Swithering over Audax and Club Tour

[Far-Oeuf]

Hi,

I'm replacing my slightly-too-big Surly LHT, after about 8 years of riding (~20,000km touring).  I'm a reasonably light-weight tourer, with the heaviest load being around 15kg (laptop/DSLR) but usually half that.   However, the LHT does feel pretty safe when I do a little off-road; generally tracks that link tarmac and ridden carefully/slowly.

The Audax seems like the right bike/frame, however I'm swithering because of the weight warnings which make it sound a little fragile.   What actually happens when you exceed the weight limit, or go along a rough path?  Does the bike buckle or something?

Because frame weight is such a marginal part of overall bike (+ luggage + rider) weight, I am thinking a CT frame with lighter wheels (than standard) is going to feel pretty much the same as an Audax; at the end of a 200km day?

cheers,

[jags]

to be honest i would not be one bit worried about oadin up my ortlieb rear panniers and riding over some rough ish ground even with 23mm slicks, the thorn is over built i reckon.

[Far-Oeuf]

to be honest i would not be one bit worried about oadin up my ortlieb rear panniers and riding over some rough ish ground even with 23mm slicks, the thorn is over built i reckon.

the Audax, or Thorn bikes in general?

cheers,

[jags]

the thorn range i reckon my sherpa was built like a tank..
honestly i seriousy doubt you would have any problems with the audax.but the club tour will take wider tyres 32mm if you think that will suit you better,but audax will climb better.
the sherpa was overkill for me although i got to love it,but now i'm on the audax and going as light as i can it suits me much better.

rear panniers and small barbag thats it  oh except for heavy tent on top of rear rack.and i'm 2 stone overweight.

jags.

[Far-Oeuf]

I'm not trying to be picky, but interested why you think the Audax would climb better.  With the same components would there be any difference between the Audax and CT?   Or do you mean that as standard bikes the Audax is geared more for climbing?

cheers,

[jags]

tighter angles the club tour is longer wheel base so more relaxed.i head its a lovely ride also,if your anywhere near sjs cycles give them a test run to be sure to be sure.

[triaesthete]

Welcome to the forum Mr Egg

The main structural difference between a Club Tour and Mk3 Audax is the frame tube wall thickness, they also vary on brake options and max tyre size.  

The thinner tube walls on the Mk3 mean it is less stiff and will need less payload to make it flex and then possibly shimmy, wobble  or misbehave, particularly on a fast descent. This flexibility and greater  compliance (ie less stiffness)  is also what makes it relatively more comfortable a the end of a long day than the stiffer CT.  Surly frames have a reputation ( I haven't ridden one) for being stiff to the point of harshness. If you like a stiff bike the CT is definitely the one to have.

I would say that the Mk3 is at least as strong as the average cyclo cross bike, but personally I find the handling suboptimal off road. What seemed technically hard to ride on the Mk3 was much easier to negotiate on the Raven Sport Tour. But I don't think it would break if you keep with a steel fork!

The CT is more versatile but stiffer and heavier.

You pays your money...
Ian

[Far-Oeuf]

I've just ridden the LHT down to Istanbul, and did 100-150km every single day of July (total 3,600km).   That's the ball-park I'm in, long days over sometimes rough (Central Europe) roads.   At that distance the odd kg makes not much difference, it's more about comfort.

When I push hard on the (LHT) pedals I can make the chainring/chain touch the front mech (chain on the middle ring), which I assume is the square-taper BB flexing.   I've never been concious (or smart enough?) to know if the frame flexes.   I've also done 9/10 hour days on the LHT and not felt bad at all, so I guess 'stiffness' isn't a problem for me.

I've only ever used 28mm on the LHT, and don't see any reason I'd change that.  I do like the idea of a rear disc brake though, on the CT, which is possibly the thing that will sway the decision.

The idea of a single/versatile bike appeals, and with a lighter set of wheels the CT might actually be the one.   I am very interesting in doing the http://www.transcontinentalrace.com/ next year, and would love to do it with an 'inappropriate' bike (most/all are on carbon or aluminium).

thanks

[Far-Oeuf]

btw, I'm visiting Thorn on Wednesday.

[jags]

best of luck let us know if you bought a bike.

[gover_1]

I have a Sherpa myself in addition to a much older 700c tourer (Claude butler) and a 700c audax (ribble)  which probably slightly lighter than the thorn and doesn't have a pannier rack

I have two sets of wheels, one is a pair of rigida chrina on deore hubs, the other is a pair of Prolite bracciano ( basically racing wheels) cheap, very light but not so strong

I move these back and forth between the two bikes and the wheels make more difference to the speed than the bike they are on. I do find that the Claude butler being just that bit beefier handles much better off road though.

If i were to reduce my three bikes to one i would go with the club tour and two sets of wheels as you suggest, a very versatile setup.

The Sherpa does make me smile when booming down tow paths or winching up forestry tracks with full expedition touring load though.

[Far-Oeuf]

"and the wheels make more difference to the speed than the bike they are on."

I think this is the answer I'm looking for.  Certainly on motorbikes, the wheels make the most difference (relative).   And I was thinking this is really what people mean when they say one bicycle is 'faster' than another bicycle; when the frames are more or less comparable.

[jags]

at the end of the day its down to the pilot. i also have 2 sets of wheels mavic 319 with 32mm tyres deore hubs   good wheels but the ones i have now a custom built  nothing special mavic sups on 105 hubs 36 spokes and vittoria racing slicks much lighter and faster than the other set.
yeah wheels make a hugh difference in speed thats a fact.

[triaesthete]

I think the all up weight would make a difference if racing up the Stelvio as you're lifting it a bloody long way   

That's one a serious race and not a sporting tour by the looks of it. Jags would say you're a header who'd eat grass 

Take a look at this for inappropriateness:  http://ultralightcycling.blogspot.co.uk/  Igor, the man who did a 72 hour Paris Brest Paris, in Crocs!

You'll have my undying admiration if you can be remotely competitive on inappropriate gear given that Carbon/Ultegra worked for Mike Hall round the entire planet and this is a "sprint" event with climbing   

I'd say a lightweight component  Mk3 with 9 speed downtube shifters might just do it for a workable weight/reliability/inappropriateness mix

Go for it and keep us updated. 

PS if you're in bed already you've got no chance 

[Far-Oeuf]

"PS if you're in bed already you've got no chance"

ha ha 

I can't really afford multiple bikes, and I don't want them either.  A steel frame is pretty essential as I'll need to put in some serious mileage over the next 12 months, and I need a bike that will take that and then the race (and then some more after).   Inevitably all up weight will be heavier than the proper racers, but I'll just have to have a stronger engine.   I'd be pretty annoyed to splash out on a carbon frame only to damage it in training.

I've already spoken with Thorn about my 'must have' options for whatever bike I go for, which are drop-bars and d/t shifters.   But the next months will be a new learning curve, a step up from fast touring to racing.

thanks for all the comments.