Backpacking and gravel bikes - what am I missing?

[TodmordenLad]

When I look at pictures of so called gravel bikes - as per the attached - loaded up with "backpacking" luggage, they look positively unstable to me. All the weight is high up on the bike, contradicting the basic laws of physics regarding centre of gravity. Whatever happened to good old, common sense panniers on relatively low mounted front and rear pannier racks!? Is this newish trend basically marketing tosh? Could someone put me right if I've got it all wrong? Thanks

[PH]

I consider Bikepacking to be a reinvention of touring, with a different twist, by the younger generation of cyclists.  We should celebrate that. Not only has it got more people cycling, even the most ardent traditionalist can benefit from the equipment improvements that have been developed for the expanding market.
If it's not for you, if you don't get it, if you consider it just fashion, then best to walk on by.  No one is telling you that you have to adapt, there's isn't going to be a reduced choice of racks and panniers in our lifetimes, it needn't negatively effect anyone in any way.
If you want to understand why - The core interest comes from a road riding background and is an evolution of that, where weight has always been considered important.  Modern materials vastly reduce the weight that needs to be carried.  Aerodynamics are seen as more important to this group than minor issues of weight placement.  Part of the appeal is to ride tracks where any protruding luggage may be a disadvantage. Modern lifestyles means it more likely that people will get away for weekends, maybe extended weekends, rather than weeks at a time. 
And fashion, it isn't the sole reason, but it isn't to be dismissed either.  People want to fit in, they want to be like their mates, they want to belong to a recognised group.  Some of it is quite laughable, those who mocked any sprocket over 25 now boast they can fit a 40, all that dorky luggage of the 80's is now available in cycling boutiques, riders searching out the rough stuff that was there when they were addicted to smooth Tarmac.... But fashion has always been with us, whatever branch of cycling you ride, Audax and touring had there own look and must have equipment thirty years ago, I went along with it, for the same reasons people buy into the new style.

All the weight is high up on the bike, contradicting the basic laws of physics regarding centre of gravity.

Ignoring that the vast majority of weight carried by a bike is the rider on the saddle.  The traditional way to carry lightweight kit, even camping kit, was a transverse saddlebag.  There's a reason Carradice's larger bag is called the "Camper".  We could argue there's nothing new, but it's splitting hairs whether the same thing done differently is old or new.  On a practical level, if I'm touring on a lightweight bike, not adding the weight of a rack and pannier is an advantage. 

[TodmordenLad]

I consider Bikepacking to be a reinvention of touring, with a different twist, by the younger generation of cyclists.  We should celebrate that. Not only has it got more people cycling, even the most ardent traditionalist can benefit from the equipment improvements that have been developed for the expanding market.
If it's not for you, if you don't get it, if you consider it just fashion, then best to walk on by.  No one is telling you that you have to adapt, there's isn't going to be a reduced choice of racks and panniers in our lifetimes, it needn't negatively effect anyone in any way.
If you want to understand why - The core interest comes from a road riding background and is an evolution of that, where weight has always been considered important.  Modern materials vastly reduce the weight that needs to be carried.  Aerodynamics are seen as more important to this group than minor issues of weight placement.  Part of the appeal is to ride tracks where any protruding luggage may be a disadvantage. Modern lifestyles means it more likely that people will get away for weekends, maybe extended weekends, rather than weeks at a time. 
And fashion, it isn't the sole reason, but it isn't to be dismissed either.  People want to fit in, they want to be like their mates, they want to belong to a recognised group.  Some of it is quite laughable, those who mocked any sprocket over 25 now boast they can fit a 40, all that dorky luggage of the 80's is now available in cycling boutiques, riders searching out the rough stuff that was there when they were addicted to smooth Tarmac.... But fashion has always been with us, whatever branch of cycling you ride, Audax and touring had there own look and must have equipment thirty years ago, I went along with it, for the same reasons people buy into the new style.

All the weight is high up on the bike, contradicting the basic laws of physics regarding centre of gravity.

Ignoring that the vast majority of weight carried by a bike is the rider on the saddle.  The traditional way to carry lightweight kit, even camping kit, was a transverse saddlebag.  There's a reason Carradice's larger bag is called the "Camper".  We could argue there's nothing new, but it's splitting hairs whether the same thing done differently is old or new.  On a practical level, if I'm touring on a lightweight bike, not adding the weight of a rack and pannier is an advantage.

