From: jwgst2+@pitt.edu (James W Gourgoutis)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: Re: MTB Touring (was: Touring bicycles -- an extict breed?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:04:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Dear Rec.Bicycles:

	I must say that this whole thing of classifying bikes is starting to
make me mad.  I recently checked out a new book from my school library,
"Richard's Ultimate Bicycle Book", or something like that, and one of the main
points of the book is to classify bikes.  It is a very new book (1992) and has
some awesome color photos of brand new, big money bikes, by the way.
	The book breaks bikes up into the two basic categories of road and MTB,
plus a little on the various types of recumbants and futuristic solar-powered
cars/bicycles.  This is fine by me.  I think that the authors step over the 
line, however, when they further breakdown MTBs into racing, TOURING, and such
an obscure thing as an OBSERVED TRIALS BIKE, which I have never heard of.  They
even contradict themselves by saying things like (paraphrasing) "an observed
trials bike is usually a 20 inch bike, for high mobility, but some people like
to use special MTBs or even stock MTBs".  The MTB they used as an example was
some Canadian brand, and they commented on its steep angles, etc.  BUT, this
bike looked, and seemed to have, the same angles as what they called an MTB
racing bike (a Klein Attitude, I believe)!  The only main difference was that
the OB.TRIALS bike had Powergrips, those funky MTB toestrap-like things.
	And, to address the touring question, they did have a MTB touring bike
with full braze-ons and extended chain stays for panniers.
	They also demonstrated the HYBRID, which also had most braze-ons.
I think it was a Cannondale SH600, or something like that.  This bike even
had braze-on cable stops, which are actually the mounts for down-tube shifters
with cable stops bolted on, for easy changover to drop bars.
	As for road bikes, they had racing bikes, track bikes, triathele bikes,
touring bikes, something else they called CREDIT-CARD TOURING BIKES (which wer
e just cheaper road racers, they used a mid-line Trek i believe), and SPORT-
TOURING BIKES, which were just touring bikes with no racks.  This has me all conconfused.  *I* think that there are racing bikes, touring bikes, track bikes,
possibly triathelete bikes, and other minor subtelties (sp?).  I rode the MS
150 on my old Peugot, which by modern standards, has touring-bike angles and
long chainstays.  But in the 70's, the PX-10 had basically the same frame shape,(I think!), and it was an all-out racing bike.  My friend rode the same ride on
his Marin road-racing bike, which has the short wheelbase and tight angles typictypical of a road racer.  I would say we were both "sport-touring"!  If we had
to carry loads, I would want my bike, because of the more stable design.  But
you *can* get racks and panniers to fit any bike:  just look in Nashbar's cat.,
they have their "road-racer" type bike decked out in full panniers in the 
pannier section.  This is their race bike, NOT their touring bike.  Why?  I
don't know.  The same goes for MTB's.
	I can understand why triatheletes need a special bike.  They are 
basically riding a time-trial with an already-beat body, and they need one designed 
around aero-bars, and that's it.
	Oh, one more point about my friend and his Marin:  He did get numb
hands, and I think that's due to the geometry of his bike.  I did not.
	As far as racing bikes go, there are also supposed criterium bikes, but
they look the same as road racers to me.

	The whole point to all of this (I think) is that it is becoming ever
more confusing to buy a bike.  I think that frame geometry is something to
definitely consider because it defines the bike.  I don't think that it 
LIMITS the bike, however.  Do whatever feels comfortable and works for you.
If you want to put aero-bars on your MTB, go for it.  I would buy the Scott
handlebars that wrap around to incorporate aerobars in them, because you also
get bar-ends that way, too, but it is minor.  If I had aero brake levers on my
old Peugot UO8, I'd put aero-bars on it, too.  Let others scoff.  I passed a 
hell of alot of people on the MS 150 who had newer bikes that cost 6 times mine.  (By the way, the non-aero lever cables would interfere with the aero-barsaero-bars.  That's the only reason I haven't added the aero-bars yet.)  

	This is just my 2 cents.  If you disagree, lemme know.

		James Gourgoutis
		Senior, Mechanical Engineering
		University of Pittsburgh
		e-mail me at:  JWGST2@unixd.cis.pitt.edu
		Thanks!
Xref: sparky rec.bicycles:18877 ont.general:1259 can.general:3558