those that proposed a bike capable of taking 29/650+ was this to ensure flexibility in the field or to be able to fine tune to the expected conditions.

The two things ride quite differently, so for me, it's about the ability to have 2 bikes in 1 with just a change of wheels. Either set-up can lend itself well to bikepacking but each excels in a different enviroment.

Bearbonesnorm wrote:The two things ride quite differently, so for me, it's about the ability to have 2 bikes in 1 with just a change of wheels. Either set-up can lend itself well to bikepacking but each excels in a different enviroment.

Can you expand a bit more on that please Stu.

jaminb wrote:However if you were setting off on adventure into the unknown surely you would seek the most flexible bike out there - to be able to cope with all terrains and conditions and accept that it may be compromised in certain situations rather than not take a trail that looked too extreme or track that was too long and gravelly. The equipment we take bikepacking allows us to tackle a variety of conditions - why not the bike?

Sorry a couple of other ignorant question - if a bike will take 29er wheels - will it always be able to take 650+? Does plus just mean fatter tyres but not fat bike tyres and those that proposed a bike capable of taking 29/650+ was this to ensure flexibility in the field or to be able to fine tune to the expected conditions.

thanks

Im not sure how many people set of into the 'unknown'; I certainly invest a bit of time in planning to get an idea of what I am getting into! As, like you, I have a few bikes to choose from, why would I insist on taking a generic 'bikepacking bike' rather than something I know will be the best compromise for a particular trip? Sure, you probably don't want something so specialised that it is a PITA to ride on a particular type of terrain, but bikepacking now covers a really broad spectrum of activities, and I definitely would not be comfortable riding the same bike for AZT as the TCR. It's no different to the 'life support' kit; I don't take the same equipment on every ride, but tailor it to the specific nature / environment of a particular trip.

Having a frame that is 29/b+ compatible is really useful as it provides options to optimise the bike before a trip (having done some research before committing to the ride); it doesn't provide any degree of flexibility once in the field.

I'm happy with my ECR but I do keep looking at pictures of the ti jones plus, and various supermodels.

Neither is going to happen

Well I've only got two mountain bikes, I don't have room in the house for any more So I either take the fat bike or the Solaris. Most of the time for bikepacking duties it will be the Solaris.

The Solaris currently has rigid forks which are fine for 90% of all the riding I do on it, bikepacking and trail riding. I did have suspension forks on it when I used it in the Alps, any lack of speed there was due to my lack of technique rather than the bike. I rarely (as in perhaps once a year) go to trail centres.

If I had room would I get another bike? I'm really not sure - whenever I get the N+1 itch I look at the Solaris and realise that for most of what I'd want the new bike for I've already got a bike that can do it. I don't mind if there's a bit of trail that's beyond me and I have to walk it.

Can you expand a bit more on that please Stu.

I'll try Ray.

29er - if I fit 29" wheels it's generally with 2.2" fast rolling tyres. Works well on those trips / rides that I know will involve lots of miles and long days on reasonably easy terrain. Still capable of being ridden down most things, although you might not want to do it continually or too quickly.

B+ - I'll fit the B+ wheels if I know where I'm going involves a higher degree of technical riding on more demanding trails. The bike does roll slower and you do notice that more effort's required when climbing but the additional cushioning and grip are worth it. Set-up like this, the bike feels much more sure-footed or 'planted' and technical descents can be undertaken with much less 'rider input'.

I would quite happily set off into the unknown with either set-up but if I have an idea of what to expect, then I might swap wheels beforehand ... simply to make life easier / more enjoyable.

Are you still using the Alpkit Rumpus B+ set Stu?

Are you still using the Alpkit Rumpus B+ set Stu?

Yes Bob, they're my B wheels for the Stooge.

Bearbonesnorm wrote:

Can you expand a bit more on that please Stu.

I'll try Ray.

29er - if I fit 29" wheels it's generally with 2.2" fast rolling tyres. Works well on those trips / rides that I know will involve lots of miles and long days on reasonably easy terrain. Still capable of being ridden down most things, although you might not want to do it continually or too quickly.

B+ - I'll fit the B+ wheels if I know where I'm going involves a higher degree of technical riding on more demanding trails. The bike does roll slower and you do notice that more effort's required when climbing but the additional cushioning and grip are worth it. Set-up like this, the bike feels much more sure-footed or 'planted' and technical descents can be undertaken with much less 'rider input'.

I would quite happily set off into the unknown with either set-up but if I have an idea of what to expect, then I might swap wheels beforehand ... simply to make life easier / more enjoyable.

I'll give a +1 to pretty much all of that but add that I also have a choice of rigid or suspension forks so have more permutations (and that's before we start getting into mixed wheel sized options).

Other things that might help define the perfect bikepacking bike (All IMHO, obviously)

A large frame triangle for fitting a bag.

Additional bottle cage (Anything cage) mount(s).

The ability to run a front mech.

A finish that doesn't wear where straps are rubbing.


Should I mention rack mounts or would that result in a banning?

Given the above a ti Stooge with custom additions except Andrew refuses to put rack mounts on.

+1 to what Colin's mentioned though an abrasion resistant finish might be a little hard to do (or expensive).

Three pairs of cage bosses - seat tube, top side of down tube, under side of down tube

Tapered head tube. Not that I think there's anything wrong with straight steerers but you can fit adaptors for tapered to straight but not the other way.

