by the goverenment. Bullshit, indeed.

I don't disagree with your sentiment (which mirrors mine exactly), but
would hasten to add that you don't improve the situation in China by
denying them access to the benefits of the free ket - you improve
the human rights situation WITH the free ket.

There's a long way to go - but it's heading in the right way,
priily because the Chinese government no longer controls the "iron
rice bowl" (that is, every financial aspect of their citizens' lives).
I've lived in China during the years where the free ket economy
started to influence the politics, and the change in quality of life
(though priily in the cities) has been dramatic.

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:00:21
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
> > > ("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
> > > shop.)
> >
> > totally.
>
> I just wonder what nonsense they'll come up with next? Earlier, I
> proposed it would be a 650B Mixte tandem fixie. Sounds far out, but Riv
> has been getting farther and farthe out with each passing year, looking
> for new niches. A few years ago, everyone woulda scoffed at the notion
> of anyone making 650B Mixte (I wonder how many of those will actually
> get sold).

It is rather strange, the wheel choice, not the mixte. I like mixtes.
We got along just fine back in the day putting 27" wheels on women's
bikes, and they're larger than 700c. Nobody other than someone getting
a smaller frame should bother with 650, just pure affectation
otherwise.

"Latte please, skinny with beet sugar and bamboo milk."
"'Scuse me sir, that's just a fabulous bike."
"Thank you, it takes a real connoisseur to enjoy a Rivendell
Penny-Farthing."

:-P

For all the silly stuff they do, I do appreciate most of their choices.
I'm a guy who was a teen in the mid 80s and has the same love for
classic Japanese bikes that the Riv guys do. I've even got a babyshit
brown Univega in storage from around '83.
>
> > I don't think it's stupid to use it for smaller frames though,
> > to stay proportionate, and it's nice if you want to mount standard
> > reach brakes and fenders on a bike with tight clearances.
>
> That's very different than sinking big $ into a Sakluki.
>

What a dumb bike. If it had been 700c for the larger sizes, then I'd
say, "What a cool bike!".

>
> >
> > With the internet able to deliver all sorts of obscure goods to your
> > door, it matters little. Tire selection is a little lame, but good
> > enough I guess.
>
> But when this trendy little fad dies, sourcing rims and tires will be
> much harder. I don't think QBP will stick with it once demand falls off.

Finding rims and tires in a moderate, not racy size will be difficult
indeed, but the high zoot stuff in that size is here to stay.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 19:59:32
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 02 Dec 2006 04:24:12
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165031972.235275.201680@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> It is rather strange, the wheel choice, not the mixte. I like mixtes.
> We got along just fine back in the day putting 27" wheels on women's
> bikes, and they're larger than 700c. Nobody other than someone getting
> a smaller frame should bother with 650, just pure affectation
> otherwise.
>

That's pretty much what Riv is doing. They introduced the H. Homer Hilsen
"country bike" with 700c wheels because big frames with 650B wheels aren't
necessary. I happen to think that all road bikes (non racers, anyway)
smaller than 54(and maybe 56) should have smaller than 700c wheels. 650B, 26
inch, I don't care.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 18:44:40
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> >
> > IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
> > ("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
> > shop.)
>
> totally.

I just wonder what nonsense they'll come up with next? Earlier, I
proposed it would be a 650B Mixte tandem fixie. Sounds far out, but Riv
has been getting farther and farthe out with each passing year, looking
for new niches. A few years ago, everyone woulda scoffed at the notion
of anyone making 650B Mixte (I wonder how many of those will actually
get sold).

> I don't think it's stupid to use it for smaller frames though,
> to stay proportionate, and it's nice if you want to mount standard
> reach brakes and fenders on a bike with tight clearances.

That's very different than sinking big $ into a Sakluki.

>
> With the internet able to deliver all sorts of obscure goods to your
> door, it matters little. Tire selection is a little lame, but good
> enough I guess.

But when this trendy little fad dies, sourcing rims and tires will be
much harder. I don't think QBP will stick with it once demand falls off.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 03:35:02
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1165027480.802392.321520@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> landotter wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
>> > ("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
>> > shop.)
>>
>> totally.
>
> I just wonder what nonsense they'll come up with next? Earlier, I
> proposed it would be a 650B Mixte tandem fixie. Sounds far out, but Riv
> has been getting farther and farthe out with each passing year, looking
> for new niches. A few years ago, everyone woulda scoffed at the notion
> of anyone making 650B Mixte (I wonder how many of those will actually
> get sold).

Why do you care? More bikes, the better. If someone having a "country bike"
means they ride more then it's a good thing.

>> I don't think it's stupid to use it for smaller frames though,
>> to stay proportionate, and it's nice if you want to mount standard
>> reach brakes and fenders on a bike with tight clearances.
>
> That's very different than sinking big $ into a Sakluki.
>

Or how about a grand on a Kogswell P/R? $1500 on a Bleriot?

>>
>> With the internet able to deliver all sorts of obscure goods to your
>> door, it matters little. Tire selection is a little lame, but good
>> enough I guess.
>
> But when this trendy little fad dies, sourcing rims and tires will be
> much harder. I don't think QBP will stick with it once demand falls off.

Cycling is all about fads. If it sticks, fine. If not, fine. If it makes
people happy, what's the problem?

Date: 01 Dec 2006 18:30:08
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
> ("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
> shop.)

totally. I don't think it's stupid to use it for smaller frames though,
to stay proportionate, and it's nice if you want to mount standard
reach brakes and fenders on a bike with tight clearances.

With the internet able to deliver all sorts of obscure goods to your
door, it matters little. Tire selection is a little lame, but good
enough I guess.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:35:38
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1164998923.069152.43890@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:45704517$0$82567$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> >> >> hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> >> >> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
> >> >> them is doubtful.
> >> >
> >> > Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before
> >> > the
> >> > term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
> >> > touring.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
> >> > bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard
> >> > with
> >> > triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
> >> > riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able
> >> > to
> >> > do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with
> >> > lower
> >> > gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I
> >> > changed
> >> > it to a triple at considerable expense.
> >> >
> >> >> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> >> >> bikes/century bikes.
> >> >
> >> > That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and
> >> > actually
> >> > selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the
> >> > manufacturer's
> >> > web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction
> >> > to
> >> > take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
> >> >
> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
> >> >> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't
> >> >> matter
> >> >> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on shmallows.
> >> >> Could
> >> >> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
> >> >
> >> > That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
> >>
> >> Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > Tires can get bigger on something other than obscure, hard to find,
> > nearly extinct rim standards.
>
> Not on smaller frame sizes, unless you want to run 559s.

Sure, that's true. But *why not* use 559s? Tire and rim selection is
wide and widely available.

IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
shop.)

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:48:43
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:45704517$0$82567$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >
> >> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> >> hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> >> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
> >> them is doubtful.
> >
> > Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before the
> > term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
> > touring.
> >
> > IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
> > bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard with
> > triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
> > riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able to
> > do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with lower
> > gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I changed
> > it to a triple at considerable expense.
> >
> >> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> >> bikes/century bikes.
> >
> > That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and actually
> > selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the manufacturer's
> > web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction to
> > take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
> >
> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
> >> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot of
> >> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't matter
> >> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on shmallows. Could
> >> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
> >
> > That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
>
> Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.

Tires can get bigger on something other than obscure, hard to find,
nearly extinct rim standards.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:18:10
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1164998923.069152.43890@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:45704517$0$82567$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> > Gooserider wrote:
>> >
>> >> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
>> >> hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
>> >> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on
>> >> them is doubtful.
>> >
>> > Geez, I always pre-date the trends. I had a Toyota Land Cruiser before
>> > the
>> > term "SUV" was invented, and a touring bicycle when people actually wen
>> > touring.
>> >
>> > IIRC, back in the mid 1980's, one of the big attractions of touring
>> > bicycles was that they were the only road bicycles that came standard
>> > with
>> > triple cranksets. In the SF Bay area, a triple was a big attraction for
>> > riders that wanted to tackle the mountain roads, but that weren't able
>> > to
>> > do it on a double. I remember retrofitting my 1980 Sekai 2500 with
>> > lower
>> > gears. First I tried the 38 tooth rear cog (big mistake), then I
>> > changed
>> > it to a triple at considerable expense.
>> >
>> >> I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
>> >> bikes/century bikes.
>> >
>> > That's fine, but maybe bringing out commuters/utility bikes, and
>> > actually
>> > selling them in stores rather than just putting them on the
>> > manufacturer's
>> > web site as a product that can be ordered, would be a better direction
>> > to
>> > take. Can we get Portland's Bike Gallery shop to expand nationwide?
>> >
>> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of the big makers
>> >> brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size eliminates a lot
>> >> of
>> >> the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride qualities. It doesn't
>> >> matter
>> >> if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on shmallows.
>> >> Could
>> >> be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes hurt them now.
>> >
>> > That makes no sense. As the wheels get smaller, the ride gets harsher.
>>
>> Tires get bigger. Makes a lot of sense.
>
> Tires can get bigger on something other than obscure, hard to find,
> nearly extinct rim standards.

Not on smaller frame sizes, unless you want to run 559s.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 08:37:00
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> > solution for the OP.
>
> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.

There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
better, cult following aside?

Date: 02 Dec 2006 04:26:17
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1164991020.415379.145440@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> SMS wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>> > The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
>> > solution for the OP.
>>
>> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.
>
> There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
> better, cult following aside?

It will probably have a much better parts spec, will have the benefit of
being prepped by my LBS, and will come from the factory with barcons.
Brifters on a touring bike, which will likely have a handlebar bag, don't
make much sense. Plus, Surlys are cool. And I believe they're made in
Taiwan---whereas I'm sure the Windsor is made in China. I'd rather have my
frame made by a free Taiwanese than an oppressed Chinese.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 09:10:47
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
>>> solution for the OP.
>> No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.
>
> There's still a $400 price differential. How will the Surly be $400
> better, cult following aside?

Better assembled for one thing. There have been numerous reports of
bicycles from BikesDirect needing significant amounts of work, i.e.
wheel truing. Also, I think the Surly will probably have a higher level
of componentry than the Windsor, though this remains to be seen.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 06:58:37
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1164679726.954436.64690@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > SMS wrote:
> >> landotter wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
> >> > also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
> >> > folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
> >> > even tour, by gosh.
> >>
> >> I guess not a lot of people are spending $2200 for a bicycle, no matter
> >> how good it is.
> >>
> >> On Saturday, I was going on a ride with the spousal unit and the kids,
> >> and a couple rides up to us at the start point, and he's on a new BG
> >> BLT. She's on an old Miyata 610. The woman was someone who used to come
> >> on my very frequent weekend tours about 20 years ago, on the same Miyata
> >> 610. She's about to get a BG BLT as well. I didn't like her husband's
> >> BLT, he had Bruce paint the racks and the stem the same color as the
> >> bike.
> >>
> >> If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> >> Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
> >> model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
> >> Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> >> off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."
> >
> > Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> > for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> > lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> > then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> > in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> > for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> > to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> > New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> > and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> > more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> > sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> > Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
>
> Why would you do all that? Nothing wrong with an 18 speed bike. Nothing
> wrong with friction shifting, or barcons even.

I distinctly did not get the impression the OP was looking for a retro
bike. Maybe he should spend more time at Rivendell University, eh?

And, friction DT shifting with a 6SP rear *does* have some serious
drawbacks for loaded touring compared to, for example, an 8SP triple
with indexed barcons. IMO, YMMV, etc., etc., etc.

> The only reason to replace
> the BB or headset is if they're shot.

On a ~20 year old bike, that's fairly likely unless the bike has low
mileage and was stored in a nice environment.

> Now, if the bike has 27 inch wheels
> that could be a bit of a problem on a tour, but most bikes of that era are
> convertible to 700c.

This is especially a problem with canti equipped frames.

> Now, there's nothing wrong with the Windsor Tourist.
> It's a heck of a deal, but I think too many people are convinced they must
> have the "latest and greatest". Bah.
>

I'm not a "latest and greatest" type (my "newest" bike, at present, was
made in 1991). And I prefer barcons to brifters, etc.

The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
solution for the OP.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 08:29:03
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
> solution for the OP.

No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.

Date: 04 Dec 2006 13:28:17
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> The Windsor Tourist is "a heck of a deal' and seems like a good
>> solution for the OP.
>
>No argument there. Unless he wants to wait for the new Surly for $1000.

I'm the OP

My "problem" is I don't know WHAT I really want. ha!

I'm 48 and sometimes think I should investigate a bent
for any serious LONG distance touring. But would I use
that bent on a daily basis as a commuter? Maybe not.

Maybe an upright is better as a daily commuter? If
only wanting to own ONE god bike for now does it
beehoove me more to have a god touring upright and use
it that once or twice a year for LONG tours.

I just don't have the money to have multiple expensive
bikes right now. Plus I'm a bit unsure of what exactly
I need....bent? Upright? Folder?

So the idea of going cheap and "playing"around some has
merit for for me.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:18:45
From: Booker C. Bense
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <3ss8n2ddnt2noffheo0n7lj3skum5tmngf@4ax.com >,
<me@privacy.net > wrote:

>
>My "problem" is I don't know WHAT I really want. ha!
>
>I'm 48 and sometimes think I should investigate a bent
>for any serious LONG distance touring. But would I use
>that bent on a daily basis as a commuter? Maybe not.
>
>Maybe an upright is better as a daily commuter? If
>only wanting to own ONE god bike for now does it
>beehoove me more to have a god touring upright and use
>it that once or twice a year for LONG tours.
>
>I just don't have the money to have multiple expensive
>bikes right now. Plus I'm a bit unsure of what exactly
>I need....bent? Upright? Folder?
>
>So the idea of going cheap and "playing"around some has
>merit for for me.

_ I think it's kind of a mistake to plan for long distance
touring when you haven't even done any short distance (weekend)
touring. It's not for everybody... You can do short distance
touring just fine on any bike that has mounts for a rack
and fenders( or just about any bike for that matter, things that
would be a horrible PITA over 3 weeks are okay to deal with for
a day or two ). Get some miles in and then figure out what you
really want.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBRXclo2TWTAjn5N/lAQFv9gP+JhU3+3VXu6QgRP+MzJ+z7QxDrVix3ENA
HHilepi5mGZSiP/hRP5lxwNU5bqsaGZCNaNUMDB3X/no/Dy7mhFMhVMV/J8W7iJw
y+N/hfC3w+81emrQKP1Lah6PaP+TxhUHc09Fnq/GAkdRIrV2RRaD7hFZ1zoYp+6u
5sm80kvqA4c=
=Zd0T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Date: 01 Dec 2006 06:45:42
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Gooserider wrote:
> > ...
> > Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> > hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> > companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on them
> > is doubtful. I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> > bikes/century bikes....
>
> A whole lot more sensible idea than buying a bicycle optimized for road
> racing for general use.
>
>
Amen to that.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 02:36:04
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> ...
> Touring bikes are the new fixed gears. Once they are seen as cool by
> hipsters(a ket Surly definitely knows how to tap), I expect the big
> companies to follow suit. Whether lots of people will actually TOUR on them
> is doubtful. I think most touring bikes will be used as commuters/utility
> bikes/century bikes....

