Randonee Bike

[Wayne]

What makes a good randonee bike. I am not referring to fenders or components but to geometry. What is the appropriate head tube angle, seat angle, wheel base and chainstay length. Any other info would be appreciated.

Thanks

[thugly]

Not sure of the exact angles and measurements, but the issue of primary importance is gear storage. How far do you anticipate going, and how much stuff will you be bringing along the way.

According to some excellent articles in Bicycle Quarterly, the best setup for significant amounts of gear is to have a low trail bike built around front lowriders. Properly done, a loaded bike built around front panniers will handle almost as well as a regular road bike sans gear.

In contrast, carrying heavyish gear in handlebar bags or atop front racks will cause a lot of wheel flop and oversteer / diving in corners, especially if the rack and weight are just added on to a regular bike. Riding with weight atop a rear rack causes instability and the sensation of being steered by the bike. I've experienced this with my Mariposa rando bike. and vow never to overload the rear rack again.

If I was in the market for an off-the-rack rando bike, I'd look into kogswell, as they offer 3 different fork rakes (the one with the most rake gives the lowest trail, and is likely to be the best to ride with loaded front panniers) . Maybe Surly, as their bikes are quite versatile. Both brands have models that will accept wide tires, fenders, and racks, which are all critical for long, self-supported rides over mixed terrain.

One way to make things easier on yourself is to use ultralight gear. Less weight means fewer finicky geometry concerns. I'm moving (slowly) towards and ultralight camping setup that will obviate the need for a super-specific custom camping bike.

[witcombusa]

Now THIS is a Randonee bike!

[Too Tall]

Look no further than everything you know about a good fitting race bike. Brevet riders need bikes that handle predictably and are comfortable all these are qualities I find in well designed properly fit race bikes. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'll take some heat on this however I think that bikes designed to carry frame weight are not Rando/Brevet bikes...they are good allrounders, touring bikes, townies etc. etc. Sometimes folks like to ride rando/brevet with alot of stuff...to me that's not what the sport is all about it's riding briskly for stupid long distances in a group. I've never owned a bike that could not carry 8 lbs. of garbage when hung from the saddle rails...which is where it goes. Just my take and it's not an orig. thought. xxoo, TT

[sspielman]

Now THIS is a Randonee bike!

I really try to avoid absolutes....but EVERY Weigle is PERFECT...

[dauwhe]

I don't even remember the geometry of bikes I've ridden on brevets. It's about efficiency and fit and comfort and just having a bike you love to ride all day and possibly all night. The geometry is going to depend on the rider more than the event--Too Tall is a foot taller than me, and has ten times the engine, so his bike will be different from mine!

At PBP I saw every type of bike, from carbon race bikes to old mountain bikes to faired recumbents.

I'd say find a builder/fitter who knows her/his stuff, and go from there.

Dave

[palincss]

Look no further than everything you know about a good fitting race bike. Brevet riders need bikes that handle predictably and are comfortable all these are qualities I find in well designed properly fit race bikes. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Your story doesn't agree with what many highly experienced randonneurs tell us.

One big difference: racing bikes don't spend much, if any, time moving at less than 15 mph, while randonneuring bikes spent a lot of time there. Some geometries provide plenty of stability at speed, trading off relative instability and tricky handling at low speeds. Such a tradeoff would make perfect sense for a bike that never goes slowly, but would be a huge mistake for one often used at slow speed, particularly if the rider can be expected to be extremely tired and sleep-deprived.

That's not to say your solution wouldn't work for you; but it might not generalize well to others.

[palincss]

What makes a good randonee bike. I am not referring to fenders or components but to geometry. What is the appropriate head tube angle, seat angle, wheel base and chainstay length. Any other info would be appreciated.

Thanks

This geometry is known to work well. http://velo-orange.com/rafrse.html

[BUTCH RIDES]

I don't even remember the geometry of bikes I've ridden on brevets. It's about efficiency and fit and comfort and just having a bike you love to ride all day and possibly all night. The geometry is going to depend on the rider more than the event--Too Tall is a foot taller than me, and has ten times the engine, so his bike will be different from mine!

At PBP I saw every type of bike, from carbon race bikes to old mountain bikes to faired recumbents.

I'd say find a builder/fitter who knows her/his stuff, and go from there.

Dave
+1
hello it is not what you got ..it's what you got inside
bye

[Too Tall]

Your story doesn't agree with what many highly experienced randonneurs tell us.

