Originally Posted by tmotten (Post 421636)

I'm a big fan of the concept idea behind the original bag (I've got 2 myself) but am wondering why you guys never took a few variations further. I understand the cost involved with making lots of different templates on this but I think there is certainly a market for at least one variation of the coyote, which would be more aimed on the growing minimalist overlander crowd.

A lot of people find the great basin way to big up high whilst the coyote looks like it could be optimised with more internal space down low. This could then be used carrying the additional fuel and water that a lot of people struggle width. Commonly this gets strapped up high with a bladder or other container, but this is far from ideal.

I understand that the height that the sides of the coyote finish at is so it is compatible with as many bikes as possible. Is this correct?

But I struggle to think of a bike that has something in the location directly below the bag as it is now that stops is coming down further to pillion peg height. A bit like the new panniers seem to do. The leg space that a pillion would take could be utilized I think.

Below is a real crappy photoshop attempt to explain it a bit. Ideally the bottom could be a bit squarer to allow for a few standard side bladders like a 6l dromedary to lie just above the pillion peg horizontally. It wouldn't be to hard for someone like liquid containment to make and market a bladder in the same size.

Are there any plans to make an in between bag to fit an medium sized bag for small overland bikes to sit between the big bike giant basin and siskiyou and the weekend trail ride coyote?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...8883_photo.jpg

Originally Posted by tmotten (Post 424833)

Personally I feel 60l is a bit to inviting to fill up beyond essentials. A better volume for remote long distance riding would be closer to 40-45l which might be achieved when using that space behind the legs. Similar to conventional saddle bags.

Either way, it's still using something in a way that it's not designed for.

Originally Posted by tmotten (Post 424904)

When the coyote was first released as the giant loop is was to suit small-mid bore trail and enduro bikes. Giving enough capacity for a few nights out, but in a way that wouldn't, or only marginally, affect the weight distribution and therefore the riding performance/ experience of a lightweight bike. Achieved by not needing racks and only providing 30l of space located close to the rider body.

My understanding is that the big bore crowd wanted something like that, but bigger with a similar capacity to conventional bags. Thus the basin was made.

This is not the type of use that I'm eluding to. I've used the coyote on week trips (no camping) fully packed on a DRZ full of beach, sand tracks and single trail mountain rides and, when used to the different feel of the added weight, if did feel like it was part of the bike. So much that you forget it's there when you try to dismount. doh

If you look at the suggested packing list on the GL blog though you notice a few items missing, which you would take on a big trip. Like a clothes bag with spare clothes for around town, or a few litres of camping water, etc.

The basin would work, but it's not designed for small-mid bore bikes with narrow seats so it's a compromise. There is also too much capacity up high. On a big heavy bike you probably won't notice. But on a small one you are more likely to tell the difference similar to comparing moving from a coyote to a duffle bag on the seat with equal weight.

Sure, you can get by and get used to it. But why be satisfied with that. GL wouldn't have developed the coyote if they took that approach.

Originally Posted by OlafofOregon (Post 426400)

As you point out, lowering weight distribution when packing makes a significant, noticeable, positive impact on the loaded bike's handling. The tricker bit is the lack of structure low on an enduro bike, and the weight reduction and positioning advantages of Giant Loop's rackless concept more than make up for the lightweight bulky things packed above seat height.:thumbup1:

Originally Posted by tmotten (Post 426546)

Not quite.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...ceptSide01.jpg

This image shows that the Coyote is far from low and way to small for the purpose of the type of riding typically discussed on this forum. I wouldn't even consider the Basin because it takes the Coyote template and builts up, not down from there. In either case a lightweight rack or shield with a conventional saddle bag would be far more suitable.

I've drawn this up to prove to myself that your philosophy can be applied to achieve the ultimate system, which I think is a rackless horse shoe bag in a sufficient size. With a bit of security in it if possible, which I think is easily done with a horseshoe shape. I've got a few ideas on it if you're interested (PM only).

I was actually surprised how much volume this yields. A stiff base on the bag as with the Coyote, along with compression straps (which curls the bag off the exhaust like the Coyote), heat shield (like the Coyote) and the pillion peg should be sufficient. I've actually cut a base template to further convince me of this.

I was disappointed to see GL move away from this shape and philosophy and move into conventional saddle bag....

Originally Posted by realmc26 (Post 426559)

Maybe your coming from the point of view of a hard core offroader but I'm guessing the reality for most RTW or long distance riders is that most of that journey will be on tarmac and reasonably maintained dirt roads.

Originally Posted by tmotten (Post 426546)

I was disappointed to see GL move away from this shape and philosophy and move into conventional saddle bag....

Originally Posted by tmotten (Post 426546)

Not quite.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p...ceptSide01.jpg