# Not Another Tire Size Thread



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

Hi All,

I thought it'd be useful to have one thread that compiles a lot of different feelings about tire sizes. If you saw Bikepacking.com's big posts this week, they're pushing 27.5+ hard as the new latest-and-greatest for bikepacking (and I don't disagree), but new bikes like the Salsa Cutthroat make the 2.2" tire sizes seem like winners, too.

So, let us seek consensus on some good tire/wheel/bike choices for certain types of terrain (or at least, a good argument).



> Copy and Paste the following into your post:
> 
> 
> How much gear do you carry?
> ...


Here are my own answers:


I carry very little, about 20-25lbs in the winter and 10-15 in the summer. I weigh 165, +/-
I run 29" wheels, with a 2.4" Maxxis Ardent tire in the back and a 2.8" Vee Trax Fatty tire in the front. I recently switched the bike over to the Teravail 2.2" Sparwood, front and rear, in an attempt to emulate the geometry and spec of the Salsa Cutthroat (just to try it).
I originally grabbed the huge tires because I thought I was going to spend the winter on this bike, but I ended up getting a Pugsley. I didn't dislike the big tires, and I felt really confident off-road. However, when I bikepacked linking dirt roads and pavement together, things felt a little sluggish. So, now I'm trying out these 2.2's to see if it's the happy-medium tire I'm looking for.

How about you guys?


----------



## big_papa_nuts (Mar 29, 2010)

While I understand the intent behind plus and fat tires my preference is still suspension.

IMO the advantages; less rolling resistance, lower rotational weight, DAMPING, outweigh the slight worry of added complexity. Which can be minimized with proper design (coil springs, ybb).

1. As little as possible. Less then 20lbs including bags.
2. Three bikes to choose, depending on trip. 29x2.25, 700x42, or 650x42.
3. Because they work well for a wide variety of terrain.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

For me, weight and simplicity still favor the rigid. I also feel great when I'm climbing.

If I could afford a Moots with a YBB and a really nice sus. fork, I would have no concerns about weight, durability, or climbing, but I can't afford that. So, I would say the "cost of entry" on a suspension system that surpasses fully rigid is pretty high.

Don't get me wrong; if I could afford it, that bike would be in my garage. But until then, rigid wins. It's the budget-minded "perfect rig."


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I think you are forgetting one very important factor: Terrain! Tire preferences will be very different riding easy dirt and gravel roads versus tackling the Colorado Trail.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

bikeny said:


> I think you are forgetting one very important factor: Terrain! Tire preferences will be very different riding easy dirt and gravel roads versus tackling the Colorado Trail.


Yup. You pick the tires for the terrain and the bike not because you are bikepacking as opposed to just out for a day ride..

I like 29+ for a rigid/hardtail bike due to the roll over, comfort and how they handle unpredictable conditions. My bikepacking bike is a rigid setup so I use 29+ on it.

I vary the specific tire choice by how aggressive a tread I want for the ride.


----------



## tomikazi (Jun 12, 2013)

How much gear do you carry?
About 20lbs with bags. Not including water

What wheel/tire size(s) do you run?
29r, stans/king rims, Maxxis 2.3DHF(fr)2.3high roller2(rr)

Why do you like this wheel/tire size?
29" seems more forgiving in the rough/bad line choices.
These tires are beasts, as in heavy and slow(compared to most). My priorities in tires are traction and durability. I run these tubeless and they have never let me down in any NorCal terrain. Maybe overkill for buffed out flow type trails, but boy do they rail the turns.

Salsa El Mariachi, steel HT
160lb rider
70% singletrack/30% fireroad
20%rocky rooty/80%flowy


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

bikeny said:


> I think you are forgetting one very important factor: Terrain! Tire preferences will be very different riding easy dirt and gravel roads versus tackling the Colorado Trail.