One big difference: racing bikes don't spend much, if any, time moving at less than 15 mph, while randonneuring bikes spent a lot of time there. Some geometries provide plenty of stability at speed, trading off relative instability and tricky handling at low speeds. Such a tradeoff would make perfect sense for a bike that never goes slowly, but would be a huge mistake for one often used at slow speed, particularly if the rider can be expected to be extremely tired and sleep-deprived.

That's not to say your solution wouldn't work for you; but it might not generalize well to others.

We are on the same page maybe. I remember passing RAAM champ Jerri Tatri during PBP he was weaving, nearly passed out...YO JERRI WAKE THE F'K UP!!! I think he was riding a TitanFlex. Good point. :rolleyes:

[J.Greene]

.

[audax]

geometry depends largely on size: smaller bikes have a different geometery than larger bikes. generally: more fork rake than a racing bike, a fairly slack seat tube, long stays, low BB. i would recommend the ability to get your stem level with your saddle, be it from an extended headtube or from a quill stem.

other particulars: shallow drop bars, low enough gears (48/30x13/28) strong brakes, durable wheels, and a good saddle. high quality generator hub.

according to bicycle quarterly, handlebar bags are more efficient than saddle bags.

just my opinion, dont shoot me for it.

[markie]

In contrast, carrying heavyish gear in handlebar bags or atop front racks will cause a lot of wheel flop and oversteer / diving in corners, especially if the rack and weight are just added on to a regular bike. Riding with weight atop a rear rack causes instability and the sensation of being steered by the bike. I've experienced this with my Mariposa rando bike. and vow never to overload the rear rack again.


But a lot of riders, in say PBP, use handlebar bags because of their ease of use.

Whenever I read about custom randonee bikes people seem to focus on what size tyres they will use and then go from there.....

[goonster]

Now THIS is a Randonee bike!

Only if it's actually ridden on brevets, atmo.

Your story doesn't agree with what many highly experienced randonneurs tell us.

He's too humble to make a big deal about it, but TT is a highly experienced randonneur, so he gets to tell his story the way's he's lived it.

I'm merely a moderately experienced randonneur, and my tastes do run toward current BQ standards, but I still listen to, and try to learn from, what TT says.

I'm not as strong, or fast, as TT, and I rode PBP without drop bags, so my requirements with respect to gear haulage on my rando rig are somewhat different.

The proof is in the ride, not the geometry or spec sheet, atmo. Find a bike you can stand to ride all day and all night, and go from there.

[saab2000]

Your story doesn't agree with what many highly experienced randonneurs tell us.

One big difference: racing bikes don't spend much, if any, time moving at less than 15 mph, while randonneuring bikes spent a lot of time there. Some geometries provide plenty of stability at speed, trading off relative instability and tricky handling at low speeds. Such a tradeoff would make perfect sense for a bike that never goes slowly, but would be a huge mistake for one often used at slow speed, particularly if the rider can be expected to be extremely tired and sleep-deprived.

That's not to say your solution wouldn't work for you; but it might not generalize well to others.


I have never ridden a Randonée but I would tend to agree with TooTall. A properly designed race bike geometry will be stable at all speeds, not just high speed.

Many people who have never ridden proper race bikes seem to think they they are going to be inherently unstable or that low and high speed stability are two different things.

I have no reason to think that a properly designed bike could not be used for virtually any purpose, including racing and randonées.

[e-RICHIE]

I have no reason to think that a properly designed bike could not be used for virtually any purpose, including racing and randonées.
yeah and me toomo.

[palincss]

I have no reason to think that a properly designed bike could not be used for virtually any purpose, including racing and randonées.


Any purpose, eh? OK fine. Let's take your fine Richard Sachs racing bike, put a big porteur rack on it, and load it up with 100 lb of newspapers, then go see how you do.

Or, let's take one of those magnificent Bilenky touring bikes - let's not even bother taking the racks off - and take it down to your local criterium.

Or, go take a fine track bike out to Repack.

:crap:

[goonster]

Many people who have never ridden proper race bikes seem to think they they are going to be inherently unstable or that low and high speed stability are two different things.

I have no reason to think that a properly designed bike could not be used for virtually any purpose, including racing and randonées.

A counterpoint:

Many people who have never ridden a proper rando bike seem to think that they are inherently slow and overbuilt.

Additionally, relatively few people actively riding today have both raced at a high level and have ridden true, high-end, custom, purpose-built rando bikes in events beyond 400 km.

