8

I'm in the search for a new long distance touring bike, and I'm surprised that most top models have no front suspension (IDWorks, Tout Terrain, Koga, etc.).

It looks like front suspension is a rarity at the top, but available on middle class trekking bikes. The top bikes with specific long distance touring geometry and specs are less available with front suspension. Some trekking bikes that I've found with front suspension:

  1. Cannondale Tesoro 1 2014
  2. Rose Black Creek
  3. Koga-Miyata Feathershock
  4. Giant Expedition AT 2013 (not sold anymore)
  5. Schwalbe's balloon bike concept in general http://www.balloonbikes.com/en/

Background:

I have been riding a Cannondale Headshock bike for commuting and touring in the last ten years, and I loved the front suspension. I find it softer on the hands/wrists, especially on long rides. If the suspension is off, and I ride a full day, my hands get much more tired, vs. with the suspension on. Handwriting for example is much harder after a long day of riding, with suspension off.

I had zero issues with the fork, functions since 2004 without issues. I do have a front rack, too. The bike has wide tires (IRC Lover Soul, 26x2.25).

So it seems the benefits are there, there are no maintenance issues (was serviced regularly), racks can be mounted on them, and cost in the upper segment shouldn't be an issue. And the top touring bikes are still offered without front suspension. Why?

Edit:

Let me ask again: my question is NOT about the pros and cons of using a suspension fork in touring in general, or whether you think I need it or not, or what is my definition of a touring bike, or whether there are touring bikes with suspension or not (there's a lot of them).

My question is:

Why is that while many middle range touring bikes are with front suspension (1000-2000 Euro bikes), then most of the TOP of the line touring models (4000 Euro and above) are without?

My logic would be that if it is offered in mid range, it's also offered on the top bikes, too.

See for example the range of Rose bikes, who are one of those manufacturers who sell among the highest number of touring bikes. Rose has 20 different "Tourenräder" for 1000-2000 Euro, so these middle range touring models are almost all with front suspension. If I look at Tout Terrain for example, from the 10 top of the range models, they only have two model with front suspension, the Panamericana, and all the rest is fixed fork.

  • Money: it is not a reason while these bikes are over 4000 Euro anyway, and mid range bikes are with suspension.
  • Ease of repair: I see not a reason while disc brakes, carbon drive, hydraulic brakes, XT derailleurs are equally fine machinery that need care, and difficult to repair on site. To me, the dérailleur is the most delicate part of any bike, it gets damaged during transport or hard terrain easily, and very difficult to repair. And anyway, parts can be delivered by DHL anywhere. And again, mid range bikes are with suspension.
  • Weight: these bikes are 15+kg, just the Schwalbe tyres are 700-800g each, the pack is around 20kg, so shaving off 200-300g from the bike weight doesn't matter.
  • Force: if a fork can withstand downhill, they should handle touring.

So none of these justify why offer lots of mid-range touring bikes with suspension, and then the top range much less.

olee22
  • 1,358
  • 2
  • 9
  • 17
  • 6
    From my experience on a road bike, having done 100+ miles in a day several times, if you're getting wrist pain you might like to think about relaxing your upper body, changing the fit of the bike so more weight goes onto your seat, wearing gel padded gloves or upgrading the bar tape.

    The weight penalty of suspension, its effort soaking nature, the reduced load bearing that it makes available are all reasons against it.

     – 7thGalaxy Jul 03 '14 at 08:06
  • 3
    A suspension fork costs weight, and, more importantly, costs efficiency. – Daniel R Hicks Jul 03 '14 at 11:52
  • 1
    @7thGalaxy -- Correct. I used to get wrist pain when I had a poorly fitting bike (slightly too large for me), but changing the stem helped a lot, and with my new(er), better-fitting bike wrist pain is not a problem (though I certainly get pains elsewhere). – Daniel R Hicks Jul 03 '14 at 11:54
  • @DanielRHicks There's always pain somewhere! – 7thGalaxy Jul 03 '14 at 11:56
  • Suspension is really not necessary for touring. It really is only useful in severe single track terrain. If you have hand/wrist issues, first check the fit of the bike (stem height/extension, top-tube length, seat-height) and your form. Things like gloves, handlebar tape choice and a slightly lower pressure in your front tire (or wider tire) will make a lot of difference and have less drawbacks than a suspension fork. – Angelo Jul 03 '14 at 12:53
  • Are you riding flat bars on your touring Cannondale Headshock? – paparazzo Jul 03 '14 at 13:33
  • 1
    I'm not that old, and I remember when mountain bikes didn't have suspension. Mind you, we weren't doing the same types of trails you can do on a current full suspension bike, but they worked well for many uses. The few times I've taken my touring bike off the asphalt, onto nature trails it performed pretty well. I think one problem you might be running into with the bikes you linked to is that they have flat bars. These only allow one hand position, and after riding all day in the same hand position, you are likely to get sore. – Kibbee Jul 03 '14 at 14:06
  • @7thGalaxy Is not that I have wrist pain, but that the suspension on is much more comfortable after a long day. Weight is not a factor for a touring bike, I have 20kg on the bike as load anyway. – olee22 Jul 03 '14 at 18:03
  • @Blam I have a Butterfly handlebar, offers 5 different hand positions, and gel tape. – olee22 Jul 03 '14 at 18:04
  • I've edited my question, as I find your answers very interesting, but didn't get any feedback: Why TOP range touring models rarely have front suspension, while MIDDLE range touring models have very often? There doesn't seem to be a logic in this. – olee22 Jul 03 '14 at 21:02
  • 9
    You got feedback you just did not accept it. How about this? Mid range bike come with shocks because because mid range consumers will buy them. Department store bikes come with full suspension because people buy them. High end touring bike don't come with shocks because high end consumers don't see the value. – paparazzo Jul 03 '14 at 21:55
  • @Blam Thanks, this is clear. I gave +1 on your comment. – olee22 Jul 04 '14 at 06:06
  • Great question, and some good answers, love the touring setup. I'm looking at the Specialized AWOL, but really wanted something with forks if I decide to do a bit of 'exploring' while away. Mark – Mark Aug 11 '17 at 21:48
  • This doesn't answer the question of "why touring bikes have no suspension forks" SE is not a regular chatty forum. Instead, its all about the question and its answers. Do please have a browse through the [tour] to see how it works. – Criggie Aug 12 '17 at 07:44