A whole lot more sensible idea than buying a bicycle optimized for road
racing for general use.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:01:07
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
> > The only serious potential issue is cantilever placement...most of
> > these were designed for 630 mm (27 inch) wheels...
>
> Are you sure?
>
> See "http://sheldonbrown.com/japan.html" and scroll down to Miyata,
> "Tires: Miyata (Panaracer) Super Touring Nylon Belted, 700x32c SSW"
>
> If we can't believe Sheldon's web site, then we're in big trouble.

If Sheldon Brown contradicts sheldonbrown.com, it indicates a serious
rift in the space-time continuum. ;-)

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:08:38
From: Sheldon Brown
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> >
> > > > If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> > > > Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
> > > > model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
> > > > Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> > > > off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."
> >
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > > Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> > > for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> > > lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> > > then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> > > in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> > > for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> > > to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> > > New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> > > and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> > > more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> > > sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> > > Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
> >
> > Depends on your priorities. I would consider a mid-80s Miyata 1000 to
> > be a very fine _frame_, The dollar bought 260 yen in the mid '80s, so
> > you got a LOT of frame for your money.
> >
> > The Miyata 1000 frame was comparable in materials and workmanship to a
> > new Atlantis or Rambouillet, to mention a couple of models we sell.
> >
> > These framesets are well over a grand new. Since frames don't wear
> > out, one of these is a great choice for someone who wants a Japanese
> > lugged steel touring frame.
> >
> > It is true that the generic tig-welded touring frames out of Taiwan
> > work fine, but some folks prefer something a bit more elegant.
> >
> > The 120 spacing is trivial to upgrade on a good steel frame like these,
> > see: http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.
> >
> > The only serious potential issue is cantilever placement...most of
> > these were designed for 630 mm (27 inch) wheels, so the cantilever
> > placement may or may not work well with 622 mm (700C) wheels.
> >
>
> Sheldon, I was referring to the suitability of a Miyata 1000 for the
> OPs needs. Spending $150-200 (plus shipping) for a bike, stripping it
> down to frame/fork, having the frame re-spaced at a shop and then
> fitting it with a modern drive train, etc., sounds a bit over the top
> for his wants/needs.

Well, I haven't read all of this thread, but the first posting talks
about getting a custom Gunnar frame and fork, which would cost well
over a grand.

Compare that to $150-200 for an equally good and prettier frame from
Miyata.

I specifically suggested re-spacing it as a DIY activity, though it
shouldn't cost more than US$30-50 at a shop. Still a lot cheaper than
the Gunnar.

Sheldon "Gunnar Dealer" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:09:07
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:08:38 -0800, Sheldon Brown wrote:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>> Sheldon, I was referring to the suitability of a Miyata 1000 for the
>> OPs needs. Spending $150-200 (plus shipping) for a bike, stripping it
>> down to frame/fork, having the frame re-spaced at a shop and then
>> fitting it with a modern drive train, etc., sounds a bit over the top
>> for his wants/needs.

> Well, I haven't read all of this thread, but the first posting talks
> about getting a custom Gunnar frame and fork, which would cost well over
> a grand.
>
> Compare that to $150-200 for an equally good and prettier frame from
> Miyata.
>
> I specifically suggested re-spacing it as a DIY activity, though it
> shouldn't cost more than US$30-50 at a shop. Still a lot cheaper than
> the Gunnar.

We should all be so lucky to have shops like yours in our neighborhoods.

In my experience, very few shops are inclined to do this kind of work
anymore, and the ones willing to try (usually the hungrier ones, and for
good reason) are not the ones that I'd trust. Most would be happier
ordering a new Surly or whatever for you.

I'm completely with you on the DIY recycled bike approach though.

Matt O.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 10:39:12
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > One word of warning: last time I looked, Wal-t was selling chains
> > under the Bell brand name. These were made by TA YA and were similar to
> > the TA YA TB-50, which are not intended for use with hyperglide type
> > drivetrains. This may be why they have a reputation for failing when
> > used with "modern" cassettes/freewheels
> >
> > http://www.tayachain.com/
> >
> > Click on "chain products", then "race & tour". Scroll down to TB-50.
>
> That may be right. I've used those on quick and dirty rehabbed bikes
> with plain or Uniglide sprockets w/o complaint. I always match HG cogs
> with HG chains. But in a pinch, a TAYA chain should get you to the next
> bike shop. Either that, or shorten the one you've got and avoid using
> low gears with the big chainring.
>

There's nothing wrong with TA YA chains, per se. It's just that the
Bell branded ones at Wall World are intended for use on the kind of
bikes WW sells, which kinda makes sense. I do think there should be a
warning on the package re:use with HG (etc.) cogs.

> I've used the *t KMC SS chains for years on my single speed and SA
> equipped bikes without issue. I don't know if I'd totally trust them on
> my fixed gear though. It's still a KMC but a step up the line in
> strength.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 10:16:11
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> One word of warning: last time I looked, Wal-t was selling chains
> under the Bell brand name. These were made by TA YA and were similar to
> the TA YA TB-50, which are not intended for usewith hyperglide type
> drivetrains. This may be why they have a reputation for failing when
> used with "modern" cassettes/freewheels
>
> http://www.tayachain.com/
>
> Click on "chain products", then "race & tour". Scroll down to TB-50.

That may be right. I've used those on quick and dirty rehabbed bikes
with plain or Uniglide sprockets w/o complaint. I always match HG cogs
with HG chains. But in a pinch, a TAYA chain should get you to the next
bike shop. Either that, or shorten the one you've got and avoid using
low gears with the big chainring.

I've used the *t KMC SS chains for years on my single speed and SA
equipped bikes without issue. I don't know if I'd totally trust them on
my fixed gear though. It's still a KMC but a step up the line in
strength.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 10:03:48
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> > > If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> > > Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
> > > model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
> > > Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> > > off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> > for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> > lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> > then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> > in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> > for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> > to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> > New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> > and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> > more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> > sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> > Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
>
> Depends on your priorities. I would consider a mid-80s Miyata 1000 to
> be a very fine _frame_, The dollar bought 260 yen in the mid '80s, so
> you got a LOT of frame for your money.
>
> The Miyata 1000 frame was comparable in materials and workmanship to a
> new Atlantis or Rambouillet, to mention a couple of models we sell.
>
> These framesets are well over a grand new. Since frames don't wear
> out, one of these is a great choice for someone who wants a Japanese
> lugged steel touring frame.
>
> It is true that the generic tig-welded touring frames out of Taiwan
> work fine, but some folks prefer something a bit more elegant.
>
> The 120 spacing is trivial to upgrade on a good steel frame like these,
> see: http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.
>
> The only serious potential issue is cantilever placement...most of
> these were designed for 630 mm (27 inch) wheels, so the cantilever
> placement may or may not work well with 622 mm (700C) wheels.
>

Sheldon, I was referring to the suitability of a Miyata 1000 for the
OPs needs. Spending $150-200 (plus shipping) for a bike, stripping it
down to frame/fork, having the frame re-spaced at a shop and then
fitting it with a modern drive train, etc., sounds a bit over the top
for his wants/needs.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:53:10
From: Sheldon Brown
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:

> > If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> > Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
> > model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
> > Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> > off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.

Depends on your priorities. I would consider a mid-80s Miyata 1000 to
be a very fine _frame_, The dollar bought 260 yen in the mid '80s, so
you got a LOT of frame for your money.

The Miyata 1000 frame was comparable in materials and workmanship to a
new Atlantis or Rambouillet, to mention a couple of models we sell.

These framesets are well over a grand new. Since frames don't wear
out, one of these is a great choice for someone who wants a Japanese
lugged steel touring frame.

It is true that the generic tig-welded touring frames out of Taiwan
work fine, but some folks prefer something a bit more elegant.

The 120 spacing is trivial to upgrade on a good steel frame like these,
see: http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.

The only serious potential issue is cantilever placement...most of
these were designed for 630 mm (27 inch) wheels, so the cantilever
placement may or may not work well with 622 mm (700C) wheels.

Sheldon "Lugs Are Nice" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------+

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:55:52
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Sheldon Brown wrote:

> The only serious potential issue is cantilever placement...most of
> these were designed for 630 mm (27 inch) wheels...

Are you sure?

See "http://sheldonbrown.com/japan.html" and scroll down to Miyata,
"Tires: Miyata (Panaracer) Super Touring Nylon Belted, 700x32c SSW"

If we can't believe Sheldon's web site, then we're in big trouble.

I know that the mid 1980's Specialized Expedition came with 700mm
wheels, and 700x35 tires, and it was a competitor to the 1000.

I thought that the 610 had 27" wheels because someone I know claims that
he changed out the wheels on a 610 from 27" to 700mm. The brakes were
still fine.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:39:52
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
> > I still use my 1980's era Specialized Expedition. Parts are still
> > readily available, though the chain is a bit of a problem.
>
> Hold your nose and visit a *t at your local strip mall. They carry
> quite serviceable KMC derailleur chains meant for 6-7 speed bikes under
> the house brandings for under ten bucks. They work just fine. Even 8spd
> chains are usually fine on such bikes if you want fancy nickle plating
> and such.

One word of warning: last time I looked, Wal-t was selling chains
under the Bell brand name. These were made by TA YA and were similar to
the TA YA TB-50, which are not intended for usewith hyperglide type
drivetrains. This may be why they have a reputation for failing when
used with "modern" cassettes/freewheels

http://www.tayachain.com/

Click on "chain products", then "race & tour". Scroll down to TB-50.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:26:58
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:

> I still use my 1980's era Specialized Expedition. Parts are still
> readily available, though the chain is a bit of a problem.

Hold your nose and visit a *t at your local strip mall. They carry
quite serviceable KMC derailleur chains meant for 6-7 speed bikes under
the house brandings for under ten bucks. They work just fine. Even 8spd
chains are usually fine on such bikes if you want fancy nickle plating
and such.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:09:15
From: peter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Jack Murphy wrote:
> Right, an old 80's lugged steel bike makes a fine ride. But putting 50lbs of
> gear and crossing mountain ranges with no services for miles? No thanks.
>
> I still have my old Trek "sport tourer" that would pass for full touring now
> (long wheelbase,etc). I ride it as my bad weather commuter, with lights and
> fenders. It may last another 25 years, but you have to be kidding that you'd
> do a solo, long, self contained tour on it - there's just so much that can
> go wrong on it

If the frame is in good shape and you give it and the components a
reasonably close inspection then I see no reason to expect any greater
likelihood of problems than with a brand new bike out of the bike shop.

> and getting parts for an old bike in the middle of nowhere
> isn't an easy option. Eg how likely to find 27" touring tires?

A mid-80s bike is pretty likely to have 700c wheels (the old Sequoia I
got recently does) and many with 27" can be converted rather easily
since they have brakes with a long reach. That can be quickly checked
if it's of concern.

> Something happen to the
> crank or bb, rear wheel get hosed?

The square-taper BB spindle is still in common use and readily
available, so replacing the crank or BB is no more of an issue than
with other bikes. And replacing a wheel would also not be any problem
since it's not hard to respace a steel frame to a slightly different
axle width. And unlike more modern bikes, you don't have to worry
about compatibility issues between cassette, derailers, and shifters
since the friction shifters work fine with any mix-and-match. Unlike
STI/Ergo, it's also trivial to take apart, clean, and reassemble the
friction levers in the event that they somehow get messed up.
>
> The whole idea of the original post was to narrow down purchase decisions
> for a new touring bike. All these folks pulling bikes out of dumpsters and
> fixing em up for touring is nonsense - how many of these have really been
> out on the open road doing 85 miles of Ozark mountains with full camping
> gear?

Haven't been through the Ozarks, but I've toured on plenty of such
stretches on the Pacific coast where there weren't bike shops. And
maybe if some of the bike budget were instead invested in lighter
camping gear you wouldn't need to load up the bike with all 50 lbs. I
try to keep my load well under that - not because of concern that the
bike can't handle it, but because it keeps the motor happier when
climbing the hills.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 28 Nov 2006 07:47:11
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Jack Murphy wrote:
> Right, an old 80's lugged steel bike makes a fine ride. But putting 50lbs of
> gear and crossing mountain ranges with no services for miles? No thanks.
>
> I still have my old Trek "sport tourer" that would pass for full touring now
> (long wheelbase,etc). I ride it as my bad weather commuter, with lights and
> fenders. It may last another 25 years, but you have to be kidding that you'd
> do a solo, long, self contained tour on it - there's just so much that can
> go wrong on it and getting parts for an old bike in the middle of nowhere
> isn't an easy option. Eg how likely to find 27" touring tires? I mail order
> them as it is, no shop around here carries any. Something happen to the
> crank or bb, rear wheel get hosed?

As I've suggested before, I'm in no way a stolid retro grouch that
thinks the OP should get something ancient and deal with it, modern
certainly is spiffy--but your suggestion that a mid 80s touring bike is
some sort of vintage liability is also a bit loopy.

What normal things can go wrong and where can you get the parts?:
Shredded 27" tire: Walt or Kt. Quality will suck, but it'll work
fine
Broken chain: See above, they sell 6-7spd KMC chains for ten dollars
Broken crankarm: square taper is still the easiest to find, even in a
small town, there will surely be a bike to cannabilize.
Broken derailleur: pretty much any derailleur you can find will make do
in a pinch.
Broken shifter: even a Pacific brand shifter duct taped to your stem
works.
Shredded tube: *t carries 27" shraeder tubes.
Brake shoes: *t carries serviceable plain stud cantilever shoes for
$5

Sure, you might want to get nicer gear than what the average American
horror of a strip mall has to offer, but that's what you'll likely
encounter in an emergency, not some magical boutique with Rivendell
bikes and wicker baskets in the display window.

Really, there's just as much that can go wrong with a new bike and
more. New bikes shift pretty nice, and are generally stiffer than the
old bikes, so feel more confident when loaded up. They have 3 more
gears, which can be nice from time to time. It's certainly a better
value in many cases to buy new, than to rebuild something very worn.