Furthermore, I suggest that when you introduce a not-insignificant load to the front of the bike, all this talk of how "proper race bikes" are perfectly fine at all speeds and distances goes out the window a little bit. Of course, whether or not you choose to haul all that stuff around with you, and where you put it, is between you and your God. :)

There is a reason why folks throughout the ages have spent several months' wages on bespoke bikes with bags and lights, and it wasn't because they were dumb, or couldn't ride, or because they didn't have access to "proper race bikes." A rider discovers what their perfect brevet bike is while riding lots of brevets. Before they get there, a "proper race bike*" that fits really well is possibly a better starting point than a "touring" bike for many riders.

(* = Of course, there will be different interpretations of this, but the concept as advanced by Saab, e-Richie and possibly even teh Jerk sound pretty good to me, atmo.)

[goonster]

Any purpose, eh? OK fine. Let's take your fine Richard Sachs racing bike, put a big porteur rack on it, and load it up with 100 lb of newspapers, then go see how you do.

You omitted the hauling of hogs. :rolleyes:

Please, let's be reasonable, Steve, and not indulge in unreasonable thread drift. :beer:

[rdparadise]

Guys:

Too Tall, I know you've done a number of long distance events and you are entitled to your very experienced opinion. On the other hand, I've had some experience with long rides, including a double century and can tell you that the longer the wheelbase the greater the comfort.

I would look for a bike with a 72-72.5 seat and head tube angle, longer chain stays >42cm and a greater fork rake. I have a Litespeed Blue Ridge that I bought for light touring and with the titanium frame is comfortable and can be ridden all day and night.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Bob

[dbrk]

This geometry is known to work well. http://velo-orange.com/rafrse.html

I prefer this geometry only when the front end is quite loaded. But the differences are, in my estimate, quite slight when it comes to geometry and handling. More of an issue is what you can carry and how much you want or need to carry. I don't prefer race bikes without a rack or fenders because they are generally terrible at carrying loads (as in, where?) and I dislike being wet from the road spray. I always try to ride with as little gear as possible. Your preferences may differ. There are lots of ways to ride comfortably. Let me put it more bluntly, I'm not buying this low trail argument for unloaded riding. Or I think too much is made of it, fast or slow speeds. It takes me all of 30 seconds to adjust to a well-designed bike of any sort.

dbrk

P.S. I bought Peter's blue bike shown above so you will likely see it and perhaps even him should you ride our Ramble this summer...

[Too Tall]

You omitted the hauling of hogs. :rolleyes:

Please, let's be reasonable, Steve, and not indulge in unreasonable thread drift. :beer:
VERY good point and this is what I'll ride at the next PBP

http://www.thursdaybicycles.com/bicycle_frames/sheep_herding.html

[fiamme red]

I always try to ride with as little gear as possible. Your preferences may differ.Sometimes it comes down to necessity, not preference. On a long brevet through remote and desolate areas with unpredictable weather (e.g., the Rocky Mountain 1200 or Last Chance 1200), I wouldn't try to ride with as little gear as possible. Even on shorter, less remote brevets, carrying food, tools, and changes of clothes on the bike can be very important.

There are lots of ways to ride comfortably. Let me put it more bluntly, I'm not buying this low trail argument for unloaded riding.I don't think anyone advocated low trail for unloaded riding. Try riding a race bike with a moderately loaded handlebar bag (i.e., 5-10 lbs) and you will probably notice the difference in handling.

[saab2000]

Any purpose, eh? OK fine. Let's take your fine Richard Sachs racing bike, put a big porteur rack on it, and load it up with 100 lb of newspapers, then go see how you do.

Or, let's take one of those magnificent Bilenky touring bikes - let's not even bother taking the racks off - and take it down to your local criterium.

Or, go take a fine track bike out to Repack.

:crap:

I think you miss my point. :crap:

[dave1215]

.....P.S. I bought Peter's blue bike shown above so you will likely see it and perhaps even him should you ride our Ramble this summer...


wow, congrats!! i love that bike.

[R2D2]

VERY good point and this is what I'll ride at the next PBP

http://www.thursdaybicycles.com/bicycle_frames/sheep_herding.html

I thought you did your PBP's on tandems?

[dbrk]

Sometimes it comes down to necessity, not preference. On a long brevet through remote and desolate areas with unpredictable weather (e.g., the Rocky Mountain 1200 or Last Chance 1200), I wouldn't try to ride with as little gear as possible. Even on shorter, less remote brevets, carrying food, tools, and changes of clothes on the bike can be very important.

