New Bikepacking/ Touring Bike Advice

[Oldjohnw]

Oldjohnw wrote:
Apart from waterproof protection you have to wonder sometimes if we have simply succumbed to advertising of fancy kit.

People have been burned at the stake for such heresies you know

I certainly support getting the best kit appropriate to whatever adventure you are embarking on. And I am not a Luddite (I don't think. Maybe a bit.).

But sometimes I think we can get all tied up with the supposed need to continually get the latest thing. Some seem to think you cannot go on a bike unless it weights less than 10kg, or you have an expensive Garmin or whatever. Might newcomers be put off and feel inferior? It's the same in the walking world. Unless you spend £500 and buy a sub 1kg tent and have the very latest Osprey bag you really shouldn't be allowed out.

[reohn2]

I certainly support getting the best kit appropriate to whatever adventure you are embarking on. And I am not a Luddite (I don't think. Maybe a bit.).

But sometimes I think we can get all tied up with the supposed need to continually get the latest thing. Some seem to think you cannot go on a bike unless it weights less than 10kg, or you have an expensive Garmin or whatever. Might newcomers be put off and feel inferior? It's the same in the walking world. Unless you spend £500 and buy a sub 1kg tent and have the very latest Osprey bag you really shouldn't be allowed out.

I think there's always been an element of that in any hobby/sport/pastime for some people and if they can afford it then why not,but that said the most expensive kit isn't always the best for the job in hand,if I'm using something day in day out I want the best available that I can afford but for occasional use something a bit cheaper down the pecking order would suffice adequately.
If people want to travel light then a simple answer is to carry less.
The OP's search for a sub 10kg touring bike can be acheived but whether it'll stand up to the rigours of the job in hand for any length of time is debateable.
Personally I'd prefer something a bit more sturdy if I venturing out touring especially off tarmac,there's nothing worse than unreliable kit letting you down miles from anywhere,and I wouldn't want to take that risk for the sake having to drop down a couple of cogs and ride a little slower up the hills due to that sturdiness,in the knowledge that it's reliable.I've never been a fan of having less spokes in my wheels than gears

[whoof]

Apart from waterproof protection you have to wonder sometimes if we have simply succumbed to advertising of fancy kit.

People have been burned at the stake for such heresies you know

I certainly support getting the best kit appropriate to whatever adventure you are embarking on. And I am not a Luddite (I don't think. Maybe a bit.).

But sometimes I think we can get all tied up with the supposed need to continually get the latest thing. Some seem to think you cannot go on a bike unless it weights less than 10kg, or you have an expensive Garmin or whatever. Might newcomers be put off and feel inferior? It's the same in the walking world. Unless you spend £500 and buy a sub 1kg tent and have the very latest Osprey bag you really shouldn't be allowed out.

The above has been in some way edited and therefore will not show who's written what.

In my experience I've ridden with many different bike clubs and I've done so on I've done so on range of bikes from modern and relatively expensive to bikes made up from bike jumble/hand me down components with old steel frames, down-tube shifters. I've never had any comments other than 'that's looks interesting, what it is'.
The only place I regularly hear derisory comments that might put off newcomers is on here. Recently I've read threads where people thinking of buying modern equipment are described as 'fools and thier money', I've read a post where GPS users are described as 'zombies' and further up this thread people using bike-packing bags are 'weak and lazy'.
If you think pedal X is better than pedal Y then say so and say why; it's more robust, easier to service, cheaper or whatever. As soon as you go down the road of 'people riding whatever are 'insert personal criticism of choice' than you are right up there with 'all cyclist are red light jumping criminals'

[Oldjohnw]

Agreed, Whoof.

I was trying to respond to a post which said, presumably tongue in cheek, in response to my earlie post that people have been burned at the stake for less. My quotes didn't work properly.

I have certainly known people in the walking world who have been either put off or made to feel inferior. Things such as "Anyone still using paper maps is a retard" or "anyone using electronics doesn't know how to read maps". I read one person stating that anyone buying a waterproof at Mountain Warehouse deserves to get hyperthermia. Presumably hyperbole but nasty nevertheless.