What matters is that the bike is serviced properly and inspected before
you leave, and that you carry proper spares for your particular journey.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 20:29:48
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

peter wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > Though I agree with the Windsor for the OP, I'd have no problem touring
> > on a $20 thriftstore Miyata with $100 of new bits. Fresh hyperglide FW
> > and chain should make the drivetrain happy, and you'll usually just
> > lose 11 and 13t cogs. Some fresh tires, repack bearings, service
> > cables, freshen bar tape and you're good to tour. Friction shift? Why
> > not? It's not like you're fighting in a peloton.
>
> I agree and recently received a mid-80s Specialized Sequoia in
> excellent condition. Added a bit of oil to the freewheel and it's been
> running great. To make it suitable for touring and utility functions I
> got a set of full fenders from Nashbar for $10, put on some bottle
> cages and lights/reflectors I had lying around, and moved the rear rack
> from the Cannondale criterium bike which I previously used for loaded
> tours. The fraction of a second more time spent per shift with
> friction is not likely to be a factor in how much I enjoy a tour.

Try one of the new modern freewheels with the ramped cogs when you wear
out the old FW, along with a hyperglide chain, 8spd model works fine.
You'll be amazed at how "indexy" 6spd can feel. Indeed, rapid shifting
isn't a high priority on a tour, well for me at least, I'm more about
low-fuss. If I lived in Denk, I'd probably tour with a SA hub in my
Swedish clogs. Clogs + rubber block pedals are the original cycling
shoe. Just don't slip off...

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:55:06
From: peter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:

> Though I agree with the Windsor for the OP, I'd have no problem touring
> on a $20 thriftstore Miyata with $100 of new bits. Fresh hyperglide FW
> and chain should make the drivetrain happy, and you'll usually just
> lose 11 and 13t cogs. Some fresh tires, repack bearings, service
> cables, freshen bar tape and you're good to tour. Friction shift? Why
> not? It's not like you're fighting in a peloton.

I agree and recently received a mid-80s Specialized Sequoia in
excellent condition. Added a bit of oil to the freewheel and it's been
running great. To make it suitable for touring and utility functions I
got a set of full fenders from Nashbar for $10, put on some bottle
cages and lights/reflectors I had lying around, and moved the rear rack
from the Cannondale criterium bike which I previously used for loaded
tours. The fraction of a second more time spent per shift with
friction is not likely to be a factor in how much I enjoy a tour.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 07:55:50
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

peter wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
>> Though I agree with the Windsor for the OP, I'd have no problem touring
>> on a $20 thriftstore Miyata with $100 of new bits. Fresh hyperglide FW
>> and chain should make the drivetrain happy, and you'll usually just
>> lose 11 and 13t cogs. Some fresh tires, repack bearings, service
>> cables, freshen bar tape and you're good to tour. Friction shift? Why
>> not? It's not like you're fighting in a peloton.
>
> I agree and recently received a mid-80s Specialized Sequoia in
> excellent condition. Added a bit of oil to the freewheel and it's been
> running great. To make it suitable for touring and utility functions I
> got a set of full fenders from Nashbar for $10, put on some bottle
> cages and lights/reflectors I had lying around, and moved the rear rack
> from the Cannondale criterium bike which I previously used for loaded
> tours. The fraction of a second more time spent per shift with
> friction is not likely to be a factor in how much I enjoy a tour.

I remember when friction shifting was considered an advantage on touring
bicycles, because the whole set-up was a lot simpler, and less prone to
problems.

I still use my 1980's era Specialized Expedition. Parts are still
readily available, though the chain is a bit of a problem.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:53:06
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >The real question is: why wouldn't you "get the cheaper bike for now"?
> >On a scale of 0 to 100, the Windsor will get you 85+% of what you get
> >from a BG BLT [1] for about 40% of the price (after proper prep and set
> >up). As a someone new to LD touring, that makes a strong case for the
> >Windsor, IMO.
>
> Understood
>
> Also.... is the folding aspect of the Bike Friday worth
> a $1200 premium over the Windsor?

Are you going to be doing ALOT of traveling with your bike as luggage?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:54:25
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>Are you going to be doing ALOT of traveling with your bike as luggage?

No...not a LOT per se.

I do see myself flying to a couple of laces to ride.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:10:37
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
> for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
> lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
> then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
> in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
> for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
> to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
> New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
> and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
> more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
> sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
> Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.

Though I agree with the Windsor for the OP, I'd have no problem touring
on a $20 thriftstore Miyata with $100 of new bits. Fresh hyperglide FW
and chain should make the drivetrain happy, and you'll usually just
lose 11 and 13t cogs. Some fresh tires, repack bearings, service
cables, freshen bar tape and you're good to tour. Friction shift? Why
not? It's not like you're fighting in a peloton. But for somebody that
expects modern effortlessness, perhaps not a great choice. It's indeed
silly to throw money at such a bike in most circumstances.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:51:40
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> > SMS wrote:
> > > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow BG is retiring huh?
> > >
> > > I was talking to a guy who just got a Bruce Gordon, and he told me that
> > > there are not a lot of sales and Bruce is living off savings. Not
> > > surprising, since the ket for touring bicycles peaked about 20 years ago.
> >
> > It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
> > also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
> > folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
> > even tour, by gosh....
>
> butbutbut, a touring bike is not what Lance rode!!!
>
> It is pretty silly that people who will never race are riding bicycles
> that will not even take a 28-mm wide tire, much less fenders.
>

I volunteer as a wrench on several charity rides each year. Truth is,
most of these riders would be best served on a sport touring or touring
bike; stable, with relaxed angles, hill climbing gearing, etc. But,
when they go into the LBS with an open wallet, they are sold what the
LBS sales-droid/racer-wannabe would buy for him/her self: the most
expensive racing bike the customer can afford. Sigh.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 21:29:48
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> I volunteer as a wrench on several charity rides each year. Truth is,
> most of these riders would be best served on a sport touring or touring
> bike; stable, with relaxed angles, hill climbing gearing, etc. But,
> when they go into the LBS with an open wallet, they are sold what the
> LBS sales-droid/racer-wannabe would buy for him/her self: the most
> expensive racing bike the customer can afford. Sigh.

How many shops even have a single touring bicycle in stock?

I used to get upset when riders showed up for club rides on new bicycles
that were sold to them by a clueless sales droid. We'd be riding up a
steep hill, like Old La Honda
(http://graphics.stanford.edu/~lucasp/grade/oldlahonda.html) and they
wouldn't even have a triple crankset. They'd go back to get a triple
cransket, and spend $250 on new front and rear d�railleurs, a new
crankset, a new spindle, and labor. If they'd gotten a triple to begin
with it would have raised the cost by about $25.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:44:06
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > me@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> > > Wow BG is retiring huh?
> >
> > I was talking to a guy who just got a Bruce Gordon, and he told me that
> > there are not a lot of sales and Bruce is living off savings. Not
> > surprising, since the ket for touring bicycles peaked about 20 years ago.
>
> It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
> also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
> folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
> even tour, by gosh....

butbutbut, a touring bike is not what Lance rode!!!

It is pretty silly that people who will never race are riding bicycles
that will not even take a 28-mm wide tire, much less fenders.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:39:12
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Agreed, I doubt the LHT is a *significantly* better frame, aside
> > (possibly) from the cosmetics of the welds and frame/fork alignment.
> > (The LHT does, of course have something of a cult following. To me,
> > that is worth precisely $0, but others may see things differently.)
>
> "Ohmigod, is that, like a *Surly* or what?"
>
> Worth about the same to me. The Surly's are well designed and priced
> for what you get, but there's no sex factor outside the good design.
> They're straight enough, the welds are clean enough, and the powdercoat
> is just fine. Move along.
>
> I have been having a bit of a crush on the new Kona Paddy Wagon, which
> is equally pedestrian in its assembly, but I can't help loving sparkly
> blue with yellow decals. /swoon.

If I were getting an upright road bike, the Gunnar would be very
tempting, since for me it is a local product. Sometimes value is
subjective, and spending the extra money in this case would be more
satisfying than buying something else with it.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:38:51
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >Not with something new like the
> >Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.
>
> Well.... here's the deal
>
> The bikes I'm looking at cost abt $2k...... Bike
> Friday, BLT, etc
>
> My conundrum is that for $600 I can get a Windsor and
> have almost $1400 for gear such as tent, clothing, etc.
>
> That's a big chunk of money there and I have to
> consider my "opportunity costs" as such.
>
> So..... its tempting to get the cheaper bike for now.

The real question is: why wouldn't you "get the cheaper bike for now"?
On a scale of 0 to 100, the Windsor will get you 85+% of what you get
from a BG BLT [1] for about 40% of the price (after proper prep and set
up). As a someone new to LD touring, that makes a strong case for the
Windsor, IMO.

[1] And I say this as someone who truly respects Bruce Gordon and his
bicycles.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 21:15:00
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>The real question is: why wouldn't you "get the cheaper bike for now"?
>On a scale of 0 to 100, the Windsor will get you 85+% of what you get
>from a BG BLT [1] for about 40% of the price (after proper prep and set
>up). As a someone new to LD touring, that makes a strong case for the
>Windsor, IMO.

Understood

Also.... is the folding aspect of the Bike Friday worth
a $1200 premium over the Windsor?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 07:53:48
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
>> The real question is: why wouldn't you "get the cheaper bike for now"?
>> On a scale of 0 to 100, the Windsor will get you 85+% of what you get
>>from a BG BLT [1] for about 40% of the price (after proper prep and set
>> up). As a someone new to LD touring, that makes a strong case for the
>> Windsor, IMO.
>
> Understood
>
> Also.... is the folding aspect of the Bike Friday worth
> a $1200 premium over the Windsor?

No. And the bike friday doesn't ride as well as a full size touring
bicycle, no matter how much the bike friday people say that it does.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 18:08:47
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
> > also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
> > folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
> > even tour, by gosh.
>
> I guess not a lot of people are spending $2200 for a bicycle, no matter
> how good it is.
>
> On Saturday, I was going on a ride with the spousal unit and the kids,
> and a couple rides up to us at the start point, and he's on a new BG
> BLT. She's on an old Miyata 610. The woman was someone who used to come
> on my very frequent weekend tours about 20 years ago, on the same Miyata
> 610. She's about to get a BG BLT as well. I didn't like her husband's
> BLT, he had Bruce paint the racks and the stem the same color as the bike.
>
> If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
> model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
> Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."

Keys words: "AT THE TIME". That time was 20+ years ago. Spend $150-200
for a 6SP bike with a non- index compatible drivetrain. If yer really
lucky, the frame will have 120mm (Ultra 6) rear spacing. Oh joy. And
then spend how much to get the thing up to modern performance standards
in shifting, braking, etc.?? i.e., You're suggesting spending $150-200
for a 20+ year old used frame and fork that likely needs to be modified
to accept a modern drivetrain. Then, a new rear wheel, at a minimum.
New FD, RD, headset, BB and shifters. Probably new brakes. New cables
and housing all around. New saddle, etc., etc., etc. I like old bikes
more than most people, but for the OP's needs, it makes next to no
sense to do something like that. Not with something new like the
Windsor Tourist available for $600 delivered to his doorstep.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Nov 2006 14:45:58
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 27 Nov 2006 14:43:10
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

m...@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> > OTOH, if you
> >decide that you don't enjoy having a touring bike, you can sell the
> >Windsor without getting financially hosed; after all, it's only $600
> >delivered to your door.
>
> Good point and something I had to find out the hard way
>
> And that's is that used bicycles are like used
> electronics.... they do NOT hold their value very well
>
> Even high end bikes don't hold their value on secondary
> ket.
>
> Would you agree with that assesment?

I'd agree totally. If I wanted a newish road bike, something nice but
ubiquitous like a Trek 1200, I'd hit my local Craigslist. There's
always a bike there for 1/3 to 1/2 list with maybe a couple thousand
miles on it. So a good solid 1100 dollar list road bike would go for
4-500 after a year here. Serious depreciation.

With something like my latest bike, a basic fixed gear, which was only
$500 new, or something like the Windsor, buying new is a nice treat as
such bikes are already a decent value, and are rarer than a straight up
road bike on the used ket, the ket around here at least.

You don't need the latest and greatest to tour. I'd be perfectly happy
on a 12spd 80s Miyata, provided I went through it mechanically, for a
basic tour. It's not rocket science. When the chain breaks on the
Miyata, you can pick one up at Wally World and don't have to try and
source a 9spd narrow in the middle of Beaverton Springs, Arkansas.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 13:48:18
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Agreed, I doubt the LHT is a *significantly* better frame, aside
> (possibly) from the cosmetics of the welds and frame/fork alignment.
> (The LHT does, of course have something of a cult following. To me,
> that is worth precisely $0, but others may see things differently.)

"Ohmigod, is that, like a *Surly* or what?"

Worth about the same to me. The Surly's are well designed and priced
for what you get, but there's no sex factor outside the good design.
They're straight enough, the welds are clean enough, and the powdercoat
is just fine. Move along.

I have been having a bit of a crush on the new Kona Paddy Wagon, which
is equally pedestrian in its assembly, but I can't help loving sparkly
blue with yellow decals. /swoon.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 13:20:34
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Probably it's time to spend a fortune. The Windsor is okay, but spending
> > > >on an entry level touring bike, and then buying a good touring bike down
> > > >the road is going to cost you more.
> > >
> > > Yeah...I've had that thought as well that maybe it less
> > > costly and more time efficient to just go ahead and
> > > spend a fortune now.
> >
> > Why? Something like the Windsor is inexpensive, and perfectly adequate
> > for what you want to do at present. Sure, if you become an ultra
> > tourist, you will either wear out alot of parts (hubs, headset, BB,
> > etc.) that aren't as durable as the stuff on a much more expensive
> > touring bike and/ or you will get the urge for "something better". But
> > the Windsor will have "paid for itself" in the process. OTOH, if you
> > decide that you don't enjoy having a touring bike, you can sell the
> > Windsor without getting financially hosed; after all, it's only $600
> > delivered to your door.
> > >
>
> No sh*t. I've had "cheap" Taiwanese and Japanese factory frames that
> fit and rode just great, and I had no qualms about upgrading the rest
> of the bike, as the value was good to me, not the ket. $600 will
> barely get you a frame, fork and BB even if you go for the LHT, which I
> doubt is significantly better made. Even if you decide, "I want some
> much stronger touring wheels", well, you can reuse the gimpier ones
> that came on it and mount them with skinnies for faster and lighter
> runs. I think of more inexpensive bikes more as "kits", as you'll often
> want to replace a component or two, but in the end, it's still a great
> deal.

Agreed, I doubt the LHT is a *significantly* better frame, aside
(possibly) from the cosmetics of the welds and frame/fork alignment.
(The LHT does, of course have something of a cult following. To me,
that is worth precisely $0, but others may see things differently.)

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:54:13
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:
> me@privacy.net wrote:
>
> > Wow BG is retiring huh?
>
> I was talking to a guy who just got a Bruce Gordon, and he told me that
> there are not a lot of sales and Bruce is living off savings. Not
> surprising, since the ket for touring bicycles peaked about 20 years ago.

