How to rationally determine the cost of a pound?
#126
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
2) Are you suggesting that the situation is simply this ...
If the bicycle weighs 20 lbs ... and you can cycle 20 km/h ...
Then if the bicycle weighs 120 lbs ... you should be able to slow down to compensate for that weight?
And if the bicycle weighs 20 lbs ... and you can cycle up a 6% grade hill at 8 km/h ...
Then if the bicycle weighs 120 lbs ... you should be able to slow down to compensate for that weight?
If that is what you're suggesting, I'd question how slow you're prepared to go.
If the bicycle weighs 20 lbs ... and you can cycle 20 km/h ...
Then if the bicycle weighs 120 lbs ... you should be able to slow down to compensate for that weight?
And if the bicycle weighs 20 lbs ... and you can cycle up a 6% grade hill at 8 km/h ...
Then if the bicycle weighs 120 lbs ... you should be able to slow down to compensate for that weight?
If that is what you're suggesting, I'd question how slow you're prepared to go.
But as I also mentioned on the original post, my weight vs. speed questions that started this thread are not meant to address the boundary conditions. There's a lot of room to go when increasing a load beyond 20 pounds, before you reach the 120 pound mark (as an example of a load that pushes practical limits on certain terrain). It is this domain that has been my focus.
I recently took a three week trip loaded with 80 lbs. of gear. I had a few long 7% grade climbs where I found first gear and I hugged the lower limit of my speed (3.5 mph). There were some steeper but shorter climbs where I walked. I got by with about 300 yards of walking during 1200 miles of touring. I probably could have avoided walking at all if my load had been half as much. But the trip was very practical to me - I don't mind walking that short distance to have the benefit I received from covering contingencies and/or personally enjoyable items.
#127
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
I recently took a three week trip loaded with 80 lbs. of gear. I had a few long 7% grade climbs where I found first gear and I hugged the lower limit of my speed (3.5 mph). There were some steeper but shorter climbs where I walked. I got by with about 300 yards of walking during 1200 miles of touring. I probably could have avoided walking at all if my load had been half as much. But the trip was very practical to me - I don't mind walking that short distance to have the benefit I received from covering contingencies and/or personally enjoyable items.
But for me, if I rode with 120 lbs (bicycle + gear), I could hardly move the bicycle on any surface more than about 0.5% grade.
A few other things ...
What about gears? How do they factor into the formulas? I've finally got a gear setup that allows me to get what little I bring up small hills. But with some of my earlier gearing combinations, I've been off and walking while others are happily spinning away?
Also, what about fitness? When I was at the peak of my fitness, I could tackle some fairly decent hills. But now, I can barely tackle a gradual incline with my lightest bicycles.
And on the topic of fitness and strength ... Rowan is a much better hill climber than I am. If you were to load the two of us up with the same load, he would arrive at the top of a hill long before I would.
Do the mathematical calculations take all that into consideration?
Incidentally, one of the "formulas" I've read in the past is that a cycletourist should be able to lift their bicycle, complete with gear, and walk 20 or 30 metres carrying it. I believe the idea was that if a cycletourist could carry their bicycle (and gear) a short distance, they could handle pushing it up hills, lifting it over things if necessary, and also hauling it through airports and train stations.
That piece of advice helped me settle on the half my body weight limitation. I can lift and carry half my body weight over a short distance ... more than that is difficult for me.
But for me, there's a whole lot more that goes into my packing decisions than just a mathematical calculation indicating whether or not I should be able to ride with a load of a particular weight.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Last edited by Machka; 12-26-13 at 08:27 AM.
#128
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
And on the topic of fitness and strength ... Rowan is a much better hill climber than I am. If you were to load the two of us up with the same load, he would arrive at the top of a hill long before I would.
Do the mathematical calculations take all that into consideration?
Do the mathematical calculations take all that into consideration?
Any sensible plan will not include predicting a speed that's slower than you're actually willing to go. My focus with this thread has been to evaluate how much one needs to slow down based on a given weight, with the assumption that my intuition about that might be wrong. For example, when accelerating I can very much feel the impact of adding weight. That can send a signal from my legs to my brain that makes me feel like "man, this thing is a beast! how will I go 1000 miles like this!". But by realizing that acceleration is impacted more than the resistance at speed, I can put that at bay some and give the real impact a chance to surface by knowing that acceleration is a small part of the journey.
