Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

Fully loaded carbon ?

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

Fully loaded carbon ?

Old 11-25-19, 12:26 PM
  #76  
linus
Crawler
 
linus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OH~ CANADA
Posts: 1,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
The weight low down makes the bike turn sluggishly and there's always the issue of balancing the panniers. I like putting the weight under the saddle because for 90% of my riding I don't notice it. Out of the saddle it does make the bike feel a bit top heavy at first, but you quickly get use to it and I find myself climbing out of the saddle a lot. My handlebar bag has more of an effect on handling most of the time, but as you point out the low weight keeps that to a minimum.
BS alert.

If they are the same weight, the top-heavy bike will be much sluggish because you have to transfer your weight one side to the other. More you lean, it's tougher to switch direction due to the weight on top. You may "feel" it's okay, but it's simple physics.
linus is offline  
Old 11-25-19, 12:58 PM
  #77  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by linus
BS alert.

If they are the same weight, the top-heavy bike will be much sluggish because you have to transfer your weight one side to the other. More you lean, it's tougher to switch direction due to the weight on top. You may "feel" it's okay, but it's simple physics.
I disagree. Mass up high close to your body doesn't move much when establishing a lean - the wheels move out (wheel contact patches move left in order to establish lean to the right). Mass close to the rear axle makes turning slower. Mass aft of the rear axle makes things really weird.
tyrion is offline  
Old 11-25-19, 01:47 PM
  #78  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by linus
BS alert.

If they are the same weight, the top-heavy bike will be much sluggish because you have to transfer your weight one side to the other. More you lean, it's tougher to switch direction due to the weight on top. You may "feel" it's okay, but it's simple physics.
As I mentioned when out of the saddle there is an issue, but when in the saddle having the weight as close to the rider as possible has the least effect on bike handling. With the saddlebag tight up against the seat post the rider does not have to fight against front panniers down low when turning or feel the tug of rear panniers. Of course it's critical to have the load well secured to eliminate bag sway as that can be very disruptive. I sometimes see bikepacking saddlebags that are pretty loosely attached and stick out a long way behind the rider and think that it must be hard to ride like that. With the transverse saddlebag tight up against the saddle sway can be eliminated and the mass kept very close the rider's butt. This is indeed all simple physics.

Last edited by nun; 11-25-19 at 02:03 PM.
nun is offline  
Old 11-25-19, 03:01 PM
  #79  
linus
Crawler
 
linus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OH~ CANADA
Posts: 1,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by tyrion
I disagree. Mass up high close to your body doesn't move much when establishing a lean - the wheels move out (wheel contact patches move left in order to establish lean to the right). Mass close to the rear axle makes turning slower. Mass aft of the rear axle makes things really weird.
You can disagree all you want, but your opinion doesn't change physics.
linus is offline  
Old 11-25-19, 03:08 PM
  #80  
tyrion
Senior Member
 
tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077

Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times in 972 Posts
Originally Posted by linus
You can disagree all you want, but your opinion doesn't change physics.
Correct.
tyrion is offline  
Likes For tyrion:
Old 11-25-19, 03:14 PM
  #81  
linus
Crawler
 
linus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OH~ CANADA
Posts: 1,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
As I mentioned when out of the saddle there is an issue, but when in the saddle having the weight as close to the rider as possible has the least effect on bike handling. With the saddlebag tight up against the seat post the rider does not have to fight against front panniers down low when turning or feel the tug of rear panniers. Of course it's critical to have the load well secured to eliminate bag sway as that can be very disruptive. I sometimes see bikepacking saddlebags that are pretty loosely attached and stick out a long way behind the rider and think that it must be hard to ride like that. With the transverse saddlebag tight up against the saddle sway can be eliminated and the mass kept very close the rider's butt. This is indeed all simple physics.
In a perfect world where we don't move side to side at all when we pedal, maybe you won't notice it, but when you turn in any bikes(motorcycles as well), the mass up high makes it difficult to flip your bike to the other side. Hence, the slower handling.

I don't know why you are talking about Bikepacking saddlebags. It's not relevant to what we are talking about. The only thing that I was talking about was height of the weight you are carrying. So when you say "This is indeed all simple physics" is not relevant.