I did consider that question, but in the interest of making this "survey" easy in order to encourage mass participation, I figured that fell under "Why do you like this tire/wheel combination?"

For a lot of people, the terrain will define the reasons they like a tire, but I know plenty of people who are happy to use a Marathon Mondial for everything.

Myself, I tend to change terrain so often during a trip, I really need an all-rounder (or, plan to sacrifice comfort/speed in certain areas). It's nice to have a predictable trip with uniform terrain, but I often transition between development/wilderness boundaries as well as biomes, elevations, weather patterns, and (hopefully someday) _seasons.

_My favorite tires are ones that pull double-duty, which is why I'm excited about the Sparwood at the moment (we'll see how it does).

So, yes, terrain is KEY, and you should include it in your reasons for number 3!


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Gear weight varies by trip distance and conditions. Probably around 25 pounds or so.

Tires 29er wheels Geax Saguaros 2.2 or Maxxis Ardent 2.4.

To me a 29er hardtail (I run a long travel Thudbuster) is the gold standard for most bikepacking. Great roll over, faster overall, simple and reliable. 
Rear suspension is just too complicated unless the terrain dictates that.

Plus sizes to me are only appropriate if the conditions are consistently loose. Otherwise my experience with them is that you are pushing too much tire well over 90 percent of the time.


----------



## She&I (Jan 4, 2010)

What bikeny, vik and rich said.

Bikepacking is way too broad an umbrella to ID any "best." Factor in preferences, and it's doubly impossible.

But that's a joy of it – so many different possibilities, and setting up for each is part of the fun.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

She&I said:


> What bikeny, vik and rich said.
> 
> Bikepacking is way too broad an umbrella to ID any "best." Factor in preferences, and it's doubly impossible.
> 
> But that's a joy of it - so many different possibilities, and setting up for each is part of the fun.


Totally agree. I would love for this thread to be a mixing of opinions and ideas so that everyone can share in experiences. There's not enough time/money to test everything.

There will never be a "best," but there will be lots of tires that fall under "great," and some that are terrible.

I think there have been a lot of "What's the best tire for X" threads, and I am not asking that. Rather, maybe this is the antithesis of that- it's a collection of experiences so that everyone can offer their own diverse opinion. This can help guide new choices without limiting the conversation to a single tire, wheel, or bike type.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

Curious- How much pavement do people encounter?

Depending on the trip, I am usually on pavement between 30-50% of the time, and I used to ignore it, but now I am thinking about pavement performance a lot more when making tire choices, favoring tight center treads, ramped knobs, and such.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

So, taking a different bike for this summers tour. I had been using my Burley runabout, steel, 26x 1.75 tires. Mostly pavement. This years tour I will be taking the Karate Monkey. Weight? Less than last year, trying for apx. 25 lbs. Going to set it up with a bar bag, 1/2 frame bag and a rear rack. Right now it's my do all commuter( 8 miles of dirt on the way home) Currently has P-35 rims on it with Geax Tattoos in 29 x2.3, slicks. Rolls well on pavement, does dirt great except for mud. Starting North of Boston, planning to pedal up and around Lake Winnipesaukee in central NH. 4 days or so. Trying to hit up as much dirt roads as I can, maybe 1/2 dirt. The tires roll great and are smooth, great for dirt roads and paths. I'd pick another I were seeking more singletrack. Using an 80 mm fork too.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

What is included in the weights folks have been listing? Seems to heavy to not include food. If there is even a slim chance of learning something here I'd guess we need base weight (without food/water). Backpackers have amazingly detailed spreadsheets with every item weighed to the fraction of an ounce. Anyone doing that? My stuff all gets strapped to an ECR so it seems silly to weight ounces. 

So...1) I'd say around 10lbs of gear. 
2. 29+ Chronicles 
3. I can ride darn near anywhere I want in comfort. Traction is great.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

Matterhorn said:


> Backpackers have amazingly detailed spreadsheets with every item weighed to the fraction of an ounce. Anyone doing that?


