Link with pics and installation video: http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/fe2.htm
Your username and password for these discussion forums are unique to the forums. Your forum login information is separate from your My Adventure Cycling login information, and your login info for the Cyclosource online store. You will need to create a separate login for each of these. However, to make things a bit easier, you can use the same email and password for all three accounts. Also, please note that your login information for the forums is not connected to your Adventure Cycling membership number. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
We have blocked registrations from several countries because of the large quantities of spam that originate there. If the forum denies your legitimate registration, please ask our administrator for an exception. firstname.lastname@example.org will need your IP address, which you can find at many web sites, including http://whatismyipaddress.com.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The only time I have broken a chain was the result of seeing how high a gear I could climb a hill with while carrying a load. In other words, testosterone overload more than likely. Since that side of the road debacle I have learned to use lower gears and preserve my chains. I have never broken a chain since.Even at that did the sideplate crack or did you just pull out a pin? Most chain failures are from improperly installed special joining pins or, more commonly, from reusing a standard pin on a narrow (8-speed and above) chain. Sideplate failures are very rare and usually are the result of corrosion or chemical attack from poor cleaning methods.
I certainly agree with staehpj1 that more chains are ruined by aggressive cleaning methods than by neglect. Particularly harmful is soaking the chain in water based degreaser. Unless you thoroughly rinse out all of the detergent and completely dry ALL of the water out of the interior the new chainlube will never go where it's needed.
The advent of specific touring bikes probably came from the specialization of bikes that began back in the 80's and 90's. As "road" bikes became more and more specialized and less and less suitable for touring use, designs that were purpose built for touring were created.
In the past even sports frames had sufficient frame and fork clearance for reasonably wide tires, long reach brakes, long enough chainstays to provide adequate heel clearance, dropout eyelets were standard and somewhat "relaxed" geometry the norm. You could mount larger tires, a rear rack, panniers and go tour on it. As sports framed evolved, clearances got tighter, short reach brakes became standard, eyelets disappeared and geometry got more aggressive. Hence the touring frame as a separate type.
I have a 1983 Trek 400, sold as a sports bike, and a 1996 Litespeed, also in the same category. The differences are just what I mentioned above. The Trek has plenty of clearance for 32 mm tires, dropout eyelets, long reach calipers, a long wheel base and rather relaxed handling. The Litespeed accepts 23 mm tires and not much more, no eyelets and more aggressive handling.
BTW, a currently available throwback to my Trek 400 is the Surly Pacer. Again, clearance for large tires, long reach brakes, eyelets, etc. It's not a pure touring bike but it certainly would work well for all but the heaviest touring.