spinnaker

Reading some of the comments in the "homeless" thread, made me think about the people that do more extended tours. I am curious if people that do more extended tours are concerned about their future? Along with some other questions.


I can see if you are young and plan on spending a few years seeing the world then head off and start your career but there are some folks that are a bit older. ar you not worried about having money in your old age? I am an older male with not family or real ties. If I sold everything and lived very simply on tour I would have plenty of money to last several years but I worry about what to do about providing for myself later in life.


Also don't you get bored on tour? I have other interests at home that I could not participate on an extended tour. First there are my friends. We all go sailing together from time to time. I enjoy dabbling with electronic design and building projects and designing various software applications that might get my interest. I doubt I would be able to participate in many of these on tour.

Then there is the comfort of my nice, warm and dry home. If I wanted to do an extended tour, the only way I could afford to do it is to camp most of the time which I imagine is true for most extended tourers.

Any thoughts on these items?

Machka 

The longest tour I've ever done was Rowan's and my very recent RTW tour, and that was 8 months ... although, in a way, it's still sort of tapering off.

Prior to that, I have also done a 3 month tour.

In both cases, I ended my employment, packed everything into storage, and set off.

(And I've done a lot of other travelling and moving and living in non-traditional conditions (like living for a year completely off the grid in a shack in the hills) and doing non-traditional things (like returning to Uni full-time in my late 30s))


As for your questions:

1) Yes, we do think about the future. And we make plans for it. One of the things that both Rowan and I have done is to continually acquire further education and experience in a variety of areas.

2) No, I don't get bored on tour. I get bored if I stay in one place too long, and especially if I'm not out exploring the area around that place.

3) Because our extended tours aren't more than a year, and have gaps of a few years between them, there's a good mix of home activities and touring.

4) Regarding the nice, warm, dry home ... it wasn't those features that we missed because you can find "nice", "warm" and "dry" in hostels, hotels, B&Bs and all sorts of places ... what we missed, from time to time, was having a place of our own, where we could make our own decisions. And when I felt "homesick" it wasn't for a particular house, or particular location ... it was for my sofa.

staehpj1

What do you consider an extended tour? I am not sure if anything that I have done or would be likely to do would qualify. For me, I find that 3-6 months is about as extended as I currently have any interest in ever doing.

That said... I wouldn't worry any more about the future than I already do. I figure that I am retired and can tour as cheap as I can live at home. If I didn't have a wife, house, and dog that would be even more true.

spinnaker

Anything long enough that would require that you quit your job.

staehpj1

Ah OK. In that case I came close with the TA. I told them what I was doing and asked if I would have a job when I got back. They said yes so the trip didn't qualify

Cyclebum

No need to tour worried about your future. Would be no fun.

I don't get bored on tour. I get homesick after about a month. Then I go home.

fietsbob

I'm already 38 years older than Jimi Hendrix.


See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27_Club

jeffpoulin

???

Jimi Hendrix was born in 1942, which means you must be at least 108!! Or do you mean 38 years older than he was when he died?

chasm54

Impossible to get bored on tour, it seems to me. To misquote Samuel Johnson, if you're tired of touring, you're tired of life.

AlanK

It's a good, valid subject to bring up. I'm 42, and my mom is 70. She has lupus and diabetes, so her life expectancy is probably about 80. After she passes away, I'm going to sit down and take a hard look at my finances.

I currently work in the public sector and have a definied pension available when I'm 65. With what I have in my IRAs and the inheritance from my mom, it might be possible to retire in my early 50s. If that's possible, I'd like to spend about a decade as a bike nomad before I settle into a more comfortable permanent retirement.

I've always had a strong sense of wonderlust, so I think I'd really enjoy spending 50s as a vagabond. In my 60s, I think I'll be too old, and would prefer to a more comfortable (but modest) retirement.

At this point it's all just dreaming, though...

chasm54

Madness. I'm 58. I'm fitter than I have been in 30 years, and I see no reason to suppose that I will deteriorate significantly in the next 10-15 years. Keep riding, and you will find that you can keep riding.

staehpj1

Really? I guess it depends on what you want to do and what kind of shape you are in, but being in your 60's shouldn't rule out much of anything. I personally know people doing long tours and thru hikes well into their 70's and I am sure some do into their 80's. I am almost 62 and think I have quite a few more coast to coast tours in me and don't see why I couldn't do more extended tours if I wanted to.

bikenh

Grover Everett got hit and killed last November in a car/bike accident in central Illinois. He was 71 years old. If he wouldn't have been killed last year would have been his 3 year, at least, where he rode at least 16,000 miles in a year. He was on target for over 18,000 miles.

