wphamilton

So it's actually a false premise that light-weight (within reason) base gear necessarily costs more. That's reasonable, aluminum implements and cheap plastics would be light - I can see that. So the real weight decisions for you are based on what to bring, and what can be multi-purposed. But could you still see using the basic reasoning, calculating that shedding a pound is worth $5 in my example, as one factor in deciding what's worthwhile to bring relative to the extra load?

I think you can model that, either estimating by using one of the calculators after profiling the route or using the equations and a spreadsheet with the route data. Probably some of these experienced touring cyclists could give a more accurate real world estimate.

staehpj1

Yes, but it is usually a cost/weight/comfort decision for me with bulk possibly also being a factor. For me the cost gets too high when I get to the point where I am comparing Cuben fiber ($$$$) with silnylon ($$).

Walter S

I didn't mean to imply that I'm still unclear on weight vs. speed. It's been discussed on this thread to my personal satisfaction.

alan s 

If you're worried about weightiness, the carry a credit card and leave all the junk at home. Water will get you there fine, with stops along the way for food. You'll eat better, sleep better, and enjoy the ride all that much more.

duckbill

Packing for what you know is easy enough. With experience, what to bring and what to leave at home can be custom tailored for your trip.
But what about the unknown, a change in weather comes to mind. Do you bring extra layers for a drop in temperature? I have had snow in the rocky mountains in July equipped with a summer weight sleeping bag. My route has been changed because of road closures with no available food along the detour. Packing for the unknown can certainly be a challenge when the tour takes you far from civilization where that credit card has no value. What you leave at home can be a regret but at the same time you can't take everything. There is no calculator, no spreadsheet unless it is a crystal ball.

Rowan

I'm, not picking at you. But really the equation has to come down to efficiency, rather than just speed. The greatest impact on you as a rider at the end of the day is how much energy you have expended to get from Point A to Point B and the terrain in between.

For a given distance, the efficiency factor is going to be better with a lighter load than with a heavier one. That efficiency that going to affect things such as fluid and food intake, which can have a bearing on costs. It could affect intangibles such as emotional outlook (especially if conditions are tough on the road), or maybe even getting in later means you don't have the pick of the campsites.

There is a balance in the end that you have to be happy with. And if you tour with others, you can learn a lot just from observing them. I know I did when I participated in regular rides put on by members of the Hobart Walking Club's bicycle group. These were very experienced walkers and they had translated their knowledge to cycle touring. Back then I couldn't get over how one guy could get all his camp stuff into two quite small panniers. And he was always fast and hardly ever stressed, and had a decent tent and always slept well.

Now I know...

Rowan

IF you can afford to do it that way. A campground is always going to be cheaper than a motel in most cases, and the money saved can be used to extend the tour or participate in other activities along the way.

RWBlue01

It isn't always about the money. I can afford to take a trip, fly some place, rent other gear, hotel at 5 star space. (Been there, done that, enjoyed it while I was there.)

But this is different than the touring I want to do. There is something about camping. It is a different experience.

RWBlue01

IMHO, I don't NEED it. I am happy enough sitting on the ground (with garbage bag under butt) leaning against tree, wall, ....

RWBlue01

What I have on my last shake down ride is what I have. This should keep me from replacing something that worked with something that doesn't. But it also means that I didn't pick up something cool at the last moment.

It also means that I am not on an epic tour like some where I will spend enough time out there, that things will wear out and need to be replaced.

Machka 

You can do experiments too.

Weigh everything and load the bicycle up so that you've got 60 lbs (bicycle + all the gear + water ... everything) ... then go ride a particular route that includes wind, hills, etc. Make it a decent route, at least 50 miles. Note the wind direction. Note the speed. Make an observation about fatigue.

Next weekend ...

Weigh everything and load the bicycle up so that you've got 120 lbs (bicycle + all the gear + water ... everything) ... and repeat the experiment.

You might want to repeat each experiment a couple times to compare the data.

And then you can compare the data from the experiments with your calculations and see how the calculations compare with real life experience.

Machka 

So far.

But that's the thing ... we see things like that and we might file it away in the back of our minds ... and then one day we're on a tour, and the garbage bag just isn't working (no trees to lean against, ground too lumpy ...), and the chair comes to mind ...


Yes ... what you have on your last shake down ride before the longer tour should be what you bring, unless you've found some sort of difficulty with what you brought on the shake down ride.