I don't think anyone advocated low trail for unloaded riding. Try riding a race bike with a moderately loaded handlebar bag (i.e., 5-10 lbs) and you will probably notice the difference in handling.

All of this finds me in agreement, entirely.

I suppose I'm not personally interested anymore in painfully long rides. A full day is enough followed by another until it gets tedious. There's not a shard of competition of any sort left in me. And I'm not going out to challenge the elements in remote places when there are hundreds of miles of beautiful roads with few people in my backyard. I don't begrudge others efforts or preferences though I've ridden all sorts of bikes, all sorts of distances for a few years.

But there are folks who -say- they don't advocate low trail bikes for unloaded riding and then dis- (I believe that is the current nomenclature) any bike that isn't low trail. I could point to several such reviews. There is a bias in racers towards race designs and by many current randonneurs towards low trail designs. I suppose I could point that out but I'm too lazy to make the case beyond impressionistic blather (which is what these comments of mine are apparently made of). I've no axe to grind, just opinions having been reared on race bikes in the 70s boom and returned to ride brevets in the 90s.

Now I just like bikes that look like randonneurs or classic racers that ride comfortably. I'd not put much load on a race bike anymore than I would race a randonneur. To load up a race bike looks goofy and rides worse than a randonneur going as fast as a racer, imho.


dbrk

[fiamme red]

VERY good point and this is what I'll ride at the next PBP

http://www.thursdaybicycles.com/bicycle_frames/sheep_herding.htmlGreat idea! You could have your jambon or mouton very fresh. Just ask the framebuilder for a butcher's knife braze-on. :)

[Ken Robb]

Assuming that the original poster has a decent bike of some sort I would suggest that he ride a looooong ride or two and note what he likes and doesn't like about that bike. Then consult with a frame builder or other expert as to what frame/fork specs would correct these problems.

For a moderately priced starter bike for this use I don't think a used Rivendell Rambouillet, Romulus, Atlantis, or A Homer Hilsen would be unacceptable. Heck, one of them might be perfect for you.

[goonster]

But there are folks who -say- they don't advocate low trail bikes for unloaded riding and then dis- (I believe that is the current nomenclature) any bike that isn't low trail. I could point to several such reviews. There is a bias in racers towards race designs and by many current randonneurs towards low trail designs. I suppose I could point that out but I'm too lazy to make the case beyond impressionistic blather (which is what these comments of mine are apparently made of). I've no axe to grind, just opinions having been reared on race bikes in the 70s boom and returned to ride brevets in the 90s.

Douglas, did you ride brevets in pre-RUSA antiquity? ;)

It would behoove us to note that DBRK's experience riding bikes of this stripe from both great eras is quite possibly unmatched, and we'd be fools not to take heed of his "blather".

I agree also that the reviews to which he refers above are really quite narrow in scope, and are increasingly used to infer conclusions outside of their very specific application.

[palincss]

You omitted the hauling of hogs. :rolleyes:

Please, let's be reasonable, Steve, and not indulge in unreasonable thread drift. :beer:

Sorry, but I don't think that's "unreasonable thread drift". The "100 lb of newspapers" happens to be the load for which the French Porteur bikes were designed.

Load carrying, touring, off-roading, road racing and track racing are all perfectly legitimate uses for bicycles. Saab2000 and e-Richie appear to me to be claiming one bike can do all those tasks, and I submit that's nonsense.

It's just as nonsensical as saying an F-16 and a Boeing 747 are functionally identical and one plane should be able to do both functions.

[e-RICHIE]

Sorry, but I don't think that's "unreasonable thread drift". The "100 lb of newspapers" happens to be the load for which the French Porteur bikes were designed.

Load carrying, touring, off-roading, road racing and track racing are all perfectly legitimate uses for bicycles. Saab2000 and e-Richie appear to me to be claiming one bike can do all those tasks, and I submit that's nonsense.

It's just as nonsensical as saying an F-16 and a Boeing 747 are functionally identical and one plane should be able to do both functions.
> is a porteur bike a rando bike?
> why can't you race on a bike you'd use at pbpmo?

