What makes a good bikepacking bike?

Is it 29 x 3" knards? rigid forks for reliability? a big frame triangle for bags?

While our hobby is focused on combining the light and fast fun of mountain biking, with the self supported camping of touring, it seems to have bred a whole following of bikes that seem quite the opposite of the trail fast mtbs you see today, why is this?

Why is a rigid more common than the FS bikes you see flood magazines and trail centres?
Why do most prefer 1x10 or single speed to the 27,30, 33...+ gears some bikes have today?

Seems like the adventure racing fraternity has branched off the beaten track (excuse the pun) from mainstream MTB

The best bike is the one that fits you the best, and you feel you can ride the longest in comfort. For me that's my rigid surly Karate Monkey, with as of this weekend 2.4 Ardents on flow rims for extra comfort.

While bike manufacturers seemingly like to create ever more niches within the mountain (and road) bike market, to a certain extent those niches already exist in some form. The all-singing all-dancing FS with 160mm of travel is a match for trail centres, in fact it's almost an arms race: bike makers come out with a bike to handle the trails so the trail makers create yet more technical sections and tracks.

At the YD300 with one exception everyone was on a rigid or hardtail, no FS bikes in sight. The exception was a lady on a cross bike.

If you are out in the sticks then having a bike that any bike shop has a reasonable chance of having spares for is a big plus. A slight wander OT: we were road biking in Majorca a couple of years ago and one of our group broke a spoke - no problem except that this was some weird MAVIC blade spoke and even in Majorca which is really bike friendly and on the ball it took two days to get a replacement.

In straightforward terms, Ben's hit the nail on the head.

With regard to the practicalities, I think the general terrain often dictates bike choice ... if you're spending 2 hours at a trail centre then a resonably high percentage of your time will be spent riding things that could fall under the heading of 'technical'. On the other hand, if you're riding 100 miles cross country, using bridleways, lanes and tracks then the percentage of 'technical' will be very low. Given that a hardtail / rigid bike will generally weigh less than a full suspension bike and in most cases will be much simpler, the swing in that direction seems very sensible ... there's really not much to go wrong on a rigid, steel singlespeed

However, if you alter the terrain ... Colorado Trail Race for example, then a light weight full suspension bike will start to make more sense.

It's horses for courses and as with much of life, there's compromises to be made. The trick is making the right ones for your circumstances and acepting that your choice won't always be ideal.

I've always believed in standardized parts, keeps cost and logistics simple, but does standardization prevent innovation?

Does a rigid fork limit trail options?
(or at least requires more skill to ride)

I love the idea of fatbikes, I've test rode a few and they just look like a ten year olds dream monster-bike, but feel both cost and niche-ness of parts doesn't make it an appealing realistic option

I recently rode a 27.5+ bike built around a 29er frame and it seemed a very cost effective and compatible plus sized platform, that and it fits my shortness
Anyone else seen these?

Does a rigid fork limit trail options?
(or at least requires more skill to ride)

Not in my opinion, you may be forced to ride some sections a little slower but there's nothing you can't ride.

I love the idea of fatbikes, I've test rode a few and they just look like a ten year olds dream monster-bike, but feel both cost and niche-ness of parts doesn't make it an appealing realistic option

Now that I've started to ride mine, I'd suggest that they're not the ideal bike for an awful lot of riding situations ... but they're perfectly suited for a few.

I recently rode a 27.5+ bike built around a 29er frame and it seemed a very cost effective and compatible plus sized platform, that and it fits my shortness

What's the perceived benefit over a 29er? ... I've seen / ridden them but I'm interested in the answer

What's the perceived benefit over a 29er?

Bear in mind I only test rode, so this I from the sales rep

It has the same benifits of a 29er, without the part limitations of a 29+, so plus sized wheels on standard 29" geometry
And the overall profile of the 27.5 x 2.8 is the same as 29 x 2 but with more air
Built for shorter riders too, so felt more agile than some of the big wheel bikes I've ridden,

Could just be an odd hybrid of ideas but felt nice to ride, I think it was Charge/Cannondale pushing this idea

It has the same benifits of a 29er, without the part limitations of a 29+, so plus sized wheels on standard 29" geometry
And the overall profile of the 27.5 x 2.8 is the same as 29 x 2 but with more air

The salesman did a fairly good job, although I'm still unsure whether 2.8" actually classes as +

Could just be an odd hybrid of ideas but felt nice to ride

They do ride well, hopefully I'll get chance to test the offering from Genesis before too long.

did he mead diameter, or profile as in patch.

That was my thought, 3"+ would seem more like it

What's the thoughts on a 27.5" platform in general? Alot of the high street names like Specialized, Cube,ect are phasing out all their 26" for this new mid size

How much does touring affect your choice of new bikes?
Do you look for a bike with good parts and fit for where you ride? Or does mounting bags, triangle size, and cable clearances play a bigger part in how you choose your next iron horse?


