My Personal Touring tips

Includes information on ‘Touring‘, ‘Audax‘, ‘Sportive’ and ‘Road Race’ bikes

Scroll down for information regarding touring clothing and cycle tour preparation. 

CONTENT:

1)Different types of bike used for touring, Race, Sportive, Audax, Touring, Hybrid, MTB plus frame materials and geometry

2)Equipment choices; Gear ratios, chainsets, gear mech’s, bars, pedals, saddles and wheels

3)Panniers and bags

4)Clothing , general touring clothing, shoes and rainwear

5)Tour preparation and Training tips, what to expect on tour, what food to take, what to expect on tour.

First and foremost you need to decide what style of touring you want to do on the bike, what features you want it to have and as such what kind of bike will achieve all that for you. Here are some basic pointers generic to bikes that you could expect to be used for touring that should give food for thought, as these days a "touring bike" bike can be either a focused mile eating quite ’Heavy duty touring bike’ or a lighter faster set up ’Audax Bike’ that can carry lighter loads. There are many other bikes that can also be used for touring, some 'Hyrid bikes' are as the name suggests a hybrid of different styles, some have more of a mile eating road riding focus than others that can take guards plus a pannier rack and are proving to be very popular as 'tourers', which is why I have included them. To an extent any bike that can carry luggage can be considered, I know of some riders who tour on Hardtail moutain bikes, although I have concentrated on bikes that are by design set up for touring

All those bikes apply simply because what many call 'touring' these days also differs, to some it is carrying camping equipment over long hilly distances, to some it is shorter weekend B & B rides where a saddle bag will do, others will call their fast day ride bike a tourer, as such the style of bike and equipment choices also differ.

Although the below is quite extensive I have tried to put it all across in a plain and simple manner, they are my opinions based on over 30 years as a club cyclist and over 20 years as a specialist cycle retailer, as such I must add these are my personal opinions; I fully respect that others may have some different opinions to mine.

Section 1: DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIKE USED FOR TOURING

In very general terms as there are of course variations of each type, frame materials play a part in how a bike feels for example, here are some general guidelines regarding the various styles of bikes, I have included race bikes simply to give a comparison. Well I say general but I have gradually built this post up to give more and more information so it is now quite detailed, I have used a 56cm frame as a guideline as frame geometry varies with size:

Road/Race Bike:Far less relevant as a load carrying touring bike, but listed here to illustrate the differences:

Generically 73 degree seat, 73 degree head tube with tight clearances.

Race bikes are set up to feel stiff, lively and fast, least comfortable and stable when compared to those below; many use a full on race bike for fast day rides, especially when the owner is feeling a little bit frisky in the speed department (as I get older this happens less, normally one week in May and one in August, except of course when I have a tail wind), plus it can be rather pleasing to sit with your mates remembering how good you once was and how super your bike is; no harm in that, it's what cycling is all about.

A race bike is not especially robust for touring with narrow section tyres, which to an extent act as a bumper to protect the rims, and often using a frame material that although stiffer will be more delicate, if you are prepared to compromise it can be done of course, providing you can weather proof it sufficiently to meet your requirements and get what you need luggage wise on it then if you find it comfortable enough then it is your call. I would recommend that carrying carry light loads only, a race bike by design is set up to feel responsive, but this also means less stable, even of you could get large rear panniers on the back on a bike with race bike geometry the stability would be so poor that I wouldn't want to ride it; I have tried in the past, like many when first starting out I tried to make one bike do a multitude of roles and quickly learnt that compromises need to be made. So in conclusion of can you use a race bike for touring, ideally most prefer a bike with guards, luggage carrying capacity, a more comfortable and more stable geometry when loaded with luggage and lower gearing like the examples below for touring though.

Audax, Sportive bikes: I have listed both in same category as they often share a similar set up: 

Generically 73 degree seat, 72 degree head tube slightly larger clearances than a race bike.

