https://bikepacking.com/plan/bikepackin ... ike-video/
Still happy to ride my slightly flexy big tyred rigid things but of interest if you like your wheels to move independently of you.

Apart from the cost my main gripe with suspension is the ludicrous service intervals. We've really been stitched up with this...

My Occam is maybe three years old now and hasn't had any "servicing". I keep promising to take a look at the bushings and bearing but haven't got around to it yet. I guess I should do while we're in fatbike season.

Owning a Spearfish so I agree with what he says
A short travel bike with a good pedlling platform is just more comfortable all day and more fun downhill. Then again I dont really ride rigid off road and dont have a rigid MTB so its also a YMMV scenario.

I do set sag for bag weight with me on it - i have it written down somewhere . I dont take a pump but my lezyne normal pump would do a fairly crap job but if it starts leaking its not a trail side fix anyway [ though you can ride with the pump attached and just keep pumping it up
One rear shock failure in all my time riding and I was not bikepacking - it was a terminal fault I have personally had more isues with mechs breaaking and tyres slashing than suspension on rides
My only issue is that I only use it in summer as you can get less stuff on it - ie smaller rear pack with a dropper and limited framespace

That said i dont really ride a FS in winter anyway so do have a 650 b +[ front supension] for that time of year and BP duties

Servicing suspension....sure....

GregMay wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:25 am Servicing suspension....sure....

Let them have their biscuit

I do lots of 'seal services' to all my suspension. Lower legs regular, regular enough.

But, I like fannying around in the garage.

Alpinum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:28 am

GregMay wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:25 am Servicing suspension....sure....

Let them have their biscuit

:)

I've only gone bikepacking on a full-sus bike because it's my one mountain bike - just 100mm each end. I adjust the sag for me + gear, I keep the bike clean and wipe the seals down regularly and the bike as a whole gets a service every couple of years but I've never given the fork / shock a service. I don't get out bikepacking on it that often so still working on the right bag / gear combo - a small seat pack (6l) means there's too much hanging off the bars at the moment (15l) which doesn't make the steering the lightest when getting carried away on descents.

Is it simply not a matter of (a) use what you've got (b) use what you like (c) use what's best suited to the terrain if you have a choice (d) some combination.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:41 pm Is it simply not a matter of (a) use what you've got (b) use what you like (c) use what's best suited to the terrain if you have a choice (d) some combination.

Sure, but there's definitely a tendency towards a certain type of bike for bikepacking. In much the same way we've seen more gravel/adventure bikes out there recently, I'd say that previously it was all about 100-120mm hardtails, preferably Ti-framed, with funny bars and 29er or, latterly, B+ tyres. For those of use with a collection of bikes your comment (c) applies.

I'm also reminded that I see lots of gnarly FS bikes on the trails around me - and they're definitely not needed for 98% of them. Of course, it's also the case that most of these folks don't have a stable of bikes to choose from so, while they may be "over-biked" here, that's just the way it is.

https://www.blog.scotroutes.com/2019/09 ... is_23.html

but there's definitely a tendency towards a certain type of bike for bikepacking. In much the same way we've seen more gravel/adventure bikes out there recently,

Certainly Colin but I wonder whether that in part brought about by the terrain people are choosing to ride. You do seem to get a lot of folk asking the question, "is route okay for a gravel bike?".

Most people probably wouldn't choose to ride a FS on the TD but they well might on the HT (if they have a choice), yet either bike could likely be ridden on either route, you just won't be riding the 'best' tool for the job in hand.

I assume what that questions means is this route a good choice for this bike rather than is it technically possible- remember most people might get one or two days out month to ride so probably dont want it to be 12 hours of type 2 on the wrong bike/trail.


As for Colin I assume its the fact that if you only have one MTB its likely to be a FS hence why you see them so frequently

its probably the most common bike i see locally though ebilkes seem to be catching up- I even saw three teenagers on them on the canal recently
Seen possibly 5 fat bikes in the last few years

assume what that questions means is this route a good choice for this bike rather than is it technically possible-

I'd imagine so John. Most* people probably don't want to be confronted with what could be perhaps described as 'technical' terrain when out on their gravel bike.

