ScotRoutes wrote:benp1 wrote:Pics of the van needed!
Not seen that bumbag before, be interested in your thoughts once you've had it a bit
http://bearbonesbikepacking.co.uk/phpBB ... f=7&t=7607
Missed that, thanks!
Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew
ScotRoutes wrote:benp1 wrote:Pics of the van needed!
Not seen that bumbag before, be interested in your thoughts once you've had it a bit
http://bearbonesbikepacking.co.uk/phpBB ... f=7&t=7607
I bet, looks crackingIan wrote: I'm quite pleased with it actually. Lots of places to stash stuff and seems quite comfy and stable. Yet to load it fully though, but will take it to the Lakes at the weekend to give it a good try out
Ian wrote: and 20" rims,
They look awsumz, but will have a horrendous ride though. I had 18s on an A3 and it was crashy as anything!Ian wrote:What's wrong with 20" rims?
Overwheeled IMHO (like I said, IMHO – and wheels are very personal, so don’t let my opinion even slightly stop you).Ian wrote:What's wrong with 20" rims?
Is surprised.Lastly, the SON 28 hub has gone onto a 50mm carbon rim for me to run 29+ on the Highland Trail.
Why so?Is surprised
I take it you're running a rigid fork this year then? Didn't you use a suss fork previously?Bearbonesnorm wrote:Is surprised.Lastly, the SON 28 hub has gone onto a 50mm carbon rim for me to run 29+ on the Highland Trail.
Just the additional weight and resistance really. However, I suppose on something as varied as the HT it is possible the positives could balance out the nagatives.Why so?
Thanks Ian you have just ended my pre-long bike packing trip "what front tyre?" vacillation. Stick with the 29+ that I have on there at the moment...Ian wrote:Even after the 440 in 2013, my newly serviced suss fork was pretty buggered, and I didn't fancy normal 29" rigid (or fat bike). I've been testing 29+ in the Beacons over the winter and liked it. Lower overall weight than a suss fork, and less to go wrong. Haven't found the resistance a bad thing tbh.
Finding XL101 rated tyres for my 18" BBS wheels on my T5 was difficult enough. Online suppliers will suggest tyres that meet the minimum weight spec that VW suggest, when you look at what VW spec as standard they are under performing. Insurance is enough of a ballache without having to argue the toss your tyres weren't up to snuff. You can always argue that you're OK as you aren't filling your van up to same weight a builder might with 100 bags of cement but I'd rather not. Same as you might not bother with Z rated tyres as you never take your 911 turbo up to 300km/h!darbeze wrote:The other thing to consider with running such large diameter rims (20") on a vehicle like a T5 is the load rating of the tyre. Don't forget it is a van and as such needs correctly load rated tyres. You will encounter uneven and premature wear on 20" low profile care tyres when running them on a van.
Don't get me wrong, I think low profile rims and tyres look good on VW vans, but i wouldn't do it myself.
Plus I prefer smaller wheels and bigger tyres personally as I favour 4wd vehicles...
Si
You can alwaystry and argue that you're OK as you aren't filling your van up to same weight a builder might with 100 bags of cement butility I'd rather not
This is a terrible idea , trust me - ive seen a number of friends try to argue with insurance companys on technicalities.
That's a "LIKE" from me...Trail-rat wrote:
cooler than a penguins nackers. - even if it is a T4. - spoken as a VW h8ter