Where as race bikes are set up to be very stiff with an aggressive bike fit, audax and sportive will be set up to offer slightly more comfort, for example chain and seat stays on a race bike will be large and straight, by comparison audax and sportive bikes will often have slimmer shaped chain and seat stays to allow for an element of comfort. Compared to race bikes the seat tube angles are similar but with a slightly shallower head angle to aid both stability and comfort, with slightly larger clearances for slightly larger tyres.The bike fit will also differ, these bikes are generally set up to offer a shorter reach and drop to the bars in an attempt to offer a more comfortable position. Interns of the riding experience over a long low stiffer race bike I only notice a  significant difference when sprinting/climbing out of the saddle, cruising in the saddle it will feel much closer. 

Most modern manufacturers have a bike to cater for the fast day ride bike sector, it is indeed for many manufacturers this sector that we have seen the largest growth in terms of sales. From the larger manufacturers we have for example the Trek Domane range, sales for which have indeed grown to the extent that it out sells their similar priced flagship race bikes the Emonda and Madone ranges. Most other leading manufacturers will understandably have a model range that is also aimed at specifically at this very popular market. Many are set up more for as fast day ride bikes than as an audax bike, although the Trek Domane will just take full guards it will not take a pannier rack, where as bikes like the Van Nicholas Yukon are aimed more specifically at the European market so can take guards and pannier rack. This style of bike is also very often used as a light touring bike, all the tours I have listed on this site are on such a bike, most can carry rear panniers and light luggage with ease, a pair of small panniers being sufficient for most tours.

Bikes like the Trek Domane are often called ‘Sportive’ or more recently 'Endurance' bikes, where as bike likes the Van Nicholas Yukon are often called ‘Audax’, in reality the performance and as such the style of riding and the type of riders they appeal to are also quite similar, as normally bought by those who want to potentially ride long distances at a good pace. I know many can take a while to decide which type they need. My personal take on this is that I have found that those who want a bike they can keep for best and to an extent afford to be precious with, will often decide for a ‘Sportive’ set up, especially if they do note need to take luggage or weather proof the bike then these bikes are a very good choice. Sportive bikes are also a valid choice for those who may not actually compete in race events, yet they still like to use their cycling as an opportunity for a work out, they want a bike set for this high work rate and give near full on race bike performance, they want to look and feel like a racer to inspire them to achieve their goals, yet still have an element of comfort. This style of rider and riding is extremely popular; it is no surprise that as such the growth in this style of bike has grown to cater for this demand.

Those who decide to go for the ‘audax’ set up will often do so as they do want similar performance, but they also want to weatherproof the bike and perhaps take light luggage, as many will use this style of bike for light touring. Quite often competitive racing riders will use an ‘audax’ bike as their winter training bike; they will then have a best bike, or bikes for summer use. Although this style of bike is popular audax bikes are not sold in such high numbers as sportive bikes, especially in Europe, normally it is the smaller more specialist manufacturers that cater for the audax and to an certain extent a UK specific market, as it is in the UK that audax bikes are the most popular, Europeans are inclined to ride ‘Sportive’ style bikes, as such this is the main reason the larger manufacturers concentrate on their ‘Sportive’ range. Audax bikes often lead a less precious life than a sportive bike, frames are therefore often made of steel or titanium; which are arguably far more both robust than carbon.

Touring Bikes: Traditionally 72 degree Seat, 72 degree head angle with larger tyre clearances, more recently many have a steeper seat tube and shallower head angle

These bikes have even larger clearances, longer fork rake and overall wheel base than Audax, they will often be fitted with even larger tyres and mudguards, most common for load carrying and as such need to be set up to be more robust than the two categories above, not only with larger tyres but more heavy duty wheels and more often than not more robust frames as well. Traditionally, bikes like the Dawes Galaxy range for example, often this kind of bike will have lower gearing when compared to an Audax bike. More recently bikes often referred to as Gravel bikes like the Trek Checkpoint series have become popular, although not marketed as touring bikes they can take guards as well as front and rear pannier racks and make ideal touring bikes.