Most stuff on this thread has been decent and civilised. Elsewhere not necessarily.

[The utility cyclist]

I think that a carbon fork is reasonable since it can be more easily replaced than the frame and it also fits into my price range.

I might have to compromise on front rack mounts

Putting a front rack on a carbon fork ... not something the carbon fork designer/maker may have envisaged?
Given how fragile I view carbon particularly when it is made for reducing weight it is the last product I'd want on a touring bike.

Carbon fork with low rider mounts were fitted as std on the higher end Specialized Globe/Tricross range back in 07/08/09, I've used them a couple of times on my globe pro and Expert and had no issues, the stainless steel inserts (in the carbon legs) are solid as anything. Triban have just released a new alu frameset with low loader mounts on their carbon forks also.

As for carbon being fragile for touring, well my recent gravel cum future touring bike build (specialized Sirrus Pro carbon) uses the same FACT 9M carbon modulus as that found on top end downhill mountain bikes from the same era (2010) and same era to that as the frames used in this video. My Sirrus pro has eyelets front and rear but no low rider mounts in the fork sadly, you can't have everything but I would have no qualms over attaching a clamp to the legs so that I could use a low rider rack as it's the same fork leg as that on my Glob bikes just minus the eyelet.

Oh yeah my globe pro has been shunted from behind, driven into from the side, dropped and crashed and a whole host of other stuff that occurs when you commute/use for utility over a few years. The carbon seat stays, carbon forks, carbon bars and seat-post have remained intact and continue to stick two fingers up to impacts/high loads.

I think using carbon for touring bikes is a massively misunderstood and underutilised material by manufacturers and punters alike. I'm fortunate in that I got one of the very few frames that had std threaded BB and is not disc based plus also has std mudguard/rack eyelets, specialized did make a side pull caliper version also and they come up from time to time on ebay. A 2kg frameset for a touring bike is impressive,
Maybe some massively over-constructed steel (and massively heavy) would take the kind of punishment these carbon downhill bikes would but not many.

https://youtu.be/w5eMMf11uhM

[hamster]

I agree that most carbon fibre frames have been optimised for lightness as race machines. An alternative route is to build for strength. I've seen people fold up 753 frames off road.
Horses for courses, it's a pity that nobody has seriously addressed the bombproof tourer market.

[pwa]

Agreed, Whoof.

I was trying to respond to a post which said, presumably tongue in cheek, in response to my earlie post that people have been burned at the stake for less. My quotes didn't work properly.

I have certainly known people in the walking world who have been either put off or made to feel inferior. Things such as "Anyone still using paper maps is a retard" or "anyone using electronics doesn't know how to read maps". I read one person stating that anyone buying a waterproof at Mountain Warehouse deserves to get hyperthermia. Presumably hyperbole but nasty nevertheless.

Most stuff on this thread has been decent and civilised. Elsewhere not necessarily.

I used to know a few members of the Ramblers who bought most of their clothing for walks from Millets, rather than from more costly shops. There is usually an affordable way of getting very close to expensive kit performance without buying the expensive kit.

[whoof]

I agree that most carbon fibre frames have been optimised for lightness as race machines. An alternative route is to build for strength. I've seen people fold up 753 frames off road.
Horses for courses, it's a pity that nobody has seriously addressed the bombproof tourer market.

I think the probelm is it's been a very small market. I've known hundreds of cyclists but only a handful of touring ones. In addition those that do tour have not wanted to buy 'the next new thing' as is evident from the many posts in this Forum. Therefore as a manufacturer you'll never get a return on money spent on R & D.
Perhaps bike-packing/gravel bikes will enlarge the market and make future investment more attractive to large manufactures.

[Bonefishblues]

Agreed, Whoof.

I was trying to respond to a post which said, presumably tongue in cheek, in response to my earlie post that people have been burned at the stake for less. My quotes didn't work properly.