7 Answers7

18

There are a couple of reasons.

The KISS Principle

If anything vital breaks while you're touring and you can't fix it on the spot, you're stranded. You're too far from home to call your mom for a ride. Unless you have a spare for the broken part, your options are some DIY jerry rigging and/or praying that someone with a truck comes by who will carry you and all your stuff to the nearest town. There's less that can go wrong with a rigid fork, so less chance of being stranded.

Standard parts are easier to replace and repair

Rack-ready suspension forks are irreplaceable, irrepairable abominations. Ok, that's an exaggeration. But it's definitely harder to get a replacement or get it repaired. Head shock? Only one of the three bike shops in my town sells Cannondale stuff. If you end up in a smaller town with one bike shop (or none) you may be out of luck. If you find yourself limping along to some no-name town in the middle of nowhere, your best hope for repairs is to have standard parts.

It's true that you can find mounting apparatuses (apparatii?) that will allow a rack to mount to a standard suspension fork but they all require additional parts, violating the KISS Principle.

Weight

In spite of (or perhaps, because of) the abundance of gear that tourists carry, there are weight-weenie tourists. Suspension forks are heavy. Or at least heavier.

Efficiency

Another reason is that a suspension absorbs energy, and rationing ones energy is a primary concern of the long-distance tourist.

Physics (supposedly)

When I first got into touring there was a notion that suspension forks weren't designed to withstand the lateral forces of braking well enough to add weight to the fork. The idea was that the forward force of the bike's weight on the steer tube and the forward weight of the panniers on the lowers would flex the fork and damage it. This seems to have either been overcome or disproven, but old ideas sometimes die hard. This is probably the reason that Giant used such a bizarre contraption on the front of their Expedition AT, to compensate for those forces.

Most people just don't need it

Most people tour on the road where suspension doesn't really do enough to justify all the other costs.

As others have mentioned in the comments, if you're having wrist pains there is most likely a fit/setup issue with your bike. There are any number of possible solutions, all of which would be specific to you and your bike. See your LBS for advice.

jimchristie
  • 11,784
  • 10
  • 55
  • 83
  • 1
    KISS: It helps for sure, but I see this less of a factor on touring these days. Most parts can be mail ordered from the manufacturer, and most of my touring friends do this. Even if my tyre fails, I'd rather get by DHL a Schwalbe Marathon, vs. going on with a cheap tyre. And the same bikes have Rohloff, XT sets, carbon drive, hydraulic brakes, disc brakes, these are anything but KISS. So, I'm not sure this is the reason. – olee22 Jul 03 '14 at 18:45
  • 1
    @olee22 It's always about balance. Most of that stuff has such an incredible benefit in one way or another that it might be worth it to add a bit of complexity. For example, a fixie is as KISS as it gets, but there's a reason nobody tours on them. A suspension fork just doesn't add that much benefit compared to the number and magnitude of problems it potentially brings. – jimchristie Jul 03 '14 at 18:54
  • 1
    KISS is useful, but if you have parts which you know wont break (whens the last time you heard of a Rohloff breaking?) or the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (discs are becoming more common and deal better with non-perfectly true wheels) make it possible to use less simple designs. – Batman Jul 04 '14 at 07:52
  • @Batman That's precisely the point of my previous comment. Rohloffs have other disadvantages, e.g., not easily compatible with a front derailleur, which is why we don't see those on touring bikes. Disc brakes have become commonplace on touring bikes because they have numerous benefits and very few drawbacks (especially mechanicals, hydraulics are less friendly to roadside maintenance). Suspension forks just have too many disadvantages compared to rigid forks, KISS being only one of those disadvantages. – jimchristie Jul 10 '14 at 15:27
  • Your efficiency point is the most important one, from the standpoint of true cycle tourists. Shocks eat energy, and conserving energy is one of the most important goals for a long distance cyclist. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 12 '17 at 12:32
15

Short and simple... Nobody with the cash to spend on a high end touring bike thinks they are worthwhile.

Given the increasing specialization in the bike market, they only reason they don't exist is nobody will buy them.

Fred the Magic Wonder Dog
  • 10,151
  • 26
  • 33
  • 1
  • 1 For answering about the topic of my question. I don't know whether your are right or not, but this can be a reason. Thx!
    • – olee22 Jul 04 '14 at 04:46
  • 1
    I wholeheartedly agree, and am glad the OP selected this as the most helpful answer. Bike manufacturers are run by their sales and marketing departments, and the only people they're working for are their shareholders. The only reason a particular bike will get dropped is if it isn't turning in enough profit. – PeteH Jul 04 '14 at 22:33