Touring bikes are very stable, very comfortable but will feel less lively for out of the saddle effort. Still popular with those who like a traditional mile eating comfortable bike, although to an extent the Audax, fast day ride bikes have taken over for many, as apart from heavy load carrying and rougher terrain they will do the majority of the tasks that a tourer will do, yet quicker and almost as comfortable, such is the impact that modern materials have had, no longer do you need relaxed frame geometry like a full on touring bike to achieve comfort which probably why we have seen the frame angles evolve for a traditional 72/72 to something more in keeping with an Audax bike with steeper seat tube and shallower head tube angle. This shift in demand is reflected in what is available of course, where as the Audax, fast day ride styles are ever increasing so the choice of traditional tourers is diminishing, although it often means you just have to look a bit harder and look at bikes not marketed as touring bikes any more.

Cyclo Cross and Gravel bikes: Traditionally 73 degree Seat, 72 degree head angle with even larger tyre clearances than touring bikes

Gravel bikes have become quite popular and for many manufacturers this kind of bike is so versatile that it has replaced their ranges that were set up as touring bikes. Pure Cyclo Cross bikes have a focus as competition bikes with a fast race bike geometry and no frame fittings for guards, pannier racks , or even bottle cages, especially on the seat tube. Few produce a bike with such a narrow focus these days, most will offer something far more more versatile, with frame fittings for guards and rack(s), it's these bikes that are often marketed as gravel bikes. As these bikes can also potentially be used to carry luggage expect these to have a slightly shallower head angle than those set up with more focus on competition. These more versatile models can and do make superb bikes for touring, the geometry interms of frame angles is often similar to the Audax frames, although generally more heavy duty in comparison as potentially they can be still used for Cyclo Cross, where as a focused Audax bike will have a slightly lighter overall set up nearer a Sportive style of bike.

As such expect larger volume tyres, normally at least 700 x 35c and sometimes even larger, traditionally cantilever now normally most use disc brakes, required as normal road bike calipers will often not go around large tyres and V brakes are not really designed for drop bar brake levers. 

Hybrid Bikes:Hybrid: As the name suggest a hybrid of other styles of bikes, normally most share the design features of a tourer as described above with ’Straight Bars’, the majority can take guards plus a pannier rack and are proving to be very popular as 'tourers', which is why I have included them. To an extent any bike that can carry luggage can be considered. Note that some have a focus nearer ’Road Specific’ and some are set up with more versatile terrain in mind, towpath riding for example, these often have front ’Front Suspension’, although they can normally take a rear pannier the fact that they are set up for absorbing the slightly more technical surfaces of tow paths will normally mean they are slightly less efficient as a long distance road bike when compared to the hybrids with a focus nearer a road bike.

Mountain Bikes: ’Hard Tail MTB Bikes’ with slick tyres (note pic just linked to has off road tyres shown) and rigid forks makes for a robust expedition bike, especially if you can fit panniers and guards of course. Although slower than all the above providing you are not riding long distances in a group with fitter riders on faster bikes then in reality many could use such a bike for touring and be perfectly happy with their choice. You can of course do other things than simply fit guards, racks and slick tyres. Most atb bikes have a short upright position, a longer stem positioned flat as apposed to raised along with straight as apposed to riser bars will also make a difference, I have seen this is done quite often.

Frame materials:

Frames made of Steel : Very durable (if built correctly) with low performance drop off with age. These days still a popular choice for club riders who like to know that their frame has been built in the traditional way by craftsmen. Production bikes built with steel are less common, although it remains popular with the companies that still cater for touring bikes.