I have certainly known people in the walking world who have been either put off or made to feel inferior. Things such as "Anyone still using paper maps is a retard" or "anyone using electronics doesn't know how to read maps". I read one person stating that anyone buying a waterproof at Mountain Warehouse deserves to get hyperthermia. Presumably hyperbole but nasty nevertheless.

Most stuff on this thread has been decent and civilised. Elsewhere not necessarily.

Your presumption is entirely correct. Sometimes it's good not to take everything quite so seriously, I find

[althebike]

I was in Halfords the other day, they had a good looking bike for £200 , I know people say you only get what you pay for, and maybe this bike would feel like rubbish out on the road, but it would not look out of place on a club ride.

[foxyrider]

I was in Halfords the other day, they had a good looking bike for £200 , I know people say you only get what you pay for, and maybe this bike would feel like rubbish out on the road, but it would not look out of place on a club ride.

You been on a club ride lately? From my observations in these parts they are all riding carbon with at least 105 (or similar) transmissions!

[althebike]

Foxyrider, yes most riders use carbon , some keep their smart carbon bikes for summer , but no one would judge a newbe turning up in something that looked OK ( even if it it was ultra cheap and metal) I decided I knew what I wanted when I bought my first modern go faster bike, but after a few months I had learned so much about what I needed rather than wanted.

[Vorpal]

Foxyrider, yes most riders use carbon , some keep their smart carbon bikes for summer , but no one would judge a newbe turning up in something that looked OK ( even if it it was ultra cheap and metal) I decided I knew what I wanted when I bought my first modern go faster bike, but after a few months I had learned so much about what I needed rather than wanted.

People judge newbes all the time for what they turn up on. Folks at some clubs are kind and welcoming. Not so much at others.

When I was going out with lots of different clubs, trying to find one I wanted to be a member of, I once had someone tell me that I needed a new bike. He went on to tell me that I needed to spend at least £600 to get something decent (thereby implying that my well-used hybrid was not 'something decent'). I replied with an offhand sort of comment that I thought my bike had only done 5000 miles or so, and I thought it could do at least that much again. He shut up, but it wasn't the only patronising treatment I had from members of that club.

[foxyrider]

Foxyrider, yes most riders use carbon , some keep their smart carbon bikes for summer , but no one would judge a newbe turning up in something that looked OK ( even if it it was ultra cheap and metal) I decided I knew what I wanted when I bought my first modern go faster bike, but after a few months I had learned so much about what I needed rather than wanted.

TBH, when I was "club captain" the only thing I was concerned about was the roadworthiness of everyone's bike. The last thing you want are multiple stops to fix poorly maintained bikes. (punctures unless caused by worn out/damaged parts, fall outside of this tenet)

Even 20 years ago some rode race bikes with mudguards shoe horned on, others, myself included, had dedicated winter hacks, probably not dissimilar to the cheapo Halfords job but built from cascaded parts. You'd actually be more likely to have the P taken if you turned up on something too posh. But times change, people don't build their own bikes so much or even do their own maintenance.

My first 'sports' bike, a 5 speed Falcon, cost just shy of £25 45 years ago, with inflation that would be close to the £200 for which you get more gears, better wheels, gears and brakes. In the value for money stakes it's a no brainer but I can't see many potential club riders buying something at that level.

[horizon]

I agree - I camp solo with 13.5kgs and don't need front panniers.

This autumn I cyclecamped with four panniers (medium, not small, at the front, large at the rear) and a bar bag and with a large tent on the rear rack. Lovely. Comfortable, warm, dry. Bike handled superbly. So Mrs H carried very little (that was the deal). And a short trip.

I think the great thing about all these different configurations is that they represent versatility. Which means that in summer on a high mileage trip you can drop the front rack and panniers (and more) and go much lighter. It is so related to what works best for you in the circumstances.

I don't like the move towards "strap-on" bike packing as a rear rack and panniers IMV is perfection itself but each to their own.

But I will say again that I find it extraordinary that we argue over the odd couple of kg and then someone turns up in their Range Rover pulling a twin-axle caravan.