I do that.

I'm due for an updated list. Perhaps this weekend. If anything, my list is getting heavier because I'm getting lazier and my legs don't give a **** anymore because it's a singlespeed anyways.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

And you do it well.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

I also enjoy Ibex wool clothing. My list gets lighter when I get lazy. Too lazy to cook, change clothes etc...


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

My top 5 items I wasn't carrying three years ago, and really could do without:

1. Fleece > Down Jacket
2. Spare charging battery (bike light, phone)
3. Spare socks on spare socks
4. Neo-Air pad (over X-small Prolite)

And finally....

5. Whisky


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

I guess if you don't weigh food and water it is much like weighing a bike without pedals! Sounds impressive but it won't get you very far. 
10 pounds of gear is considered ultra light weight. If you are doing competitive endurance racing or you just happen to have thousands of dollars to throw at a problem then that is great. You can easily spend over a grand on your sleep system.
It is like overweight people with overweight camelbacks and super light carbon bikes.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

Matterhorn said:


> I also enjoy Ibex wool clothing. My list gets lighter when I get lazy. Too lazy to cook, change clothes etc...


Ok, feeling bored, so I compiled an updated list. This is like, my absolute maximum, multi-day expedition bikepacking list from about May to October. I would supplement my sleep system a bit to take it into the colder months, but not a whole lot changes for winter.

I did it in Lighterpack, which is a cool site, made by the UL Backpacking community. I list bike bags as "worn weight," but I don't list the bike itself, which is like 25lbs.

Lighterpack link

The total is 19.76lbs packed:

if I wasn't carrying a camera and iPad and gear for my website... minus almost 2lbs.

if I wasn't carrying a cooking kit... minus another half-pound.

if it was summertime when I was taking my trip... minus 3 pounds in clothing and sleep gear.

So my minimal weight is around 14lbs.

I could go lighter if I had a:

-Lighter shelter
-Lighter sleeping pad
-Lighter/less clothing

But I think I will keep carrying that stuff.

Here's a picture from a recent trip (but this is for zero degrees, not 3-season like my list).










Unfortunately, if I lose any body weight, I will be malnourished. I'm drinking beer as fast as I can!


----------



## bikeny (Feb 26, 2004)

I never responded to the survey, so here it goes. I've never done a detailed list with weights, so that's approximate!

1. I carry anywhere from 15lbs to 25lbs, depending on length of trip, time of year, remoteness, etc.
2. 29+ all the way!
3. I just love the rollover, traction , and small bump compliance of the 29+ setup. I think 29+ on a rigid bike is a great compromise between speed on the pavement & dirt roads and the ability to tackle technical singletrack at moderate speeds. My terrain varies from techy singletrack, snowmobile/ATV trails, doubletrack, dirt roads, some pavement. Bike is rigid with Rohloff. I had good luck with Knards for the last 2 years, but will be trying out some Chupacabras this year.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

richwolf said:


> I guess if you don't weigh food and water it is much like weighing a bike without pedals! Sounds impressive but it won't get you very far.
> 10 pounds of gear is considered ultra light weight. If you are doing competitive endurance racing or you just happen to have thousands of dollars to throw at a problem then that is great. You can easily spend over a grand on your sleep system.
> It is like overweight people with overweight camelbacks and super light carbon bikes.


My thought was weighing food/water makes little sense because that weight is highly variable. Backpackers call it "base weight", weight minus food and water. Even comparing the start and end of an overnight trip would lead to different numbers and in the end wouldn't be that helpful. Right?  Weighing a bike without pedals is however ridiculous.

I'm not doing competitive endurance nor do I have thousands of dollars but instead have carefully selected gear over a number of years that is ultralight and somewhat durable. Lighter gear, sometimes achieved by not having certain items, is not always more costly. I use a lawn and garden trash bag for a ground sheet--darn near free and quite light. Stoves can be made from old tuna/soda cans etc..