Incidentally, one of the "formulas" I've read in the past is that a cycletourist should be able to lift their bicycle, complete with gear, and walk 20 or 30 metres carrying it. I believe the idea was that if a cycletourist could carry their bicycle (and gear) a short distance, they could handle pushing it up hills, and also hauling it through airports and train stations.
#130
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
I just said "if" we were to carry the same load ... in reality, he carries a bit more (the tent, the cookware).
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#131
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't go "ultralight", but I have certainly tried to go lighter. On my first cross country ride in 1986 my bike probably weighed close to 100 pounds (I wish I weighed it before I left). On my 2012 Alaska Highway ride my total weight, including the bike, all the camping gear, all my clothes, (everything from the ground up) was 48 pounds. Food and water added to this total.
It might be psychological, but I definitely notice the difference on climbs. Flats not so much and downhills are the same. One big difference is that I can lift the loaded bike over a fence or easily carry it on my shoulder when I have to hoof it into the woods at night.
After every tour I analyze my stuff and see if I can use something lighter or get rid of an item completely. On the Alaska trip there really wasn't anything that I didn't bring that I wished I had.
It might be psychological, but I definitely notice the difference on climbs. Flats not so much and downhills are the same. One big difference is that I can lift the loaded bike over a fence or easily carry it on my shoulder when I have to hoof it into the woods at night.
After every tour I analyze my stuff and see if I can use something lighter or get rid of an item completely. On the Alaska trip there really wasn't anything that I didn't bring that I wished I had.
#132
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 106
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
One other thought on cost... if going lighter means you can increase your speed from 12 to 15 mph (as in your example) that theoretically means you could do a 1500 mile tour in the same time it would take you to do a 1200 mile tour. What cool things might you see in those extra 300 miles? What's the cost of missing those extra 300 miles with no increase in effort?
I know that's only theoretical and probably wouldn't work out exactly that way in the real world, but if cutting your gear means you can ride easier, faster, smoother, etc., it's worth considering.
I know that's only theoretical and probably wouldn't work out exactly that way in the real world, but if cutting your gear means you can ride easier, faster, smoother, etc., it's worth considering.
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Golden, CO and Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,835
Bikes: 2016 Fuji Tread, 1983 Trek 520
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 674 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times
in
429 Posts
One other thought on cost... if going lighter means you can increase your speed from 12 to 15 mph (as in your example) that theoretically means you could do a 1500 mile tour in the same time it would take you to do a 1200 mile tour. What cool things might you see in those extra 300 miles? What's the cost of missing those extra 300 miles with no increase in effort?
I know that's only theoretical and probably wouldn't work out exactly that way in the real world, but if cutting your gear means you can ride easier, faster, smoother, etc., it's worth considering.
I know that's only theoretical and probably wouldn't work out exactly that way in the real world, but if cutting your gear means you can ride easier, faster, smoother, etc., it's worth considering.
I had a similar trajectory in weight loss as you described in your earlier post, and my load weighed nearly the same as yours on my last tour, a 4500 mile coast-to-coaster. I had tried that ride in my younger days with a much heavier load and couldn't make it in one season, and it hurt. Over the decades I dropped the pack weight, made the ride and had fun every day, including the difficult North Cascades Hwy in WA state. You can't put a price on those pounds.
Also that ride lasted several weeks less than I had estimated based on my earlier touring mileage. That saved quite a bit of money--the tour came in way under budget. Yet another cost to consider for a heavier and slower ride, if it hasn't been already in this long thread. Good one, though.
#134
Senior Member
One other thought on cost... if going lighter means you can increase your speed from 12 to 15 mph (as in your example) that theoretically means you could do a 1500 mile tour in the same time it would take you to do a 1200 mile tour. What cool things might you see in those extra 300 miles? What's the cost of missing those extra 300 miles with no increase in effort?
I know that's only theoretical and probably wouldn't work out exactly that way in the real world, but if cutting your gear means you can ride easier, faster, smoother, etc., it's worth considering.
I know that's only theoretical and probably wouldn't work out exactly that way in the real world, but if cutting your gear means you can ride easier, faster, smoother, etc., it's worth considering.
Yes, it does depend on what you are touring for... the journey, the destination, or what's in between.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pamaguahiker
Touring
54
09-20-14 04:42 PM