Good chainstay clearance to allow B+ tyres (proper ones) to be used. Obviously a bit 29er specific.

Bearbonesnorm wrote:

Can you expand a bit more on that please Stu.

I'll try Ray.

29er - if I fit 29" wheels it's generally with 2.2" fast rolling tyres. Works well on those trips / rides that I know will involve lots of miles and long days on reasonably easy terrain. Still capable of being ridden down most things, although you might not want to do it continually or too quickly.

B+ - I'll fit the B+ wheels if I know where I'm going involves a higher degree of technical riding on more demanding trails. The bike does roll slower and you do notice that more effort's required when climbing but the additional cushioning and grip are worth it. Set-up like this, the bike feels much more sure-footed or 'planted' and technical descents can be undertaken with much less 'rider input'.

I would quite happily set off into the unknown with either set-up but if I have an idea of what to expect, then I might swap wheels beforehand ... simply to make life easier / more enjoyable.

This is were I like my fatbike for off-road tours, nice and stable once fully loaded and they ride the rough stuff really well. Also opens up options along the coast too

Will take my 29er out when i'm more road biased and works perfectly well, especially with semi slicks on

I definitely would not be comfortable riding the same bike for AZT as the TCR

I could be as long as I could change tyres and was touring, or wasn't racing for a top 5 but confident I could be 'competitive' on the same bike. Aero bars for TCR (shudder the thought), take them off and put knobbies on for AZT. Not saying I disagree with your take, more that it varies by rider.

The ability to run a front mech.
..
Should I mention rack mounts or would that result in a banning?

Nope, front mech and rack mounts essential. A tour in France with a bottle of red or similar shopping in the rack pack? Why discount it : )

Must have the ability to easily run a rohloff hub for me, best cycling investment I've ever made. Also no silly bottom bracket ideas. Something like the ecr but with through axels, rohloff, dynamo hub and an ebb for an easy life. The tumbleweed looks good but it's getting into jones money.

I'm going to echo an earlier comment and day something from Surly, so an ECR or KM.

But I'm biased having 2 Surly's anyway

The bike I will (one day) finish building

Salsa El Mariachi with a Rohloff and niner forks for me
reliable, comfortable, will do B+ albeit with a 2.8 rear
std bottom bracket, easy conversion to geared.
Why Salsa have phased it out is beyond me
Alternator dropouts are excellent

Reliable

my jones plus seems to cover most bases with a change of tyres i reckon.
but if i were to spec it again i would not touch 1x with a shitty stick. cant wait for the rubbish to wear out so i can fit a double or triple 9 speed set up.

ton wrote:my jones plus seems to cover most bases with a change of tyres i reckon.
but if i were to spec it again i would not touch 1x with a shitty stick. cant wait for the rubbish to wear out so i can fit a double or triple 9 speed set up.

Why 9 speed? I know you can still get it but for how long before they stop making the stuff at the decent end of the scale. I'm still running 9 speed but plan on changing it to 2x10 or 2x11 eventually.

Ray Young wrote:

ton wrote:my jones plus seems to cover most bases with a change of tyres i reckon.
but if i were to spec it again i would not touch 1x with a shitty stick. cant wait for the rubbish to wear out so i can fit a double or triple 9 speed set up.

Why 9 speed? I know you can still get it but for how long before they stop making the stuff at the decent end of the scale. I'm still running 9 speed but plan on changing it to 2x10 or 2x11 eventually.

I have some old 9 speed bits you can have stupid cheap if you wish.
An LX octalink chainset. Unused

Other than my Alfine 11, I run 8-speed on everything. £10 each for cassettes and chains and none of this 1x bollox. Decent shifters are getting harder to find new, but I have a big stash of SunTour thumbshifters...

A perfect BP bike doesn't use gearing that makes you cringe after a number of hours (or days) of running it dry and gritty, so I'm with ton, -----cks to 1x11 for this sort of use.

DoctorRad wrote:Other than my Alfine 11, I run 8-speed on everything. £10 each for cassettes and chains and none of this 1x bollox. Decent shifters are getting harder to find new, but I have a big stash of SunTour thumbshifters...

I stashed a fair bit of 9s XT a while back, it's great stuff. Could have done the same with 8s, just took till about 2011 till I made a stand against the add some gears every few years silliness. I'll be on cheap cassettes and chains in 2-3 years but that's fine; mechs, chainsets, shifters .. many years to go I reckon.

jameso wrote:A perfect BP bike doesn't use gearing that makes you cringe after a number of hours (or days) of running it dry and gritty, so I'm with ton, -----cks to 1x11 for this sort of use.

DoctorRad wrote:Other than my Alfine 11, I run 8-speed on everything. £10 each for cassettes and chains and none of this 1x bollox. Decent shifters are getting harder to find new, but I have a big stash of SunTour thumbshifters...

I stashed a fair bit of 9s XT a while back, it's great stuff. Could have done the same with 8s, just took till about 2011 till I made a stand against the add some gears every few years silliness. I'll be on cheap cassettes and chains in 2-3 years but that's fine; mechs, chainsets, shifters .. many years to go I reckon.

have some brand new, unused, still boxed XTR 9speed shifters if of any use.
also some other 9speed stuff

any interest?