Just for reference here is my current sleep set-up:
Mountain Laurel Designs Grace Tarp $140 dollars/ 10oz
Mountain Laruel Designs Bug Bivy $125/ 5oz
Carbon Poles $60/ 2.6 oz
Trash Bag $0/ 1oz
Western Mountaineering Ultralight $ 475/ 31oz

So, that looks like 800 dollars. I've purchased these items over the last 6 years. I do plan to get a lighter weight quilt ($250/14oz) soon so the numbers will change. Even with that I'll still be spending, on average, about 175 dollarydoos a year. To be totally honest a lot of that stuff has been various b-day/holiday gifts. I purchased the sleeping bag with my money.

Maybe that helps?


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

Oh, I've also got a SeatoSummit sleeping pad $100/12.5oz.

Swapping to the quilt will put me at under 3lbs for a full shelter and sleep system. Not to shabby. Better yet it leaves my frame bag totally empty(to filled with food) and no backpack. 

Big thanks to family for being able to get such a set-up and for watching the kids while I ride.


----------



## big_papa_nuts (Mar 29, 2010)

mdilthey said:


> Ok, feeling bored, so I compiled an updated list. This is like, my absolute maximum, multi-day expedition bikepacking list from about May to October. I would supplement my sleep system a bit to take it into the colder months, but not a whole lot changes for winter.
> 
> I did it in Lighterpack, which is a cool site, made by the UL Backpacking community. I list bike bags as "worn weight," but I don't list the bike itself, which is like 25lbs.
> 
> ...


You're going to have to explain why you're carrying Loctite.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

big_papa_nuts said:


> You're going to have to explain why you're carrying Loctite.


Last resort for slipping/squeaking chainring bolts, BB cups, stem bolts, etc. The tube I have is 75% empty and was tiny to begin with (the size of my pinky finger), so it doesn't bug me to carry it.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

I'll play. On this recent trip, I weighed my total kit (incl. bike bags, excl. water) and it came out to 22lbs. total. The gear list, to the best of my memory, was:

_Handlebars:_
Revelate harness/pocket
tent (no pole)
various trail snacks
spare hat
windshirt

_Top tube:_
Gas tank and Jerry Can
spare tube, tire levers
more snacks

_Frame bag:_
zip ties
bike multi-tool
down jacket
mitts
cup/spoon/lighter
coffee packets

_Downtube bag:_
sleeping pad
headlamp
knife

_Seat Bag:_
5º sleeping bag
insulated pants
nylon groundcloth
spare socks

There were 4 of us on this trip, which meant that we split up some of the group gear, like the tent pole, JetBoil, cooking pot, etc. So I wasn't carrying _everything_ myself. I was also carrying a 4-person tent that weighed 5.5lbs, which is much larger and heavier than I would normally carrying for most bikepacking trips. Still, 22lbs. incl. bags was plenty.










Oh, and to bring it back to the topic at hand, I was running Dillinger 5s. They worked very well. :thumbsup:

For non-fattie trips, I'm a fan of a hardtail 29'er with various tires from 2.0" to 2.4" depending on the nature of the trip. But I'm adding a 27.5+ to the stable this spring...


----------



## senor_mikey (Apr 25, 2009)

richwolf said:


> Gear weight varies by trip distance and conditions. Probably around 25 pounds or so.
> 
> Tires 29er wheels Geax Saguaros 2.2 or Maxxis Ardent 2.4.
> 
> ...


one factor not often discussed is rider size. For a 150 lb rider a 2.2" tire may be optimal, but for a larger 200+lb rider a 2.8 or 3.0" tire may work just as well. A lot of bigger riders are finding they are faster on plus sized tires.

Same with tire tread and casing, some tires just roll faster than others ( Schwalbe comes to mind).

