No one likes to be told what to do or how to think, so I understand how you might think others are "evangelizing". My point is that I would not carry more because I could. I am speaking for myself, not you.


For me the biggest advantage in weight for the cyclist, over the hiker, is not having to carry several days of food, fuel, and water since they are constantly coming in the vicinity of a grocery. I do not have to have miles and decades of experience to know this is true.

This is apparent! And what the heck, opinions are just that and often have no basis in fact:thumb:

You should not have to have experience in touring to understand that carrying unnecessary weight will require more energy, make the rig weigh more, etc., etc., etc.. ;);) If you think this is not a fact, please explain. :foo:

Absolutely!! On your left! http://www.bikeforums.net/general-cy...your-left.html

Now you're just being dumb. However, since you didn't have the facts to back up your claim it is understandable. :cry:

That's not very nice! I was just trying to help you establish some credibility here, since you've never toured and all. Not sure what claim you are concerned about, don't remember making one.

Oh, was your initial post being nice? LOL!!!:roflmao2:



How would someone that thinks carrying extra weight does not involve more exertion think they can help?


Let's say that since I am riding a bike I can then carry an axe to prepare firewood. Is that extra weight free? Of course not. Your points are invalid. One does not need to experience an activity to know something so basic.

Like your assertion that it is easier to carry weight on your back, as opposed to using recent developments like the wheel and gearing?:roflmao: BTW, again, I don't recall making any claim about weight. You must be confusing me with another poster.

Go tour. :)

I can't imagine trying to advise a grizzled old veteran on how to pack for a trip. And as they say, unsolicited advice only benefits the person giving it.

But when someone starts a thread asking for advice on how much to carry, I'd say it's far game to evangelize a bit.

I'm a two-pack tourist, obviously packing light, and when I pull into a campsite with other cyclists around, I get a lot of attention when i set up camp. In my experience, there are others who are interested in learning what it takes to travel lighter.

As this was the original question.
Based on experience, only my personal experience. I like many others here do day, overnight loaded hops to establish my preference before the "Big" one.
Then amend as I roll along. You have a lot of time to think when rolling along. Then purchase anything you discover you might find of convenience.

I'm going out again today with a bagged out bike. Build my legs some more. Touring season will be here soon enough.

As others have added,
"Go tour"
More time peddling and less time theorizing.

:ride:

-Snuts-

Chuck,
I agree with you that not needing to carry several days of water and food is a big advantage when bike touring.

I am not talking about carrying an axe to cut firewood or a mallet to drive tent stakes when I say carrying a few extra pounds above my backpacking load. What I'm talking about is an extra set of socks or underwear or an extra T-shirt or bike shorts. Also a pair of clothes that I can wear into museums, restaurants, and not look too out of place roaming around big cities on foot or on the bike. The same clothes can be used as backup on the bike if needed in cold weather. The little bit of weight gain far offsets trying to wash clothes everyday or even every other day. On a tour a few years ago we only had access to a washing machine 5 times in 2 months. Hand washing clothes every day is a PITA. I'd much rather spend my time riding or exploring than doing laundry.

I like to carry a book, something that I don't usually do backpacking. We also carry a small netbook used to do work and process photos during the tour, again, not something I'd do backpacking.

You are correct. We all learn from listening to others; and I don't know anyone who does not appreciate a lighter load:)

Lots of discussion on UL weight differentials to riding - on wheel conveyances that differential is relatively immaterial. When you take into account the combined weight of rider/bike/gear (eg, 200-250lb range), 20 extra pounds represents <10%, and even that is only really applicable maybe a third of the time (just uphills). So that extra 20lbs boils down to <3% to an average asphalt ride, or put another way, <1.5miles/10 mins on a 50-mile day - IMHO, that's nothing. I'm an UL advocate and my reasons have very little to do with this immaterial improvement in riding efficiency/pace/distance.

I originally got into UL for backpacking due to a knee injury - every pound counts when you're physically carrying the full load. However, it's actually the ultra-compactness of the same gear, that has rekindled my interests in 2-wheeled adventure touring/camping (bicycle and motorcycle). I quit traditional 4-pannier bicycle touring decades ago for a few reasons - 1) the off-bike security risk along the densely populated East coast, 2) the on-bike safety risk riding the arterial roads (2-lane, small/no shoulder, high speed limit) that invariably links the nicer riding destinations, and 3) getting drenched (self or gear) in truly crappy weather.

So I got into 'ultra-compact' bicycle touring, a miniscule niche that few here seem interested, but it has greatly alleviated my issues above, not to mention opening other options (eg, hiking my rig deeply off-trail for wild camping, hitchhiking). My rig is a near equivalent of a 2-item wheeled carry-on air traveler, or a baby stroller, and can go nearly anywhere they can -clicky . For me, the efficiency/pace/distance sacrifice to my 700x32 gravel bike is also an immaterial ~3% on asphalt, and of course, rougher unpaved trails are unpleasant with small wheels.

Even for traditional touring, UL/ultra-compact gear has its advantages beyond the riding efficiency so focused on this thread. I am outfitting my gravel bike for unpaved rail trail touring and am settling on a frame bag for heavy, inexpensive, replaceable stuff (water, bike repair, lock, canned food) that I can leave locked to the bike, and a smallish ~15lb/20L drybag backpack strapped to a rear rack for the rest of the bulky, expensive, difficult to replace gear. The backpack is easily removed/carried for off-bike security, and backpacking it will allow for some rough single-track riding, should that opportunity present itself - something I would not attempt with a heavy/bulky traditional 4-pannier rig.