It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
even tour, by gosh. The mtb on tarmac trend is still fairly strong due
to some wierd hangups guys have, at least round here, but flat bar
roadies and sporty hybrids are coming back, and perhaps in a few more
years folks will realize that drop bars were the right way to begin
with.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:08:17
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > >
> > > "Latte please, skinny with beet sugar and bamboo milk."
> > > "'Scuse me sir, that's just a fabulous bike."
> > > "Thank you, it takes a real connoisseur to enjoy a Rivendell
> > > Penny-Farthing."
> >
> > LOL!
>
> Bah, modernist heretic! You've likely not ridden a state of the art
> Rivendell Sauron. The ride quality of wood is vastly underestimated.
> Pedal system? Bah! Real men scoot by scuffing their feet on the ground.

Please get your facts straight. The Rivendell Sauron is a downhill
bicycle equipped with ShelBroCo's Nanodrive system. See
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/rivendell-sauron.jpg >.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:44:00
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

k Hickey wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> >... I think you have transcended the discernable.
>
> I believe you've just come up with a great (and legally defensible)
> slogan for many bike companies...
>
> "Our bikes transcend the discernable"....
>
> Gotta love it!
>

"When you experience the incredible synergy of stiffness and comfort
offered by the all new 2007 Unobtainium Carbo-Con XXX-Lite, you will
truly transcend the discernable!"

Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:05:18
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Tom Keats wrote:

> Heh. I happen to have a mixte. It's an imported-into-Canada
> Japanese bike-boom bike from the early '70s. Raven-black paint,
> subtly fancy lugs, 27" wheels. And exotic as all get-out -- it
> originally came with the Selecta-T "One Key Release" crankset,
> and Shimano's experimental FFS (Front Freewheel System,) which
> allows a rider to downshift at a standstill by backpedalling.
> I still have that stuff, but I've replaced the orig steel-rimmed
> wheels with alu-alloy ones, and a cheap-o champagne 5-spd
> freewheel and a PC-48 chain.
>
> The old Tourney centre-pull brakes are surprisingly positive,
> once you get the feel for them.
>
> It's the sports car of my fleet.
>

It sounds thoroughly bad-ass in a geekly sort of way. :D

> It can't carry cargo loads, though. It goes all whippy in
> the back end if I try.
>
> But I've had enough faith in 'er to get me through
> 60-milers, and she hasn't failed me yet.
>
> And it's not a "women's" bike. It's a '70s Unisex thing.

I had a Motebecane mixte 15 years ago or so. It had flowers painted on
it and was unstealable. The whole town knew it was mine, so even if
somebody took it, it'd make it back home in a couple days.

Now I ride a woman's Raleigh from time to time and my masculinity feels
not a bit compromised. The mixte design is far superior, though. You
can feel the drop tube Raleigh flex with just moderate uphill effort.

http://tinyurl.com/ymwqkj
>
> 27" is/was a good wheel size.
>

Good enough that I replaced the rims on the Raleigh with the same and
didn't bother going 700c. Bigger the better, I say.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 06:58:18
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:57:34
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:49:18
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> >
> > "Latte please, skinny with beet sugar and bamboo milk."
> > "'Scuse me sir, that's just a fabulous bike."
> > "Thank you, it takes a real connoisseur to enjoy a Rivendell
> > Penny-Farthing."
>
> LOL!

Bah, modernist heretic! You've likely not ridden a state of the art
Rivendell Sauron. The ride quality of wood is vastly underestimated.
Pedal system? Bah! Real men scoot by scuffing their feet on the ground.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:31:11
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:

> It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
> also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
> folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
> even tour, by gosh.

I guess not a lot of people are spending $2200 for a bicycle, no matter
how good it is.

On Saturday, I was going on a ride with the spousal unit and the kids,
and a couple rides up to us at the start point, and he's on a new BG
BLT. She's on an old Miyata 610. The woman was someone who used to come
on my very frequent weekend tours about 20 years ago, on the same Miyata
610. She's about to get a BG BLT as well. I didn't like her husband's
BLT, he had Bruce paint the racks and the stem the same color as the bike.

If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid
model). For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As
Sheldon Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."

Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:27:50
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

k Hickey wrote:
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote
>
> >>> And I believe they're made in
> >>> Taiwan---whereas I'm sure the Windsor is made in China. I'd rather have
> >>> my frame made by a free Taiwanese than an oppressed Chinese.
> >>
> >> "Free Taiwanese", what Bullshit that is!
> >
> >Taiwanese aren't subjected to "one child per family". They also aren't
> >packed off to reeducation camp if they dare to express a religious viewpoint
> >unaccepted by the goverenment. Bullshit, indeed.
>
> I don't disagree with your sentiment (which mirrors mine exactly), but
> would hasten to add that you don't improve the situation in China by
> denying them access to the benefits of the free ket - you improve
> the human rights situation WITH the free ket....

Note that the recently proposed Chinese Labor Contract Law (in response
to unrest among exploited labor) that would provide some minimal
protection to labor is being opposed by the American Chamber of
Commerce and the US-China Business Council, whose members are
threatening to move operations to countries with even worse labor
protections if the law is implemented.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:31:06
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1165032560.914194.293040@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the
> > >> >> 52cm
> >> >> >>
> >> >> Tires and rims will always be available.
> >> >
> >> > If you're willing to jump through hoops and pay through the nose. Wow.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> People have no problem paying through the nose for cycling stuff, in case
> >> you hadn't noticed. It's not like good 700c tires and wheels are cheap.
> >> People pay big money for Honjo fenders, Berthoud bags, etc. It's a HOBBY.
> >
> > What's a HOBBY, overpaying for obscure, overpriced doo-doo? And "look
> > what I got" chit-chat at the latte stop? Enjoy your hobby. Mine is
> > riding bikes, sans the doo-doo and the chit-chat.
> >
>
> Dude, cycling IS a hobby. That's why Trek manages to sell $5000 Lance-alikes
> to dentists in huge numbers. 5 years from now, those same customers will be
> back for a newer, more high tech bike. They also line up for Assos gear and
> pay through the nose for it. It's a hobby. Just like golf, tennis, or
> fishing.

Selling to dentists (etc.) in huge numbers....you just said it all.

Enjoy your hobby, your doo-doo and your latte.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:27:16
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1165033866.328919.56880@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165032560.914194.293040@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> > >> >> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In
>> > >> >> the
>> > >> >> 52cm
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> Tires and rims will always be available.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you're willing to jump through hoops and pay through the nose.
>> >> > Wow.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> People have no problem paying through the nose for cycling stuff, in
>> >> case
>> >> you hadn't noticed. It's not like good 700c tires and wheels are
>> >> cheap.
>> >> People pay big money for Honjo fenders, Berthoud bags, etc. It's a
>> >> HOBBY.
>> >
>> > What's a HOBBY, overpaying for obscure, overpriced doo-doo? And "look
>> > what I got" chit-chat at the latte stop? Enjoy your hobby. Mine is
>> > riding bikes, sans the doo-doo and the chit-chat.
>> >
>>
>> Dude, cycling IS a hobby. That's why Trek manages to sell $5000
>> Lance-alikes
>> to dentists in huge numbers. 5 years from now, those same customers will
>> be
>> back for a newer, more high tech bike. They also line up for Assos gear
>> and
>> pay through the nose for it. It's a hobby. Just like golf, tennis, or
>> fishing.
>
> Selling to dentists (etc.) in huge numbers....you just said it all.
>
> Enjoy your hobby, your doo-doo and your latte.

If people didn't have new stuff to buy, the cycling industry would
disappear. Duh. How many people on this NG have only ever bought one
bicycle? I don't drink lattes, either. Nor am I a yuppie. The fact is,
cycling is a hobby, and hobbyists spend money on items related to said
hobby. Fishermen buy new lures, rods, reels, and tackle. Golfers buy clubs,
balls, and ugly clothes. Cyclists buy bicycles, clothes, lights, etc. What's
your deal?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:05:31
From: Jack Murphy
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Right, an old 80's lugged steel bike makes a fine ride. But putting 50lbs of
gear and crossing mountain ranges with no services for miles? No thanks.

I still have my old Trek "sport tourer" that would pass for full touring now
(long wheelbase,etc). I ride it as my bad weather commuter, with lights and
fenders. It may last another 25 years, but you have to be kidding that you'd
do a solo, long, self contained tour on it - there's just so much that can
go wrong on it and getting parts for an old bike in the middle of nowhere
isn't an easy option. Eg how likely to find 27" touring tires? I mail order
them as it is, no shop around here carries any. Something happen to the
crank or bb, rear wheel get hosed?

The whole idea of the original post was to narrow down purchase decisions
for a new touring bike. All these folks pulling bikes out of dumpsters and
fixing em up for touring is nonsense - how many of these have really been
out on the open road doing 85 miles of Ozark mountains with full camping
gear? Touring isn't the same as tooling down the parkway on my vintage retro
bike.

jm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:456b8350$0$82558$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> landotter wrote:
>
>> It's a shame, as his bikes are beautiful and very fairly priced. It's
>> also a shame as a touring style bike makes a great all-rounder for
>> folks wanting to ride to work or the bike path, get some exercise, and
>> even tour, by gosh.
>
> I guess not a lot of people are spending $2200 for a bicycle, no matter
> how good it is.
>
> On Saturday, I was going on a ride with the spousal unit and the kids, and
> a couple rides up to us at the start point, and he's on a new BG BLT.
> She's on an old Miyata 610. The woman was someone who used to come on my
> very frequent weekend tours about 20 years ago, on the same Miyata 610.
> She's about to get a BG BLT as well. I didn't like her husband's BLT, he
> had Bruce paint the racks and the stem the same color as the bike.
>
> If I were the original poster, I might look for a used Miyata 1000 or
> Specialized Expedition (the old touring model, not the new hybrid model).
> For $150-200 he could have a classic lugged touring bicycle. As Sheldon
> Brown wrote, "The mid-80s Miyata 1000 was possibly the finest
> off-the-shelf touring bike available at the time."
>

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:58:23
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Probably it's time to spend a fortune. The Windsor is okay, but spending
> > >on an entry level touring bike, and then buying a good touring bike down
> > >the road is going to cost you more.
> >
> > Yeah...I've had that thought as well that maybe it less
> > costly and more time efficient to just go ahead and
> > spend a fortune now.
>
> Why? Something like the Windsor is inexpensive, and perfectly adequate
> for what you want to do at present. Sure, if you become an ultra
> tourist, you will either wear out alot of parts (hubs, headset, BB,
> etc.) that aren't as durable as the stuff on a much more expensive
> touring bike and/ or you will get the urge for "something better". But
> the Windsor will have "paid for itself" in the process. OTOH, if you
> decide that you don't enjoy having a touring bike, you can sell the
> Windsor without getting financially hosed; after all, it's only $600
> delivered to your door.
> >

No sh*t. I've had "cheap" Taiwanese and Japanese factory frames that
fit and rode just great, and I had no qualms about upgrading the rest
of the bike, as the value was good to me, not the ket. $600 will
barely get you a frame, fork and BB even if you go for the LHT, which I
doubt is significantly better made. Even if you decide, "I want some
much stronger touring wheels", well, you can reuse the gimpier ones
that came on it and mount them with skinnies for faster and lighter
runs. I think of more inexpensive bikes more as "kits", as you'll often
want to replace a component or two, but in the end, it's still a great
deal.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:46:25
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Probably it's time to spend a fortune. The Windsor is okay, but spending
> >on an entry level touring bike, and then buying a good touring bike down
> >the road is going to cost you more.
>
> Yeah...I've had that thought as well that maybe it less
> costly and more time efficient to just go ahead and
> spend a fortune now.

Why? Something like the Windsor is inexpensive, and perfectly adequate
for what you want to do at present. Sure, if you become an ultra
tourist, you will either wear out alot of parts (hubs, headset, BB,
etc.) that aren't as durable as the stuff on a much more expensive
touring bike and/ or you will get the urge for "something better". But
the Windsor will have "paid for itself" in the process. OTOH, if you
decide that you don't enjoy having a touring bike, you can sell the
Windsor without getting financially hosed; after all, it's only $600
delivered to your door.
>

Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:35:43
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

> OTOH, if you
>decide that you don't enjoy having a touring bike, you can sell the
>Windsor without getting financially hosed; after all, it's only $600
>delivered to your door.

Good point and something I had to find out the hard way

And that's is that used bicycles are like used
electronics.... they do NOT hold their value very well

Even high end bikes don't hold their value on secondary
ket.

Would you agree with that assesment?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 08:44:08
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Jack Murphy wrote:
> I have a Gunnar sport that I overload for long weekend tours. Am beginning
> to plan for a full touring bike. I see from Gunnar that they will customize
> one of their frames to give it more of a full on touring geometry for not
> much more than stock, and several hundred less than the Waterford.
>
> Anyone know about these bikes? I'd like to get a steel frame touring bike,
> and don't want to spend a fortune.

Probably it's time to spend a fortune. The Windsor is okay, but spending
on an entry level touring bike, and then buying a good touring bike down
the road is going to cost you more.

Just be sure whatever you buy has the following:

-Minimum of three sets of bottle braze-ons
-Braze-ons for front and rear racks, fenders, pump peg, spoke holder,
-4130 cromolloy tubing, no aluminum frame touring bikes!
-Quill stem, but if not possible, be sure that they don't cut the
steering tube too short, as for a touring bike you'll want the option of
a higher bar position
-wheels that can handle 38mm tires
-Rear wheel with a minimum of 36 spokes, front wheel with a minimum of
32 spokes
-Long wheelbase
-Internal wiring for lights, and preferable an internal hub dynamo in
the front

Personally, for the mid-range I'd get the Surly Long Haul Trucker. For
the high-end, I'd get a Bruce Gordon BLT--quickly, as there are rumors
of his retirement. I just saw a friend on Saturday that was riding a
BLT, it's like the perfect touring bicycle.
("http://www.bgcycles.com/blt.html").

Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:31:36
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> ...
> Yes, I remember the Portage. One bike does not a shot make. At it's prime,
> Raleigh wasn't the keting behemoth Trek is now. I don't understand your
> negativity here. Also, there are plenty of people just doing 650B
> conversions, which is an excellent way to add functionality to an old bike.
> Will the size EVER reach 700c levels of acceptance? No. But there are plenty
> of recumbent folks riding 20 inch wheeled bikes that take quite a bit of
> searching to find replacement tires, too....

Most of those recumbents use the ISO 406-mm tire, which is also the
size used in many folding bicycles, children's bicycles, and of course
BMX bicycles. The ISO 406-mm size can be expected to supported into the
future just as much as the ISO 622-mm size.

There are many mail order places, and almost every larger city has one
or two shops that sell recumbents and/or folders that will have higher
quality ISO 406-mm road tires in stock.