However, I find that the longer tours are very revealing. On a short tour you may discover that the thin foam mat is OK, and it may be OK for the first couple weeks of a longer tour ... and then you start to think that a 3/4 thermarest mat doesn't look like it would weigh much more, and doesn't look that much bulkier, but it does look a bit more comfortable than the thin foam mat .....

I make lists during my long tours of the things I would like to change for the next long tour. My shake down tours are to trial those items to see if they could work or if I might need something a little bit different.

Rowan

It's not just the energy outputs that change with increased weight. The entire feel of the bike can alter dramatically. My old Fuji Touring felt almost unrideable at low speeds with a very heavy load (I never measured, but it was about double what I would take now simply because it had all my work gear on board). I did get used to it and compensated, but it needed every ounce of concentration in close-quarters manoeuvring, and hills weren't much fun (think low granny of 22-32, and 3mph and that wobbly handling).

wphamilton

That's what I'd do, no question, probably 3 or 4 days successively to nail it down. I'm a big believer in experimenting to verify and correct theoretical guesswork. The reason I'm interested in the OP's question is because it's a different way of looking at it - to quantify the negatives of taking something along, weight bulkiness etc, and comparing it to the cost of a solution. The unusual approach, that people naturally balk at, is what makes it interesting.

Personally I'm more of a minimalist and I'm no stranger to camping out in remote areas, so I've got the idea that I'd travel light regardless. That's not bike touring, but I think you can plan for the unexpected, judge the probabilities and consequences and make analytical decisions. It's your experience and knowledge that brings that judgment of probabilities into play.

robow

Lot of good stuff here but I have to laugh when I see a fellow proudly displaying how light his bike and or gear is and then you look at his tummy and it's obvious where he could lose 10 or more pounds for free, ride more efficiently and be healthier in the long run. So in that sense, the cost of a pound is zero.

Walter S

How do you support a claim that efficiency goes down with load? I would think that factor, if true, is already accounted for in calculators/math on this topic. Since calculators such as bikecalculator.com are translating energy output into actual speed, losses due to inefficiency are built into those calculations by necessity. Otherwise the calculated speed value will be wrong and I would think experts raise that as an issue.

Do you think there are efficiency losses that the math does not account for?

Walter S

+1. I like getting in touch with nature. That includes an intimate connection to outdoor life along with preparing a comfortable place to sleep, the opportunity to witness the sunrise, moving water, wildlife. The delightful reluctance to escape from a warm sleeping bag. It helps when all that is free.

Walter S

I do think that accounting for the speed hit of a pound needs to include more than the math discussed so far because you have to account for not only the weight, but the potential volume of the item. I say the volume is potential because an individual item does not necessarily have volume that will impact speed.

The volume is a consideration when the volume of an item increases the overall surface area exposed to the wind and thereby increases wind drag. Depending on how an item affects your pack there may be an increase or not. By eliminating a number of items from your pack you might get rid of an entire bag on your front rack. That could turn into significant savings. Then, getting rid of a bag on the rear rack might have less of an effect (assuming that bag was tucked in behind your body mass) but still be significant in cross winds.

There are so many variables involved here that I don't know how this can be well quantified. Wind drag is not intuitive and calls for wind tunnel testing to accurately assess it. But given the much larger relative impact to realistic variability of wind vs. realistic variability of load it does seem like this is a factor that casts doubt on the validity of considering weight without volume.

MassiveD

I always laugh at people who say that. Some people have trouble loosing weight, news flash. The reality is they need the lightweight gear moreso than the people who are superbly prepared in every way. Unless you are climbing Himalayan passes bike touring is not a particularly impressive sport. The people who are actually pushing it are the couch puppies. If you have the body of an olympian, you aren't exactly pressed repeating a trip across america say, that has been done by thousands of retirees, or families with children.

We have this ridiculous culture today where there is endless chatter about the "better experience" offered by some piece of electronic; where you can buy special chairs to play video games on so your circulation doesn't come to a full stop. But if some fat guy decides to get some exercise he has to put off buying the light weight sleeping bag until some guy with the physique of a ferret deems it's ok to make the purchase. I guess that is what we get for creaming the beanpoles in dodgeball.

robow

massd, I agree with much of what you say, please understand, this is the pot calling itself black. I know I'm guilty myself for thinking, oh great I can save 1/2 pound with this new sleeping mattress only to look at my middle waist and realize that there is undoubtedly a better way to lighten the bike up, of course I buy the new mattress anyway. It's all relative but there is nothing wrong with cutting a few grams at significant expense if someone deems it of value or gains enjoyment from that quest. That's all so subjective but what is more analytic is if we're looking for a lighter more efficient bike, you must look at the total mass that you must produce enough energy of which to move. I know I enjoy my touring so much more when I'm in decent enough shape that I can thrive and not just survive the days.