......Im full of endless questions aren't I? What's that saying about curiosity?

What's the thoughts on a 27.5" platform in general?

s8tannorm wrote:

Does a rigid fork limit trail options?
(or at least requires more skill to ride)

Not in my opinion, you may be forced to ride some sections a little slower but there's nothing you can't ride.

However, on some bikes the rigid fork gives you more confidence. For example, 29+ on the Stooge is brilliant over techy stuff with loads of wheel traps as there is a big offset on the fork and a slack head angle. On a bike with a suspension fork, if you hit a wheel trap it will compress the fork, steepen the head angle and pitch you forward, whereas the rigid fork holds and your forward motion pushes you forward.

I do think we're in the minority though - you see very few rigid forks at trail centres, and that seems to be where the majority of riding takes place these days if Glentress on a Saturday is anything to go by...

it seems to have bred a whole following of bikes that seem quite the opposite of the trail fast mtbs you see today, why is this?

I see bikepacking as something taking touring, old-school ATB, endurance racing and Alpine climbing attitudes and combining it all, the bike doesn't need to be that complex, just comfy, capable and reliable. For some rides a susser is a perfect choice - most riders in the HLC Isael were on them and they (rightfully) had a good laugh at the 2 of us who took rigid knives to that gunfight : ) (but not as much as I laughed at Rick for taking a rigid on my 'recommendation', he usually has sus forks. So glad it wasn't just me..)

tbh I think Ben's spot on. The best bikepacker ride is a comfy bike that suits the terrain you're about to ride, with bags well-fitted. One that doesn't have sloppy luggage or bad pack-weight distribution.

What's the thoughts on a 27.5" platform in general?

imo .. It's the average do-all size so it's good for standardising the mass market, something the market generally needs - whether people like where it's settling is another thing. It has a place but wouldn't be my first choice to make an ideal bike-packer.

It has the same benifits of a 29er, without the part limitations of a 29+, so plus sized wheels on standard 29" geometry
And the overall profile of the 27.5 x 2.8 is the same as 29 x 2 but with more air

A bit of a generalising summation maybe but I'd tend to agree. B+ is comfier than my wide-rimmed, 2.4 tyred 29er wheelset and only a bit slower to accelerate. Rolling resistance on choppy trails can be lower. But it's not a dramatic difference comparing the WTB 2.8s to a fat 29er tyre and there's minor negatives to the 'feel' of a bike with a much bigger tyre for me, that's all personal stuff though. Since loaded bike speed is often about conserving momentum rather than snappy accelerations of a road or XC bike I can see B+ working well for some terrain, likewise I'm in no rush to change what I have yet (and I could, at little to no cost).

s8tannorm wrote:

I recently rode a 27.5+ bike built around a 29er frame and it seemed a very cost effective and compatible plus sized platform, that and it fits my shortness

What's the perceived benefit over a 29er? ... I've seen / ridden them but I'm interested in the answer

As a complete Newbie I think I may be better suited to answer this than perhaps someone with more experience. When I went to test ride a few mountain bikes at my LBS I knew nothing of the wheel size differences, I didn't know the arguments for and against each different rim size, and to be fair to the guys in the shop, they didn't try pushing me one way or the other. I simply hopped on and tried them out. The only reason I went for the 27.5 / 650b was simply that it felt right. I have now heard that 26" rim bikes tend to be more "nimble", 29ers ride faster etc... When I tried them out my thoughts were: 26" felt like a kids bike, just felt too small somehow, the 29" felt too big, too much like my road bike, the 27.5" was the Goldilocks bike for me, just felt right. Obviously frame size etc would have come in to play also, I was just lucky that one of the KTM's they had in stock just happened to be the right frame size + rim size and seemed to fit me perfect.

A few back I'd have taken the view that more suspension is better as far as comfort and fun goes. Oh, how times have changed.

Now I only have rigid bikes in my stable. An On One Inbred 29 with Salsa Fargo forks, switches between gears and SS depending on what I'm doing. Secondly a Salsa Vaya.

I love both of these bikes, but focusing on the off-road riding… I've found myself to enjoy riding the on one more than I ever did my full-suss. As previously mentioned, geometry alters when the forks compress, and this was knocking (although I didn't realise it at the time) my confidence on the full suss. This has actually left me more confident on the downs, and faster for it if you're into that kinda thing. Further, it fits me better and thus allows me to manage my weight better over the bike, and thus once again I am more comfortable and confident on it.

Basically, my two pence is it's all about what fits you best, and what's the most fun for your type of riding. Either way, the answer isn't necessarily what you think.