Every hardware and discount store in the US and Canada will likely have
ISO 406-mm tires that could be used as an emergency replacement. That
is certainly not true for ISO 684-mm (650B) or even ISO 622-mm (700C)
tires.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 01 Dec 2006 18:28:34
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1165012686.268785.185670@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> > >
> > Really? Do you recall the ca. 1984 Raleigh Portage, a 650B touring
> > bike? This predates the high profile of 559, so, if anything, 650B made
> > more sense then than it does now. And Raleigh was still a real force in
> > the ketplace then, more than Riv, Kogswell, et al *combined* ever
> > will be. The Portage was a flop, and the poor suckers who bought them
> > were left in the lurch. IIRC, Schwinn tried to ket 650B here, too.
> > Another flop.
> >
> > My point is that people are going to be screwed over when Riv and the
> > other niche trendies move on to the next hot niche ket. And for what?
>
> Yes, I remember the Portage. One bike does not a shot make. At it's prime,
> Raleigh wasn't the keting behemoth Trek is now.

What does Trek have to do with any of this? The Trek WSDs use 650*C*, a
whole different animal.

> I don't understand your
> negativity here.

My negativity is about people being conned into buying a 650B specific
bike ("They're so cool and you're part of the 'elite' that understands
that", "Fast shmallows!", and other Riv claptrap) only to be left in
the lurch years down the road.

>Also, there are plenty of people just doing 650B
> conversions, which is an excellent way to add functionality to an old bike.

Define "plenty". Enough to create a demand that will insure ready
availibility in the future without jumping through hoops?

> Will the size EVER reach 700c levels of acceptance? No. But there are plenty
> of recumbent folks riding 20 inch wheeled bikes that take quite a bit of
> searching to find replacement tires, too.
>
> I don't see it as "niche trendiness". I see it as a solution to a problem,
> albeit a small one.

What is the problem that can't be solved with more readily available
rims and tires?

> Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a small frame size and
> deal with the shortcomings of 700c wheels all the time. The biggest one? Toe
> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the 52cm size
> I ride, with fenders and 28c Ruffy Tuffys, I have persistent overlap. I
> could buy a Surly LHT or Riv Atlantis with 26 inch wheels and solve it, but
> 650B is also an option.

Sure, you have a small problem; overlap is hardly a big deal, unless it
is excessive. If it is excessive, you bought the wrong frame for your
purposes. 650B may be a solution to a very small problem in a very
limited number of cases. So what? Do you think that will make the
demand sufficient to insure ready availability?

>
> Tires and rims will always be available.

If you're willing to jump through hoops and pay through the nose. Wow.

> In the age of the Internet, there
> will always be a seller offering them to meet a need. I don't know about
> you, but I have to mail order tires anyway. What's the diff if I order from
> Performance or Riv or even QBP? Those tires are quite prevalent in Europe
> and Japan---and always have been.

Define "quite prevalent". How many users, worldwide?

> Portage owners who wanted tires could
> always find them.

Not so easy 20 years ago, pre-internet. Google Raleigh Portage.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 03:30:35
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1165026514.818710.318570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165012686.268785.185670@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> > >
>> > Really? Do you recall the ca. 1984 Raleigh Portage, a 650B touring
>> > bike? This predates the high profile of 559, so, if anything, 650B made
>> > more sense then than it does now. And Raleigh was still a real force in
>> > the ketplace then, more than Riv, Kogswell, et al *combined* ever
>> > will be. The Portage was a flop, and the poor suckers who bought them
>> > were left in the lurch. IIRC, Schwinn tried to ket 650B here, too.
>> > Another flop.
>> >
>> > My point is that people are going to be screwed over when Riv and the
>> > other niche trendies move on to the next hot niche ket. And for
>> > what?
>>
>> Yes, I remember the Portage. One bike does not a shot make. At it's
>> prime,
>> Raleigh wasn't the keting behemoth Trek is now.
>
> What does Trek have to do with any of this? The Trek WSDs use 650*C*, a
> whole different animal.
>

No, I mean that once enough small companies(Riv, Kogswell, Hampsten, Velo
Orange, etc) bring out 650B bikes, a big maker is sure to follow. Trek is
the most likely candidate, as they are the largest. I would not have been
surprised if Bianchi under Sky Yeager would have done it.

>> I don't understand your
>> negativity here.
>
> My negativity is about people being conned into buying a 650B specific
> bike ("They're so cool and you're part of the 'elite' that understands
> that", "Fast shmallows!", and other Riv claptrap) only to be left in
> the lurch years down the road.
>
Not the same now as it once was. New tires/rims are going to be available on
the internet, even if they have to be ordered from overseas. Hell, people
still use tubulars, and I doubt they are available in many shops.

>>Also, there are plenty of people just doing 650B
>> conversions, which is an excellent way to add functionality to an old
>> bike.
>
> Define "plenty". Enough to create a demand that will insure ready
> availibility in the future without jumping through hoops?
>

QBP.

>> Will the size EVER reach 700c levels of acceptance? No. But there are
>> plenty
>> of recumbent folks riding 20 inch wheeled bikes that take quite a bit of
>> searching to find replacement tires, too.
>>
>> I don't see it as "niche trendiness". I see it as a solution to a
>> problem,
>> albeit a small one.
>
> What is the problem that can't be solved with more readily available
> rims and tires?
>

It's nice to have another option. Can TCO be solved with 559s? Sure. Do
650Bs also cure the problem? Sure.

>> Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a small frame size and
>> deal with the shortcomings of 700c wheels all the time. The biggest one?
>> Toe
>> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the 52cm
>> size
>> I ride, with fenders and 28c Ruffy Tuffys, I have persistent overlap. I
>> could buy a Surly LHT or Riv Atlantis with 26 inch wheels and solve it,
>> but
>> 650B is also an option.
>
> Sure, you have a small problem; overlap is hardly a big deal, unless it
> is excessive. If it is excessive, you bought the wrong frame for your
> purposes. 650B may be a solution to a very small problem in a very
> limited number of cases. So what? Do you think that will make the
> demand sufficient to insure ready availability?
>

If it's not a problem then makers like Waterford, Riv, and Surly would just
spec 700c wheels for every frame size. It's a problem, and it prevents small
frame sizes from running fat 700c tires.

>> Tires and rims will always be available.
>
> If you're willing to jump through hoops and pay through the nose. Wow.
>

People have no problem paying through the nose for cycling stuff, in case
you hadn't noticed. It's not like good 700c tires and wheels are cheap.
People pay big money for Honjo fenders, Berthoud bags, etc. It's a HOBBY.

>> In the age of the Internet, there
>> will always be a seller offering them to meet a need. I don't know about
>> you, but I have to mail order tires anyway. What's the diff if I order
>> from
>> Performance or Riv or even QBP? Those tires are quite prevalent in Europe
>> and Japan---and always have been.
>
> Define "quite prevalent". How many users, worldwide?
>
How many passhunters in Japan? How many cyclotourists in France?

>> Portage owners who wanted tires could
>> always find them.
>
> Not so easy 20 years ago, pre-internet. Google Raleigh Portage.

I know, but they were still available.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:40:20
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> k Hickey wrote:
> > ...(and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >
> > http://www.habcycles.com ...
>
> According to k's website, he sells bicycles with Titanium
> Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy tubing. Note that an unalloyed metal and an alloy are
> NOT the same thing. When an alloy has a proper name (e.g. Aluminium
> 6061 T-4) the proper name should be used, not the name of the element
> (e.g. aluminium).
>

Oh, brother.....

Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:56:54
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

k Hickey wrote:
> ...(and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> http://www.habcycles.com ...

According to k's website, he sells bicycles with Titanium
Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy tubing. Note that an unalloyed metal and an alloy are
NOT the same thing. When an alloy has a proper name (e.g. Aluminium
6061 T-4) the proper name should be used, not the name of the element
(e.g. aluminium).

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:46:50
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:

>k Hickey wrote:
>> ...(and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>>
>> http://www.habcycles.com ...
>
>According to k's website, he sells bicycles with Titanium
>Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy tubing. Note that an unalloyed metal and an alloy are
>NOT the same thing. When an alloy has a proper name (e.g. Aluminium
>6061 T-4) the proper name should be used, not the name of the element
>(e.g. aluminium).

How's this read... "... and this coming from a guy who sells only
titanium alloyed with 3% aluminum and 2.5% vanadium"?

Does that really add to the discussion?

I expect you to hassle anyone who has the gall to refer to their frame
material as "aluminum" or "steel" or even "carbon fiber" in the same
way, since in all cases, the material will contain much less of the
claimed material than in mine (94.5%).

k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:38:06
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1164998844.877712.89750@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1164986218.694744.112310@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> >> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
> >> >> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >> >> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >> >> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >> >> >>qualities.
> >> >> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding
> >> >> >>on
> >> >> >>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race
> >> >> >>bikes
> >> >> >>hurt
> >> >> >>them now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> >> >> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> >> >> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> >> >> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're
> >> >> an
> >> >> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> >> >> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> >> >> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> >> >> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in
> >> >> > either
> >> >> > spec easily.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the
> >> >> same
> >> >> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little
> >> >> bumps.
> >> >> ,
> >> >> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for
> >> >> smaller
> >> >> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
> >> >> easier
> >> >> sell.
> >> >
> >> > An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
> >> > Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
> >> > difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
> >> > more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
> >> >
> >> > Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
> >> > owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
> >> > sales pitch.
> >>
> >> MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
> >> everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all
> >> sorts.
> >> 650B could easily find a ket just as all those others. Nothing
> >> complicated about it.
> >
> > Hmmmm..."bought in to" connotes, to me, that someone bought the hype,
> > the pitch, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Grant Peterson writes good hype. I
> > wonder what's next; a Rivendell 650B, Mixte tandem fixie? ;-)
> >
> >
> 650B makes more sense than track bikes, for sure. You seem to think that
> 650B is some elitist thing---

Mr. Peterson invoked the term "elite", not me.

>but you can get a Kogswell P/R frameset(with
> fenders, seatpost, and headset) for $540. Not exactly spendy. QBP offers
> prebuilt wheels, too.
>
>
> >>There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
> >> before----remember 27 inch wheels?
> >
> > Sure, but 630 rims and 622 rims are so close that one of the two was
> > bound to fade.
> >
> > As for "paradigm shifts" and 650B, that shift happened long ago. Like
> > the dinosaurs, the 650B wheels size had it's shot. It faded away, much
> > more so than 27"/630 wheels.
>
> 650B never really had a shot here.

Really? Do you recall the ca. 1984 Raleigh Portage, a 650B touring
bike? This predates the high profile of 559, so, if anything, 650B made
more sense then than it does now. And Raleigh was still a real force in
the ketplace then, more than Riv, Kogswell, et al *combined* ever
will be. The Portage was a flop, and the poor suckers who bought them
were left in the lurch. IIRC, Schwinn tried to ket 650B here, too.
Another flop.

My point is that people are going to be screwed over when Riv and the
other niche trendies move on to the next hot niche ket. And for what?

Date: 02 Dec 2006 01:41:59
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1165012686.268785.185670@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
> >
> Really? Do you recall the ca. 1984 Raleigh Portage, a 650B touring
> bike? This predates the high profile of 559, so, if anything, 650B made
> more sense then than it does now. And Raleigh was still a real force in
> the ketplace then, more than Riv, Kogswell, et al *combined* ever
> will be. The Portage was a flop, and the poor suckers who bought them
> were left in the lurch. IIRC, Schwinn tried to ket 650B here, too.
> Another flop.
>
> My point is that people are going to be screwed over when Riv and the
> other niche trendies move on to the next hot niche ket. And for what?

Yes, I remember the Portage. One bike does not a shot make. At it's prime,
Raleigh wasn't the keting behemoth Trek is now. I don't understand your
negativity here. Also, there are plenty of people just doing 650B
conversions, which is an excellent way to add functionality to an old bike.
Will the size EVER reach 700c levels of acceptance? No. But there are plenty
of recumbent folks riding 20 inch wheeled bikes that take quite a bit of
searching to find replacement tires, too.

I don't see it as "niche trendiness". I see it as a solution to a problem,
albeit a small one. Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a small frame size and
deal with the shortcomings of 700c wheels all the time. The biggest one? Toe
clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the 52cm size
I ride, with fenders and 28c Ruffy Tuffys, I have persistent overlap. I
could buy a Surly LHT or Riv Atlantis with 26 inch wheels and solve it, but
650B is also an option.

Tires and rims will always be available. In the age of the Internet, there
will always be a seller offering them to meet a need. I don't know about
you, but I have to mail order tires anyway. What's the diff if I order from
Performance or Riv or even QBP? Those tires are quite prevalent in Europe
and Japan---and always have been. Portage owners who wanted tires could
always find them.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 08:29:58
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:

> I don't see it as "niche trendiness". I see it as a solution to a problem,
> albeit a small one. Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a small frame size and
> deal with the shortcomings of 700c wheels all the time. The biggest one? Toe
> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the 52cm size
> I ride, with fenders and 28c Ruffy Tuffys, I have persistent overlap. I
> could buy a Surly LHT or Riv Atlantis with 26 inch wheels and solve it, but
> 650B is also an option.

> Tires and rims will always be available. In the age of the Internet, there
> will always be a seller offering them to meet a need. I don't know about
> you, but I have to mail order tires anyway. What's the diff if I order from
> Performance or Riv or even QBP? Those tires are quite prevalent in Europe
> and Japan---and always have been. Portage owners who wanted tires could
> always find them.

But why bother with 650B. If smaller wheels are needed then 650C is
quite popular already.

There are already enough bicycles where it's hard to find tires, such as
the 18" tire used on the Birdy.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:47:24
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1164986218.694744.112310@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
> >> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >> >>qualities.
> >> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> >> >>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
> >> >>hurt
> >> >>them now.
> >> >
> >> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >> >
> >> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> >> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> >> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >>
> >> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> >> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> >> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
> >>
> >> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> >> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> >> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> >> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> >> > spec easily.
> >> >
> >> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> >> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little bumps.
> >> ,
> >> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> >> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
> >> easier
> >> sell.
> >
> > An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
> > Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
> > difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
> > more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
> >
> > Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
> > owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
> > sales pitch.
>
> MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
> everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all sorts.
> 650B could easily find a ket just as all those others. Nothing
> complicated about it.

Hmmmm..."bought in to" connotes, to me, that someone bought the hype,
the pitch, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Grant Peterson writes good hype. I
wonder what's next; a Rivendell 650B, Mixte tandem fixie? ;-)

>There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
> before----remember 27 inch wheels?

Sure, but 630 rims and 622 rims are so close that one of the two was
bound to fade.