People constantly refer to the campsite comfort sacrifices of minimalism and UL gear, but other than my kitchen (I'm a water-boiler/canned-heater type that doesn't have the knowledge or patience to cook), and washing clothes more frequently, I don't feel like I've sacrificed much. My shelter and bed are the most comfort/versatile I've used yet, and the easy and simplicity of packing/unpacking for a trip, and set-up/take-down daily camp, has its own rewards. I also always prefer the appearance of a day-tripper, over the look of the long-haul tourer, especially when stealth camping.

Lighter weight is always good thing for adventure travel, but for me the compactness, simplicity, and 'gray man' appearance that accompanies it are as, if not more, important. Taken all together, that's what has rekindled MY interests in camping and adventure touring again..... of course, YMMV.

+100

That's the way I feel also. :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug64 (Post 19482281)

I agree with you that not needing to carry several days of water and food is a big advantage when bike touring.

I am not talking about carrying an axe to cut firewood or a mallet to drive tent stakes when I say carrying a few extra pounds above my backpacking load.What I'm talking about is an extra set of socks or underwear or an extra T-shirtor bike shorts. Also a pair of clothes that I can wear into museums, restaurants, and not look too out of place roaming around big cities on foot or on the bike.

The same clothes can be used as backup on the bike if needed in cold weather. The little bit of weigh tgain far offsets trying to wash clothes everyday or even every other day. On a tour a few years ago we only had access to a washing machine 5 times in 2 months. Hand washing clothes every day is a PITA. I'd much rather spend my time riding or exploring than doing laundry….

---

FYA, About a month ago, I replied to this thread on the Touring Forum, Good touring clothes!No one replied to my post, so it was nice to see your discussion.

In the Mojave Desert, we did carry about a gallon of water. As I recall we did find sufficient laundromats that I can’t specifically recall doing hand laundry.

Glad we agree on some points. I am not trying to argue or disagree. When I back pack the food and fuel are major weight factors as well as clothing, especially in Winter. Water is also a factor is the water sources are scarce. I've known hikers who carry a notebook to document their travels. Overall, my point is that I do not "need" more for cycling and can actually need less due to what I have stated. Thanks for the discussion.

Hush ! :p

Just wanted to say that I strongly share your opinion wrt compactness vs weight. I probably am not ready to consider a folding bike, but your setup opens horizons that I can only dream about...

For now I am satisfied being able to bike in/out of airports and being allowed to ride trains (two panniers+flight bag).

Looking forward to reading more (ultra)compact threads.

After touring Australian outback 3 times, I have decided to have the essentials and minimize the rest.

In July-August I will bicycle from Seisa to Cairns (Google it) and do a paultry 50 km/day and do side trips. An enhanced' trip because I will have a 4X4 vehicle - and travelling companion - for support, of course. :love:

From past (and painful) experience while touring: Keep it simple and you will be fine. Just carry some essentials: money, food, water, shelter...

The rest will take care of you.

Trust me - bin dere. Dunn dat. :thumb:

The above is not always the case. Not all people touring are constantly coming in the vicinity of food, fuel and water and, as a result have to carry several days worth. If you had the experience you would know this to be true. Get some.

The tourist should adjust the food and water they carry to where they are riding. Going across the NT I was never more than a day's ride from food and water, but going over Washington pass and from Libby to Eureka I carried extra water and loaded up on snacks. I always spend some of my evenings planning the refueling spots for the next day.....so I know the location of remote bars or small towns where I can find food and water. I also never miss a chance to fill up my water bottles and eat. So if I stop somewhere I'll drink lots, eat and get the water bottles filled and replace and candy bars I ate on the previous leg.

If you are doing the Dawson Trail or riding across Mongolia you'll probably want to take more than a day's supply, but for most tourists, riding in relatively developed areas, food and water are almost always pretty close at hand.

My comments were related to this thread. I would prefer to tour where there was not a Wal-Mart on every corner.


Your snarky comments are wasted on me. Try it on someone who cares. I was having an exchange with another poster who shared the items that he packs by way of a private message. My comment to him was that he carried a lot of stuff I would not including lots of toiletries and several changes of clothing.


He also said he tours for months and several weeks at a time. That's amazing folks have so much time. I guess if you were gone for that much time more is warranted.

You know you could have just eased out of this thread and avoided the embarrassment of having folks recall your previous posts like this one. I hope you get to do a bike tour someday, then you may have something to contribute. Try an overnight to start, maybe this weekend!!

What's so embarrassing? The same thought has certainly crossed my mind climbing short steeps (although my weight differential is hiking 20 lbs vs biking 50 lbs).

I too cycle uphill about twice as fast as walking uphill.... but my heart is pounding twice as fast to match. Yes, I know my gearing just isn't low enough for the steepest stuff, but what about running uphill to match my cycling heart rate (i.e., same effort) - which would be faster in a race given the mechanical advantages of a bicycle?

A quick search for 'race up mountain - run vs bike' yields the Race To The Top of Vermont - a 4.3 mile, 2564 ft vertical climb up Mt Mansfield, the highest peak in VT.

Race To The Top Of Vermont

Neither runner nor cyclist are carrying camping gear of course, but considering an ultra-lighter can get to a pretty immaterial weights, let's put that aside for a moment and just consider the time difference between man+machine vs man as a proxy. From the rules, it appears that CX/gravel bikes w/knobbies (due to dirt road) are permissible so my guess is that the 'machine' component gets into <20 lbs range among the cycling leaders.

The 2016 Top 5 Results are closer than you'd think. ;)