Is there a belief amongst cyclists that FS bikes are 'proper' mountainbikes and anything else, just isn't as good? If someone wanted to buy a mountainbike, had a reasonable budget and no prior bias, why would they buy anything else?


*obviously some people will want to push things, hence I said 'most' people.

The mainstream mags definitely put out the message that FS is the aspiration if you are 'serious' about mountainbiking. Likely a function of the main target audience being fairly casual and so having full bounce allows you to ride stuff easily without spending years learning.

Re the maintenance, I'll get on my high horse here (or my motorbike) regardless of what servicing folk actually do, the fork and shock manus are telling you to do basic stuff every 50 hours or so and full strip downs every year. This seems to have stemmed from the widespread return to sealed internal cartridges for dampers with bushings lubed by grease. Why the bleedin' ell they went back to sealed cartridges having got it right with a fork leg(s) full of oil which damps and lubes (and only needs changed every couple of years or so) is a mystery. I went through that with the original rockshox Judy's and it was a pia. Motorbikes don't so why should bikes. Motorbike shocks and forks don't need servicing - just an oil change now and again or a rebuild if a shock seal pops.

Suspension maintenance wise, My Orange 5 with bombers required (and got) nowt. When I realised any new forks I got (including bombers) needed the basic strip down at regular intervals I was out.....

I think so and even " non cyclists"

When friends wanted a bike for riding along the canal it took me ages to persuade them they did not need any suspension for this and at the £500 price point they were largely getting extra weight with limited performance

I suspect if i only had one bike it would likely be a FS - probably short travel and I think I would keep the spearfish as it can do everything and be oK in all areas

Motorbikes don't so why should bikes.

Its the same reason my cars timing chain never need changing but my drive train in my bike wears out!
Hell of a weight penalty required for this level if non servicing though.
IMHO the service intervals exist so they never need to honour any warranty. I dubt many people honour them - I seem to recall one brand advised an oil change every 20 hours for example!

Aye, open bath damping makes much more sense Phil - more oil to carry out the same amount of work and bushing which has a continual supply of lubricant ... and people wonder why early Bombers lasted for ever and just 'worked'

There was a high proportion of FSers on the last Cairngorms Loop group start. In fact, I'd taken mine on my second attempt in 2018 too, so I can understand why, even given a choice of bikes, many folk opted for FS on that route.

Lazarus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:16 am Owning a Spearfish...

I went bikepacking in Spearfish, and wished I took a bike like a Spearfish. Short travel, lightweight mile muncher. Very good for terrain where something rigid or hardtail just isn’t enjoyable or comfortable over distance.

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:40 pm There was a high proportion of FSers on the last Cairngorms Loop group start.

I built my Spearfish specifically for Scotland but I can ride it anywhere, I've even used it on my commute on the road where it will keep up with (casual) roadies, much to their displeasure

I have 2 mountain bikes, Spearfish and Salsa Selma. The Selma is a rigid with carbon fork/ti frame.

I am perhaps in a good position to compare rigid v's FS as both bikes have identical wheels, tyres, handlebars, grips, saddles, brakes, pedals and cranks. With the fork and shock locked out the Spearfish is stiffer than the rigid bike. With the suspension locked out there is no discernible difference riding them on smooth surfaces. Off road with the suspension open the Spearfish is obviously more comfy but also quite a lot faster due to the extra grip.

I go bikepacking on both. The Selma is singlespped so I usually choose based on if I want gears or not. I took the Spearfish to the CL partially because I'd built it for just such a route and it was my fist chance to try it and also because I was riding the LTL afterwards and I knew the extra comfort would leave me in a better state after the CL for another 300km loop.