As for "paradigm shifts" and 650B, that shift happened long ago. Like
the dinosaurs, the 650B wheels size had it's shot. It faded away, much
more so than 27"/630 wheels.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:17:23
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1164998844.877712.89750@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164986218.694744.112310@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Gooserider wrote:
>> >> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
>> >> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>> >> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>> >> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>> >> >>qualities.
>> >> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding
>> >> >>on
>> >> >>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race
>> >> >>bikes
>> >> >>hurt
>> >> >>them now.
>> >> >
>> >> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
>> >> >
>> >> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
>> >> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
>> >> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>> >>
>> >> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
>> >> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're
>> >> an
>> >> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>> >>
>> >> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
>> >> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
>> >> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
>> >> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in
>> >> > either
>> >> > spec easily.
>> >> >
>> >> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the
>> >> same
>> >> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little
>> >> bumps.
>> >> ,
>> >> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for
>> >> smaller
>> >> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
>> >> easier
>> >> sell.
>> >
>> > An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
>> > Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
>> > difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
>> > more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
>> >
>> > Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
>> > owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
>> > sales pitch.
>>
>> MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
>> everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all
>> sorts.
>> 650B could easily find a ket just as all those others. Nothing
>> complicated about it.
>
> Hmmmm..."bought in to" connotes, to me, that someone bought the hype,
> the pitch, the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. Grant Peterson writes good hype. I
> wonder what's next; a Rivendell 650B, Mixte tandem fixie? ;-)
>
>
650B makes more sense than track bikes, for sure. You seem to think that
650B is some elitist thing---but you can get a Kogswell P/R frameset(with
fenders, seatpost, and headset) for $540. Not exactly spendy. QBP offers
prebuilt wheels, too.

>>There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
>> before----remember 27 inch wheels?
>
> Sure, but 630 rims and 622 rims are so close that one of the two was
> bound to fade.
>
> As for "paradigm shifts" and 650B, that shift happened long ago. Like
> the dinosaurs, the 650B wheels size had it's shot. It faded away, much
> more so than 27"/630 wheels.

650B never really had a shot here.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:25:04
From: peter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.

In general racing bikes (of any material) are supposed to feel stiff so
it's not surprising that they are designed with a geometry that makes
that happen. But remember that the earlier reputation of aluminum used
in bikes like the Vitus was that it was comfortable but excessively
flexible - what matters is priily the design, not the material
(within limits).
>
> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> > spec easily.
> >
> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows.

And they probably switched from 20 x 700C tires to 35 x 650B ones - of
course they feel softer. But touring bikes are generally designed to
take wide tires anyway so you may as well make them use a size that's
readily available in a range of widths. Use the 35 x 700C (or even
wider) when you want the 'shmallow' feel or put on some narrower
tires when you'd prefer a somewhat harsher but more responsive feel.

If everything else (incl. tire width) is equal then, as k said, the
larger diameter wheel will give a smoother ride. I use a wider tire in
my 20" wheel Bike Friday than I do on my 700C bikes to help compensate
for the smaller diameter.

> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
> sell.

I'd think that most people looking at either touring or
commuting/utility cycling would want a tire size that's readily
available. The mountain bike 26" size fits that bill and can be
obtained in a huge variety of widths and tread types.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:16:58
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
> >>qualities.
> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
> >>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
> >>hurt
> >>them now.
> >
> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
> >
> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>
> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>
> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
> > spec easily.
> >
> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little bumps. ,
> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an easier
> sell.

An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)

Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
sales pitch.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 18:28:20
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1164986218.694744.112310@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "k Hickey" <k@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>> news:5690n2dot0gimntfnpoae4cnd9i5ke82v3@4ax.com...
>> > "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I also think it's only a matter of time before one of
>> >>the big makers brings out a 650B wheeled bike. The 650B wheel size
>> >>eliminates a lot of the negative aspects of aluminum bikes' ride
>> >>qualities.
>> >>It doesn't matter if the frame is stiff if the tires are like riding on
>> >>shmallows. Could be an easy sell to the aging jocks whose race bikes
>> >>hurt
>> >>them now.
>> >
>> > A couple random thoughts on the above...
>> >
>> > First, I think the frame material's contribution to ride quality has
>> > been discussed to death, and has very little bearing on the overall
>> > ride quality (and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
>>
>> The reason I used aluminum as an example is because aluminum is the
>> predominant frame material used in bicycle construction. I know you're an
>> expert, k, but aluminum race bikes just "FEEL" stiffer.
>>
>> > Second, it's demonstrably true that bigger (taller) wheels produce a
>> > better ride. Why would shrinking a 700c wheel down to the 650B spec
>> > do anything other than make it ride worse (at a given tire width and
>> > inflation)? If you want a 35mm 75psi tire, you can get 'em in either
>> > spec easily.
>> >
>> Don't ask me. Ask everybody who owns a 650B bike. They all say the same
>> thing---"Like riding on fast shmallows. Don't even feel little bumps.
>> ,
>> etc". Plus, the smaller wheel size solves a LOT of problems for smaller
>> frame sizes. Sure, one could spec 26 inch wheels but 650B may be an
>> easier
>> sell.
>
> An "easier sell" to whom? People who want to be included in G.
> Peterson's "elite"? Or people who just like to make their lives more
> difficult? (Why buy a standard size rim and tire when you can spend
> more money on something obscure and hard-to-find?)
>
> Here's a thought: Rivendell should buy mailing lists for the Morgan
> owners club, Lotus owners club, etc. Prime candidates for the 650B
> sales pitch.

MTB'ers bought in to the 29er, urbanites bought into the fixie, and
everybody has bought into singlespeeds. People buy recumbents of all sorts.
650B could easily find a ket just as all those others. Nothing
complicated about it. There have been paradigm shifts in wheel size
before----remember 27 inch wheels?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:22:35
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:

>Probably it's time to spend a fortune. The Windsor is okay, but spending
>on an entry level touring bike, and then buying a good touring bike down
>the road is going to cost you more.

Yeah...I've had that thought as well that maybe it less
costly and more time efficient to just go ahead and
spend a fortune now.

Like you say Id buy a used cheap bike..... then turn
around and sell it for a better bike at some point
anyway.

What to do what to do?

My concern is I don't have any equipment..... and good
bike. and all the equip I will need could easily cost
3k... maybe more.

>Personally, for the mid-range I'd get the Surly Long Haul Trucker. For
>the high-end, I'd get a Bruce Gordon BLT--quickly, as there are rumors
>of his retirement. I just saw a friend on Saturday that was riding a
>BLT, it's like the perfect touring bicycle.
>("http://www.bgcycles.com/blt.html").

Wow BG is retiring huh?

Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:15:25
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

In article <1165033618.067535.42390@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > writes:
>
> landotter wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > landotter wrote:
>> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
>> > > > ("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
>> > > > shop.)
>> > >
>> > > totally.
>> >
>> > I just wonder what nonsense they'll come up with next? Earlier, I
>> > proposed it would be a 650B Mixte tandem fixie. Sounds far out, but Riv
>> > has been getting farther and farthe out with each passing year, looking
>> > for new niches. A few years ago, everyone woulda scoffed at the notion
>> > of anyone making 650B Mixte (I wonder how many of those will actually
>> > get sold).
>>
>> It is rather strange, the wheel choice, not the mixte. I like mixtes.
>
> Yeah, it's the 650B part that's strange. And that makes the bike
> non-appealing for most sensible buyers (and Mixtes appeal most to the
> sensible, non-driven rider).

Heh. I happen to have a mixte. It's an imported-into-Canada
Japanese bike-boom bike from the early '70s. Raven-black paint,
subtly fancy lugs, 27" wheels. And exotic as all get-out -- it
originally came with the Selecta-T "One Key Release" crankset,
and Shimano's experimental FFS (Front Freewheel System,) which
allows a rider to downshift at a standstill by backpedalling.
I still have that stuff, but I've replaced the orig steel-rimmed
wheels with alu-alloy ones, and a cheap-o champagne 5-spd
freewheel and a PC-48 chain.

The old Tourney centre-pull brakes are surprisingly positive,
once you get the feel for them.

It's the sports car of my fleet.

It can't carry cargo loads, though. It goes all whippy in
the back end if I try.

But I've had enough faith in 'er to get me through
60-milers, and she hasn't failed me yet.

And it's not a "women's" bike. It's a '70s Unisex thing.

27" is/was a good wheel size.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:49:49
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165031972.235275.201680@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > It is rather strange, the wheel choice, not the mixte. I like mixtes.
> > We got along just fine back in the day putting 27" wheels on women's
> > bikes, and they're larger than 700c. Nobody other than someone getting
> > a smaller frame should bother with 650, just pure affectation
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> That's pretty much what Riv is doing. They introduced the H. Homer Hilsen
> "country bike" with 700c wheels because big frames with 650B wheels aren't
> necessary.

No, Riv "introduced" the Hilson to mine another niche ("Country bike"
-LOL!!) and get more $ out of a previous Riv buyer. Milk those yuppies,
GP!

> I happen to think that all road bikes (non racers, anyway)
> smaller than 54(and maybe 56) should have smaller than 700c wheels. 650B, 26
> inch, I don't care.

Depends on TT length; I very much doubt a 56cm ST would ever need
smaller wheels, except as a custom for a 99th percentile long leg/short
torso rider.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:26:58
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > landotter wrote:
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > IMO, 650B is just another keting niche being mined by Rivendell.
> > > > ("Be part of the elite", and think of the conversations at the coffee
> > > > shop.)
> > >
> > > totally.
> >
> > I just wonder what nonsense they'll come up with next? Earlier, I
> > proposed it would be a 650B Mixte tandem fixie. Sounds far out, but Riv
> > has been getting farther and farthe out with each passing year, looking
> > for new niches. A few years ago, everyone woulda scoffed at the notion
> > of anyone making 650B Mixte (I wonder how many of those will actually
> > get sold).
>
> It is rather strange, the wheel choice, not the mixte. I like mixtes.

Yeah, it's the 650B part that's strange. And that makes the bike
non-appealing for most sensible buyers (and Mixtes appeal most to the
sensible, non-driven rider).

> We got along just fine back in the day putting 27" wheels on women's
> bikes, and they're larger than 700c. Nobody other than someone getting
> a smaller frame should bother with 650, just pure affectation
> otherwise.

Yep.

>
> "Latte please, skinny with beet sugar and bamboo milk."
> "'Scuse me sir, that's just a fabulous bike."
> "Thank you, it takes a real connoisseur to enjoy a Rivendell
> Penny-Farthing."

LOL!

>
> :-P
>
> For all the silly stuff they do, I do appreciate most of their choices.
> I'm a guy who was a teen in the mid 80s and has the same love for
> classic Japanese bikes that the Riv guys do. I've even got a babyshit
> brown Univega in storage from around '83.

I was very supportive of Riv until they rather cynically (IMO) began
mining totally dumb niche kets. It's pretty clear to me that they
are counting on selling the same people a second, third and fourth
(etc.) Riv.

> >
> > > I don't think it's stupid to use it for smaller frames though,
> > > to stay proportionate, and it's nice if you want to mount standard
> > > reach brakes and fenders on a bike with tight clearances.
> >
> > That's very different than sinking big $ into a Sakluki.
> >
>
> What a dumb bike. If it had been 700c for the larger sizes, then I'd
> say, "What a cool bike!".

But it's whole reason to exist, however dumb, is the 650B
niche.....otherwise it's a redundancy in their line.
>
> >
> > >
> > > With the internet able to deliver all sorts of obscure goods to your
> > > door, it matters little. Tire selection is a little lame, but good
> > > enough I guess.
> >
> > But when this trendy little fad dies, sourcing rims and tires will be
> > much harder. I don't think QBP will stick with it once demand falls off.
>
> Finding rims and tires in a moderate, not racy size will be difficult
> indeed, but the high zoot stuff in that size is here to stay.

I wonder....when the rim tooling wears out and the tire molds finally
give out, does a maker continue support?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 11:47:11
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:

> Wow BG is retiring huh?

I was talking to a guy who just got a Bruce Gordon, and he told me that
there are not a lot of sales and Bruce is living off savings. Not
surprising, since the ket for touring bicycles peaked about 20 years ago.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 12:09:51
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:
> ...
> There are already enough bicycles where it's hard to find tires, such as
> the 18" tire used on the Birdy.

The co-existence of ISO 349-mm (Brompton), ISO 355-mm (Birdy) and ISO
369-mm (Moulton) sizes is silly, as the difference in size between the
three is too little to make a significant difference is folded
transport size, ride comfort or rolling resistance. Similarly, the
existence of both ISO 622-mm (700C) and ISO 630-mm (27-inch) is
unwarranted.

All this does is increase the price of tires and rims, without offering
the cyclist any benefit.

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 02 Dec 2006 10:46:28
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

SMS wrote:
> Gooserider wrote:
>
> > I don't see it as "niche trendiness". I see it as a solution to a problem,
> > albeit a small one. Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a small frame size and
> > deal with the shortcomings of 700c wheels all the time. The biggest one? Toe
> > clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the 52cm size
> > I ride, with fenders and 28c Ruffy Tuffys, I have persistent overlap. I
> > could buy a Surly LHT or Riv Atlantis with 26 inch wheels and solve it, but
> > 650B is also an option.
>
>
>
> > Tires and rims will always be available. In the age of the Internet, there
> > will always be a seller offering them to meet a need. I don't know about
> > you, but I have to mail order tires anyway. What's the diff if I order from
> > Performance or Riv or even QBP? Those tires are quite prevalent in Europe
> > and Japan---and always have been. Portage owners who wanted tires could
> > always find them.
>
> But why bother with 650B. If smaller wheels are needed then 650C is
> quite popular already.

Between 650C (with readily available tires up 650x28) and 26", almost
any need can be met.

>
> There are already enough bicycles where it's hard to find tires, such as
> the 18" tire used on the Birdy.

I can see a small number of people making 700C to 650B conversions to
meet specific needs. But, that small number won't supply enough demand
to insure a readily available supply in the US. Once the trendy lil'
fad wanes, the supply will, too.

Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:47:42
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

k Hickey wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >k Hickey wrote:
> >> ...(and this coming from a guy who sells only titanium)
> >>
> >> http://www.habcycles.com ...
> >
> >According to k's website, he sells bicycles with Titanium
> >Ti-3Al-2.5V alloy tubing. Note that an unalloyed metal and an alloy are
> >NOT the same thing. When an alloy has a proper name (e.g. Aluminium
> >6061 T-4) the proper name should be used, not the name of the element
> >(e.g. aluminium).
>
> How's this read... "... and this coming from a guy who sells only
> titanium alloyed with 3% aluminum and 2.5% vanadium"?
>
> Does that really add to the discussion?

As k likely knows, the differences between unalloyed titanium,
titanium Ti-3Al-2.5V and titanium Ti-6Al-4V may be significant in the
design and construction of bicycle frames.

