# Slack or steep



## iowamtb (May 17, 2014)

What’s the best HTA for bike packing both on and off the road? Do you guys prefer slacker (67-69) or steeper (70-72)?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

iowamtb said:


> What's the best HTA for bike packing both on and off the road? Do you guys prefer slacker (67-69) or steeper (70-72)?


The short answer is that modern bikes and geometry are so good that you can and will adapt to either. If your riding is biased more toward road or groad, then go steeper.


----------



## c_kyle (Sep 2, 2005)

I've done most of my bikepacking on a Rocky Mountain Vertex...a race hardtail. It has been a perfect XC bike and an almost perfect bikepacking bike, if it had clearance for a 2.4 in the back and a little larger triangle for a larger frame bag.

I wanted something more bikepacking oriented, so I built up a new Vassago VerHauen; which is way slacker and can run a multitude of wheel and tire sizes. 

So, to answer your question, both work very well as long as you have a good bike fit. My personal preference, though, is towards a more XC-oriented bike geometry.


----------



## OilcanRacer (Jan 4, 2008)

The longer you ride, the more little things will bother you. Slack head angles people will tell you slow down steering for easier decents. After your tired it will become like fighting your bike. It is very annoying and makes you more tired. Nimble bike is a breeze to ride, more fun and easy after all day on the saddle.
72 to 73 head angle on all my bikes.


----------



## iowamtb (May 17, 2014)

Yeah I am slowly figuring this stuff out lol


----------



## She&I (Jan 4, 2010)

OilcanRacer said:


> The longer you ride, the more little things will bother you. Slack head angles people will tell you slow down steering for easier decents. After your tired it will become like fighting your bike. It is very annoying and makes you more tired. Nimble bike is a breeze to ride, more fun and easy after all day on the saddle.
> 72 to 73 head angle on all my bikes.


How do you know if all your bikes have a steep head angle? I haven't experienced a fighting sensation with sub-70 deg HAs down to ~66. I'm all about run-what-ya-brung, but trail riding on 70+ deg HA, no thanks. BP on sub 69, no problem whatsoever. Not as easy to ride no-hands, I'll give you that.


----------



## iowamtb (May 17, 2014)

I put on. New fork last Christmas. It had 17 mm longer axle to crown than old fork. I threw my old fork back on the other night. My new fork had things messed up. Wheel flop was horrible. 89 mm of trail with the new fork. I hated it.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Super slack?? No thanks. 

There are a lot of things about the "new geometry" bikes that don't make for such great bikepacking rigs. 

Short chainstays can interfere with your heels if you fancy using traditional racks for more loaded touring.

Slack head angles compromise handling precision particularly on seated uphill slogs.

Low bottom brackets can mean more pedal strikes, not a good thing when you have extra weight and are tired.

I use a 2016 Trek Stache for my rig. I retrofitted the Trek 1120 rear rack to it. Head angle I believe is around 68. Highish bottom bracket. I have my chainstays all the way back (440 mm I believe?)

My old 29er Ti bikepacking rig is around 70 degree head angle, similar chainstay length (around 440 mm) Standard BB height. Being a hardtail with only 100mm of travel keeps the BB from getting too low.

The Ti bike handles the seated uphill climbs better but the wider. tires on the Stache rule when the going gets rough.

One of the real problems with a lot of new bikes is that they are 1 X only. You can't get the gear range that a double or triple gives you unless you are willing to spend the bucks on an 10-50 12 speed setup. Then replacement cassettes are super pricey and it is harder to find cassettes and chains at shops.

I finally swallowed the money pit pill and ordered an 11-50 11 speed sunrace cassette to put on my bikepacking Stache. I have a double on it now that I shift by hand. Even with that range I know once I gear it low enough I am going to be limited on my high end.


----------



## iowamtb (May 17, 2014)

When I put the longer rigid fork on my bike I had a HTA of 68. When I went back to the original rigid fork my HTA changed to 70. My trail went from over 90mm to 82. The handling was way better once I reverted back. I talked to a major custom fork manufacturer (Walt) and he said most modern bikes were really slack and even modern XC bikes were going slack. We both agreed that he was like me and I like him nowadays. We are both older and we dont like plowing down hill fast as much anymore but rather prefer to ride slower and explore. Riding like this lends itself better to less trail and steeper HTA. If you’re going fast that’s one thing but when you’re slowing down and enjoying the scenery handling changes. 

Funny how much I have learned since I posted this topic.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

This is an interesting read particularly if you want to do winter and snow bikepacking from arguably the most experienced guy out there. His new rig has super long chainstays at over 25 inches!! 69 degree head angle.

Me? I don't like the snow for camping in!

https://salsacycles.com/stories/a_decade_of_diligence


----------



## She&I (Jan 4, 2010)

iowamtb said:


> We are both older and we dont like plowing down hill fast as much anymore but rather prefer to ride slower and explore.


That's the crux of it. I do want to "plow" DH and I don't have the desire to own a BP-specific bike that gets used once every year or two.

I never realized my slack trail ripper was such a horrible bikepacking rig until you guys started spewing numbers. Funny, because it was primo on the AZT, and most riders I saw were running trail geo. You should clue them in that they could place better with a steep HA, I'm sure you'd get a cozy reception on that advice.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

iowamtb said:


> What's the best HTA for bike packing both on and off the road? Do you guys prefer slacker (67-69) or steeper (70-72)?