The only reason you grow old and tired is because you grow tired of being young and you decide you can't keep going anymore because of your age.

Learn how to reduce your expenses and then you can get by on next to nothing and keep riding forever. The first step is to learn how to reduce what you think you need to get by/survive. Instead of spending every night in motel/hotel, camp out and see you don't need a building to spend the night in. That right there will reduce you trip expenses dramatically. Next, give up on the camp ground and learn to look around at all the potential places to camp out. Now you don't have to spend money on where you live each night. That saves you even more money.

The reason most people spend so much money on bike trips is because they never learnt how to ruff it. Ruff it and you'll learn it doesn't take much to enjoy many months on the road travelling across the country/world.

chasm54

Sure. I agree. But there are also plenty of older people with the resources to do credit-card touring, who are deterred because they think they are too old.

It's a great pity. I'm in pretty good shape for my age, but there are riders in their seventies who can smoke me, any time. And they tour for fantastic distances in fabulous locations. Some do it cheap, some don't. They all have a tremendous, life-affirming, time.

fietsbob

Herr Stuke is still going , you might ask him, he has a website. of course someone else must be hosting it.

maybe the Greman State pension still covers him, IDK ..

ian Hibbel died in the saddle, in Greece, on the road .. struck by a car.

andrewclaus

I know an older traveler (65+) who actually saves money when he's on tour, which is about five months per year. He has a good pension, sold his house, rents a room from a friend and only pays rent when he's there. His situation is unusual, but it works for him and he carefully set things up that way. I know another younger (50-ish) guy who's been on his bike for three years and only spends about US$5,000 per year. He's unusual too.

My extended tours have been for three to five months. I worked very hard and set up my career, lifestyle, and home situation to be able to do that. I lose work and clients when I go, and it takes a while to get busy again, but for me it's worth it.

No, I'm never bored on tour. Quite the opposite. When I'm in my comfortable home for more than few months, I get itchy feet. Everyone's different and has different reasons and ways to travel. Or not.

AlanK

It seems to me there are two possibilities:

1) Like someone such as Nolan Ryan, you are a genetic freak (in a good way ). There are some persons who age remarkably well and remain remarkably vital and healthy well later in life. If you are such a person, congrats.

2) You're highly delusional. No matter how well you take care of yourself, for most of us, physical ability declines steadily after our mid-30s. This isn't to say we can't remain healthy as we age, only that we can't do the same things in our 60s that we could in our 30s.

I'm 42, and now take far better care of myself than when I was 25. I eat healthy, exercise regularly, and usually get adaquate sleep. That said, physically I am not the same person I was at age 25: I don't have the energy, stamina, motivation, or ambition I did back then.

As I said, some people age remarkably well, but for most of us, our verve gradually declines as we age.

indyfabz

I crossed the country in '99 with a group of 13. The strongest rider was 60. He rode a full suspension MTB (Some back issue from riding a motorcycle for 30 years as a member of the CHiP) towing a B.O.B. with A LOT of weight. His original tent had been made by his wife a long time before. It was so big we called it "The Condo." The zipper crapped out in mosquito country so he downsized to a 8.5 lb. tent.

The oldest participant was 77. He turned 78 during the trip.

I was 34. My downsizing was pretty much inevitable as the result of a merger since there was no way I was going to move the either headquaters of the companies that were taking us over and splitting us up. I asked to be let go relatively early so I could take the trip. Fortunately, we got all sorts of financial goodies during the years leading up to the final aquisition and upon being terminated. I saved money and lived frugally while the merger wound its way throught he approval process. In the end, I was able to not have to ook for work between May of '99 and October of '01. (No. I didn't take one cent of unemployment money.) During that time, I took three long tours. When not touring, I pursued other hobbies and saw a lot of cheap afternoon movies. I never got bored.

I wasn't too worried about the future, I had purposefully structured my life to give me flexibility. As soon as I got done with school, I paid off my student loans early instead of spending money on luxuries. I bought a modest car to share with my mom and paid that off early. I didn't live in a dump, but niether did I live in a luxury apartment. No wife. No kids. No mortgage. I stupidly thought that what I really wanted to do in life would come to me while cycling along some beautiful mountain road. That never happened. Reality eventually set in and I started looking for work after some 18 months off.