I'm pretty blunt with BS. Next time, just put "In my opinion" before.
linus is offline  
Old 11-25-19, 04:03 PM
  #82  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by linus

I don't know why you are talking about Bikepacking saddlebags. It's not relevant to what we are talking about. The only thing that I was talking about was height of the weight you are carrying. So when you say "This is indeed all simple physics" is not relevant.
Only considering the height is not enough. Many pannier setups will place the load quite a way from the center line of the bike and a long way from the rider and the ground contact patch and so it's not as easy for the rider to correct unbalanced forces that might occur. Of course the stability and slow response that such a setup produces has long been seen as either an advantage or a necessary evil. With a saddlebag the correction only requires a subtle shift from the rider. Of course if the saddlebag weights 50lbs and the rider is 100lbs the correction would need to be far from subtle. I'm not saying a saddlebag set up is more stable than one using panniers, just that it changes the handling of the bike less.

I brought up bikepacking saddlebags as a point of comparison because they are also mounted to the saddle and might be more familiar to the community.

Last edited by nun; 11-25-19 at 04:50 PM.
nun is offline  
Old 11-25-19, 05:14 PM
  #83  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
I'd say that given that most of the riders here have lots of experience riding happily for years with their respective lightweight setups, there certainly is no "right" answer here, so please keep the discussion polite.
djb is offline  
Likes For djb:
Old 11-27-19, 10:41 AM
  #84  
linus
Crawler
 
linus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OH~ CANADA
Posts: 1,410
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
Only considering the height is not enough. Many pannier setups will place the load quite a way from the center line of the bike and a long way from the rider and the ground contact patch and so it's not as easy for the rider to correct unbalanced forces that might occur. Of course the stability and slow response that such a setup produces has long been seen as either an advantage or a necessary evil. With a saddlebag the correction only requires a subtle shift from the rider. Of course if the saddlebag weights 50lbs and the rider is 100lbs the correction would need to be far from subtle. I'm not saying a saddlebag set up is more stable than one using panniers, just that it changes the handling of the bike less.

I brought up bikepacking saddlebags as a point of comparison because they are also mounted to the saddle and might be more familiar to the community.
Yes it does. The reason why MotoGP bikes have gas tank between the seat and engine.

Stop making excuses. And your false claim with panniers makes things worse than a saddlebag.
linus is offline  
Old 11-27-19, 12:38 PM
  #85  
indyfabz
Senior Member
 
indyfabz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,059
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18320 Post(s)
Liked 15,299 Times in 7,231 Posts
Originally Posted by djb
so please keep the discussion polite.
IKR, but I am not seeing any sign of that on a certain person's part.
indyfabz is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 07:12 AM
  #86  
dualresponse
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 45 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Riders who currently tour on carbon touring frames love them. Makes perfect sense to me. Many of these riders are using only rear panniers. This doesn't work on a steel bike - they become whippy - but works on carbon because is's stiffer. Be that as it may, some carbon touring frames come with forks with rack fixings, some don't. Here are 45 carbon touring frames to choose from: https://www.cyclingabout.com/carbon-touring-bikes/

More carbon bike porn: https://www.cyclingabout.com/2017-di...-touring-bike/

Carbon touring bike reviews are harder to find:
Carbon fiber makes a horrible touring bike; I love my new carbon fiber touring bike « Ride for Climate
As you can read in the comments in this old thread: https://forums.adventurecycling.org/...p?topic=3623.0
carbon has come a long way in 10 years. Most folks now are still 10 years behind the times.
Thanks for these links. I spent the morning going through this, and some of the bikes I'm looking at are on this list.

For many years, I was the old school roadie with my steel frames. I resisted change, but finally changed to an AL/carbon seatstay frame, and later full carbon frames. In terms of road ride quality, there was no comparison. The newer frames were lighter, stiffer, and more comfortable. For the 700x23 roadie, they were simply better. Would this entirely translate into the same winning impression with wider low pressure tires? I don't know, but I'd be willing to find out.

My "gravel" bike- a frankenbike steel 26' mtb and 700c wheels has been loyal, but has always suffered, from old worn spare parts "itis", with worn chainrings, sloppy derailleurs, and a pieced together feel. It has beaten me to death on gravel road washboard. I have experimented with softride stems, and hybrid forks, rebuilding some into longer travel magic carpet ride beast, and even larger tires at lower pressures, which still cannot respond to the high frequency of the washboard.

