Lighter bike for lighter riders?

[Lentamentalisk]

For starters, let me just say that I am the proud owner of a Salsa Fargo, and have ridden many times with it heavily and lightly loaded. I've also gone shopping at Harbor Freight for anvils and sledge hammers, and put 40lb of steel on the rear rack of my aluminum city hybrid bike without issue.

My question is this. Since I weigh a scant 145lbs, and my bikepacking weight is never over 30lbs, do I really need a "bombproof" "bikepacking" bike for bikepacking? It seems like I could make due with a road bike built for someone weighing 175lbs and be just as well off. Is there some fatal flaw in my logic, or should I really be shopping more for cross bikes than for bikepacking bikes?

How do you account for rider weight when determining bike strength?

[Attaboy]

Great question. I think you are on to something. You might get a good perspective, of all things, from looking over the Clyde forum. Basically, we have learned the opposite, but is the same logic. Clydesdale riders translate advice on gear through the lens of knowing that most gear is mass produced with a 170lb rider in mind. Wheels, tires, hubs in particular. That said, I'm guessing the more relevant differences in cx bikes and Fargo are the frames geometry, and that it can't take the wider tires and wheels. You could always try a cx wheel set and tires on your Fargo as it changes things quite a bit.

[Michael_S]

you are right on with your comment.  Most production bikes made today are overbuilt.  The mfg does not want it to break ( replacement cost) and they don't know if the rider will weigh 145lbs or 245lbs.   

Finding a production bike  for lighter riders is hard.  You can buy something meant for non loaded use but it may not fit your needs as far as braze-ons or tire size.

The solution is to have a custom bike built that is designed for your use/body size and weight plus gear.  There are some lesser know framebuilder's out there who can build a frame perfect for you for reasonable prices (less than $1500).  You could swap over your components or upgrade as needed.

mike

[Lentamentalisk]

When I am headed out with the girlfriend, I usually carry the majority of the load, so I'm happy to take the Fargo with a rack and lots of bags. But when I go out alone I try to limit myself to just the soft bikepacking bags, and no racks. I probably wouldn't need any of the standard braze-ons, in that case, just space for a 45mm tire or so. I suppose I could even switch out for a firestarter fork (or lots of hose clamps) if I wanted to add on anything cages or water bottles up front.

Short of making a custom bike I think I'll start looking at "relaxed" geometry "cross" bikes made of CF/AL/TI.

[dave]

In this day and age, pretty much any bike will be more than strong enough for your situation, as mentioned above.  Even if you're carrying 30 lbs of gear, you're probably not subjecting your bikes to the impacts and acute stresses that even a carbon fiber cyclocross race bike is capable of handling.  I wouldn't hesitate to look at lightweight cross or dropbar mountain bikes, and if your budget allows then certainly include carbon fiber in your search.  I primarily ride singletrack but if I were looking for a bikepacking bike for dirt/gravel roads, etc., I would personally be test riding bikes like the new Salsa Cutthroat.  I'd definitely be using a carbon fork and lightweight wheels (as much as budget allows, anyway).

[Lentamentalisk]

I've thought about carbon fiber, but I'm a bit worried about whether it could last for years, or would need to be replaced frequently. That said, I'm testing a Warbird in a week, and I'll see how I like that. The biggest problem with most of the bikes I've seen is lack of tire clearance. Most of the light and minimal bikes are set for 33mm or under tires.

[MattL]

From https://gypsybytrade.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/some-people-and-bikes-from-interbike-2015-las-vegas-nv/

Oh, and carbon frames don’t resist abrasion very well.  Steel and titanium win this division, followed by aluminum.  Carbon comes in last.  But the ride is nice, and light. 

That is a pinky-sized hole in the seatstay of Lael’s Stumpjummper.  I suspect she rode it that way from Lime, MT to the finish.

Light *is* nice, but your instincts are right about durability.  It may come from a surprising place, like abrasion.  Bikepacking bikes are covered with bags and other things that have the potential to invisibly rub holes in your frame.

Good luck.

[Attaboy]

Why not spend your $ on a nice wheel set and try it on your Fargo? You could try some skinnier tires and go wide again when u need them. Again, you are not going to save that much weight with a new frame; and as you're finding, tire choices become limited.

[Lentamentalisk]

I actually do expect to get some serious weight savings. The Fargo claimed weight is around 27.5lbs and the Warbird falls somewhere around 20lbs (of course depending on the build). I understand that much of that may come from wheels, fork, etc, but 7lbs is quite a lot of weight to lose.

To be fair though, I could get a similar savings by moving all my commuting gear off the Fargo onto a different bike (rack, fenders, U-lock), but I could double the gains by never putting that sort of stuff onto the Warbird (or similar bike) in the first place.

27.5 fargo

[Attaboy]

That makes sense. 7 lbs is a lot. The warbird looks like a nice ride and gives you that extra arrow in your quiver.

[Lentamentalisk]

The biggest challenge will be preventing myself from covering it with all the things I'd be so tempted to put on it!

[Attaboy]

Exactly, but maybe getting the Warbird you can keep it lean and continue using Fargo as your heavy touring rig. Easier said than done.