Old 01-05-15, 06:54 AM
  #14  
staehpj1 
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 9,234
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by pbekkerh View Post
The bicycle weight of a touring bike is only important with respect to air transportation. You weigh 200lbs, your luggage 30 and your bike 35 thats 13% of the total. Buy a bike for 1500$ and save 8 lbs thats only a 3% reduction !!.
You could either pack 8lbs less, or loose 8 lbs of bodyweight, thats free! Or shop more often, so you have 8lbs less food on the bike.
I look at that a different way. Those choices are not either or choices. You can can pack 8 pounds less (if you have more than you need) AND lose body weight (if you need to) AND you can shop more often . Using your numbers that would be a 24 pound reduction that I assure you would be quite noticeable to most riders.

Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to think of the percentage of reduction for each item. We make scores of decisions with small impacts and they all add up.

I have gone from packing ~45 pounds base gear weight, to ~30 pounds, to ~20, to ~8-14 pounds of gear. I lost body weight at the same time. As the gear weight went lower I picked lighter sportier bikes to carry it. I still managed to camp and cook comfortably. Most of the individual choices were insignificant when expressed as percentage of total bike/rider/gear weight, but the overall change to the experience was profound.

BTW, who carries 8 pounds of food on a road tour, left alone 8 pounds more than necessary?

All that said I'd suggest the OP take the 4300 on a tour or a few tours and then decide if they want something else.
staehpj1 is offline