One of these newfangles gismos could address at least some of my concerns- short wheelbase for better climbing, disc, for the steep descents out here (20%+ extended grades which eventually cup out the sides of my rims on my rimbrake bikes), and perhaps... just perhaps.. .a little better dampening from the carbon on the gravel washboards of death.

This leaves me considering a gravel type bike. Even looking at some pricey models $5-6k plus, I'm only semi- impressed. They are expensive, and don't have the gear ranges someone in the mountains (actually loaded and touring) would need. As one goes up in price towards the higher models, the rims become nice lightweight trinkets, great for racing, but not something one would want to seriously tour on loaded (approx 1200-1300 grams for one set?- lighter than my zipp 202's).

Looking recently at the models the bike shops stock, the carbon rack attachments appear to incorporated, some, with more thought than others. A rockymountain fork has attachments, but they point forward at 20 degrees, suitable perhaps for a bottle cage, but not easily mounting a front rack. A niner rdo has rear rack attachments, but they are incorporated into a super slim seatstays, more designed as a flexible CF shock absorber than a rigid mounting point. The Trek bikes list all their AL/and carbon frames weight limits at 275lbs. Since all of their frames have the same spec, it looks like someone picked a number, somehow, but not necessarily by testing a frame loaded with gear.

Fortunately, at this point, as much as I want to bike the bullet and buy something, the sobering reality is that I'd just be tinkering again, swapping stuff out, redoing drivetrains to find lower gear inches, and building new rimsets for specific task.

I think for light/ credit card touring on relatively flat ground the current crop of gravel/adventure bikes potentially could be great. I think a custom carbon frame built up for a specific task could be great, but most of these bikes seemed to be aimed at checking off as many boxes as possible to appeal to the masses. Cyclocross.. Gravel Riders..adventure riders..light tourers..

I think the market needs to sort itself out some more.

For a hardcore tourer? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I might be buying one as a gravel racing/cyclocross rig, with potentially mounting some extra bottles for longer rides. Keeping it light not to have to mess with gearing. I think in that capacity, it might be great.- and if I do get one, I sure as heck am going to be putting racks on it to experiment!

Last edited by dualresponse; 11-29-19 at 07:41 AM.
dualresponse is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 07:40 AM
  #87  
staehpj1
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by dualresponse
For a hardcore tourer? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I might be buying one as a gravel racing/cyclocross rig, with potentially mounting some extra bottles for longer rides. Keeping it light not to have to mess with gearing. I think in that capacity, it might be great.
Maybe, not your cup of tea, and sorry to sound like a broken record, but ... I can't help but think that most of your concerns over how that bike might work for longer touring would be nicely addressed by just packing ultralight. I have not found at all challenged or uncomfortable on long tours by any lack of comfort or "stuff". I carried 14# of gear camping and cooking on the Southern Tier and I have since trimmed the gear weight a few pounds while actually adding a bit of comfort and versatility to the camping gear. It was an evolution to get there and maybe isn't something most folks want to or even can just jump directly into, but I am convinced that if folks made the effort they would be surprised just how comfortable they can be with how little "stuff". It really can be a joy to travel with just 10-15 pounds of base gear weight even on a multi month camping/cooking trip. That kind of packing style would allow you ride the bike you are considering on pretty much any length tour.

The exception is when/if you need to carry multiple days of food and water, but that can sometimes be planned around by using food drops/caches or sometimes minimized to just a short section here and there and carried on your back if just for a day or two.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 08:03 AM
  #88  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by dualresponse
I think for light/ credit card touring on relatively flat ground the current crop of gravel/adventure bikes potentially could be great. I think a custom carbon frame built up for a specific task could be great, but most of these bikes seemed to be aimed at checking off as many boxes as possible to appeal to the masses. Cyclocross.. Gravel Riders..adventure riders..light tourers..
There are lots of "gravel" type bikes that look pretty well set up for extended self supported tours in all sorts of terrain. I like the Specialized Diverge as it has decent gearing at 48/32x11/34, room for big tires if you want, and a bit of suspension for some rougher stuff. The frame has mounts for 3 bottles and racks and fenders, although I'd use rackless bags and use lightweight equipment to keep gear and bike combined weight under 40lbs. I'm sure there are lots of other really nice relaxed geometry bikes out there that will make fantastic long distance tourers.
nun is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 08:07 AM
  #89  
dualresponse
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 45 Posts
^And I think that is a good point. Some of my best trips were impromptu lightly packed events. I know I've "blown up" the touring section recently with all the pics of my blingy schwinn, with way too much bag potential. It's like a 747 heavy. I could load that bike up, remove half the bags, and it would still be overloaded!

