Originally Posted by
bikemig
45 liters is not a large amount of capacity. You might want to forgo the front rack at least to save some weight and go with some bike packing type bags like this,
Revelate Designs LLC
You can also check these out,
Anything Cage HD | Parts & Accessories | Salsa Cycles
Alternatively, with 45 liters and careful packing, you could easily get away with a rear rack and 2 panniers and a smallish front bag.
45 liters is a huge amount of capacity! I use Ortlieb front and rear Rollers and seldom fill the rear (40 l) bag beyond half capacity. The only reason that I use the rear ones is so that I have more space for bulky, but lightweight, items. The heavy, denser stuff goes in the front bags as I've found through many years of experience that the 60:40 front/rear split results in a bike that handles better. In some instances I'll go with a set front of bags only if I'm not carrying enough to justify the rear bag.
The Relevate bags work for their intended purpose of off-road bike packing. I have a full set but I don't know that I would use them for a tour that is on pavement or is mostly on pavement. They are a compromise at best off-road with the load being very high and they make the handling a bit squirrelly and the space is severely limited.
Originally Posted by
mstateglfr
http://www.bikeforums.net/touring/1035089-60-front-40-back-recommended-weight-distribution-what-your-opinion.html
Here is an extended thread that’s recent.Good info in there.
This is all preference.There isnt a hard set rule that must be followed one way or the other.As a result, people are all over the spectrum on preference.I will say that its an interesting topic for me for the very reason that there is no right or wrong answer.
I have done both the 4 bag setup and the rear only setup.My views are-
- 4 bag setup is much better for balance.
- 2 bag setup is much better for convenience.
I have some 45L Axiom panniers and with both fully loaded, the front end of my bike really easily rises up.It rides perfectly fine, but every trip ive taken with fully loaded rears only has been relatively flat with gradual slight inclines.With steep hills, rear only weight becomes more of an issue both going up and coming down.
Ill continue to do some rides(shorter intra-state trips) with the rears only because they are convenient.Having only 2 bags instead of 4 means less to carry around and less to have to clip to my bike.I can also use my favorite bike as it only has a rear rack.
If you do go the 2 bag route, perhaps consider still having a front rack to carry some items.Depending on the rack(platform style), you could lash that bear canister to it and/or some bulky things like the sleeping bag or tent.Itll take some bulk from the rear panniers away and help offset the weight imbalance.
I wouldn't say that a 2 bag system is all that great for convenience. From the standpoint of actually getting into the bags to get out things you might need on the road like rain coats, snacks, extra clothes, etc., 2 bags means that you have to do a lot of digging or very careful packing in the morning. With 4 bags, I put cooking stuff and food up front while I put clothes in the back. If I have to get snacks, those are on top in the front bag while the rain coat and extra clothes are in the back. There's a lot less digging to find what I need.
I live and camp in Colorado, by the way, and I've never found the need for any kind of bear canister. A bit of parachute cord is enough to hoist the food bags off the ground as well as keeping a very clean, bear resistant camp.
Originally Posted by
Aidoneus
Well...I bought a Surly Ogre, though I haven't picked it up, yet. LOL
As for camping equipment, I have experience and equipment from multi-week backpacking PCT, Gilla Wilderness, inside the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Bridger-Teton Forests, and Indiana forests. You did notice I was looking at 45 litre (total) bags, right? Hardly the size for carrying the kitchen sink. So, I am researching a flexible system, suitable for a Surly Ogre, as I mentioned in my post. As for a route, I'm now thinking my first tour will be Route 66 to TransAmerica to Colorado, or possibly Utah if I can handle the grade. If climbing gets to be too much in Colorado for this old geezer, I can just turn around!
[MENTION=242190]elcruxio[/MENTION]: Yeah, I thought that I read something along those lines in a mountain bike forum.
I'm not sure what size backpack you've used but I would say that 45 l total volume is a whole lot even for carrying on my back. It's certainly enough to "carry the kitchen sink" as long as the sink is small(ish).
As for your route, are you planning on a road tour or a mountain bike tour? Which one should definitely influence how you carry your stuff and how you outfit your bike. For example, a mountain bike tour would include knobbier (but slower) tires and you'd want to carry your gear higher to avoid hitting objects on rougher roads. That does have an effect on the handling of the bike, however. One other thing to consider when mountain bike touring, you aren't going to be making runs up too many single tracks through the woods. Dirt roads, yes but not single track. At least not unless you want to be horribly frustrated. Single track on a loaded mountain bike is not fun.
But your route sounds more like a road tour and I would suggest you approach it as such. Run smooth tires and go for a lower center of gravity on the larger part of your load, i.e. use panniers and lowriders. The bike will handle better and you won't be fighting it as much.
As for riding up mountains in Colorado, our mountains have altitude but not
attitude. You will seldom find a paved road with a grade over 7% here. In the eastern part of the US, they just point a road up and over a mountain and hang the grade...I've done some 25% grades in the Appalachias...but here in Colorado we aren't that dumb. We don't like people sliding off our roads. Granted you won't have as much air here but at least our roads are easier
