Lightweight touring bike?

[PAFARMBOY]

I'm a novice who currently has a 2012 Surly Disc Trucker.  As many know it is a beast and can handle anything, but it's too heavy. I've dialed my gear down to about 18 pounds and don't feel I need the Surly to haul gear this light.  So.....was hoping the experts can weigh in on a bike that is suitable for road touring, but with a weight around 20 pounds.  I'm planning on tackling the Underground Railroad Route this summer.  Any suggestions would be appreciated.  Thanks!

[RonK]

As many know it is a beast and can handle anything, but it's too heavy. I've dialed my gear down to about 18 pounds and don't feel I need the Surly to haul gear this light.  So.....was hoping the experts can weigh in on a bike that is suitable for road touring, but with a weight around 20 pounds.

I felt the same about the LHT I once owned - to the point where I came to despise it. My answer was to build a titanium touring bike, and later, a steel bikepacking rig. But neither of these are as light as 20lbs.

A 20lb bike is seriously light - you would have to choose carbon and use bikepacking bags instead of racks to achieve such a light weight.

Perhaps a Salsa Cuthroat or something similar...

[John Nelson]

For lightweight touring, any bike will do. I agree with Ron that you should look for a carbon-fiber road bike. I suggest you forego racks and put your gear in a saddle pack such as an Apidura or Revelate, combined with a very small handlebar bag such as one from Banjo Brothers that straps on the bars.

[staehpj1]

My light touring bike for my past tours bike was a little heavier than 20 pounds, but still fairly light.  I used my old 1990 race bike (a Cannondale Crit bike).  It wasn't too heavy and most of the extra weight was in areas like more substantial wheels so I felt like it was a good choice.  In fact I think it was pretty close to optimum for UL touring.

I don't think that at 18 pounds of gear weight (unless you are counting food and water) it makes sense to go too crazy cutting weight on the bike itself.  There is a good bit of room between a heavy touring bike and an ultralight racer.

[PAFARMBOY]

Thanks for the replies.  What do you think about this: https://www.rei.com/product/892482/cannondale-synapse-alloy-5-105-disc-bike-2017 Weight and price are perfect, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on components to know if it is suitable for touring.  Thanks.

[dkoloko]

Thanks for the replies.  What do you think about this: https://www.rei.com/product/892482/cannondale-synapse-alloy-5-105-disc-bike-2017 Weight and price are perfect, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on components to know if it is suitable for touring.  Thanks.

This is an aluminum frame with a little carbon that is common for advertised entry level racing bikes. Gearing is lowered to appeal to recreational riders, and price is on low end for this frame and components. Personally, I'd go with a randonneuring bike, touring bike for lightweight touring, more room for wide tires, including room for fenders, etc. It is not too hard for a steel bike to come in at 21 lb.

[RussSeaton]

Your gear is 18 pounds.  NOT very light compared to all other lightweight tourists.  Cut it down by another 5-6-7-8 pounds and then you are lightweight.  At 10-12 pounds of gear, then any and all bikes work.  A light race bike will be fine.  The Revelate Designs packs sold by Adventure Cyclist would work.  Large saddlebag, frame bag inside triangle, maybe small handlebar bag.  There are other bag makers similar to Revelate also.  If you get your pack weight down to 10-12 pounds, then any road racing style tire, 25-28mm, will work fine.  No need for a bike that accommodates wider tires.  Get a bike with low gearing no matter what.  Triple crankset.  Or one of those compact cranks with big cassette cogs.  Or maybe one of those mountain bike double cranks with a tiny inner cog.

[Pat Lamb]

Get a bike with low gearing no matter what.  Triple crankset.  Or one of those compact cranks with big cassette cogs.  Or maybe one of those mountain bike double cranks with a tiny inner cog.

I've wondered about this for a while.  I'm old, slow, and heavy, so I've got gears down to 20 gear inches on all my bikes, even the one without racks, so I can climb some ridiculous hills when it's hot and I'm tired.  But some people recommend doubles for touring with light loads.  At what point of youth, fitness, and light load does a 27-30 gear inch low become a viable option for touring?

[RussSeaton]

Get a bike with low gearing no matter what.  Triple crankset.  Or one of those compact cranks with big cassette cogs.  Or maybe one of those mountain bike double cranks with a tiny inner cog.