But even lighter/medium loaded, I wonder about the potential of carbon gravel frames/geometry.

There is a 200 mile gravel ride coming up here shortly. A fellow rider wants to hunker down and go heavy, turning it into a 3+ day ride. I want to go light and do it in much less time.

This ride is one of the things that has me looking at a newfangled gravel carbon bike- staying light, fast, and comfortable as possible. Perhaps one bag tops, and pushing hard, strategically getting to hotels and credit carding it. More mileage, better rest, fresh showers, back to work the next morning with a warm fresh meal.

My post was really mentally hashing out (perhaps to myself) how a carbon frame could be used. Would it be a good heavily loaded tourer? Would it stand up? Someone mentioned the shorter wheelbases perhaps causing interference between the shoes and pedalling. I don't know. One of my dream rides would be from Kathmandu to India. Is that something I'd take a carbon frame on?
Most of the carbon frame loaded pics I see are frame packs and stuff suspended magically off the back of the seatpost. I do know in the mountains, with loaded panniers, I am running 20-34 happily. 32-34 is fine unloaded. A lot of these bikes are 1:1 or 32-34 lowest, great for unloaded.

Just thinking out loud.

.ps- I was also looking at the diverge recently. The front suspension reminds me somewhat of the softride.

Last edited by dualresponse; 11-29-19 at 08:13 AM.
dualresponse is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 08:09 AM
  #90  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by staehpj1

The exception is when/if you need to carry multiple days of food and water, but that can sometimes be planned around by using food drops/caches or sometimes minimized to just a short section here and there and carried on your back if just for a day or two.
Water can be the biggest issue. I've carried mutliple extra bottles using the longflap on my saddlebag, jersey pockets, and handlebar bag. I also have an ultralight nylon back pack that I mostly use for days off the bike, but in an emergency it can be worn on the bike too.
nun is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 08:21 AM
  #91  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by dualresponse
^And I think that is a good point. Some of my best trips were impromptu lightly packed events. I know I've "blown up" the touring section recently with all the pics of my blingy schwinn, with way too much bag potential. It's like a 747 heavy. I could load that bike up, remove half the bags, and it would still be overloaded!

But even lighter/medium loaded, I wonder about the potential of carbon gravel frames/geometry.

There is a 200 mile gravel ride coming up here shortly. A fellow rider wants to hunker down and go heavy, turning it into a 3+ day ride. I want to go light and do it in much less time.

This ride is one of the things that has me looking at a newfangled gravel carbon bike- staying light, fast, and comfortable as possible. Perhaps one bag tops, and pushing hard, strategically getting to hotels and credit carding it. More mileage, better rest, fresh showers, back to work the next morning with a warm fresh meal.

My post was really mentally hashing out (perhaps to myself) how a carbon frame could be used. Would it be a good heavily loaded tourer? Would it stand up? Someone mentioned the shorter wheelbases perhaps causing interference between the shoes and pedalling. I don't know. Most of the carbon frame loaded pics I see are frame packs and stuff suspended magically off the back of the seatpost. I do know in the mountains, with panniers, I am running 20-34 happily. 32-34 is fine unloaded. A lot of these bikes are 1:1 or 32-34 lowest, great for unloaded.

Just thinking out loud.