Many cyclist like the fact that they are having something built often to their own specification, you can personalise your frame with your own braze on items, light bosses, extra bottle bosses etc, you can even chose your own colour. In the past all top quality frames were purchased this way, as it was how you got exactly what you wanted, both in quality and especially frame size. The old diamond shape frame being less adaptable in terms of variations in riding position than the modern sloping top tube frames; even Lance Armstrong used an off the peg frame size. Although I fall into this category, as in uses as steel frame, not Lance Armstrong, I have to admit that modern off the peg frames are now so good both in terms of production quality and the flexibility that the modern geometry gives you to achieve the perfect riding position, that the necessity to have a bike made to measure is less of an issue. In more recent years steel frames are starting to make something of a come back, as many realise that in many ways steel is a better option than aluminium alloy, especially when it comes to comfort.

Frames made of Aluminium Alloy: Often simply referred to as ‘Alloy’ Light, cheap, reasonably robust although some do comment that aluminium alloy frames are not as comfortable when compared to the others; in part this is why most will not use aluminium alloy forks, most current roads bikes will use steel or carbon. Aluminium Alloy supposedly has the most performance drop off, which in fairness only really effects a racing cyclist where a few percent reduction in performance can make the difference (especially in their heads) of winning or coming second, in reality that applies more to the older lighter frames when Pro’ riders used extremely light versions (now most pro teams use Carbon), the modern budget frames use a heavier, more robust alloy and are of course aimed at a different style of riding. They are now the most common option in the mid range and upwards frame sets, fairly robust, as they will normally dent as apposed to crack. Normally the price dictates a purchase of a frame built in alloy, that does not mean that you will not be satisfied, you will see quite a few older frames still being ridden by club cyclists who find them perfectly adequate, plus many don’t have any complaints re’ comfort or performance drop off. Although most refer to these frames in general terms as ‘alloy’ if we are being pedantic then strictly speaking this is wrong, as steel is an alloy of carbon and iron, titanium is normally aluminum and vanadium, for example Van Nicholas use 3% Aluminium, 2.5% Vanadium and 94.5 Titanium, which they simply list as 3/2.5

Frames made of Carbon: With sufficient research and development can result in a bike that is comfortable, very light and efficient at transferring energy into propulsion as the material does not flex as much as other materials. Although strong they can be more delicate, where other materials dent, Carbon is more likely to crack, although I don't believe that they are as delicate as many fear them to be, quite a few have been ridden for a few years now and still going strong.

Most common rider is a racing cyclist or someone who still likes to have a ‘best bike’ that can to an extent have a more precious existence than say audax or touring bike, where robustness may be more of a consideration. Most production high end ‘Race’ and ‘Sportive’ bikes will these days use carbon frames, we are also starting to see this technology filter down into the mid price range models.

Note my comment above stating “sufficient research and development ”, I would always recommend buying from a reputable manufacturer/designer. Back when steel was the material of choice, the best were built by craftsmen and the mass produced manufacturers did not offer the same quality of construction. With carbon frames arguably the opposite applies, the larger companies put huge efforts into research and development when designing their frames. Modern construction, if you have the facilities, which the major companies have access to, mean that they can offer a well designed, high quality product; low volume craftsmen struggle to compete on both quality and price. As such care is needed with budget carbon frames, they often are not that light, stiff, good to ride and more significantly in some cases even that safe to ride!

In recent years high end mountain bikes have also started to use Carbon frames, note they are not road bikes with different geometry, they are designed to be far more robust and impact resistant than road bikes for obvious reasons.

Frames made of Titanium : Until recently they were seen as expensive and rather exclusive, although they are starting to become very popular as the pricing now competes with many of the comparable alternatives. Virtually no performance drop as they don’t even rust, comfortable, light, yet extremely robust, especially compared to carbon! So much so that although I personally don't believe that anything does last forever; Titanium probably comes the closest.