So...No one answer for everyone or every trip.

mike


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

I sometimes wonder if full suspension isn't favored more for bikepacking because the speeds while loaded are not fast enough to warrant it.

I hate when people say full suspension is too complicated. Complicated how? In it design relative to bikepacking? 

My current full suspension bike has been flawless in reliability, and I beat the crap out of it. I'd have no worries of riding it for bikepacking, but then again I'm not doing month long trips, either.

Wouldn't bother me so much if people said "I'd use my full suspension for bikepacking but I go on long trips and need ample frame bag space."


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

PHeller said:


> I sometimes wonder if full suspension isn't favored more for bikepacking because the speeds while loaded are not fast enough to warrant it.


The only thing keeping the speeds low is the lack of suspension! At least on anything with a down slope.

I'm working on my FS bike bikepacking setup this year. It will be sweet to be able to ride faster on techy trails.


----------



## big_papa_nuts (Mar 29, 2010)

PHeller said:


> I sometimes wonder if full suspension isn't favored more for bikepacking because the speeds while loaded are not fast enough to warrant it.
> 
> I hate when people say full suspension is too complicated. Complicated how? In it design relative to bikepacking?
> 
> ...


Even at slow speed I can see a huge benefit. Ride down the same stretch of washboard road at 10mph with and without suspension and try and tell me it's not an improvement.

Take away fear of failure (again coil spring, YBB, ECT), and cost, and there is no doubt it would proliferate.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Well that and the packaging aspect.

A coil spring shock like the prototype CC Inline Coil combined with the packaging design of the Bold Linkin Trail and you'd have quite the enduro bikepacker.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

I'm working on my FS bike bikepacking setup this year. It will be sweet to be able to ride faster on techy trails. [/QUOTE]

Sweeter than financial security? That is my argument against suspension, it is costly and needs maintenance. 29+ and long arms/legs seem to do a good job for now.

(joking aside--I enjoy the perspective presented in your latest bloggins')


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Matterhorn said:


> *I'm working on my FS bike bikepacking setup this year. It will be sweet to be able to ride faster on techy trails. *
> 
> Sweeter than financial security? That is my argument against suspension, it is costly and needs maintenance. 29+ and long arms/legs seem to do a good job for now.
> 
> (joking aside--I enjoy the perspective presented in your latest bloggins')












My day-to-day trail bike ^^^ is a FS rig so that's what I will use. 

If I had to pick between one FS bike to trail ride and bikepack or one rigid/hardtail bike to trail ride and bikepack.....I'd only have the FS bike.

I agree about 29+ and rigid needing less maintenance so it's definitely a consideration. I've been bike touring for decades and never toured on a FS bike so it is not essential.

Since I own both I would only grab my FS bike to bikepack on when:

1. my gear and food/water were light enough for a very minimal setup
2. the terrain was steep and gnarly enough that having a slack AM bike with 6" of travel would let let me rally stuff I'd walk or barely make it down on my Krampus.

Of course this ^^^ means dry weather trips and shorter duration or frequent resupply stops riding techy singletrack.

I've got some local BC trips in mind to test out my setup.

Coming back to the money issues one of the reasons I want to have a lightweight simple FS bikepacking setup is that I have many riding friends with FS bikes. Getting them out bikepacking with me in this format will be much easier than a ride done with what we'd typically think of as "bikepacking".

I'm also hoping to downshift my work situation and spend a bunch of time roaming around the SW US in the winter riding my MTB. If I can bikepack with the same bike I trail ride with that means I don't have to haul around an extra bike for a few months that will get ridden 2 or 3 times.


----------



## Co-opski (Oct 24, 2013)

Copy and Paste the following into your post:


1.How much gear do you carry? about a watermelon and a cantaloupe and a grapefruit.
2.What wheel/tire size(s) do you run? wheel 26x45mm tire 26x4.0 hudu or jumbo jimmer
3.Why do you like this wheel/tire size? I ride what I got.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

Count the number of pivots and bearings for most full suspension rigs and you will see the potential for problems is so much greater than a hardtail. 
Don't get me wrong I love my full suspension bike but for long stuff I reach for my hardtail.


