Velo Orange Campeur (Touring) Frames - Another option...

[Aushiker]

There is now a guest blog post by Nicholas Carmen (who blogs as Gypsy by Trade) on packing the Campeur bikepacking (MTB) style.

The excitement to load my bicycle with expedition-grade racks and plastic waterproof panniers has waned, and is countered by a fascination with ride quality, rather than load capacity. My cycling interests have wandered off-pavement and over mountains, onto the Great Divide Route and the Colorado Trail, and a lessened load has become my best friend. A lightweight bike allows greater access to new terrain and reduces fatigue on both rider and bicycle. A smaller load equates to a lessened frontal face and an aerodynamic profile in headwinds or when riding fast. The bike is easier to lift over fences and rocky trails; best of all, it is fun to ride. With a quiet lightweight bike and larger volume tires, I can go anywhere.

More at Velo Orange.

Andrew

 

[hoopdriver]

I know you hear this a lot, but does it really add up? The flat bar basic indexed shifters on my hybrid have been there for 15 years with pretty much no maintenance. When they got a bit sticky I took the covering cap off and squirted some GT85 in and all is well. If the worse comes to the worst, how hard would it be to just buy another basic shifter? I appreciate that if you are going to do extreme tours across deserts etc etc this argument may stand up, but the vast vast majority of folk tour in places with shops of some sort surely? It's just a gear changer, it doesn't have to be the latest model. NB: I have no drop bar bikes and appreciate that some of their systems can be more complex. Another argument in favour of flat-bar tourers maybe.

Nothing whatever wrong with drops for touring. I have used nothing else and have toured many thousands of miles all over the world for over 30 years with absolutely no trouble whatever. Same with your 'retro' shifters. The are simple and utterly reliable.

I take the point that without rack and mudguards the bike on display would not be suitable for touring, but as for the other criticisms, you couldn't have seen many dedicated touring bikes in your time.

 

[andrew_s]

Having said that, the actual drops are pretty much pointless!

They are very handy when you've got a strong headwind and a ferry to catch.

 

[Manonabike]

I'm sure we've done this before but I like drops for a couple of reasons. I like the look - which is superfluous but kind of important to me! I also like the position of the hands that riding on the hoods gives. It's what I'm used to on other bikes too and although, like HovR, I use the other possible positions, I don't like what feels like a slightly unnatural straight bar position for long periods. Each to his own however!
Having said that, the actual drops are pretty much pointless!

I feel the same way.....

I'm thinking about touring for next year so I have no experience in the matter. Having said that, everytime I read about guys going on long tours round the world I see they ride drop bars.

I will soon start building a touring bike and I will be using compact drop bars, I wouldn't use any other type of bars.

 

[hoopdriver]

Nitto Noodles are very comfortable drop bars for touring

 

[P.H]

They are very handy when you've got a strong headwind and a ferry to catch.

Well an aerodynamic position is, that's not about the bars.

Having said that, everytime I read about guys going on long tours round the world I see they ride drop bars.

Here's a fantastic gallery of fully loaded touring bikes, what you'll notice is the bikes and their bars come in a whole variety of shapes and sizes.
http://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/fullyloaded
I have a drop bar touring bike and a straight bar one, the drop bar is great for tarmac mile munching tours, I prefer the straight bars if I'm likely to be doing tracks and roughstuff. Drops may be the best option for you, but you don't have to rule out the other options because you think that's what everyone else is using.

I like the retro look of this new frame, but not as much as I like the advantages of more modern designs. Like aheadsets and STIs.

 

[samid]

Ok, I'll bite: what are the advantages of aheadsets?

 

[P.H]

Ok, I'll bite: what are the advantages of aheadsets?

From an engineering perspective, the removal of a joint in the headtube and the increase in the bearing size both have advantages. The wedge isn't a bad design, other than it seizing occasionally it rarely gives problems, though the straight through steerer tube is better. The increase in bearing size is a significant advantage, a bigger bearing will do everything a smaller one will do, just better.
From a user perspective, you can do anything you're ever likely to need to do with a couple of alan keys. Grease or replace bearings, adjust for play, remove forks, remove bars (Complete with tape and levers) change stem for one with different reach.
To turn the question round. Apart from some people liking the look, what are the advantages of a quill stem and threaded fork? I can't think of any, not that there's anything wrong with buying for the aesthetic, but when it comes to a touring bike I'd go for the practical first.