.ps- I was also looking at the diverge recently. The front suspension reminds me somewhat of the softride.
I imagine that geometry and the mounting of racks to take heavy loads is going to be an issue on most gravel bikes, but they are great for rackless bags and long tours. I've been touring on a Carbon Cervelo RS with an endurance type geometry for a few years now and it's only drawback is the tire clearance, but it was great on the gravel of the Erie Canal and I only had two punctures on the entire Northern Tier. I run 34/36 as my lowest gear and find that with a fairly light load I don't need anything lower.
nun is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 08:26 AM
  #92  
dualresponse
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 45 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
I imagine that geometry and the mounting of racks to take heavy loads is going to be an issue on most gravel bikes, but they are great for rackless bags and long tours. I've been touring on a Carbon Cervelo RS with an endurance type geometry for a few years now and it's only drawback is the tire clearance, but it was great on the gravel of the Erie Canal and I only had two punctures on the entire Northern Tier. I run 34/36 as my lowest gear and find that with a fairly light load I don't need anything lower.
That sounds like a rocket!
dualresponse is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 09:24 AM
  #93  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by dualresponse
That sounds like a rocket!
I wish the engine could be describe like that, but I was never, and will never, be a rocket.

Last edited by nun; 11-29-19 at 09:32 AM.
nun is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 02:24 PM
  #94  
dualresponse
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 143
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 45 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
I wish the engine could be describe like that, but I was never, and will never, be a rocket.
LOL! I was feeling that way today. I took my steel Schwinn up into the mountains to see how it did moderately loaded. In the winter, the heavy bags are quite nice, keeping my speeds low and my face from freezing.

Since this thread is about "Fully Loaded carbon frames"-

My only thought I had while riding some of the unmaintained gravel roads, was- "Gee, a 1200-1500 gram carbon frame would be taking a real beating right now." - but when compared to 30+ year old well used steel frame, who knows what would snap first!

Also- the long wheelbase of the older bike was nice on the descents. So stable, even with an incorrect fork rake, I could do it loaded with no hands. (don't tell anyone though)

Gratuitous pic of the schwinn up on skyline today. I should have taken some pics of the fireroad getting there. I do like the idea of the carbon gravel bike/ lightly loaded carbon gravel bike/ perhaps with frame packs/ etc as mentioned. I need to approach wife carefully regarding this matter :
dualresponse is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 04:28 PM
  #95  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
Originally Posted by nun
I wish the engine could be describe like that, but I was never, and will never, be a rocket.
and along the same lines of this analogy, a bit more weight higher or lower, or here or there, isnt going to make much of a difference for handling, especially with the weights that you light packing folks are using, and comparing all of this bicycle stuff to motorcycle racing is just apples vs oranges.
Sure, in principal on paper it will make a itsy bitsy teeny weeny polka dot bikini difference, but at the speeds we corner, and the downhill series of corners that we exceedingly rarely encounter, the diff in real life is meh.

anything more than that is simply internet "I'm right and you are wrong" territory.
djb is offline  
Old 11-29-19, 06:23 PM
  #96  
nun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,670

Bikes: Rivendell Quickbeam, Rivendell Rambouillet, Rivendell Atlantis, Circle A town bike, De Rosa Neo Primato, Cervelo RS, Specialized Diverge

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Liked 43 Times in 40 Posts
Originally Posted by dualresponse
LOL! I was feeling that way today. I took my steel Schwinn up into the mountains to see how it did moderately loaded. In the winter, the heavy bags are quite nice, keeping my speeds low and my face from freezing.

Since this thread is about "Fully Loaded carbon frames"-

My only thought I had while riding some of the unmaintained gravel roads, was- "Gee, a 1200-1500 gram carbon frame would be taking a real beating right now." - but when compared to 30+ year old well used steel frame, who knows what would snap first!

Also- the long wheelbase of the older bike was nice on the descents. So stable, even with an incorrect fork rake, I could do it loaded with no hands. (don't tell anyone though)

Gratuitous pic of the schwinn up on skyline today. I should have taken some pics of the fireroad getting there. I do like the idea of the carbon gravel bike/ lightly loaded carbon gravel bike/ perhaps with frame packs/ etc as mentioned. I need to approach wife carefully regarding this matter :
There are lots of mountain and gravel bikes that I'm sure would do just fine on those descents with rackless setups. But you might be voiding the warranty doing it with 4 x panniers and 50lbs of gear. When I got back into touring in my 40s I did what I had done as a teenager and used a saddlebag and a couple of racks to strap things like tents and sleeping bags onto. Then I realised that with the new ultralight camping equipment I could get rid of the racks and tour fully loaded with just a saddlebag and a handlebar bag. Without the need for racks that freed me up to go from a steel sport tourer to pretty much any bike and I went to a carbon endurance bike because of the relaxed geometry and as this was before carbon gravel bikes were widely available and I didn't like the high bottom brackets of the cross bikes available. I had to changed the gearing to a mountain bike rear set up and replace the 50t ring of the 50/34 chainrings with a 46t to give me a nice all day cruising gear range and a 25" low climbing gear. It's nice that I can get almost the same gearing stock on the Diverge now.

