Originally Posted by
MassiveD
Nice set-up, but that is, as you know a bikepacking set-up, which is really a step in the wrong direction in at least one way. But if the gear is simplified to utility levels it is not salable. The only way is to invent a new purchasing cult, like ultralite backpacking, hammocks, or bikepacking, and for a while the cool factor overwhelms the excess engineering.
If you are riding offroad/rough roads this soft bag setup is superior to panniers and racks. I've tried both and own both. Panniers are great for smooth surfaces and when you don't have to hike-a-bike much. You can see my previous dirt touring setup above. It worked, but I had to ride my bike to allow the racks and panniers to survive.
With the white bikepacking setup above I can ride technical singletrack without having to baby my gear which means I am smiling more as I ride and exploring with more freedom. I can also push the bike easily which is a necessary evil sometimes. All three of those bags weigh less than 2 Ortliebs rear panniers.
The interest in bikepacking isn't going anywhere. Largely because it combines mountain biking and touring in a way that's really fun. OTOH I think there is a limited number of people that want to tour dirt roads and trails with this sort of setup. It's probably at or near it's peak as a niche type of touring. That's fine as there is a good selection of equipment to choose from and I like not running into other cyclists when I am riding.
Originally Posted by
MassiveD
The in-frame pack is an example of a large surface area bag that has a low capacity. Necessary evil for suspension bikes and recumbents.
There is no need for me to use a frame bag on the 29er MTB shown in my post above. I can use a rear and front OMM racks without any issues and Ortlieb panniers. I chose the frame bag because it's more functional for the touring that bike sees. It also carries the weight centrally to minimize the effect on how the bike handles.