Attachment Points: bosses, braze- ons and straps

[Bobonli]

I'm about to purchase a fat bike that will serve two purposes beyond routine trail riding: snow biking and occasional light bike packing. I say " light" because it's unlikely I'm ever going to Spain or Ireland for a multi week jaunt like we see on websites. Most likely a one or two overnight trip to the Catskills or something like that.

I've narrowed my search to two types of bikes. Type one is heavy as a mother but has bosses drilled everywhere for bottles, Everything Cages, etc. Steel. Type two is lighter, carbon fork or carbon frame but almost no attachment points beyond the bottle cage mounts. I think the brands are irrelevant; this seems to be the general offering out there at least in terms of the brands that I have access to.

The shop I'm working with knows my hate of unnecessarily heavy bikes and has counseled to save weight on the bike and figure out the luggage issue when the time comes. I have bags that strap on: seat, top tube and eventually a frame bag. So that leaves me hung up about not having capability to mount stuff to the forks (carbon forks on the lighter bikes) or bottom side of down tube to carry water and other items.

Where should my priorities be?
Should I accept that at some point I'll be buying some hose clamps for the forks?
Do I really need to worry about fork carrying capacity at this point?

For reference, I'm almost certainly going to land up on an XL frame so I know that will increase capacity I the triangle.

I appreciate input from those who've made these choices already and who ride regularly enough to know what is really necessary. Thank you.

[Joe13]

If you're bikepacking is going to be 'light', then I would go with the lighter, carbon bike. Seat-pack, frame-pack and a handlebar roll and you've got summer bikepacking trips covered. You can always add a small backpack if you need extra volume for a particular trip. For extended touring and winter bikepacking, then extra bosses become a consideration.

[harryonaspot]

The above statement says it all.

[Lentamentalisk]

+1

Unless you have to carry water for several days. That can eat up space super fast.

[Bobonli]

Thank you.. I appreciate the input. My mental model of what a bike suitable for bikepacking is evolving. I statrted from the position that it had to be steel and loaded with braze ons and bosses. Then someone suggested aluminum or carbon to save wieight at the 'expense' of those features. It tuns out that part of  the answer to my own question is the mountain bike hanging in my garage. It has a suspension fork which also wouldn't permit bolting things to it. That wouldn't stop me from camping with it;therefore, a carbon fork on a fat bike should not be an impediment.

By any chance is anyone here using a Spec. Fatboy for their trips?

[RonK]

If lightweight is your priority, why not consider the Salsa Cutthroat? This is an all carbon bike with pretty much the same geometry as the Fargo - and it has three-hole bosses on each forkleg for Anything cages and five standard cages on the frame.

[Michael_S]

I had the same dilemma with my new Ritchey Commando.  I could have bought an Aluminum frame( never!) with lots of bosses or heavy steel  The Ritchey is heat treated thinner wall tubing and a better ride, but no bosses except the inside water bottles.  Both are covered by my frame bag.  I just got one of the Bedrock Honaker bags, it straps on the underside of the downtube and holds a one qt Nalgene bottle.  Also you can use  feedbags attached to the stem/bars for more water.

mike

[Bobonli]

Thank you. At the  end of the day, having a lighter bike is more important than the bosses/ braze ons. Going to go with aluminum or carbon to start with a lower base weight bike. There's always under- the-down tube bags to carry extra stuff.