# Difference between a touring bike and a race bike



## millman (Mar 7, 2010)

Hi all,

I've decided to purchase a new bike instead of trying to upgrade my 1982 fuji sports 12. The bike still rides ok but it could use new wheels, and drive train for any serious riding. Can anyone tell me the difference between a touring bike and a regular race road bike? I can see that the touring bikes have more of a positive angle stem and it seems the sizes are larger. I'm 6'5" and the fuji has a 27"frame. According to all the fiting charts, I need at least a 63cm.

My riding will be mostly around the finger lakes here in NY and local charity events. I mountain bike but am a "fair weather rider" who doesn't like to ride in the mud so I figure I can ride the dry roads instead of the muck on the trails and need something better on the hills. 

Let me know and thanks.

Greg


----------



## locobaylor (Mar 11, 2008)

Race road bikes will have a more aggressive geometry. You'll be leaned over more. The gearing on the bikes will also be different. Most touring bikes will have a triple up front while most race bikes will have a double or a compact.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

millman said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've decided to purchase a new bike instead of trying to upgrade my 1982 fuji sports 12. The bike still rides ok but it could use new wheels, and drive train for any serious riding. *Can anyone tell me the difference between a touring bike and a regular race road bike? I can see that the touring bikes have more of a positive angle stem and it seems the sizes are larger.* I'm 6'5" and the fuji has a 27"frame. According to all the fiting charts, I need at least a 63cm.
> 
> ...


Neither stem angles nor sizing are indicators of a touring or race bike. A riders size requirements aren't going to change much from a touring or race bike and preference for position (more upright or more aero) dictates stem angle. But generally speaking, you're right that touring bikes have bars somewhat higher than a race bike would.

Race bikes generally have shorter chainstays and less trail resulting in a shorter wheelbase and quicker steering. The opposite holds true for the tourers. Also, tourers would have eyelets for mounting racks and fenders. That's not to say some more aggressive road bikes _never_ have eyelets, but tourers _will_ have them. Same goes for cranksets - Triples _can_ be OEM'd on race bikes, but they're more common on tourers. Tires are generally wider on tourers as well.

Here are some pretty interesting shots of tourers in action:
http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/fullyloaded

Not knowing your price range, it's somewhat difficult to recommend a specific bike, but for your purposes you may want something like the Jamis Aurora, but there are others:
http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebikes/road/aurora/10_aurora.html


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Differences*



millman said:


> I've decided to purchase a new bike instead of trying to upgrade my 1982 fuji sports 12. The bike still rides ok but it could use new wheels, and drive train for any serious riding. Can anyone tell me the difference between a touring bike and a regular race road bike? I can see that the touring bikes have more of a positive angle stem and it seems the sizes are larger. I'm 6'5" and the fuji has a 27"frame. According to all the fiting charts, I need at least a 63cm.
> 
> My riding will be mostly around the finger lakes here in NY and local charity events. I mountain bike but am a "fair weather rider" who doesn't like to ride in the mud so I figure I can ride the dry roads instead of the muck on the trails and need something better on the hills.


You won't really find many true touring bikes, but a touring bike will have longer chainstays (for heel clearance to the panniers and less jarring ride), less trail (for more steering stability), braze-ons for racks, fenders, and extra water bottles, typically a more upright riding position, wider tires and stronger wheels, and truly low gearing (triple crankset and large cassette cogs) for hauling all that weight up the hills.

What you will find in most bike shops is more what is called a "sport-touring" bike and that can be anything from a de-tuned racer to actual touring geometry but without all the touring bike features. They WILL have triple chainrings, but probably not low gearing.


----------



## millman (Mar 7, 2010)

*Definetly a triple.*

So for me, looking for weekend rides and not overnight trips, I should look for something with a more upright stem and a triple in the sport tourer class. One of the issues I have seen is the sizing. The largest non touring bike has been a 61 and I don't have the $$ for a custom. Any suggestions? We have lots of different brands being sold up here in Rochester.

Thanks again.

Greg


----------



## millman (Mar 7, 2010)

PJ352 said:


> Neither stem angles nor sizing are indicators of a touring or race bike. A riders size requirements aren't going to change much from a touring or race bike and preference for position (more upright or more aero) dictates stem angle. But generally speaking, you're right that touring bikes have bars somewhat higher than a race bike would.
> 
> Race bikes generally have shorter chainstays and less trail resulting in a shorter wheelbase and quicker steering. The opposite holds true for the tourers. Also, tourers would have eyelets for mounting racks and fenders. That's not to say some more aggressive road bikes _never_ have eyelets, but tourers _will_ have them. Same goes for cranksets - Triples _can_ be OEM'd on race bikes, but they're more common on tourers. Tires are generally wider on tourers as well.
> 
> ...



I was going to limit my price to about 1-1200 at the most. I just looked at the Jamis Friday and didn't get a chance to ride due to the snow. I ride a Jamis Dragon 29er mountain bike and I like thier quality. The other I was considering was the Fuji Touring. It wasn't fully decked out with the racks except for the rear which I like. Maybe this week if the weather stays in the 40's I'll be able to test. 