I did smile when Neil said that FS bikes have come a long way in the last 5 years My Spearfish is a 2012 and there's not much difference between it and the current version, 20mm of travel, made of plastic, slightly heavier and some marketing?

sean_iow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:17 pm I did smile when Neil said that FS bikes have come a long way in the last 5 years My Spearfish is a 2012 and there's not much difference between it and the current version, 20mm of travel, made of plastic, slightly heavier and some marketing?

I think the frame triangle is a bit bigger on the newer models - certainly the images make it look that way.

Here's the frame differences on geometry geeks - https://geometrygeeks.bike/compare/sals ... h-2019-lg/

whitestone wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:59 pm I think the frame triangle is a bit bigger on the newer models - certainly the images make it look that way.

It's got that curve on the downtube forward of the bb which does give more room. I re-drilled mine to take 2 bottle cages and I can get 2 x 500ml bottles and a small frame bag.



Edit. And mine has a 1.5 degree headset which makes it 69.5 compared to the 68 of the current, so it turns faster

I'm only mentioning as the way Neil said it you'd think that any FS more than 5 years old is no good. In 2012 Salsa's marketing stated the advantage of not having a pivot at the rear axle and the stays flexing... fast forward a year and the marketing is telling us how much better having a pivot at the rear is

Interesting thread, particularly for me since I'm considering replacing my full-sus 140/150mm #enduro bike for another more bikepacking-friendly full-sus - short travel carbon (probably) 29er. I rarely, if ever, make use of the full capability of the enduro bike, but I've come to the realisation that I'm much happier riding more technical routes than grinding across moors or along fire roads. (That's not to say I'm not going to do that, because I don't live in the Alps, and sometimes I'll still want to do that sort of riding, so my rigid plus bike is going nowhere.) The Lakeland 200 is as close to a perfect route for me as I've found, and my enduro bike was the best tool I had at the time, but I'd love another go on something lighter.

I agree with the comfort aspect too.

sean_iow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:17 pm I did smile when Neil said that FS bikes have come a long way in the last 5 years My Spearfish is a 2012 and there's not much difference between it and the current version, 20mm of travel, made of plastic, slightly heavier and some marketing?

I raised an eyebrow at this too. I had been thinking that one of the advantages of looking for a more XC-style bike is that there will be plenty of older bikes around that fit the geometry bill so I don't need to be looking at the latest and greatest (good job because I can't justify them anyway). Silly me Seriously, what's changed in this type of bike that I'd missing out on if I bought a five year old (say) bike?

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:41 pm My Occam is maybe three years old now and hasn't had any "servicing". I keep promising to take a look at the bushings and bearing but haven't got around to it yet. I guess I should do while we're in fatbike season.

The Oiz is a model that keeps coming up. Was that a consideration when you bought your Occam Colin? From what I can see the Occam is a bit more "trail" and a bit less "XC" than the Oiz. Was it intended for a different type of riding, or just what was available?

My FS is five years old now and the modern equivalent now has a 120mm fork, boost spacing, 1x gearing, tubeless ready and comes with a dropper post. It also costs 1.5 times as much.

thenorthwind wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:08 pm
The Oiz is a model that keeps coming up. Was that a consideration when you bought your Occam Colin? From what I can see the Occam is a bit more "trail" and a bit less "XC" than the Oiz. Was it intended for a different type of riding, or just what was available?

I bought the Occam as my "big day in the mountains" / trail centre bike. That it handles other stuff well is a bonus and it has made me think about some bikepacking routes I'd not otherwise have considered.

ScotRoutes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:20 pm

thenorthwind wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 8:08 pm
The Oiz is a model that keeps coming up. Was that a consideration when you bought your Occam Colin? From what I can see the Occam is a bit more "trail" and a bit less "XC" than the Oiz. Was it intended for a different type of riding, or just what was available?

I bought the Occam as my "big day in the mountains" / trail centre bike. That it handles other stuff well is a bonus and it has made me think about some bikepacking routes I'd not otherwise have considered.

Cheers. Makes sense. I'm trying to cover the same two bases, but weighted more to the other side.