Interesting points you make there, PH, although i think you misunderstood my post as a pop at gravel bikes, which it wasnt. They dont do anything for me personally, however, but as the owner of more than one bike, Ive nothing against having different bikes for different purposes, naturally. I was actually querying the design of bikepacking luggage - which you see most often on gravel bikes - and specifically, where it gets located on the bike. Still seems daft to me. But hey ho, etto.

[mickeg]

When I look at pictures of so called gravel bikes - as per the attached - loaded up with "backpacking" luggage, they look positively unstable to me. All the weight is high up on the bike, contradicting the basic laws of physics regarding centre of gravity. Whatever happened to good old, common sense panniers on relatively low mounted front and rear pannier racks!? Is this newish trend basically marketing tosh? Could someone put me right if I've got it all wrong? Thanks

I assume you meant bikepacking, not backpacking.

I think the early "bikepackers" were all on mountain bikes and trying to carry enough gear to sleep in the wild, without racks, etc.  A lot of mountain bikes lack rack mounts.

Some people say that "bikepacking" has to be done off-road.  Some (including me) think of "bikepacking" to be using minimalist luggage on a bike with no racks, whether you are on or off roads.

But now we see some of the "bikepackers" are using small racks too, which adds confusion to the destinction.  And most bikepackers I see are wearing a backpack because they could not get all their gear onto their bike, but I never wear a backpack when on a bike, I want my luggage on the bike instead.

The total weight and volume carried is the big difference.  Most "bikepackers" have less than roughly 50 liters from what I have seen.  That 50 liter distinction is mine, I have not read of any clear distinction from others.  But I think if you have a pair of rear panniers and a handlebar bag, you are at about 50 liters, then add rack top bag and maybe front panniers and you clearly then are up in the bike touring volume range.

Example, the first two photos attached are of bikes I saw on my bike tour in Iceland in 2016.  That is bikepacking gear.  In this case they were on road bikes with no racks, specifically Ritchey Break Away bikes that allowed them to carry their bikes on an airplane without paying an oversize fee.  And all their gear including their bikes only needed per person one checked bag along with their carry on bag and personal item.   

I personally need a lot more gear than that to enjoy myself on a trip, but for that couple that were staying on roads in Iceland, they really were enjoying themselves for two weeks even though they had almost no gear with them.

Regarding the new "gravel" bikes.  That is marketing.  The bike companies were looking to create a new type of bike that people would theoretically need to have.  And it appears to have worked.  They have sold a lot of new bikes.

I slowly am developing another distiction between touring and bikepacking.  The bikepackers that I have seen were usually out for no more than about four days, or if longer they always re-supplied every few days.  The point is that with that small amount of luggage, they can't carry enough food, stove fuel, etc., to last more than a few days.  But bike touring, it is common to be able to have resupply intervals that are a week or more apart. 

When I go camping, I usually carry almost 0.9kg per day for weight of food, that often takes more than one liter of volume per day, unless I am really skimping on supplies.  And sometimes I carry up to 1.5 liters per day for food.  But bike touring, I might carry a lot more volume of food for things like baked goods because I have the room for it.  And I might even buy a lot of canned food which is heavy too.  Bikepackers would have to avoid that.

Third photo is my bike from my last bike tour.  The 31 liter rack pack in back varied from almost empty to completely full, depending on how many days it had been since I was grocery shopping.  A bikepacker can't do that, but they don't want to carry that much weight either.

[WorldTourer]

I started off on a conventional touring bike with front and rear panniers, but over time have adopted various “bikepacking”-inspired approaches. Yes, a lot of the industry is fad-driven and not a real improvement. But the advantages of some developments have been enormous for me personally:

Putting the heaviest stuff into a frame bag makes a noticeable difference for stability and comfort regardless of how high other luggage is.

Fork bags and a handlebar pack, higher up than front lowrider panniers, let one ride routes that have a lot of rubble that would scratch lowriders, or involve numerous water crossings.

Tubeless tires let you more easily ride routes that are over thorns for days and days.

The offroad routes across Baja, Iceland, or Patagonia are justly popular now, they beat riding the paved roads with all their traffic, but they call for some different gear than is associated with the word “touring”.

Besides myself, if you look at some famous Thorn owners from circa 2010 who stayed in the bicycle-travel world over the subsequent years, like Neil & Harriet Pike or Peter Gostelow,  they, too, made these same changes. It’s not just a young-person thing.

The bikepackers that I have seen were usually out for no more than about four days, or if longer they always re-supplied every few days.