----------



## mdilthey (Dec 15, 2014)

richwolf said:


> Count the number of pivots and bearings for most full suspension rigs and you will see the potential for problems is so much greater than a hardtail.
> Don't get me wrong I love my full suspension bike but for long stuff I reach for my hardtail.


Pivot points, oil chambers, air chambers, seals, wipers, etc etc. Suspension is cool. I would absolutely trust a suspension fork for thousands of miles of bikepacking. On a steel frame, though, I can see when there is damage/wear that needs addressing. After 5,000+ miles, I don't know what condition my suspension fork would be in, even if maintenance is regular they still have an ever-increasing potential for catastrophic failure.

It's like carbon fiber. It excels, works flawlessly in the beginning and for a long time (years!) after. But slowly, through use and abuse, it WILL weaken.

I ride my bikes hard. I bike all winter in the salty northeast. I'm still learning, so I crash a lot. I commute on my bikes, and throw them into trunks, and lock them up in public near other bikes, and generally thrash em'. I'm good at doing all my own maintenance, but sometimes I get lazy. My simple, minimalist bikes take all of that in stride. A full suspension bike may not be so nonchalant.


----------



## big_papa_nuts (Mar 29, 2010)

richwolf said:


> Count the number of pivots and bearings for most full suspension rigs...











Zero, and zero

Don't get me wrong, that is an expensive bike by any standard, but I think it proves a point.

It wouldn't take much work to design a expedition worthy dual suspension bikepacking rig, you just have to sell it to enough people to make it cheap.


----------



## Matterhorn (Feb 15, 2015)

^ That fork always makes me Lauf out Loud. People seem to like it.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

big_papa_nuts said:


> View attachment 1051255
> 
> 
> Zero, and zero
> ...


I don't really think that the moots qualifies as a full suspension bike since the rear suspension is just designed to take the edge off. Most folks go with 4 to 6 inches of travel in the rear. KHS was making a similar design for a while but didn't sell a ton of them. Something like the Santa Cruz superlight with a single pivot design would probably be more reliable than the super complicated pivot designs of other full suspension bikes. I know my Ellsworth makes bunches of noise when it goes through wet, mud and snow. I use a thudbuster on my 29er hardtail and that is probably just as effective as the moots ybb. That front shock too has no damping to speak of and generally gets poor reviews.


----------



## Shooter McGavin (Feb 14, 2007)

mdilthey said:


> My top 5 items I wasn't carrying three years ago, and really could do without:
> 
> 5. Whisky


Whaaa?


----------



## big_papa_nuts (Mar 29, 2010)

It may not meet your preconceived idea of a dual suspension but it does have two springs. What it comes down to is where and how you plan to ride.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't think it would be hard to make a soft tail, or even single pivot, bike, utilizing a coil fork that could be ridden almost anywhere, would require very little maintenance, with virtually no fear of total system failure. Basically something that would give you the benefits that people are searching for with Plus and fat tires, but with the benefits of actual suspension.

With some good design you could potentially even make it field serviceable.


----------



## richwolf (Dec 8, 2004)

big_papa_nuts said:


> It may not meet your preconceived idea of a dual suspension but it does have two springs. What it comes down to is where and how you plan to ride.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is that I don't think it would be hard to make a soft tail, or even single pivot, bike, utilizing a coil fork that could be ridden almost anywhere, would require very little maintenance, with virtually no fear of total system failure. Basically something that would give you the benefits that people are searching for with Plus and fat tires, but with the benefits of actual suspension.
> 
> With some good design you could potentially even make it field serviceable.


