# touring vs. "racing" bike



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

I'm toying with the idea of riding the Furnace Creek 508 course solo, unsupported. 508 miles, 35k' climbing, very, very long stretches between services (i.e., water), desert terrain and weather.

In the race, you have a crew vehicle hauling everything you need. It's hot and dry, so you take lots of water, consuming at least a quart an hour. The longest stretch without services (anything), on a bike, could be 5-7 hours. So, solo, you'd need to carry lots of water. Need food/supplements, too.

The weather can vary a lot, too, so you need to carry clothing for everything from 40 degrees and rain to 105 degrees and sunny.

All this means you would probably need something like a touring bike, with extra water bottle mounts and a rack to carry clothing and spares. Probably don't need a tent, though, as there are a couple of motels that you could plan to nap at strategically, understanding that it may take around 48 hours or more to complete.

I've never ridden a touring bike, though, so my question is how much slower they are compared to a normal race bike? For example, if you might normally cruise at 20 mph on race bike, where would you be on a loaded tourer? I assume climbing will be proportionately slower, based on the additional weight, right? Descending might be bit slower, too (no 64 mph on the dark, solo!). 

Is there such thing as a "fast" touring bike?

Anyone have any input or suggestions? Thanks.


----------



## StageHand (Dec 27, 2002)

Waterford/Gunnar has a Sport Touring model/geometry. Longer stays, lower bb than racing bikes, but the angles are similar, I think. It's a great ride, IMO. The biggest problem you'll have with "touring" bikes is heavier frames. (Yes, there are exceptions) That's what I'd start with. I would stay away from cross bikes, as they tend to keep weight kind of high. (Yes, there are exceptions) That's the kind of thing I'd start with, then see what you don't like, or like, about them on test rides. If you have friends with that style of bike, see if you can borrow them, and test ride with your expected load.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

I think some randonneuring or light touring bikes are between touring & road bike designs. They feature the lighter tubesets of racing bikes, since they aren't intended to necessarily carry lots of touring weight, but have the longer wheel base and configuration that give a more comfortable ride, making long, long consecutive hours on the bike easier to do. My Vanilla is basically a rando-style bike. I don't notice any objective speed difference over my Litespeed road bike, but it doesn't "feel" as spry. The main difference is that I can ride the Vanilla over a 250 mile brevet with less bike-induced fatigue than I feel over 100 miles on the Litespeed. The absence of that fatigue and those aches & pains are what help keep the speed up later in those long rides. The fits are very similar. The wheels are the same. 

I've done weekend touring with the Vanilla... carrying a full Carradice bag. Depending on how much water you're carrying at anytime (more than a gallon), I'd think that the water weight will be the biggest performance issue, particularly up the hills. That being said, once you found a nice, comfortable, good-performance light touring bike, I'd think that the biggest performance boost would be to dump as much water as you could afford to before heading up any big hills...


----------



## biknben (Jan 28, 2004)

Fixed said:


> Is there such thing as a "fast" touring bike?
> 
> Anyone have any input or suggestions? Thanks.


I did a hilly 600k brevet through the Catskills of NY in '06. I used a Surly Cross-Check with rear rack and trunk bag. I remember feeling as if I was going at a snail's pace. The overall weight of the bike just killed me went the road went up. It bugged me so much that I did not enjoy the event.

I did the event again in '07. This time, I chose to go minimal on a C'Dale SystemSix. The experience was entirely different. I completed the exact same route in the same overall time. The difference was that I slept for 3 additional hours. :thumbsup: My weight and fitness were relatively the same. The bike/gear was the difference.

I'd describe myself as a racer-type and had a hard time trying to keep my ego in check that first year. Since you've done the 508 a couple times fast. I suspect you might have similar issues when forced to go painfully slow.


----------



## kvojr (Jul 17, 2007)

If you have a crew vehicle ahuling everything, why would you need a new bike? Or am I reading the post wrong?


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*uh*



kvojr said:


> If you have a crew vehicle ahuling everything, why would you need a new bike? Or am I reading the post wrong?


Normally, in the event, you have crew. I'm thinking of doing it no crew, solo, totally unsupported.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

how much do you need to carry? one of the surly peeps has a pacer (fixed mod) set up as a "camping bike" that sort of bridges the divide between road and touring. 

http://www.surlybikes.com/2007_03_01_blog_archive.html#8058125800398754394


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

Fixed said:


> ....All this means you would probably need something like a touring bike, with extra water bottle mounts and a rack to carry clothing and spares. .....


What you are describing is a Sport-Touring bike. Our Waterford RS22 frames are exactly what you are looking for. The Gunner Road Sport is another. I am sure there are plenty of others out there.

No real performance loss compared to a race bike with the same load of stuff. It is just a whole lot easier to carry the stuff on a frame designed for it (plus you can run slightly wider tires to support that weight).


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

MB1 said:


> What you are describing is a Sport-Touring bike. Our Waterford RS22 frames are exactly what you are looking for. The Gunner Road Sport is another. I am sure there are plenty of others out there.
> 
> No real performance loss compared to a race bike with the same load of stuff. It is just a whole lot easier to carry the stuff on a frame designed for it (plus you can run slightly wider tires to support that weight).


MB1, does the RS22 have decent fender clearance? With what size tire? I have an RS-11 which I love except for the fact that it has virtually no clearance (even though it has eyelets).


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

rcnute said:


> MB1, does the RS22 have decent fender clearance? With what size tire? I have an RS-11 which I love except for the fact that it has virtually no clearance (even though it has eyelets).