 

[hoopdriver]

I am aware that there are cogent engineering reasons why the threadless headset is supposed to be superior, but for the life of me I cannot see the need of one. I like the old quill stem: the ability to raise and lower the bars easily and the aesthetics - mainly the aesthetics, really, since having found my correct handlebar height I don't move it around. While the threadless may offer more stiffness etc I don't think I need it, certainly not on a touring bike and given my style of riding. Eddy Merckx, Jacques Antiquel, and all those other powerful golden age of cycling racers raced all their career on bicycles with quill stems and they seemed to do all right. I am certainly not going to be putting anywhere near the stresses on my bicycle they were putting on theirs. Why not have something that is visually appealing and is highly effective for my use?

Threadless headsets were originally created and sold to the rest of us primarily for the ease and simplicity (and profitability) of the bike manufacturers who from then on did not need to make or stock many sizes of forks. After that, it was one size fits all, just cut to length when you build the bike.

 

[Bodhbh]

There is now a guest blog post by Nicholas Carmen (who blogs as Gypsy by Trade) on packing the Campeur bikepacking (MTB) style....
More at Velo Orange.

It's an interesting link. Not so much regarding anything to do with that bike, but the philosophy of softmounting to all the existing mount points on the frame rather than adding panniers and racks. It's kinda of obvious really, but doesn't hurt to be reminded of these other views now and then when thinking how to best set up a bike to carry luggage.

I guess the bike itself is marmite. The classic french look doesn't remotely do anything for me, but each to their own.

 

[samid]

From an engineering perspective, the removal of a joint in the headtube and the increase in the bearing size both have advantages. The wedge isn't a bad design, other than it seizing occasionally it rarely gives problems, though the straight through steerer tube is better. The increase in bearing size is a significant advantage, a bigger bearing will do everything a smaller one will do, just better.
From a user perspective, you can do anything you're ever likely to need to do with a couple of alan keys. Grease or replace bearings, adjust for play, remove forks, remove bars (Complete with tape and levers) change stem for one with different reach.
To turn the question round. Apart from some people liking the look, what are the advantages of a quill stem and threaded fork? I can't think of any, not that there's anything wrong with buying for the aesthetic, but when it comes to a touring bike I'd go for the practical first.

The obvious advantage of a quill stem is ease of height adjustment. It is also easy to take bars and stem off the bike - which is a practical advantage for me as when touring I pack the bike into a box and do just that. The ability to remove the bars has nothing to do with the headset construction. In fact there are quill stems with removable face plates. As for your bigger bearing is better argument - I really don't understand your point. Bearings in traditional headsets are perfectly capable of dealing with their loads, have you ever heard of those bearings failing due to not being big enough?

 

[Crackle]

It's fugly: I always associated quill stems with some poise and style, that one looks like a cheapo 70's Raleigh thing. Downtube shifters, well I suppose, I mean if you're going to ride with a quill stem, might as well have downtube shifters and some nice toe clips and cleats, all goes nicely with the pump peg. Sniffs a bit of retro tossery but hey, I'm a luddite.

 

[samid]

It's fugly: I always associated quill stems with some poise and style, that one looks like a cheapo 70's Raleigh thing.

If you're talking about that quill stem with a removable plate I agree I just wanted to point out that such things exist.

 

[P.H]

I really don't understand your point. Bearings in traditional headsets are perfectly capable of dealing with their loads, have you ever heard of those bearings failing due to not being big enough?

Do you know of bearings that don't wear? You're in line for untold wealth and fortune if you do. A larger bearing will take longer to wear, that isn't a point, it's just the way it is. Plus of course, the commonest components are the easiest to find when they do need replacing, that isn't a point either.

 

[hoopdriver]

As the guy said, bearings in traditional headsets were quite capable of dealing with their loads and stresses. In 45 years of riding I ave never had a headset fail and virtually all f them av been the old threaded/quill variety. Merckx & Co raced on threaded/quill headsets/stems too and I seem to recall they managed okay. Do you generate more stress on your bike than they did?