Re: Tourer recommendations required

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The Dawes Galaxy will more than amply meet your needs. I woiuldn't call it
a lightweight but it should outlive seven years.

Mine is heavier than my Ridgeback hybrid but offeres unrivalled comfor over
longer distances.

There's also the bikes produced by:

St John Stree Cycles (bridgwater) http://www.sjscycles.com/thornbrochure.asp
Orbit Cycles (Sheffield) http://www.orbit-cycles.co.uk/

> I looked at the Dawes stuff, but I'm not sure about their quality - there
> were some Dawes bikes about when I was a sprog and they were awful.

They were probably at the bottom end of the Range of bikes produced at the
time. There doesn't appear to be a quality problem with the touring range.
For many folk it is still the number one choice for a touring bike.

"vernon levy" <not@home.net> wrote in message
news:cr8crm$pfa$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Dawes Galaxy will more than amply meet your needs. I woiuldn't call
it
> a lightweight but it should outlive seven years.
>
> Mine is heavier than my Ridgeback hybrid but offeres unrivalled comfor
over
> longer distances.
>
> There's also the bikes produced by:
>
> St John Stree Cycles (bridgwater)
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornbrochure.asp
> Orbit Cycles (Sheffield) http://www.orbit-cycles.co.uk/
>

I am very pleased with my St JSC bike - a Nomad - which sounds a very good
match to your needs and budget. It is very well made and finished (e.g. all
screws are stainless), very comfortable to ride both on-road and on really
quite rough tracks too. With hindsight I think I should have gone for their
slightly lighter XTC model, since I don't usually carry much luggage. For
proper touring I guess the Nomad is the boy though. Mine's got drop-bars,
though you can order one with flats if you prefer.

Hywel

Hywel Davies wrote:

> I am very pleased with my St JSC bike - a Nomad - which sounds a very good
> match to your needs and budget. It is very well made and finished (e.g. all
> screws are stainless).

I think mine was overpriced yet poorly finished and built, and I find
the ride stodgy - there you go! The wheels are extremely sturdy, I'll
give them that, and it does have braze-ons for everything imaginable.

If I was buying again I'd have an Ultra Galaxy. One of the local CTC
guys has just bought one, and it is rather nice as well as being
available for a few hundred quid less. Being the Luddite that I am, I'd
probably get barcons to replace the STI...

"Zog The Undeniable" <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41d8376f.0@entanet...
> Hywel Davies wrote:
>
> > I am very pleased with my St JSC bike - a Nomad - which sounds a very
good
> > match to your needs and budget. It is very well made and finished (e.g.
all
> > screws are stainless).
>
> I think mine was overpriced yet poorly finished and built, and I find
> the ride stodgy - there you go! The wheels are extremely sturdy, I'll
> give them that, and it does have braze-ons for everything imaginable.
>
> If I was buying again I'd have an Ultra Galaxy. One of the local CTC
> guys has just bought one, and it is rather nice as well as being
> available for a few hundred quid less. Being the Luddite that I am, I'd
> probably get barcons to replace the STI...

Oh well. I suppose I must admit I'm comparing it with a 20 year old bike
which cost £100 rather than a grand. I did have a go on a galaxy many years
ago and that was also a lot better than my old bike too. My purchase was
prompted by the wife wanting a flat-bared replacement for her tourer. Having
looked at some stuff at the £500-600 mark - various Orbit bikes which didn't
seem that special, she got a Nomad. I had a go round the block on one at the
shop and decided things had moved on since I bought mine and so traded up
myself too.

Whilst there may well be better buys, better value, or at least equally good
alternatives, I'm rather suprised you thought it poorly finished or built -
mine seemed impecable in that department. I'm interested to know what you
thought wrong with it. Perhaps they have variable quality?

I guess the ride is a matter of taste - or perhaps I don't know what "good
ride" should be like - at any rate it's heaps better than my old bike.