Well of course all Waterfords are custom now. I told them that I wanted to run 28's with fenders and that is what they provided. I could probably even run 32's with fenders if I wanted to.


----------



## pyrtwist (Feb 5, 2008)

Racing bike all the way. It is the most efficient bike period. I own both touring and racing bikes. Stick with the Ferari and leave the SUV at home.


----------



## BikeRider (Aug 5, 2003)

I own both a Seven Axiom Ti bike with 23/25mm tires and also a Waterford Adventure Cycle touring bike that I sometimes run with 32mm tires and sometimes with 28mm tires. Every ride I take I keep a record of, including the average speed I rode at and which bike was used. Over about a 9 month period I averaged the speed out for each bike and I got less than a 1 mph difference in speed between the two, the Waterford being the slower. The Waterford is also heavier, 25lbs vs 18.75lbs for the Seven. The Seven feels a lot faster but in reality is only slightly faster.

I once did a tour than included the stretch of road along the western side of Colorado going from Rangely down to Grand Junction. The distance was a little over 90 miles including one mountain pass. I didn't think there would be anyplace to stop for food or water so I took 6 water bottles and food for the stretch with me. I was on my 5th bottle when I finally came to a place about 70 miles into the ride. The weather conditions were pretty mild there, so in hot weather I'd want to take a good bit more water.


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

BikeRider said:


> I once did a tour than included the stretch of road along the western side of Colorado going from Rangely down to Grand Junction. The distance was a little over 90 miles including one mountain pass. I didn't think there would be anyplace to stop for food or water so I took 6 water bottles and food for the stretch with me. I was on my 5th bottle when I finally came to a place about 70 miles into the ride. The weather conditions were pretty mild there, so in hot weather I'd want to take a good bit more water.


Hey, is that road paved? (My fiancee's family lives in the Grand Valley and I've thought about riding that road.)


----------



## BikeRider (Aug 5, 2003)

Pablo said:


> Hey, is that road paved? (My fiancee's family lives in the Grand Valley and I've thought about riding that road.)


Yes it was paved. The road I rode on is 139, the tour was back in 1990. I had come over from Utah through Vernal on Hwy 40 over to Dinosaur then down on 64 to Rangely. I then rode 139 down to Loma then on Hwy 6 over to Fruita and down into Grand Junction. I don't live out there so don't have any idea how the road is nowadays.


----------



## JP (Feb 8, 2005)

rcnute said:


> MB1, does the RS22 have decent fender clearance? With what size tire? I have an RS-11 which I love except for the fact that it has virtually no clearance (even though it has eyelets).


They will build what you want. I asked for room for 38 plus fenders although I think I will mostly run 32. To do this, I went with cantis, but there are long reach center or side pulls if you prefer. Can't wait to see the results....


----------



## RedRex (Oct 24, 2004)

Race bike.

Metal seatpost with Performance trunk rack and REI expandable trunk bag. 

Third water bottle on Minoura stem mount with steel cage, fourth water bottle on top of trunk bag, held with net. If you need more than four bottles, jersey pocket or forage.

On Brevets I just use the trunk rack with an old stuff sack on top, held with webbing.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*good info*

Good info, thanks.

Considering using my Soma ES, presently set up as a commuter. The frame is not fancy, but it is "only" 4 pounds, and has almost all the necessary qualities -- long stays, rack mounts, relaxed geometry, etc. Will need to change out the 1x10 gearing to a 3x10, but that's relatively easy. Sounds like the speed difference may not be all that much, particularly when the speeds are going to be lower for this kind of thing no matter what bike is used. When I did this as a race in 2001, my average speed was "only" 14 mph, which included all stops on the clock and 35,000 feet of climbing, so over all it may not be all that much slower. I was actually more concerned about aerodyamics of a multi-bag equipped touring bike than weight, but it's not like I'll be attempting 25 mph on the flats.


----------



## Sledgehammer03 (Mar 7, 2006)

Sounds like a great personnal challenge.

Good Luck Dog.


----------



## nycmtber (Jun 9, 2005)

*Similar circumstances*

I'm training to qualify for the RAAM this September and prefer one gear. 

Currently, I ride a Surly Cross-Check in 48-18 w/ freewheel as a commuter and for long rides. I got the cross check because I wanted to tour as well as commute and ultra-end. race. It has a high end build.

I think the cross check climbs like a pig compared to the race bikes. I can ride all day on it and feel very comfortable, but I know I'm definitely wasting some energy dragging it up the hills. I've ridden far lighter bikes in SS mode and have decided the lighter bike is the way to go. 

That said, I'm building up a Titus Modena that's going to be ridiculously light but with no compromises in strength and durability, and I think it will still be plenty comfortable for riding extremely long hours.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*qualifier?*



nycmtber said:


> I'm training to qualify for the RAAM this September and prefer one gear.
> 
> Currently, I ride a Surly Cross-Check in 48-18 w/ freewheel as a commuter and for long rides. I got the cross check because I wanted to tour as well as commute and ultra-end. race. It has a high end build.
> 
> ...


What qualifier are you going to do? Going to do 500 miles fixed or ss? 

Good thing about most qualifiers is that you can use multiple bikes and have full support. Can get away with very different type of bike, carrying zero extra weight.


----------



## nycmtber (Jun 9, 2005)

Fixed said:


> What qualifier are you going to do? Going to do 500 miles fixed or ss?
> 
> Good thing about most qualifiers is that you can use multiple bikes and have full support. Can get away with very different type of bike, carrying zero extra weight.


the adirondack 540 in September. I'll be doing it SS. I doubt I'll be using any other bike, but certainly will be able to carry less than on your ride.


----------