Thanks.

Greg


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

millman said:


> So for me, looking for weekend rides and not overnight trips, I should look for something with a more upright stem and a triple in the sport tourer class. * One of the issues I have seen is the sizing. The largest non touring bike has been a 61 and I don't have the $$ for a custom.* Any suggestions? We have lots of different brands being sold up here in Rochester.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Greg


Ah, I misunderstood your remark on sizing. I thought you were under the impression that a different_ type _of road bike would change your sizing requirements. 

I would leave the determination of sizing requirements to the LBS, because they _may_ vary from brand to brand and sometimes even models within brands. There's a good chance that a 61 or 62 cm frame will fit you, but there's no way to know that until you visit a reputable LBS and work with an experienced fitter.

The Jamis and Surly top out at 62 cm's, but again, they may fit:
http://surlybikes.com/bikes/long_haul_trucker_complete/


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

millman said:


> I was going to limit my price to about 1-1200 at the most. I just looked at the Jamis Friday and didn't get a chance to ride due to the snow. I ride a Jamis Dragon 29er mountain bike and I like thier quality. *The other I was considering was the Fuji Touring*. It wasn't fully decked out with the racks except for the rear which I like. Maybe this week if the weather stays in the 40's I'll be able to test.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Greg


Yes, the Fuji size 6 looks like it's close to a 64 cm, so that might be worth a look. Still, I think it's best to work with a LBS on pinning down sizing and fit requirements.


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

the motor


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

TWB8s said:


> the motor


Ain't that the truth! When the racer boy is done for the day, the tourist is just getting warmed up...


----------



## millman (Mar 7, 2010)

*synapse and sequoia*

Went to the bike shop today and looked at a 2010 C-dale Synapse 6 in a 61cm and a 2009 Specialized Sequoia in a 61cm. Both seemed to fit pretty well off the bat. Only about 3 to 4 inches up on the seat post. I'm just not used to seeing the top tube so far away . Standover for both was about 33 to 34" and both were alum. with carbon forks. The C-dale looked better and had better components. I don't know if the price difference -369 is worth the components. I'm also going to look up our surley dealer and Fisher. Surley seems pretty old school with the whole cromo frame and fork. Any experience with any of these bikes? I'm also going to surch the forums.

Thanks


----------



## slitespd (Nov 2, 2004)

2K and plastic frame.


----------



## millman (Mar 7, 2010)

Thanks for all your help. I got some great information here and some interesting comments. 

Millman


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

millman said:


> Went to the bike shop today and looked at a 2010 C-dale Synapse 6 in a 61cm and a 2009 Specialized Sequoia in a 61cm. Both seemed to fit pretty well off the bat. Only about 3 to 4 inches up on the seat post. I'm just not used to seeing the top tube so far away . Standover for both was about 33 to 34" and both were alum. with carbon forks. The C-dale looked better and had better components. I don't know if the price difference -369 is worth the components. I'm also going to look up our surley dealer and Fisher. Surley seems pretty old school with the whole cromo frame and fork. Any experience with any of these bikes? I'm also going to surch the forums.
> 
> Thanks


I have no firsthand experience with the bikes you've listed, but will offer some thoughts on two.

The Secteur is new this year, so you won't find a lot of info on it. FWIW Bicycling did a review of it:
http://www.bicycling.com/gear/detail/0,7989,s1-16-154-2795-0,00.html

Also FWIW I don't think the current crop of steel bikes can really be considered 'old school'. There have been advances in steel technology just as there have been with alu and CF, but if weight savings is your priority, then yes, steel is at a slight disadvantage. OTOH, many would argue that all else being equal, steel offers a more comfortable ride, and the best way to pin down your preferences is through test rides.

Realistically, all of the bikes you're looking at are good in their own right. C'dale and Specialized offer lifetime warranties and (I believe) Surly offers 5 years, but steel is much easier and cheaper to repair than alu, if that's a concern.

I think the one that fits you and your intended uses best, wins. Reviews are interesting to read and research educates, but IME the ride is what helps you decide.


----------



## millman (Mar 7, 2010)

*Pulled the trigger*

Well, I pulled the trigger on a Trek 64cm 2.3. It went a little above my budget, but the LBS I dealt with gave me $100 off and I'm using Treks money for 6 mos. interest free:thumbsup: . I looked at a 09 in a 62, but I liked the feel on the initial fit a bit better and this bike shop is 30 miles closer to home. I go in next saturday for the final fit. (approx 2 hours) and ride.  

An interesting thing was the LBS looked at the Trek inventory levels and found a majority of the 62 and 64 models sold out. There was one 1.5 64 in a warehouse in NJ they would have ordered for me if I wanted but I thought the componentry on the 2.3 was worth the extra $, and no discount on the special order.

Millman.


----------