> I expect you to hassle anyone who has the gall to refer to their frame
> material as "aluminum" or "steel" or even "carbon fiber" in the same
> way, since in all cases, the material will contain much less of the
> claimed material than in mine (94.5%).

"Steel" by definition is an alloy, so saying an unpainted, welded frame
is 100% steel could well be correct.

I have pointed out several times in the past on various Usenet cycling
groups that "carbon" should not be used to refer to "carbon fiber
reinforced polymer", "aluminium" for "aluminium alloy" and would
certainly take exception if someone referred to "steel" as "iron".

--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!

Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:09:20
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> news:1165026514.818710.318570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1165012686.268785.185670@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>
> >> > >
> >> > Really? Do you recall the ca. 1984 Raleigh Portage, a 650B touring
> >> > bike? This predates the high profile of 559, so, if anything, 650B made
> >> > more sense then than it does now. And Raleigh was still a real force in
> >> > the ketplace then, more than Riv, Kogswell, et al *combined* ever
> >> > will be. The Portage was a flop, and the poor suckers who bought them
> >> > were left in the lurch. IIRC, Schwinn tried to ket 650B here, too.
> >> > Another flop.
> >> >
> >> > My point is that people are going to be screwed over when Riv and the
> >> > other niche trendies move on to the next hot niche ket. And for
> >> > what?
> >>
> >> Yes, I remember the Portage. One bike does not a shot make. At it's
> >> prime,
> >> Raleigh wasn't the keting behemoth Trek is now.
> >
> > What does Trek have to do with any of this? The Trek WSDs use 650*C*, a
> > whole different animal.
> >
>
> No, I mean that once enough small companies(Riv, Kogswell, Hampsten, Velo
> Orange, etc) bring out 650B bikes, a big maker is sure to follow.

Dream on! The combined 650B sales of the makers you mention are a
flyspeck in the ocean to a company like Trek.

>Trek is
> the most likely candidate, as they are the largest. I would not have been
> surprised if Bianchi under Sky Yeager would have done it.
>
>
> >> I don't understand your
> >> negativity here.
> >
> > My negativity is about people being conned into buying a 650B specific
> > bike ("They're so cool and you're part of the 'elite' that understands
> > that", "Fast shmallows!", and other Riv claptrap) only to be left in
> > the lurch years down the road.
> >
> Not the same now as it once was. New tires/rims are going to be available on
> the internet, even if they have to be ordered from overseas. Hell, people
> still use tubulars, and I doubt they are available in many shops.

Tubular rims and tires are pretty readily available to this day. Would
you care to compare the user base? And, if and when they fade out, the
user clamps in a 700C clincher rim/tire and rides on.
>
> >>Also, there are plenty of people just doing 650B
> >> conversions, which is an excellent way to add functionality to an old
> >> bike.
> >
> > Define "plenty". Enough to create a demand that will insure ready
> > availibility in the future without jumping through hoops?
> >
>
> QBP.

Keyword: FUTURE. Sure, for now, 'til the trendy lil' fad dies out. QBP
isn't in the business of stocking that for which there is no demand.
>
> >> Will the size EVER reach 700c levels of acceptance? No. But there are
> >> plenty
> >> of recumbent folks riding 20 inch wheeled bikes that take quite a bit of
> >> searching to find replacement tires, too.
> >>
> >> I don't see it as "niche trendiness". I see it as a solution to a
> >> problem,
> >> albeit a small one.
> >
> > What is the problem that can't be solved with more readily available
> > rims and tires?
> >
>
> It's nice to have another option. Can TCO be solved with 559s? Sure. Do
> 650Bs also cure the problem? Sure.
>
> >> Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a small frame size and
> >> deal with the shortcomings of 700c wheels all the time. The biggest one?
> >> Toe
> >> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the 52cm
> >> size
> >> I ride, with fenders and 28c Ruffy Tuffys, I have persistent overlap. I
> >> could buy a Surly LHT or Riv Atlantis with 26 inch wheels and solve it,
> >> but
> >> 650B is also an option.
> >
> > Sure, you have a small problem; overlap is hardly a big deal, unless it
> > is excessive. If it is excessive, you bought the wrong frame for your
> > purposes. 650B may be a solution to a very small problem in a very
> > limited number of cases. So what? Do you think that will make the
> > demand sufficient to insure ready availability?
> >
>
> If it's not a problem then makers like Waterford, Riv, and Surly would just
> spec 700c wheels for every frame size. It's a problem, and it prevents small
> frame sizes from running fat 700c tires.

Waterford, Riv, Surly, et al are niche makers. Sure, they can exploit a
trend for a time and make a profit doing so. That's the very definition
of a niche manufacturer. But they will never create enough demand in
the replacement ket to insure easy access to supply. They'll just
move on to the next trend.
>
> >> Tires and rims will always be available.
> >
> > If you're willing to jump through hoops and pay through the nose. Wow.
> >
>
>
> People have no problem paying through the nose for cycling stuff, in case
> you hadn't noticed. It's not like good 700c tires and wheels are cheap.
> People pay big money for Honjo fenders, Berthoud bags, etc. It's a HOBBY.

What's a HOBBY, overpaying for obscure, overpriced doo-doo? And "look
what I got" chit-chat at the latte stop? Enjoy your hobby. Mine is
riding bikes, sans the doo-doo and the chit-chat.

>
> >> In the age of the Internet, there
> >> will always be a seller offering them to meet a need. I don't know about
> >> you, but I have to mail order tires anyway. What's the diff if I order
> >> from
> >> Performance or Riv or even QBP? Those tires are quite prevalent in Europe
> >> and Japan---and always have been.
> >
> > Define "quite prevalent". How many users, worldwide?
> >
> How many passhunters in Japan? How many cyclotourists in France?

You said " quite prevalent", now define your term.
>
> >> Portage owners who wanted tires could
> >> always find them.
> >
> > Not so easy 20 years ago, pre-internet. Google Raleigh Portage.
>
> I know, but they were still available.

And you don't think Portage owners were left in the lurch?

Date: 02 Dec 2006 04:21:59
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote in message
news:1165032560.914194.293040@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> clip overlap. I ride a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. In the
> >> >> 52cm
>> >> >>
>> >> Tires and rims will always be available.
>> >
>> > If you're willing to jump through hoops and pay through the nose. Wow.
>> >
>>
>>
>> People have no problem paying through the nose for cycling stuff, in case
>> you hadn't noticed. It's not like good 700c tires and wheels are cheap.
>> People pay big money for Honjo fenders, Berthoud bags, etc. It's a HOBBY.
>
> What's a HOBBY, overpaying for obscure, overpriced doo-doo? And "look
> what I got" chit-chat at the latte stop? Enjoy your hobby. Mine is
> riding bikes, sans the doo-doo and the chit-chat.
>

Dude, cycling IS a hobby. That's why Trek manages to sell $5000 Lance-alikes
to dentists in huge numbers. 5 years from now, those same customers will be
back for a newer, more high tech bike. They also line up for Assos gear and
pay through the nose for it. It's a hobby. Just like golf, tennis, or
fishing.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 22:15:30
From: Jack Murphy
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

From the OP:
I'll look into the Surly and the Windsor. I need to get a solid reliable
touring bike for not too much money, since I really want to extend my
touring in the next year or two. I do long weekend tours, want to begin
doing 2 week tours and some day cross country.

Here's proof that the Gunnar Sport can carry full touring gear, if a bit
wobbly at high speeds:

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/pics/01/docs/00/00/12/67/small/DSC00437_2.jpg?v=38

This has old Blackburn low rider mounts on the front fork, maybe 45 lbs full
of gear including tent, cookstove, water pump etc.

I've taken it into the Ozarks, where damn right the 30/25 gearing wasn't
adequate!
http://members.cox.net/jmurphyjr/Ozark2004/index.htm

Here in Kansas the hills aren't so long (there are some but you have to go
look for them) so not such a problem with gearing.
http://members.cox.net/jmurphyjr/Butler_County05/index.htm
or http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=lt&page_id=28210&v=2p (same
story)

But still I have to watch the wobble at speed, its not the bike to ride no
handed when fully loaded... And I know I don't want to keep loading this
bike down so heavy, its asking for trouble.

Last spring I was rolling back into town after a long weekend tour of about
250 miles, flying the last couple of miles with a 30mph tailwind, trying to
beat the storm and listening to Carmina Burana. I had noticed a bit more
wobble than usual but didn't suspect anything. Got home and noticed the rear
wheel was a bit out of true, look closer and see the rims (Mavic Open Pro,
10k miles on them) cracked, spokes ready to pop out! Yikes. So yah,
something a bit heavier duty would do well. I can't seem to tour without
hitting gravel or dirt for 3-10 miles somewhere, its always a cool road to
take but I wonder if I'll make it on this Sport.

I commute on this bike, fenders racks and lights this time of year. But
presto-chango in spring and summer I put on narrower tires and strip off the
fred stuff, and I hang right in there with the fast guys on club rides.
Touring is excellent fitness prep for other riding, if you work it hard
enough. That bikes feels so light and responsive without all that gear on
it! I love this bike, but know its time to get a bit more of a clydesdale
for touring.

Thanks for the tips.

Jack Murphy

Date: 26 Nov 2006 18:12:40
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >Agreed, if you are a skilled home mechanic, the bikes from Bikes Direct
> >are a killer deal. They are still a decent value if you pay to have a
> >competent mechanic set them up.
>
> I can set it up fine..... I was into biking big abt 15
> years ago.
>

Here's some what should be done before setting off on a 1000 mile tour:

1) the wheels should be un-tensioned, re-tensioned, properly centered
("dished"), stress relieved and trued with uniform spoke tension.

2) the hubs should be opened up, cleaned out, re-greased with a good
ine grease and properly adjusted.

3) ditto for the headset

4) the cable housings should be trimmed to the proper length and the
ends properly finished; the cables properly trimmed and capped

5) the headset, brakes and derailleurs properly adjusted

6) for loaded touring, you will want a lower gear. At a minimum, swap
out the 30T inner ring for a 26T

http://www.parktool.com/

is a good place to learn some skills and procedures. Click on "repair
help".

I'm sure I'm forgetting something important.... :-(

> I just haven't ridden since then and my big obstacle
> will be getting back in shape.
>
> I intend to get back in shape by commuting to work by
> bike abt 10 miles a day.
>
> I also intend to use the ultra-light method of
> touring.... hopefully

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:56:58
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
> >> >http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
> >>
> >> would you feel confident taking this level of bike on a
> >> thousand mile tour with camp equipment?
> >
> >If it's properly set-up and geared, yes, without reservation.
>
> So the components and quality of that bike is adequate
> or ore than adequate as far as your concerned?
>
> Its not "junk" by any means huh?

No, not junk. It does require some prep and set up, though. You can't
just open the box, put some parts in place and ride a 1000 mile tour
(at least not without alot of grief, IMO).

Date: 26 Nov 2006 16:11:30
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
> >> >http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
> >>
> >> would you feel confident taking this level of bike on a
> >> thousand mile tour with camp equipment?
> >
> >If it's properly set-up and geared, yes, without reservation.
>
> So the components and quality of that bike is adequate
> or ore than adequate as far as your concerned?
>
> Its not "junk" by any means huh?

Not at all. The hubs and rims are house branded, though. They're likely
fine stuff, but you never know. If I got it, I'd check the hubs first
thing and adjust if needed. Same goes for the rims, destress the spokes
and retune. They're likely rebranded Alex, which are plenty strong if
tensioned right.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 15:59:14
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Gooserider wrote:
> "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164550663.920008.248130@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jack Murphy wrote:
> >> I have a Gunnar sport that I overload for long weekend tours. Am
> >> beginning
> >> to plan for a full touring bike. I see from Gunnar that they will
> >> customize
> >> one of their frames to give it more of a full on touring geometry for not
> >> much more than stock, and several hundred less than the Waterford.
> >>
> >> Anyone know about these bikes? I'd like to get a steel frame touring
> >> bike,
> >> and don't want to spend a fortune.
> >
> > Gunnar and Waterford are one in the same. Gunnars are usually a bit
> > simpler without lugs and with powdercoat. It's still a damn fine frame.
> >
> > Best deal for frame alone is a Surly LHT. But the best value overall
> > for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
> > Touring for $600 via mail order. The latter's made on the same line as
> > the Fuji, AFAIK, you just need to go through it and replace the bits
> > you don't like as if it were a kit. I've heard a couple owners of the
> > Windsors had trouble with the spokes braking in the rear, but if you
> > have your local shop (or yourself) detress and hand tune it, you should
> > be fine.
>
> I have a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. It's not a full-on touring
> bike, and I don't think that the extra cost for custom geometry to get
> Gunnar to make one is worth it. If I was in the ket for a touring bike, I
> would go with the Surly LHT.

Hey, I was looking at a few pics of a Gunnar Sport, as I've only seen
the mtb frames close up, and it does look like they'd do just fine for
light touring with moderate rear bags and a goodly sized handlebar bag.
Do you think its beefy enough to handle 35# or so in the rear and maybe
a tenner in a bar bag? Or is the tubeset going to get all wiggly with
such weight? It's a really refreshing update on the formerly ubiquitous
"sport-touring" bikes we had in the 80s, that's for sure. I'd love one
in my stable. The OP might be just fine on one, if the load is kept
light.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 00:07:49
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164585554.172007.234250@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164550663.920008.248130@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Jack Murphy wrote:
>> >> I have a Gunnar sport that I overload for long weekend tours. Am
>> >> beginning
>> >> to plan for a full touring bike. I see from Gunnar that they will
>> >> customize
>> >> one of their frames to give it more of a full on touring geometry for
>> >> not
>> >> much more than stock, and several hundred less than the Waterford.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone know about these bikes? I'd like to get a steel frame touring
>> >> bike,
>> >> and don't want to spend a fortune.
>> >
>> > Gunnar and Waterford are one in the same. Gunnars are usually a bit
>> > simpler without lugs and with powdercoat. It's still a damn fine frame.
>> >
>> > Best deal for frame alone is a Surly LHT. But the best value overall
>> > for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
>> > Touring for $600 via mail order. The latter's made on the same line as
>> > the Fuji, AFAIK, you just need to go through it and replace the bits
>> > you don't like as if it were a kit. I've heard a couple owners of the
>> > Windsors had trouble with the spokes braking in the rear, but if you
>> > have your local shop (or yourself) detress and hand tune it, you should
>> > be fine.
>>
>> I have a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. It's not a full-on touring
>> bike, and I don't think that the extra cost for custom geometry to get
>> Gunnar to make one is worth it. If I was in the ket for a touring
>> bike, I
>> would go with the Surly LHT.
>
> Hey, I was looking at a few pics of a Gunnar Sport, as I've only seen
> the mtb frames close up, and it does look like they'd do just fine for
> light touring with moderate rear bags and a goodly sized handlebar bag.
> Do you think its beefy enough to handle 35# or so in the rear and maybe
> a tenner in a bar bag? Or is the tubeset going to get all wiggly with
> such weight?