Also here's my gratuitous steel picture from today. It's very trendy as I have a 1x setup...but the rear is a 6 speed free wheel so really it's very retro. My trip was far more urban that yours and there was very little climbing, but it was also pretty cold.



Last edited by nun; 11-29-19 at 06:27 PM.
nun is offline  
Likes For nun:
Old 11-29-19, 09:12 PM
  #97  
DropBarFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,150

Bikes: 2013 Surly Disc Trucker, 2004 Novara Randonee , old fixie , etc

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 49 Times in 43 Posts
Originally Posted by dualresponse
^And I think that is a good point. Some of my best trips were impromptu lightly packed events. I know I've "blown up" the touring section recently with all the pics of my blingy schwinn, with way too much bag potential. It's like a 747 heavy. I could load that bike up, remove half the bags, and it would still be overloaded!

But even lighter/medium loaded, I wonder about the potential of carbon gravel frames/geometry.

There is a 200 mile gravel ride coming up here shortly. A fellow rider wants to hunker down and go heavy, turning it into a 3+ day ride. I want to go light and do it in much less time.

This ride is one of the things that has me looking at a newfangled gravel carbon bike- staying light, fast, and comfortable as possible. Perhaps one bag tops, and pushing hard, strategically getting to hotels and credit carding it. More mileage, better rest, fresh showers, back to work the next morning with a warm fresh meal.

My post was really mentally hashing out (perhaps to myself) how a carbon frame could be used. Would it be a good heavily loaded tourer? Would it stand up? Someone mentioned the shorter wheelbases perhaps causing interference between the shoes and pedalling. I don't know. One of my dream rides would be from Kathmandu to India. Is that something I'd take a carbon frame on?
Most of the carbon frame loaded pics I see are frame packs and stuff suspended magically off the back of the seatpost. I do know in the mountains, with loaded panniers, I am running 20-34 happily. 32-34 is fine unloaded. A lot of these bikes are 1:1 or 32-34 lowest, great for unloaded.

Just thinking out loud.

.ps- I was also looking at the diverge recently. The front suspension reminds me somewhat of the softride.
Diverge is nice but less tire/fender clearance & $350 higher price than the Haanjo EXP Carbon. Getting that low 20/34 gear would seem to require switching to a 3x9 MTB drivetrain, perhaps $200-$400 more cost.

I haven't had any heel-pannier or toe-front wheel issues with the EXP & as a light rider the light rims work fine. Gravel bikes are often shown with bike-packing gear but those with rack mounts seem capable of toting 50 lbs luggage in panniers. If I toured in India with a carbon bike, airline damage would be my main worry, not ride reliability.
DropBarFan is offline  
Likes For DropBarFan:
Old 11-30-19, 05:23 AM
  #98  
staehpj1
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by DropBarFan
I haven't had any heel-pannier or toe-front wheel issues with the EXP & as a light rider the light rims work fine.
Both of those issues can generally be worked around on most bikes in my experience and too much is often made of them.
Heel-pannier clearance issues can generally be mitigated with mounting position assuming a suitable bag choice (one that is a shape and size that doesn't make the problem worse than necessary).
Toe overlap issues are something that I always found that I quickly adjusted to on any bike that had them. I'd notice the problem for the first few short rides or maybe for the first few very slow speed turns or stops while turning on the first ride then subconsciously adjust to it and never give it a thought after that. I guess that doesn't work for everyone.
staehpj1 is offline  
Likes For staehpj1:
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Squeezebox
Touring
152
05-25-17 10:47 PM
spectastic
Touring
80
10-21-15 03:26 AM
dwmckee
Touring
100
05-31-14 10:54 AM
yezard
Framebuilders
13
09-23-10 06:29 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.