There is flex in any rear triangle, it might be only a millimeter or two but do you consider that full suspension? A short travel fork with no damping and a softail with only an inch or so of travel is totally different in ride and performance from a 4 to 6 inch bike. It ain't the same thing. 
Your YBB is a fine bike and gets super reviews from the people that own them but it's limited travel will make it feel more like a hardtail than a full suspension ride. The Lauf fork reviews have been generally poor and many traditional forks have very good long term reliability. My Reba has around 20,000 miles on it with only a few rebuilds. It has done numerous events like the TD AZT 300 and AZT 750 amongst others, plus a ton of training miles.
For the Colorado Trail Race this summer I am torn between my Ellsworth or my 29er hardtail, but I am leaning towards the FS for that. I know the AZT 750 would have torn up my Carbon Ellsworth and even though I didn't have it at the time I would have been reluctant to take it.
I know the plus craze is working it's way into the Endurance bikepacking arena but after trying plus size tires I would not recommend them for most events. Now the Baja event taking place next January might be the perfect spot for the plus bikes according to the folks mapping it out. But even they say hardtail all the way.


----------



## big_papa_nuts (Mar 29, 2010)

I should clarify I'm not advocating for that fork. I personally think it's goofy and only mildly more advanced then an elastomer.

As far as the ybb, I do consider that suspension. Mostly because it has both main components, spring and damper. Now something like a Jones Spaceframe, that is simply designed to flex and offer compliance, I would still consider a hardtail.

And I'm not comparing a ybb frame to something with linkages, pivots, shocks, etc (that preconceived idea of a dual suspension) but I think it may have a valid place in what most people consider bikepacking.

My dream bikepacking bike would be something I'm happy to ride almost anywhere, from pavement to moderately tech trails, for days on end. Maybe I'm a wuss, but I need something to take the edge off so rigid is out. Plus and fat tires have obvious disadvantages, namely weight, rolling resistance, and lack of damping. And traditional suspension designs add complexity and the risk of irreparable mechanical failure.

My ideal bp bike (this week) would be a soft tail frame paired with a reliable coil sprung fork, 29x2.xx" tires, 100-120mm fork, slackish xc geo, etc.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

I like that idea, but give me short chainstays and room 275x3.8 or 29+ if I ever wanted it. I think the design of the chainstay to provide flex would work against tire clearance, especially if I was trying to do this all on a bike with a 74mm BB.

Even with such a bike, I'd still want a 135mm+ trail bike.

No such perfect bike, so I'm with the trail bike as the only solution, for now.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

Scott Morris' CDT ride is a good example of a route that would benefit from a FS bike. It was very demanding.

CDTBike - Statistics and report card - Diary of Scott Morris

AFAIK they had zero suspension failures. But when you think about it a failure would have added a few days to their 124 day trip.

Would I ride a rigid bike on that route to try and mitigate that slight risk? No chance.

And don't forget rigid bikes break as well. Recall that Seb's fork broke on his rigid bike on the 2015 TD which nearly killed him and did kill his shot at a decent placing.

Would I take a FS bike to Siberia for a 6 month tour with no chance of easy resupply? Hell no. But I also wouldn't be afraid of using modern technology that is well proven to make a bikepacking trip better because maybe, possibly, what if something broke....or needed maintenance...**gasp!!**


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

mdilthey said:


> It's like carbon fiber. It excels, works flawlessly in the beginning and for a long time (years!) after. But slowly, through use and abuse, it WILL weaken.


I work in aerospace composites. If you have a properly designed and utilized carbon part that is not damaged it will *not weaken* and need to be replaced just because time has passed or through normal use during the reasonable lifespan of the structure they are part of.

In the bicycle industry specifically Santa Cruz has started offering lifetime warranties for their carbon mountain bikes. If frames start degrading they'll be on the hook for a lot of replacement frames.

My oldest FS MTB has a carbon shock linkage that keeps the back end stiff. It's 8yrs old and performs as well today as it did new. I'll keep fielding testing it and see if I can weaken it.


----------