Gunnar recommends no heavier a load than 20 pounds on the Sport. I don't
think the tubeset is going to get wiggly, because it's True Temper OS
Platinum(oversized). I think it's more a function of frame geometry. If you
could get your load weight down, sure you could tour on it. I still think
the Surly LHT is a better idea, especially since Surly is bringing out a
complete LHT bike this spring for less than a grand.

It's a really refreshing update on the formerly ubiquitous
> "sport-touring" bikes we had in the 80s, that's for sure. I'd love one
> in my stable. The OP might be just fine on one, if the load is kept
> light.

It's a lot of fun to ride, and is my daily commuter. I put 150 miles a week
on it commuting, and it's very comfortable. I've ridden it 80 miles in a day
with little discomfort. It's not designed to be a full on tourer. I don't
think it's rated to handle a front rack, and there aren't lowrider mounts on
the fork.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 13:46:04
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

landotter wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > me@privacy.net wrote:
> > > "Ozark Bicycle"
> > > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >http://www.bikesdirect.com
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
> > > >> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
> > > >> everything including the bike.
> > > >
> > > >Also, plan to spend ~$75-100 having the bike properly prepped and set
> > > >up by a *competent* bike mechanic.
> > >
> > > Ok will do
> > >
> > > My other option was the REI touring bike. I think its
> > > abt the same price range
> >
> > I just checked, the 2007 Novara Randonee is $950, so quite a bit more
> > expensive. OTOH, it does seem to be a nicer bike, without the need to
> > swap out chainrings, etc. (It comes with 48/38/26 rings and an 11-34
> > cassette. This is a good choice of gearing for loaded touring and shows
> > that the guys at REI "pay attention".)
>
> Having seen both, I'd say the Randonee is slightly nicer, but not 350
> dollars nicer.

Yes, but some of that price diff will be absorbed by the need to have
the Windsor prepped and set up. And more $ for different chainring(s).

Also, the Novaras I've seen up close have been very well done,
including well aligned frames.

>Certainly the chainrings make a lot more sense. The 11T
> cog is pretty silly as well, but with a 48 up front, you *might* end up
> using it.
>
> If you have a *good* REI close, the service can be excellent. I'd buy a
> bike from the one out in my burbs here without reservation, and they
> indeed can be flexible with setup.
>
> On the other hand, if you know how to size yourself and can tweak a
> bike, the Windsor is an incredible value. But, and this is a serious
> but, don't expect bikesdirect to jump through hoops if something is
> wrong.

Agreed, if you are a skilled home mechanic, the bikes from Bikes Direct
are a killer deal. They are still a decent value if you pay to have a
competent mechanic set them up.

And, yes, Bikes Direct is not a hoop jumping bunch. But neither is the
average LBS.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 18:01:39
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>Agreed, if you are a skilled home mechanic, the bikes from Bikes Direct
>are a killer deal. They are still a decent value if you pay to have a
>competent mechanic set them up.

I can set it up fine..... I was into biking big abt 15
years ago.

I just haven't ridden since then and my big obstacle
will be getting back in shape.

I intend to get back in shape by commuting to work by
bike abt 10 miles a day.

I also intend to use the ultra-light method of
touring.... hopefully

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:43:31
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> > "Ozark Bicycle"
> > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.bikesdirect.com
> > >>
> > >> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
> > >> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
> > >> everything including the bike.
> > >
> > >Also, plan to spend ~$75-100 having the bike properly prepped and set
> > >up by a *competent* bike mechanic.
> >
> > Ok will do
> >
> > My other option was the REI touring bike. I think its
> > abt the same price range
>
> I just checked, the 2007 Novara Randonee is $950, so quite a bit more
> expensive. OTOH, it does seem to be a nicer bike, without the need to
> swap out chainrings, etc. (It comes with 48/38/26 rings and an 11-34
> cassette. This is a good choice of gearing for loaded touring and shows
> that the guys at REI "pay attention".)

Having seen both, I'd say the Randonee is slightly nicer, but not 350
dollars nicer. Certainly the chainrings make a lot more sense. The 11T
cog is pretty silly as well, but with a 48 up front, you *might* end up
using it.

If you have a *good* REI close, the service can be excellent. I'd buy a
bike from the one out in my burbs here without reservation, and they
indeed can be flexible with setup.

On the other hand, if you know how to size yourself and can tweak a
bike, the Windsor is an incredible value. But, and this is a serious
but, don't expect bikesdirect to jump through hoops if something is
wrong.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:59:33
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:

>On the other hand, if you know how to size yourself and can tweak a
>bike, the Windsor is an incredible value. But, and this is a serious
>but, don't expect bikesdirect to jump through hoops if something is
>wrong.

Understood.

Maybe I should buy a used Windsor off eBay to keep
price down even more?

What I'm wanting to do is buy very cheap almost
disposable gear..... tweak my riding style next spring,
learn what I need and don't need..... THAN go bike the
heavy duty stuff for a Trans-am tour.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:37:13
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
> >http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
>
> would you feel confident taking this level of bike on a
> thousand mile tour with camp equipment?

I would. Perhaps you can explain what's wrong with a Taiwanese made
bike equipped with Tiagra/Deore that would make it more unreliable than
another Taiwanese bike equipped with Tiagra/Deore but sold in a bike
shop.

I mean, whatever you ride needs to be dialed in and have any gimpy
parts replaced that might be worrisome, and to be honest, I don't even
trust the cretins at my bike shop to do that. If you don't have the
level of mechanical skill to dial in a bike, I'd think twice before
going on a 1200 mile journey.

The Windsor is a fine bike just like the rest, with whatever decals
they decided to name it this week. It'll come boxed and you have to
install the front wheel and handlebars. That's often just it, but
usually you have to tweak the brakes and derailleurs to get it just so.
Last bike I picked up at the LBS didn't have the fixed gear lock ring
tightened, the brakes weren't toed in, and pretty much everything
needing adjustment. They blamed it on the factory. So this myth that
it's always better to buy from a bike shop is just that, a myth. The
ones around here all suck. I know of good ones in Chicago, but it's not
worth the 12 hour drive. ;0)

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:56:20
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:

>I would. Perhaps you can explain what's wrong with a Taiwanese made
>bike equipped with Tiagra/Deore that would make it more unreliable than
>another Taiwanese bike equipped with Tiagra/Deore but sold in a bike
>shop.

I cant explain..... I don't know. <sheepish grin >

I would assume its just as good as anything else...but
rally depending on you all to have more insight than I
do.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:04:25
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:03:00
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.bikesdirect.com
> >>
> >> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
> >> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
> >> everything including the bike.
> >
> >Also, plan to spend ~$75-100 having the bike properly prepped and set
> >up by a *competent* bike mechanic.
>
> Ok will do
>
> My other option was the REI touring bike. I think its
> abt the same price range

I just checked, the 2007 Novara Randonee is $950, so quite a bit more
expensive. OTOH, it does seem to be a nicer bike, without the need to
swap out chainrings, etc. (It comes with 48/38/26 rings and an 11-34
cassette. This is a good choice of gearing for loaded touring and shows
that the guys at REI "pay attention".)

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:58:12
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:54:35
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:54:29
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>> >Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
>> >http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
>>
>> would you feel confident taking this level of bike on a
>> thousand mile tour with camp equipment?
>
>If it's properly set-up and geared, yes, without reservation.

So the components and quality of that bike is adequate
or ore than adequate as far as your concerned?

Its not "junk" by any means huh?

Date: 26 Nov 2006 10:52:13
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle"
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.bikesdirect.com
> >>
> >> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
> >> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
> >> everything including the bike.
> >
> >Also, plan to spend ~$75-100 having the bike properly prepped and set
> >up by a *competent* bike mechanic.
>
> Ok will do
>
> My other option was the REI touring bike. I think its
> abt the same price range

The Novara Randonee? That's historically a nice bike, but, IIRC, it's
about $900 (although there might be off season price reductions. As far
as proper set-up goes, REI can be a mixed bag. I used to live fairly
close to two REI stores. One did a tolerably good job, the other less
so. One nice thing about REI is that they let you swap components
(e.g., chainrings, saddles, etc.) for the price difference, you can't
do that with a mail order bike.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 17:56:59
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>The Novara Randonee? That's historically a nice bike, but, IIRC, it's
>about $900

Ooops...yes you are correct. It costs more

My bad

Date: 26 Nov 2006 09:51:22
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

m...@privacy.net wrote:
> "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the best value overall
> >for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
> >Touring for $600 via mail order.
>
> Where would you mail order it from?

http://www.bikesdirect.com
>
> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
> everything including the bike.

Also, plan to spend ~$75-100 having the bike properly prepped and set
up by a *competent* bike mechanic.

And, if you are going "loaded" touring, I would suggest swapping the
30T inner ring for a 26T. Even better, swap the 52/42/30 rings for,
say, 48/38/26. A 48/11 is an adequately high gear for a touring bike; I
doubt you would ever need the 52/11 it comes with.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 12:16:59
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ozark Bicycle"
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:

>http://www.bikesdirect.com
>>
>> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
>> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
>> everything including the bike.
>
>Also, plan to spend ~$75-100 having the bike properly prepped and set
>up by a *competent* bike mechanic.

Ok will do

My other option was the REI touring bike. I think its
abt the same price range

Date: 26 Nov 2006 06:17:43
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Jack Murphy wrote:
> I have a Gunnar sport that I overload for long weekend tours. Am beginning
> to plan for a full touring bike. I see from Gunnar that they will customize
> one of their frames to give it more of a full on touring geometry for not
> much more than stock, and several hundred less than the Waterford.
>
> Anyone know about these bikes? I'd like to get a steel frame touring bike,
> and don't want to spend a fortune.

Gunnar and Waterford are one in the same. Gunnars are usually a bit
simpler without lugs and with powdercoat. It's still a damn fine frame.

Best deal for frame alone is a Surly LHT. But the best value overall
for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
Touring for $600 via mail order. The latter's made on the same line as
the Fuji, AFAIK, you just need to go through it and replace the bits
you don't like as if it were a kit. I've heard a couple owners of the
Windsors had trouble with the spokes braking in the rear, but if you
have your local shop (or yourself) detress and hand tune it, you should
be fine.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 23:22:26
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164550663.920008.248130@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Murphy wrote:
>> I have a Gunnar sport that I overload for long weekend tours. Am
>> beginning
>> to plan for a full touring bike. I see from Gunnar that they will
>> customize
>> one of their frames to give it more of a full on touring geometry for not
>> much more than stock, and several hundred less than the Waterford.
>>
>> Anyone know about these bikes? I'd like to get a steel frame touring
>> bike,
>> and don't want to spend a fortune.
>
> Gunnar and Waterford are one in the same. Gunnars are usually a bit
> simpler without lugs and with powdercoat. It's still a damn fine frame.
>
> Best deal for frame alone is a Surly LHT. But the best value overall
> for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
> Touring for $600 via mail order. The latter's made on the same line as
> the Fuji, AFAIK, you just need to go through it and replace the bits
> you don't like as if it were a kit. I've heard a couple owners of the
> Windsors had trouble with the spokes braking in the rear, but if you
> have your local shop (or yourself) detress and hand tune it, you should
> be fine.

I have a Gunnar Sport, and it's a great bike. It's not a full-on touring
bike, and I don't think that the extra cost for custom geometry to get
Gunnar to make one is worth it. If I was in the ket for a touring bike, I
would go with the Surly LHT.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 18:02:08
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

> If I was in the ket for a touring bike, I
>would go with the Surly LHT.

what abt co-motion americano?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 00:09:36
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

<me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:inakm25usnrsotdduf65dbovl84ok2b7k4@4ax.com...
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> If I was in the ket for a touring bike, I
>>would go with the Surly LHT.
>
> what abt co-motion americano?

Since the Surly can be built for about a thousand dollars or so, and the
Co-Motion is listed on their website as $3150, the Surly wins.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 09:22:35
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>Since the Surly can be built for about a thousand dollars or so, and the
>Co-Motion is listed on their website as $3150, the Surly wins.

what's your opinion on titanium as a touring or cross
bike material?

Date: 27 Nov 2006 23:21:03
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

<me@privacy.net > wrote in message
news:1l0mm2lmld2qvciemh0hg3o8648t60kio8@4ax.com...
> "Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>>Since the Surly can be built for about a thousand dollars or so, and the
>>Co-Motion is listed on their website as $3150, the Surly wins.
>
> what's your opinion on titanium as a touring or cross
> bike material?

The standard argument against anything but steel as a touring bike material
is "you can get a steel bike welded in Nepal if you need to". I don't buy
it. I don't think I would want some backwoods welder working on thin walled
Reynolds 853 or True Temper OS or any other modern steel. Ti should be an
excellent material. Lightweight, durable, non corroding. The only reason I
ride steel is because I like steel. I would love to be riding a lugged
Waterford but price is always a concern.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:36:50
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:

>The standard argument against anything but steel as a touring bike material
>is "you can get a steel bike welded in Nepal if you need to". I don't buy
>it.

I tend to agree with yo on that

I see that argument abt steel getting worked on
anywhere as well

Frankly if I crash my expensive bike I'm not letting
just anyone work on it.

Id probably call it quits and ship it home.

Date: 27 Nov 2006 09:02:53
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

Date: 26 Nov 2006 11:37:49
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"landotter" <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:

> But the best value overall
>for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
>Touring for $600 via mail order.

Where would you mail order it from?

I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
much equip to buy will have to get god value in
everything including the bike.

Date: 26 Nov 2006 12:45:26
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "landotter" <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But the best value overall
>> for a steel touring bike, is either a Fuji Touring, or even a Windsor
>> Touring for $600 via mail order.
>
> Where would you mail order it from?
>
> I'm wanting to get into touring next year but have so
> much equip to buy will have to get god value in
> everything including the bike.

Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
or the whole search here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windsor+touring+bike&btnG=Google+Search

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

Date: 26 Nov 2006 12:16:13
From:
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

"Ken C. M." <ken@up-yours-spammer.net > wrote:

>
>Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
>http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm

would you feel confident taking this level of bike on a
thousand mile tour with camp equipment?

Date: 26 Nov 2006 13:23:18
From: Ken C. M.
Subject: Re: Gunnar bike for touring

me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Ken C. M." <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:
>
>> Here what I turned up in a simple google search:
>> http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
>
> would you feel confident taking this level of bike on a
> thousand mile tour with camp equipment?
I took /less/ of a bike on a 1,200 mile tour last year. With camping
gear. I rode a Raleigh hybrid c200 up through Central Florida and
through the panhandle area on into Alabama.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong