Tourist, he mentioned that he has used this bike with two small rear panniers, so he's got that covered.

In the end, it comes down to how much you want to spend on various carrying methods, and then of course how much you want to spend on lightweight gear ---which really gets you into a rabbit hole of choices and expenses and trying to evaluate what you need for different conditions-- which can be tricky if new to things.

But we will started out new to things, so you'll figure it out, or you won't.

While I don't like the feel of a backpack for any length of time, I am completely comfortable with a waist pack. I always day hike with a waist pack and got a slightly larger one that didn't have any compartments on the front for my long bike adventures. I bought a couple of plastic cases that fit into the water bottle holders on the waist pack to hold my tools and other small items.
https://www.amazon.com/Epessa-Storag.../dp/B07GFDS39S
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0186OO5P2/

I think I'll settle for frame- and/or handlebar-bags. The Baryak adapters suggested by @GadgetGirlIL ship from the USA and that is pretty much a no-go for me. I could try the fit kit by OMM, but that would mean buying the panniers and the rack too, and also having a heavier and bulkier bike even when I don't need it (which is most of the time). Yes, I know this contradicts my initial question, but I'm still making up my mind about this whole thing. Maybe using panniers that don't need a rack could be a compromise.
The frame does have lower rack mounts on the rear fork, but not the higher ones, so I had to buy a seat clamp with mounts.
I'm not sure how much weight the bike and the wheels can take, but for now neither of them have suffered much. It might also help that I weigh 70 kg.

It's funny, but even though I used fanny packs a lot cross country skiing, and all the time during my photography career doing press type jobs, I actually don't like the way they feel.
This does depend on how much weight is in them, and with more weight and wearing them for significant hours at a time, I always tended to shift then around a lot. Moving it to the side put less strain on my back, especially with long photo jobs where I had usually three lenses in it and adjoining lens pouches, plus a heavy camera+flash around my neck or on shoulder.

So because of these experiences, I've never tried them riding, but strongly suspect I wouldn't like the sweaty feeling and weight and most likely the slow loosening of the strap (pretty to common with xc skiing, and also a sweaty lower back)

So true about the rabbit hole of choices! My husband has found it very entertaining watching me get everything configured. Some purchases ended up being returned - the first couple of frame bags did not fit properly. Then when I found one that fit, I had to change out my water bottle cages to be side-loading. I also bought some adapters to let me have them sit lower so they would clear the frame bag.

I think I finally have everything dialed in now. Doing an overnight trip this weekend before I do a 7 day trip next month. I refuse to add up how much all the gear has cost me. I still figure it is cheaper than therapy :lol:

Cheaper than therapy and a lot of other things.
Plus it gets us out and about, so that's a win win.

Last week I traveled for the first time with only a handlebar bag and a 10 liter seatbag, and yes I didn't have much weight, but I really noticed an aero difference and maybe up to 5kph faster often than comparing with two rear paniers sticking out the side, which I usually have for light rides.

A friend of mine used a fanny pack for all of his multi-hour day rides, he did not want to have a rack on his Trek 520.

I however do not want to wear any packs on a bike. I did White Rim trail several years ago with several friends that all wore backpacks. I however had a small Carradice saddle bag and handlebar bag on my bke. This was a truck supported trip where all we had to carry each day was our water and lunch.

I have friends that do not even want to have a pump on their bike, they carry a small pump in a jersey pocket.

Hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, fanny pack is the way I prefer. We all have our eccentricities.


Oops, missed that. Thanks.

I guess until I try a fanny pack riding, I'll never really know, but from never having things on my back or hips riding, I suspect I won't like the weight and or movement that would be felt with moving around on the bike--movement that decades of riding has me used to the feel of nothing there....

guess I'll just have to grab the fanny pack and try it one day with different weights and objects in it to really see......

Depends..... how long is your piece of string?

Loaded touring bikes would have 36-spoke wheels, but modern quality rims with 32 spokes will suffice for most.

28 spokes wouldn't be considered strong enough to carry loaded touring weights.

If you're carrying 20-25 pounds or so, and you're not density -challenged, probably ok.

I am a big fan of fanny packs for hiking and carrying camera gear. I also like one pretty well for carrying some stuff on the MTB on the trails. It keep the weight near your center of mass and moves with you. Back in the day I used to carry some heavy camera gear on technical trails and a fanny pack was a great way to go. I suspect I might go back to touring with one for more technical trails. That said I'll probably stick with a backpack for road touring or gravel roads.

An exception is one that is more of a waist wallet that hold my phone and wallet stuff. Amphipod makes a nice one of those. It is handy around town. I always used one when I was into trail running.

I also like the LowePro Sling pack for micro 4:3 camera gear, but wouldn't tour with it and do not even ride with it at all. Great for day hikes though.

Where I like fanny packs for hiking, cross county skiing, snowshoeing, I am upright. If I am leaning forward more like my posture on a bike, I would not want a tight belt strap around my stomach.

I think that the really skinny people are more inclined to like a fanny pack on a bike. The friend of mine that always used one, he was pretty skinny.

Do you mean the chain? It's 116 links

And this one? I must be missing some concepts here. Sorry I normally just push pedals until I get where I want :D

The executive summary: If you are not carrying a whole lot of gear and are not a heavy person 28 spokes might suffice.

This is the setup my wife used on a 74 day ride across the US. She used a pair of Ortlieb Sport Packer front panniers on the rear rack along with her camping gear on top the rack. She carried 25-30 lbs on a Cannondale T800 touring bike.
https://live.staticflickr.com/819/41...d4a10577_c.jpg

We used to go with lighter loads, and used custom made panniers on our road bikes. The panniers were built with enough taper on the front side to allow centering the panniers over the rear axle with no heel strike. We rode 25 mm tires on 32 spoke wheels, and carried our camping gear without any issues.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...420491d1_c.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3a5cb461_c.jpg

Have you looked at Bike24?
They have a good selection of touring forks

I found one, but it's "slanted" forward, while mine is straight. I don't know how that would feel when pedaling (though I probably won't even notice it, based on my general insensibility to the nuances of sport equipment).

There are 3 measurements to consider in fork replacement. Length (wheel size), hub width and rake.
The rake is the distance the fork bends outward. Also called offset or forward. Even if your forks looks straight it will have rake, usually between 40mm-50mm
Hopefully, the rake is written somewhere on the fork. If not there are references online, how to measure rake. A few mms will not change handling a lot, but may be noticeable.

Of course, don't forget about brake placement and such.
oops, forgot to mention to ensure the steerer tube is compatible with your frame. Tube diameter, headset and axle type (quick release, thru axle)
Cheers

One more critical length. The length from the axle to the headset race length is part of the geometry that the frame designer designed the bike for. Ideally this should be the same distance, but a small difference of a few mm won't impair things too much. I am not a frame designer or builder, so I can't comment further. Maybe someone that knows this stuff better could comment on how a longer or shorter axle to crown race length changes things.

And one less critical number, width for tire. You would NOT want to get a fork that was designed for only skinny tire width if you wanted wider tires. One of my bikes maxes out at 28mm, I can't even fit a fender in that fork.

I've never worked with carbon, but it would seem that one could put a little hard point on, and mount to that. Epoxy likes to stick to epoxy, and adding a little glass and resin to a fork should be less than 8 oz. Or am I overlooking something vital?

That little hard point that you are adding by itself is not the problem, it is the extra stresses that are added to the fork by whatever mass you add to that hard point.

The fork in the photo that is hard to see because most of it is behind a pannier is a carbon fork that is extra strong because it has the extra strength built in for the rack and panniers. And if he crashes, the stress from the impact to the rack and rack mounts on the fork.

A friend of mine got that fork so that he could add panniers to his touring bike.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...d63ee738e5.jpg

I'll be the oddball saying you are likely fine clamping to the fork with pclamps as long as you keep the pressure light. Most of the weight will be on the skewers/through axels which are designed to handle weight.

I recently cut up a carbon seatpost I that was slightly damaged by overtightening the seatclamp (or years of use and slight movement). I was surprised just how much effort it took to bend the post in half. I think I had to get to 1/4 of the diameter left before I could hear the crunching of carbon as I bent it. I believe at 1/8 I was able to break it by bending it in half. That is obviously not a scientific test and its comparing to a part meant to handle compression forces, but I think the worry over compressing a carbon fork is likely overblown. Forks are designed to handle a lot of forces, especially the torque of the lever arm (the fork) hitting the road. This in itself is a type of compressive force along the length of the fork.

i do wish more road bikes had rack eyelets though. best of luck.

Symox, you should read up on how in Motorsport, cf is used as suspension parts in formula 1--can take huge loads in one direction from cornering and braking....YET... The same part can crack from a simple lean on it by a mechanic, putting a small force into the cf in a way it was not designed

That is a good point
thanks

the main point is to be very aware of how cf parts are made and designed to take forces. Its unfortunately quite common to hear of damage to bicycle cf steerer tubes, handlebars etc getting cracked from inappropriate over tightening of stuff.

its everyones responsibility if they own cf bike parts to be aware of this

or not, its their stuff.....

Some carbon bike manufacturers caution against sitting on the top tube.