Race bike performance wise, a Titanium frame will not be as light or stiff as well designed carbon or now seldom used upmarket very light alloy frame, alloy when new that is, (note that as stated above most alloy frames are mid range only), although really it is that not far off. Until quite recently some pro racers used Titanium, like Magnus Backstedt, a former Paris Roubaix winner (2004), other Pro Teams used Titanium frames painted up to look like normal production bikes of their team sponsors, often used in races where comfort can become an issue, for example over the cobbles of the Paris Roubaix, as riders are bashed about so much it can lead to fatigue. However that in fairness applied more when Steel or alloy were more common place in the peleton, these days for those riders chasing grams and split seconds, most will now chose carbon.

The down side is that Titanium is very hard to work/build with; so most manufacturers don't! On the upside because of this the workman ship simply has to be of top quality and it shows, most Titanium frames do look and are very well made. Most common used when someone wants a fast, responsive, light comfortable yet robust, durable bike and of course where price is not so much of an issue. Titanium is therefore and ideal choice for touring, longer day rides, audax and sportive bikes. Even though arguably they are a less valid choice for use as a race bike, they are still quite popular, as many do buy with a view to long term ownership, where not only robustness is a significant consideration but also style, many Titanium frames have very classic designs that should not date in quite the same way that the ‘bang up to date styles of the moment’ may do.

Frame material conclusion :, Opinion is often much divided when it comes to frame materials and if it effects how the bike rides or not. Many will state that they can tell a huge difference and by the same token many will state that the frame material makes no difference at all. I would say I fall somewhere between both, I have ridden a huge variety over the years, when riding bikes similar in set up in nearly every respect apart from the frame material I would say that I can't tell a huge difference, but I can feel more than none that's for sure, a slight difference it may be, yet significant enough to play a part in my decision making when choosing a new frame.

A quality designer and manufacturer will be sensitive to the material they have used, so I would expect the bike to perform how it is supposed to and give you good long service, regardless of what it is made of. So although the frame material is indeed a consideration I believe that many are far more concerned about what they should or shouldn't use than perhaps they need be.

An example of this is more recently I've noticed that those who have a full on focused carbon race bike have commented how harsh they find it and have asked about a Titanium Sportive bike as an alternative, valid in as much that focused race bikes are indeed to harsh for many and in part it's carbon that has helped the bike achieve a set up where saving grams and split seconds are coveted. However, I've noticed that many have been under the impression that carbon is therefore less comfortable, when in reality they are comparing two different bikes, a carbon race bike versus a titanium sportive bike, in other words a well designed carbon sportive bike can be the perfect choice interms of riding experience as a sportive bike, yes there are the pro's and con's as I reference above, but interms of how a bike actually rides then it's important to chose the the correct type of bike designed for the style of riding that you are looking for.

Modern frame shapes

Many modern frames often have a slightly sloping top tube, so the seat pin has slightly more scope interms of up and down adjustment, ahead systems with their reversible stems, from near ’Horizontal’ to a ’Raised’ raised angle, plus their spacer set up again offer slightly more flexibility than ’Quill’ stems.

For sure it does not make a huge increase interms of variation, but to be effective it doesn’t need to be. For example I always rode ’23 Diamond shape frame’, very few of the mass produced frames came in that size, Raleigh for example, like many mass produced manufacturers would make a 22 ½ or 23 ½ even for their more up market 'Special products division' frames, to get my position spot on I could not quite achieve that with either.

So like many I went down the custom built route, not only to get the best interms of build quality but to get the exact size I wanted. Slightly to big and it would feel like you were leaning over the centre of gravity of the bike as apposed to with it when cornering at racing speeds, vice versa if slightly to small. Of course I was being very particular with my sizing, but I was racing, short circuit criteriums included, they involved cornering at speeds where I was effectively on my limit, if not racing I dare say I would have made do with a 22 ½" and been quite happy.