In a crazy twist of fate, I basically got my old job back exactly two years after I had been laid off. I have been there since. I would love to take off again today, but I now have a mortgage. Because of my age and tenure, and loosing a paycheck aside, the retirement benefits I am accruing counsels in favor of staying at least another seven years, until age 55. If all goes well, the house will be paid off in antoher 3.5 years or less, allowing me to augment my savings. Hopefully, I will be able to at least semi-retire at 55. At age 60, there won't be much more to gain benefit-wise so I doubt I will stay past then. Then again, I could get hit by a bus riding home today.

andrewclaus

The perspective may depend on the activity. Older folks may excel at marathons, bike touring, long distance hiking.

I'm in my late fifties and though I've changed activities, I feel as fit for my chosen activities as I was in my twenties. In some cases, decades of experience allow me to do them better (and longer). I choose not to dwell on the fact that I'm not going to be sliding into third anymore, and it's been a while since I played rugby. What was that about verve? (Nice word.)

pdlamb

Hooray, I must be a freak! 15 years ago I weighed 50 pounds more than I do today. 15 years ago I managed a 12 mile bike ride by the end of the summer -- I've finished a couple of 200k brevets so far this year.

Physical ability declines with age, but for people who remain physically active, it doesn't decline very fast.

staehpj1

Also you don't have to be a great athlete to ride a bicycle long distances. I know that my dad was still doing century rides in his late 70's despite the fact that he was never a competitive athlete at any point in his life.

Me, I am almost 62 and have been trail running over 40 miles per week lately. I am not fast and don't consider myself an athlete, but I can run 15 miles before breakfast if I choose to and definitely plan to do more long bike tours and backpacking trips.

SuperTrouper

Though I've never done an extended tour, it's something I'd like to do. As to your question about having money your old age, my justification is that you're going to stop working at some point and have to live off the money you've saved up. Why not "retire" for one year when you're younger, whether you're 25, 35, 45, or whatever? You'll probably get as much, if not more, enjoyment from that one year sabbatical than when you "really" retire.

You'll miss out on some income and even if you work an extra year you'll lose on the time-value of money. But life is about more than having money in your old age. "You can't take it with you", they say.

chasm54

I don't think I'm delusional, and I'm certainly not a genetic freak - though I am probably more fortunate than most, in that all my relations on both sides of my family have lived into their late eighties or nineties in reasonable health.

Of course physical potential declines with age. I'm not as fast now as I could have been at thirty. But I am faster than I actually was at thirty, because I train more, and more systematically, than I did then. I'm not as explosive or elastic as I was then, but aerobically I am fitter.

Most of the estimates of how fast people decline physically are based on studies of the general population. And the general population tend to get more sedentary, and more overweight, as they age. They don't expect to be able to do the things they could do when they were younger, and those low expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who decide to stay as active as they were, tend to age more slowly. There are studies showing that people who regularly take strenuous exercise both live longer, and retain more of their full function into old age, than those who are less active. To an extent, in choosing to slow down, we are choosing to get older faster than we need to.

Machka 

First of all, you're speaking from the perspective of someone who is only 42. There was a time when I was in my teens and early 20s that I figured I had to do everything I wanted to do by the time I was 40, because once I hit 40 I wouldn't have the energy to do anything anymore. Of course, as I got older, I pushed that limit out further and further. Now I'm watching my parents who are in their 70s and seeing how active they still are (both are still out cycling), and I'm thinking that maybe 80 or 90 or 100 is the new limit.

Second, physical ability does not necessarily steadily decline after our mid-30s. There are many people who are stronger and healthier as they get older than they were in their mid-30s ... especially if they keep up the physical activity.


I think the reason that some people decline after their mid-30s is because they let "life" take over ... long hours at work, often sitting in front of a computer, shuttling the kids around, etc. etc., and they don't take the time to keep themselves strong and healthy.


Really, 60 isn't that old anymore ... not unless you let it be.

Machka 

+1


One of the motivations we've had for taking time out earlier in life, rather than waiting for some nebulous retirement date, is because we have known people who have worked, and worked, and worked all life long, and who finally decided to take some time off ... and then something happened (usually a medical situation), and they couldn't go and do what they said they always wanted to do.