[mschol17]

I prefer this geometry only when the front end is quite loaded. But the differences are, in my estimate, quite slight when it comes to geometry and handling. More of an issue is what you can carry and how much you want or need to carry. I don't prefer race bikes without a rack or fenders because they are generally terrible at carrying loads (as in, where?) and I dislike being wet from the road spray. I always try to ride with as little gear as possible. Your preferences may differ. There are lots of ways to ride comfortably. Let me put it more bluntly, I'm not buying this low trail argument for unloaded riding. Or I think too much is made of it, fast or slow speeds. It takes me all of 30 seconds to adjust to a well-designed bike of any sort.

dbrk

P.S. I bought Peter's blue bike shown above so you will likely see it and perhaps even him should you ride our Ramble this summer...


You bought that blue bike too? I thought it was the other blue bike...

[saab2000]

Different tools for different jobs. But the qualities that make one road bike great (proper handling of a race bike for example) are the same qualities that will make most other road bikes great.

Other than carrying a bit of stuff, I don't see why a Colnago C-50 or Pinarello or a Richard Sachs or any other high-end bike would be unsuitable for a 300 mile slog. If they are are comfortable due to proper fit and handle properly then the rest falls into place. Certain allowances would have to be made for lighting and major load carrying and propably fenders, but these are not quantum shifts in what makes a good bike a good bike. Just minor adjustments for the job at hand.

[goonster]

Load carrying, touring, off-roading, road racing and track racing are all perfectly legitimate uses for bicycles. Saab2000 and e-Richie appear to me to be claiming one bike can do all those tasks

They did not, c'mon . . .

They claimed that a "normal" road bike can be ridden for very long distances, which is basically true. Too Tall can do it, and many, many randonneurs do it every year because they either carry very little gear, or distribute it in such a way that is more or less compatible with standard geometry.

Anyway, my point is that this thread is about audax bikes, and not newspaper delivery.

[e-RICHIE]

audax - rando - porteur - atmosis

what is the difference with all these terms?

[R2D2]

Well I can confuse things too.

To me it's speed versus comfort.

I know a lot of go fast Rando guys and they are minimalist that use tighter frames and suffer a little more road shock. But they'll be done sooner. They dispense with fenders and just put on wool when they get wet. Use a battery light and skinny tires. Ride in packs and draft a lot.

I also know a lot of slower "comfort" riders that use wider bigger tires (made a lot more sense when road conditions where much worse in the past), use fenders to try and stay dry and clean. Carry more tools and dynahub to be self sufficient in remote areas. The low trail helps with a front end load.

So they're many different styles and corresponding rides.

But in randonneuring only finishing counts. So I like anything that comes across the line in the time limit.

[R2D2]

audax - rando - porteur - atmosis

what is the difference with all these terms?

atmosis ?????????

Is that when you ride so much you make a leap and see red?

[Johny]

What makes a good randonee bike.

Any bike that looks good is gonna ride good.

[goonster]

Different tools for different jobs. But the qualities that make one road bike great (proper handling of a race bike for example) are the same qualities that will make most other road bikes great.

Other than carrying a bit of stuff, I don't see why a Colnago C-50 or Pinarello or a Richard Sachs or any other high-end bike would be unsuitable for a 300 mile slog. If they are are comfortable due to proper fit and handle properly then the rest falls into place. Certain allowances would have to be made for lighting and major load carrying and propably fenders, but these are not quantum shifts in what makes a good bike a good bike. Just minor adjustments for the job at hand.

With respect, now you've overstepped the limitations of your argument.

After you're done making all those minor adjustments for certain allowances you've ended up with wrong tool for the wrong job.

And I'll tell you why a C-50 or Pinarello is flat-out unsuitable for a 300 mile slog over chipseal and potholes I can't see in the dark: it won't fit the tires I ride, to say nothing of fenders.

[saab2000]

With respect, now you've overstepped the limitations of your argument.

After you're done making all those minor adjustments for certain allowances you've ended up with wrong tool for the wrong job.

And I'll tell you why a C-50 or Pinarello is flat-out unsuitable for a 300 mile slog over chipseal and potholes I can't see in the dark: it won't fit the tires I ride, to say nothing of fenders.


And I say that's why you have to make some minor adjustments for those things, but they don't change the fundamental character of a good bike.

Just my opinion.....

I don't usually ride 300 mile days. Others do and might know more.

[sg8357]

audax - rando - porteur - atmosis

what is the difference with all these terms?

Audax, British bike, load carried in a Carradice saddle bag,
riders in the club stay together, fenders required.
Hub gears(derailers are a Continental perversion)
, lamp boss on fork. (Carradice required to carry
Primus stove for brew ups)

Rando, French bike, load carried in handle bar bag,
riders in club ride at their own pace, fenders,
light mounted on front rack. Derailers.