My philosophy is to pick what bike I'd want to ride on the route in question if it was a day ride and there was no camping involved. Then I figure out how to carry the gear I need to tour on it.

Super techy steep singletrack I'd want a FS bike with slacker geo. Buff rolling singletrack I'd want a hardtail with more middle of the road geo. Dirt road touring my way into total boredom I'd want gravel bike.

If I happen to own all these different types of bikes I'd just use the appropriate one and get on with it. OTOH if I'm only rarely doing to do a dirt road tour and only rarely going to ride/tour the super techy steep stuff it doesn't make sense to own a bike just for those missions. In that case I'll compromise....maybe a hardtail with a slacker geo can do it all reasonably well. Especially if we are just talking touring for fun vs. racing and caring about speed/time.

I'd rather ride a bike with a slacker geo on tame trails or dirt roads than ride a bike with steep geo on gnarlier stuff. Where I think people frequently go wrong [including myself] is that we buy rigs perfect for the epic fantasy tours that we never actually go on instead of buying a bike that's perfect for all the shorter/easier tours close to home that we could actually do. Then it gathers dust.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

I believe the Colorado Trail Race was won on a Trek Superfly with one gear!
Certainly not a slack "trail shredder".

Go to: Bikepacking Routes, Gear, Inspiration - BIKEPACKING.com and they have lots of examples of riders rigs for the different major bikepacking events. Latest one is they feature riders rigs of the TNGA.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

richwolf said:


> I believe the Colorado Trail Race was won on a Trek Superfly with one gear!
> Certainly not a slack "trail shredder".


That's because it's a race and it will be won on the climbs not the descents so racers will sacrifice one for the other. Unless you are racing I wouldn't do what a racer does as it's likely to not be the right answer for someone riding for fun.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

vikb said:


> That's because it's a race and it will be won on the climbs not the descents so racers will sacrifice one for the other. Unless you are racing I wouldn't do what a racer does as it's likely to not be the right answer for someone riding for fun.


But if this super slack trend is such a great thing "that doesn't affect climbing" why not use it? It sure doesn't add any weight to the equation.
And I am sure most of us couldn't hang with him on the downhills!

For me I have found a rig that handles both my fun trail day rides and my bikepacking trips. Two Stache's. One set up for each discipline.

I personally don't give a **** what others ride. However I will state what works for me and why.

It is certainly too easy to get caught up in the gear game though and I am as guilty of that as the next person. I was bikepacking back in the late 80's on old technology but somehow I still managed to have a good time!

The trend I see is that bikers imagine what a great thing bikepacking is but most (including my friends) who have invested hundreds if not thousands of dollars into it try it once or twice never to do it again. If there isn't beer, pizza, a hot shower and a comfortable bed at the end of a ride it begins to turn many people off. That is fine by me since I don't want to deal with the "washed" masses!


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

richwolf said:


> But if this super slack trend is such a great thing "that doesn't affect climbing" why not use it? It sure doesn't add any weight to the equation.
> And I am sure most of us couldn't hang with him on the downhills!


No reason not to use it. That doesn't mean that's what somebody who is racing is going to do. The rider who is winning races may well be sponsored and have to ride specific bikes in order to do so.

Again unless you are racing what someone who races and wins races does is not that relevant. Presumably you are out there for a good time so I'd ride the bike that makes you happiest.

Personally I would take a pretty slack bike on the CT. It's not going to climb any worse for me and it will be more fun going down. If you want to ride a bike with a steeper geo and it makes you happy go nuts. It doesn't matter one iota to me.



richwolf said:


> For me I have found a rig that handles both my fun trail day rides and my bikepacking trips. Two Stache's. One set up for each discipline.
> 
> *I personally don't give a **** what others ride.* However I will state what works for me and why.


Sounds good. Then why are you concerned with and posting what some person you have never met is riding on the CTR?


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

mikesee said:


> The short answer is that modern bikes and geometry are so good that you can and will adapt to either. If your riding is biased more toward road or groad, then go steeper.


I won't disagree and will point out that however slack a Fargo is, with fast tires it also got my wife riding on roads again.



OilcanRacer said:


> The longer you ride, the more little things will bother you. Slack head angles people will tell you slow down steering for easier decents. After your tired it will become like fighting your bike. It is very annoying and makes you more tired. Nimble bike is a breeze to ride, more fun and easy after all day on the saddle.
> 72 to 73 head angle on all my bikes.


The fair way might be qualifying where and how you ride. Bikes that steep are fine for gravel and pathway riding but I see they do make some nervous in other riding. My wife does not dwell on specs or details other than what she likes, what doesn't break, and what makes her feel confident and comfy. I see a lot more of that as an IMBA chapter leader and ski area director. In our area the IMBA chapter is also the leadership place for CX and all land manager off road riding. The ski club has lessons and clinics and events often. Lots and lots of people getting into off road riding of all sorts kind of shows me there's a lot of confidence and comfort when the bike is 71 degrees or more slack.

Maybe you need a good bike design but my region has a lot of steeps and tight turns. Older slack bikes didn't work so well. Our modern trail, fattie, groad, and touring bikes seem to be the opposite of fatigue or fighting the bike.

It doesn't matter what sort of handlebars or frame but when riding off road our 66.5 - 71 degree bikes let you carve the bike like skis. They work for long days in the saddle, and they work with the tight turns and steep stuff.

My advice to the OP is try lots of stuff.


----------