Cheers

Hywel

Hywel Davies wrote:

> Whilst there may well be better buys, better value, or at least equally good
> alternatives, I'm rather suprised you thought it poorly finished or built -
> mine seemed impecable in that department. I'm interested to know what you
> thought wrong with it. Perhaps they have variable quality?

Incorrect size front mech clamp, insufficiently tightened - front mech
slid down under cable tension and scratched the seat tube. Terrible
paint finish around the head tube, looks as if there was dust on the
tube when it was sprayed. Silly front brake cable routing because they
used a cable hanger with no "drop" and the cable housing was bent to the
point of splitting. The Dotek cranks are all SJSC could supply in 165mm
and are quite nasty - the RH crank is a 170mm casting with the pedal
hole drilled 5mm lower down and looks silly [1]. The bottom bracket was
a UN-52 or UN-53 (not "XT quality" like everything else) and almost
seized on its first long ride. It squeaked all the way back from
Wantage to Swindon, and was incredibly stiff by the time I got home.
Given my distance from Bridgwater and the cost of posting such a heavy
item, I just bought a UN-72 locally.

The handling is stodgy in the sense that the steering is very floppy out
of the saddle compared to my racing bike or MTB, and it's also a tricky
bike to ride "hands off". This *may* be an unavoidable side effect of
designing a bike built to carry heavy touring loads.

[1] I understand Specialized now also do this to save money on some of
their cranksets.

"Zog The Undeniable" <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41d909d1.0@entanet...
> Hywel Davies wrote:
>
> > Whilst there may well be better buys, better value, or at least equally
good
> > alternatives, I'm rather suprised you thought it poorly finished or
built -
> > mine seemed impecable in that department. I'm interested to know what
you
> > thought wrong with it. Perhaps they have variable quality?
>
> Incorrect size front mech clamp, insufficiently tightened - front mech
> slid down under cable tension and scratched the seat tube. Terrible
> paint finish around the head tube, looks as if there was dust on the
> tube when it was sprayed. Silly front brake cable routing because they
> used a cable hanger with no "drop" and the cable housing was bent to the
> point of splitting. The Dotek cranks are all SJSC could supply in 165mm
> and are quite nasty - the RH crank is a 170mm casting with the pedal
> hole drilled 5mm lower down and looks silly [1]. The bottom bracket was
> a UN-52 or UN-53 (not "XT quality" like everything else) and almost
> seized on its first long ride. It squeaked all the way back from
> Wantage to Swindon, and was incredibly stiff by the time I got home.
> Given my distance from Bridgwater and the cost of posting such a heavy
> item, I just bought a UN-72 locally.
>
> The handling is stodgy in the sense that the steering is very floppy out
> of the saddle compared to my racing bike or MTB, and it's also a tricky
> bike to ride "hands off". This *may* be an unavoidable side effect of
> designing a bike built to carry heavy touring loads.
>
> [1] I understand Specialized now also do this to save money on some of
> their cranksets.
>
Mmm - does sound a bit crap. Mine was fine, but there you go.

Hywel

in message <41d909d1.0@entanet>, Zog The Undeniable
('hrothgar19@yahoo.com') wrote:

> The handling is stodgy in the sense that the steering is very floppy
> out of the saddle compared to my racing bike or MTB, and it's also a
> tricky bike to ride "hands off".  This may be an unavoidable side
> effect of designing a bike built to carry heavy touring loads.

On the contrary, a good touring bike should have very stable steering
geometry (relatively high rake and trail) so should be very easy to
ride no hands.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

Simon Brooke wrote:

> On the contrary, a good touring bike should have very stable steering
> geometry (relatively high rake and trail) so should be very easy to
> ride no hands.
>
I thought some were like tandems, i.e. with neutral steering so they
can't be steered purely by leaning. This is important on a tandem,
otherwise when the stoker scratches his a*se you end up embedded in the
radiator of an oncoming HGV.