Many manufacturers again would not make a large range of sizes, four being the norm’, so where I have listed sizes 22 ½ or 23 ½ either side of that would often have greater jumps than 1”, (in their cheaper ranges they would often offer even fewer, 21 ½ to 23 ½ for example and not the 22 ½) where as modern bikes are more inclined to be offered in a greater number of sizes, that along with the slightly greater flexibility in size variations is just enough, meaning that custom build is now less of a necessity, most Pro riders as I implied in my above, now ride standard production frames.

Modern ’Horizontal (or very near)’ frames are still made, again they are inclined to be offered in a greater number of sizes which again helps as you are more likely to be able to obtain a size on or at least near enough to what you need. It is in fairness not just the frame that has made the difference, it is the whole package, plus the availability of more choice interms of frames sizes that as helped reduced the necessity for many to require custom built.

Compact frame Pro’s v Traditional Diamond Shape :

Smaller rear triangle so a race bike especially benefits from a stiffer rear triangle, being a Compact design the frames are often lighter.

Although I believe that they offer slightly more variations in terms of sizing options, which many designers would promote when initially launched, I must admit I have never fully embraced the concept that they were so effective in this respect that manufacturers could offer less frame size options and still cater for all riders. However now we are starting to see a larger variety of sizes being offered, so now I do believe more than ever before that the vast majority of riders can be accommodated without the necessity for a custom built geometry.

Compact frames also allow slightly more scope either end of the frame size ranges. For example very large riders can get a bike that doesn’t look like a garden gate and vice versa for very small riders. As well as the sizing benefits that brings to those two groups it must be remembered that to many cycling is not just about the activity, it is very much about the bikes, the fact that they can now get one that to them is easier on they eye is understandably very well received. Often previously when these riders collected their new bikes you could almost see the disappointment, often not commenting on anything other than the functional aspects of their machine, now you can often visibly see their excitement when they collect their new pride a joy. (Off topic and a personal note that is a big vocational box ticked for me as that is always a lovely thing to see, that people no matter how old and mature they now are can still be excited when they pick up their new bike).

Many riders comment how stable a compact frame feels when compared to a diamond shape frame, especially when high speed cornering.

Compact frame Con’s v Traditional Diamond Shape:

With a shorter seat tube bottles have less room to be fitted should you want one located there, reducing the feasibility of fitting them at all to many mid size frames and smaller.

Many still like a traditional frame fit pump, again due to the shorter seat tube coupled with that fact that on some compact frames the angle between the top and sea tube is such that the pump will not locate anyway.

On Compact frames the seat stays are often further from a rear pannier rack than with a diamond shape frame, meaning not only is the rack harder to fit but the longer fittings required can result in as less rigid rack as a result.

My personal conclusion of Compact frame ‘V’ Traditional Diamond Shape:

Although compact frames are now common place, most Touring/Audax style road bikes are not aggressively compact, the top tube will often slope down slightly but not as much as it would on a race specific bike, with more focus on providing slightly more variety of sizing options than to influence performance.

As such to an extent the 'con's' that I list above are therefore reduced, also worth noting that of all the styles of bikes, Touring and Audax are the two that are the most likely to retain a more traditional diamond shape frame, although if that style is still used many of the manufacturers will often offer them in a larger size range than they may have offered in the past.

Overall Conclusion regarding suitable bikes for touring:

To an extent the style of bike you want also dictates all the above, if you are only going to do credit card tours where only relatively light loads are taken as apposed to heavy load touring then an Audax bike will be OK, so lighter wheels and slightly higher gears ratios may be preferred when compared to a heavy duty tourer for example, so in many ways you need to chose which style of bike and intended use before you fine tune the equipment choices.

Section 2: EQUIPMENT CHOICES:

Chainring setup - triple? number of teeth?Cassette ratio:

What you need to do is work out what ’Gear Ratios’ you like to use and then try and achieve them, making sure they are correctly positioned, no point if mathematically you can only get your most common used gear in largest ring largest sprocket.

By way of an example that is all I have done on my ’Tour Bike’ I use a 13-29 Campagnolo 10 speed set up with 26-36-46, which gives me all that I am after