Porteur, French Newspaper delivery bike, serious
adult bike, paycheck depends on bike, German
hub gears, carries a huge stack of newpapers.
Tire generator lights, front and rear.

Rivendell, expensive custom bike, covered
in cloth tape, p-clamps and zip ties.

Rapha, expensive custom bikes designed
for suffering, but stylishly.

[goonster]

But the qualities that make one road bike great (proper handling of a race bike for example) are the same qualities that will make most other road bikes great.

The bike I rode on PBP probably fits your definition of a proper race bike. Designed and built by the best, and I mean best, to be a classic, great, all-around go-fast road bike.

The qualities that make it great in that regard (choice of tubing, geometry) were no longer ideal when loaded up with three days' worth of clothing. Despite a good distribution of load, I could no longer ride no-handed, and climbing out of the saddle was quite sketchy.

[fiamme red]

.

[witcombusa]

Like this....

Two Rando (J P Weigle)

One Audax (Wes Gadd)

[Ken Robb]

I think that we can't lump all Sachs with pure race bikes like some of the specific models from Colnago, Look, etc. As we know Richie builds customs designed to fulfill the customers' wishes. Many are race bikes but not all. Then we have road race bikes and cross race bikes. I can say that the pure cross race bike that he built for Dennis Cotcamp is a bike that I could ride as long and far as anything I have ever thrown a leg over. Well except for bikes with motors. I rode it on pavement and dirt roads with 32mm tires and it was a delight. When DBRK offered it for sale I was sorely tempted but---it was such a pure race bike that it had no holes for water bottle cages. I inquired about adding some and it was a big deal due to the repainting afterward. DBRK had a triathlon style double holster behind the saddle which solved the water problem but then there was nowhere for a seat bag so I passed.

But my point is--it is a race bike but fully capable as a go-anywhere -but- not -like- a -tank bike. As far as I was concerned I'm sure it would have felt as fast as anything I have ridden on the road if it had skinnier tires. So you young guys who can wait 5 years should think about having Richie build one for you. :beer:

[Too Tall]

I thought you did your PBP's on tandems?
And next time....I'll have enought mutton to share :) Those Breton's have a way with it yah know?

[Too Tall]

Any bike that looks good is gonna ride good.
I love this guy :cool:

[R2D2]

And next time....I'll have enought mutton to share :) Those Breton's have a way with it yah know?

I'll bring the Bordeaux!

[MRB]

atmosis ?????????
Is that when you ride so much you make a leap and see red?
atmosis is a form of filtering; its a method of seperating. Think Spam. ;)

[willy in pacifi]

I don't usually ride 300 mile days. Others do and might know more.

I have ridden many 300+ rides on both road racing type bikes and custom built brevet bikes and either would be comfortable.

But if I have to carry anything substantial, like a change of clothes, I would take the brevet bike. If I have to take a change of clothes, food, tools, etc then it is likey a long *** ride into the night with little to no support. With a bar bag or big underseat bag and dynohub the difference in weight would not be much different. Plus my brevet type bikes are a bit more durable in parts and construction so less worry about the thing breaking down in the middle of the night when you cannot see the condition of the road as well.

On rides like the 508 you have support to carry that for you so you are riding light and you have a back up bike as well.

willy in pacifica

[Wayne]

Thanks for all your responses

[GregLR]

Jan Heine's article on ""What Makes a Good Randonneur Bike" may be of interest, if the link hasn't already been posted to this thread. http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/BQRandonneurBike.pdf

Also, there are lots of photos of randonneur bikes here http://www.flickr.com/groups/classicbicycles/ (interspersed with photos of riders).

Being a "rack pack" type of randonneur (with finishes in the '03 and '07 editions of Paris-Brest-Paris), I like the style of the classic Spectrum ti randonneur bike that Ed Pavelka (now of www.roadbikerider.com ) used in the 1991 PBP (see below). This image was scanned from the article by Pavelka in the November 1991 issue of "Bicycling" about his experiences on the event.

Greg

[chrisroph]

I've got this good buddy who I've ridden about 50,000 miles with. He stokes my tandem when we race it a couple times a year. He's a former calif state tt champ. He's ridden PBP twice, once on his ron cooper and once on his merckx majestic, both of which carry fenders, low enough gears (cooper triple, merckx 39x29), and enough light to get him through. He is thinking however of having a bike built with a little more clearance for bigger tires and mounting fenders a bit easier, and longer stays.