Machka 

I've done the bring it ... and then either mail it home or put it into storage.

When I arrived in Australia at the beginning of a 3-month tour, I was under the mistaken impression that I needed 4 panniers, my Carradice, and my handlebar bag. After a few days of struggling around the Sydney area (hilly), I stopped at the house of an acquaintance, and spent the evening going through everything I brought. I left 2 panniers filled with stuff (about 10 lbs in total) behind ... and didn't need any of it for the remainder of the 3 months. Then at about the 1.5 month point, I mailed home several pounds of stuff.

Machka 

1) We can support the claim that efficiency goes down with load through extensive experience and experimentation. We've ridden with lighter loads, heavier loads, and everything in between ... in all sorts of conditions. You can do all the mathematical calculations you want, but until you're struggling your way up yet another 7 km 15% hill and regretting every single thing you brought, you don't really know.

2) Yes, of course there are efficiency losses that the math does not account for. That's the trouble with simple mathematical formulas calculated in isolation of reality.

Fatigue is one such factor.

• One day ... you might have had a really good night's sleep and you might have eaten well, and you might be feeling really good ... and you can tackle the hills and the wind with whatever load you've got.
• The next day ... you might have had a really bad night's sleep and might not be feeling particularly brilliant for whatever reason ... and even though the load is the same, and the terrain is very similar to the day before ... you're struggling with everything and wishing that you could dump most of your load in the nearest ditch.

Rowan

And not forgetting that rehydration can play such a vital role in how a rider feels the next day.

We've just seen a couple struggling up a hill on their bikes fitted with four panniers, a handlebar bag and backpacks. From what I could judge, their gearing wasn't at all matched to the conditions -- really low cadence and speed up only an 8 to 10% grade. I thought about this thread, and surmised that their day might have been a bit better if they had reduced their weight to increase their speed or least reduced their effort to get over the first of a number of hills ahead of them.

Walter S

I appreciate the reality of the factors you and Machka mention above. But I don't think these things are related to efficiency. Personally I think this is best summed up as issues related to fully appreciating the impact of weight/wind drag on speed along with difficulty absorbing that impact and still making what feels like acceptable progress on the tour. It's not that the bicycle was slowed down by factors that can't be mathematically analyzed in terms of energy output and resultant speed.

Getting a good night's sleep, rehydrating, fatigue, are all factors that are important of course. But I don't think those things are specifically related to the impact of weight on speed and whether or not you can even out the energy output of competing trip profiles by simply slowing down to compensate for the varying loads.

Machka 

1) All those things (fatigue, rehydrating, fuel consumption, health and wellbeing, mental state, etc.) are related to the impact that both weight and speed will have on the overall tour. In other words, if you're excited about reaching a goal (mentally happy) ... the weight of the bicycle won't be a big deal. But if you're facing yet another day of slogging through boring scenery or another day where you're not feeling particularly well, or another day where you haven't had enough sleep, food, water ... the weight of the bicycle will be a huge deal. Theory of relativity.

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.

For example, the overloaded couple we saw today could hardly hold their bicycles upright as they climbed the hill (and it wasn't overly steep). And I can sympathise with them. When my speed drops to 4.5 km/h, I can't hold the bicycle upright anymore ... especially if it is loaded with panniers. I have to get off and walk. And if I have to get off and walk ... I have to push the bicycle. I have to walk and push a heavy bicycle up a long hill, and that is tough! I've climbed hills where I've walked and pushed 25 steps (I count them), and then I stop to puff and wheeze, then 25 more steps, then more puffing and wheezing ... for several hours.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that when the weight of the bicycle + gear goes over about half my body weight, I struggle. I struggle holding the bicycle upright at the slow speeds I have to ride. I feel like I'm fighting with the bicycle to keep it moving in a relatively straight line. And I really struggle when I've got to walk and push all that up a hill.


But I don't climb hills well at the best of times, and I'm a slow cyclist at the best of times, so how do the mathematical calculations take those factors into consideration?