# FS the ultimate dirt touring solution?



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Moving this from 29+ tire thread to a more appropriate forum....



craigsj said:


> Of course, that's why cars, especially off-road ones, have eliminated suspensions and gone with great big balloon tires instead. The rougher the road, the happier you'll be! Tell that to drivers on African safaris.
> 
> Replacing suspension where it's best suited for large tires is a fool's errand. Massive tires are heavy, have poor travel, poor damping, and poor tunability. They also penalize rolling resistance which is terrible for human powered vehicles. A bicycle is the sum of all its parts, each part designed for its share of the task. Tires should not be providing suspension where suspension is truly needed.
> 
> ...












Panamericana


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

How does that rear sus. work? Is there a pivot around the bb?


----------



## ChristianCoté (Jul 13, 2014)

I think I see the logic behind the rear end of that bike, but I just can't get over how utterly hideous it is.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

You have to hide the back of it with panniers.


----------



## ChristianCoté (Jul 13, 2014)

Hey. Wait wait wait wait wait.

Did the guy who wrote this seriously talk **** about high volume balloon tires, saying that Europeans from a half century ago rolled over their bombed out husk of a continent without them so nyah obviously they're dumb... as part of his spiel for a full suspension touring bike? A touring bike whose identity rests on a technology that was first produced _in the late eighties_??

Way to be logically consistent.


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

ChristianCoté said:


> Hey. Wait wait wait wait wait.
> 
> Did the guy who wrote this seriously talk **** about high volume balloon tires, saying that Europeans from a half century ago rolled over their bombed out husk of a continent without them so nyah obviously they're dumb... as part of his spiel for a full suspension touring bike? A touring bike whose identity rests on a technology that was first produced _in the late eighties_??
> 
> Way to be logically consistent.


Yes, yes he did....


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

It needs a frame bag.


----------



## Welnic (Feb 6, 2013)

Seems like if you are going for one of those you would want the pinion model. Why do things half-way?


----------



## pierre meux (Dec 1, 2008)

That's an ugly bike. 

I don't know where this bike's proponent dirt tours, but here in the west I often find myself on loose, rocky, heinous two tracks that are far gnarlier than most single track. And it's in those situations that I love the ease and security of a 3" tire (and it's in those situations when I'm usually going somewhere exponentially more interesting and less visited than main-stem gravel roads--such routes are precisely why I have a dirt touring rig). 

That ^, on the other hand, is exactly the sort of rig (skinny tires, 26" rims, rear load) whose front tire would kick sideways on a softball-sized rock (instead of rolling over it), dumping the whole loaded rig atop the rider in a sideways fall onto rocks. 

No thanks.


----------



## NickandBruce (Sep 18, 2014)

Suspension adds complexity to the mechanics of a bike which mean more potential points for failure, more points requiring maintenance, and more specialized tools to carry or count on finding en-route. Quality suspension tends to holds up when set up and maintained properly, but it still is more to deal with. There's also the issue of weight and expense.

For local short tours I don't think its a bad idea but for big distances and remote touring I say keep it simple. I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a proper rigid mtb with the long term goal of hitting the Great Divide. 


Disclaimer: My MTB experience is less than 2 years as a bike mechanic and maybe 50 miles of ST and forest roads on a Surly Crosscheck with 35mm-2" tires.


----------



## TobyGadd (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm not sure what the ideal terrain type would be for this bike. While full-suspension is great for rides like the Colorado Trail, weight is also an important factor--and this bike looks HEAVY. On smoother routes like the Tour Divide, full-suspension isn't necessary. Maybe it would be great for beat-out reads in Central America?


----------



## the other Anne (Feb 14, 2014)

OTOH, if you're riding beat-out roads in Central America, how easy is it to get that suspension serviced when it fails? 

The one thing that's sensible about this bike is the built-in rack. IF you have a rack on your off-road bike, it makes sense that it's built in so the bolts don't shake loose, and so it's strong and won't break.


----------



## pierre meux (Dec 1, 2008)

The one thing that's sensible about this bike is the built-in rack. IF you have a rack on your off-road bike said:


> Except that, when the rack breaks, which they do, in this case your frame breaks too. I'd prefer keep the rack a replaceable part.