There are numerous popular “bikepacking” routes that are many weeks long, and with resupply points potentially weeks apart. I don’t think this is a meaningful distinction.

[TodmordenLad]

When I look at pictures of so called gravel bikes - as per the attached - loaded up with "backpacking" luggage, they look positively unstable to me. All the weight is high up on the bike, contradicting the basic laws of physics regarding centre of gravity. Whatever happened to good old, common sense panniers on relatively low mounted front and rear pannier racks!? Is this newish trend basically marketing tosh? Could someone put me right if I've got it all wrong? Thanks

I assume you meant bikepacking, not backpacking.

I think the early "bikepackers" were all on mountain bikes and trying to carry enough gear to sleep in the wild, without racks, etc.  A lot of mountain bikes lack rack mounts.

Some people say that "bikepacking" has to be done off-road.  Some (including me) think of "bikepacking" to be using minimalist luggage on a bike with no racks, whether you are on or off roads.

But now we see some of the "bikepackers" are using small racks too, which adds confusion to the destinction.  And most bikepackers I see are wearing a backpack because they could not get all their gear onto their bike, but I never wear a backpack when on a bike, I want my luggage on the bike instead.

The total weight and volume carried is the big difference.  Most "bikepackers" have less than roughly 50 liters from what I have seen.  That 50 liter distinction is mine, I have not read of any clear distinction from others.  But I think if you have a pair of rear panniers and a handlebar bag, you are at about 50 liters, then add rack top bag and maybe front panniers and you clearly then are up in the bike touring volume range.

Example, the first two photos attached are of bikes I saw on my bike tour in Iceland in 2016.  That is bikepacking gear.  In this case they were on road bikes with no racks, specifically Ritchey Break Away bikes that allowed them to carry their bikes on an airplane without paying an oversize fee.  And all their gear including their bikes only needed per person one checked bag along with their carry on bag and personal item.   

I personally need a lot more gear than that to enjoy myself on a trip, but for that couple that were staying on roads in Iceland, they really were enjoying themselves for two weeks even though they had almost no gear with them.

Regarding the new "gravel" bikes.  That is marketing.  The bike companies were looking to create a new type of bike that people would theoretically need to have.  And it appears to have worked.  They have sold a lot of new bikes.

I slowly am developing another distiction between touring and bikepacking.  The bikepackers that I have seen were usually out for no more than about four days, or if longer they always re-supplied every few days.  The point is that with that small amount of luggage, they can't carry enough food, stove fuel, etc., to last more than a few days.  But bike touring, it is common to be able to have resupply intervals that are a week or more apart. 

When I go camping, I usually carry almost 0.9kg per day for weight of food, that often takes more than one liter of volume per day, unless I am really skimping on supplies.  And sometimes I carry up to 1.5 liters per day for food.  But bike touring, I might carry a lot more volume of food for things like baked goods because I have the room for it.  And I might even buy a lot of canned food which is heavy too.  Bikepackers would have to avoid that.

Third photo is my bike from my last bike tour.  The 31 liter rack pack in back varied from almost empty to completely full, depending on how many days it had been since I was grocery shopping.  A bikepacker can't do that, but they don't want to carry that much weight either.

Great feedback, thanks - and I like the bike in picture No 3!

[TodmordenLad]

I started off on a conventional touring bike with front and rear panniers, but over time have adopted various “bikepacking”-inspired approaches. Yes, a lot of the industry is fad-driven and not a real improvement. But the advantages of some developments have been enormous for me personally:

Putting the heaviest stuff into a frame bag makes a noticeable difference for stability and comfort regardless of how high other luggage is.

Fork bags and a handlebar pack, higher up than front lowrider panniers, let one ride routes that have a lot of rubble that would scratch lowriders, or involve numerous water crossings.

Tubeless tires let you more easily ride routes that are over thorns for days and days.

The offroad routes across Baja, Iceland, or Patagonia are justly popular now, they beat riding the paved roads with all their traffic, but they call for some different gear than is associated with the word “touring”.

Besides myself, if you look at some famous Thorn owners from circa 2010 who stayed in the bicycle-travel world over the subsequent years, like Neil & Harriet Pike or Peter Gostelow,  they, too, made these same changes. It’s not just a young-person thing.

The bikepackers that I have seen were usually out for no more than about four days, or if longer they always re-supplied every few days.

There are numerous popular “bikepacking” routes that are many weeks long, and with resupply points potentially weeks apart. I don’t think this is a meaningful distinction.

Thanks for the feedback