In article <1156323781.690643.81150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Auz <austin_gray@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> >
> > You don't need a tourer to do that - any s****ts bike can be fitted
with
> > a beam rack to carry a large rack pack or small panniers, or you can
get
> > quite a lot in a good old-fa****oned saddlebag (the Carradice sort, not
a
> > wedge pack).
>
>
> What do mean by s****ts bike? A road bike?
Indeed, but isn't a tourer also a road bike? I didn't use the term
"road racer" because I don't think that's really what you want in terms
of cost or performance - I suppose "training bike" might have been a
better label, but I've not seen many production bikes so described. So I
used "s****ts bike" as a description of a race-style machine with the
edge taken off - mudguard clearance, slightly gentler steering geometry,
cheaper than a competition machine ...
> With the amount of holes in the road? I thought tourers were built a bit
> stronger with wider wheels? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know much...
>
Touring bikes are built for a relaxed ride with a substantial load, so
they're slower and less nimble than s****ts bikes. Unless you're riding
over wheel-swallowing potholes a narrow high-pressure wheel should
survive as long as you keep the tyres at a suitable pressure, and a
lighter quicker-handling bike should make it easier to avoid potholes in
the first place. It really depends how energetic your commuting will be
whether you'll prefer the quick or comfy approach, but both styles of
bike should be up to the job. I was really just pointing out that you
needn't restrict your choice to a Galaxy type machine.
--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt
|