----------



## the other Anne (Feb 14, 2014)

Good point, but an integrated rack shouldn't be more breakable than the rest of the frame. Although the rack attachment just below the top tube on that bike ^ doesn't look entirely reliable to me.


----------



## SimpleJon (Mar 28, 2011)

On paper isolating the racks and the mass of the panniers from vertical rear wheel movements is a very good idea. it will make the bike feel more stable and handle a lot better. Plus it should reduce unsprung mass pretty significantly. The design also transfers rear loads to the seat tube / bottom bracket so some rear mass will be supported by the front wheel. For pot holed / dirt roads etc with loads I reckon that bike has the potential to be way more comfortable than any rigid bike for long days in the saddle.

If you think about conventional racks the vast majority of the weight is rigidly supported by the rear wheel from a fatigue point of view these see much higher and rapid load / unload cycles over rough ground than something sprung and damped at the end of the lever, I would argue that the reason rear racks fail is due to an inherent design flaw in anchoring them to a wheel. As long as this has been designed and manufactured properly I wouldn't have any more concern with integrated, sprung racks failing than the bottom bracket shell or head tube.

If you read up on Crazy Guy on a Bike (somewhere I have spent way to much to daydreaming on) and from my own experience the most common mechanical issues that cause long distance tourers long distance headaches are drivetrain (usually can be cobbled) and especially rear wheel failures. Not only does supporting all of the rear load on the rear axle cause handling issues and make the rack more susceptible to fatigue or overload it does the same to the rear hub, spokes and rims. 

The potential for a suspension failure is introduced but full suspension recumbents have used long distance touring for years and I have never read of it being a show stopper or more than an occasional issue reported(I recently met a guy in Perth who had just completed a ride from sydney to perth on his Streetmachine GT, 60% tarmac 40% unsealed / dirt road and he has never had a sus problem in 15 years). It is no big deal to carry a spare seal kit and pillow of Sus fluid.

As to whether this bike practically works or not, the devil is always in the detail, it would be very easy to end up with an over weight rear pogo stick if the designers wern't careful (which is one of many reasons for prototyping and testing) but I can definitely see it's appeal to the adventure touring crowd. For extended very long distance touring with heavy racks and panniers on sealed or unsealed road that design does appear superior to fully rigid, hardtail or a traditional full sus where entire rear triangle is unsprung. Trying to say its better than 29er+ or fat bikes or even a standard hardtail for multiday single track or any seriously gnarly stuff where heavily loaded panniers are not really suitable full stop is not correct(any body who has had to hike a bike with 60b on it will testify to that). minimalist on the weight and maximum traction is more important than comfort I reckon. But I can see the point of it for long distance rack and pannier touring, even if does look fugly


----------



## mikeetheviking (Jan 27, 2015)

How about a 29+ FS, wonder when we will see a production model....


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Cavemanmikee said:


> How about a 29+ FS, wonder when we will see a production model....


Lenz Fat-Moth is 29+. You can buy one today.

http://forums.mtbr.com/fat-bikes/lenz-fatmoth-876461.html


----------



## TheirOnlyPortrait (Dec 30, 2014)

vikb said:


> Moving this from 29+ tire thread to a more appropriate forum....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hola Vikb,

This bike seems to be designed to ride the Ruta Panamericana which is mainly paved or good gravel (till you reach Patagonia which actually isn't Ruta Panamericana).

Looks like a smart design if you stick to nice roads, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to deal with a gearbox failure down here 

Saludos,
Federico

PS: I know riders 50-60 years ago did better than any of us can on road bikes. Also several people drove the world with 2CVs and Series I... but that doesn't mean they're a better option than a Defender or a Land Cruiser


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

TheirOnlyPortrait said:


> Hola Vikb,
> 
> This bike seems to be designed to ride the Ruta Panamericana which is mainly paved or good gravel (till you reach Patagonia which actually isn't Ruta Panamericana).


Personally I think the TT bikes are overdesigned overweight beasts best suited for living in the garage, but that's me.

I posted the link to move the OT discussion here from the 29+ tire thread.


----------