I've wondered about this for a while.  I'm old, slow, and heavy, so I've got gears down to 20 gear inches on all my bikes, even the one without racks, so I can climb some ridiculous hills when it's hot and I'm tired.  But some people recommend doubles for touring with light loads.  At what point of youth, fitness, and light load does a 27-30 gear inch low become a viable option for touring?

Guessing age and weight are the keys.  If young, fit, and carrying minimal gear, then a one to one ratio of 34 chainring and 34 rear cog would be acceptable.  27 gear inches.  Rocky Mountains would be easy on this low gear.  Rockies would probably be sort of easy with this low gear even if old and heavy gear.  And if you don't mind standing for a long time or working hard for awhile, then this low gear would be OK for other mountains too besides the Rockies.  For a double crank I did suggest the mountain bike doubles with an inner ring of 22 teeth.  Or some now extinct cranks used 94mm bcd so a 29 tooth would work.  Old five arm 110mm bcd cranks can use a 33 tooth ring.  33x34 low is about 26 gear inches.  I am guessing back in 1976 many of the first cross country riders did not have super low gearing.  They made it over the Sierras, Rockies, Appalachians.  Back in 1992 my first Trek 520 came with 28x28 low gear.  50-45-28 crank, 12-28 seven speed cassette.  Someone at Trek thought this was good enough for touring.  I immediately changed to 24 ring and 32 cog of course.

[John Nelson]

I've wondered about this for a while.  I'm old, slow, and heavy, so I've got gears down to 20 gear inches on all my bikes, even the one without racks, so I can climb some ridiculous hills when it's hot and I'm tired.  But some people recommend doubles for touring with light loads.  At what point of youth, fitness, and light load does a 27-30 gear inch low become a viable option for touring?

Triples are still widely available in touring and mountain bikes, but are getting less common in regular road bikes (the kind you need for lightweight touring). You can get a road bike with a compact double and put a long-cage derailleur on the back and get your gearing down to 27 inches. That's enough for most lightweight touring.

I had a triple on my road bike until it got run over by a car. The bike I replaced it with only had a double. I expected that to be a big problem because I often ride up and down the mountains, but we humans, even old ones, are pretty adaptable. Even though my gearing isn't quite as low as it was before, I'm fine with it.

[DaveB]

I am guessing back in 1976 many of the first cross country riders did not have super low gearing.  They made it over the Sierras, Rockies, Appalachians. 

Yes but the great majority of those first Bikecentennial riders were young, fit and you never heard of how many of the worse hills they walked.  The fact that someone got away with that equipment 40 years ago doesn't mean it was a good idea then or we should do it now.

[Pat Lamb]

I am guessing back in 1976 many of the first cross country riders did not have super low gearing.  They made it over the Sierras, Rockies, Appalachians. 

Yes but the great majority of those first Bikecentennial riders were young, fit and you never heard of how many of the worse hills they walked. 

My thoughts, too.  When you wore sneakers, hopping off the bike and pushing it was fairly common, according to some of the people I've talked to who toured by bicycle back then.  Unlike SPD shoes, every small town had a store with cheap Keds when you wore the old ones out.  Finally, many of the hamlets that were viable back then have been left deserted.  The decline of coal and tobacco, and the rise of Walmarts and Amazon, spelled their doom.

[Pat Lamb]

Triples are still widely available in touring and mountain bikes, but are getting less common in regular road bikes (the kind you need for lightweight touring). You can get a road bike with a compact double and put a long-cage derailleur on the back and get your gearing down to 27 inches. That's enough for most lightweight touring.

I had a triple on my road bike until it got run over by a car. The bike I replaced it with only had a double. I expected that to be a big problem because I often ride up and down the mountains, but we humans, even old ones, are pretty adaptable. Even though my gearing isn't quite as low as it was before, I'm fine with it.

If you don't mind my asking, which mountains?  I found the Rockies and Cascades much easier than the Ozarks and Appalachians.

[John Nelson]

If you don't mind my asking, which mountains?  I found the Rockies and Cascades much easier than the Ozarks and Appalachians.

All of them, although yes you are correct that the Rocky Mountains have more gentle grades. I think the hardest hills I've ever climbed are in the Green Mountains of Vermont. It depends, however, on whether you prefer 5 miles at 13% of 30 miles at 6%.

[RonK]

It depends, however, on whether you prefer 5 miles at 13% of 30 miles at 6%.

It's not just a matter of preference.

For 13% grades lower gears are needed than for 6% grades.