I do plan to find a remote area this Summer that I have driven many times to a camp ground. I plan to back exactly as I would if I were hiking the same course. I have been consistently amazed that you and others think I should pack differently or that something different is required, besides the obvious tools, just because I am riding a bicycle. I would not think one would need touring experience in understanding weight and efficiency, but perhaps I am wrong.

As I wrote, "that is not always the case" as Mr. Nail believes.

See #98. Another sock?

My Troll-meter may be overwhelmed by the clueless!

All of that might be relevant if one were only touring uphill but most people know that the ups and downs and flats create an average.

No one is really hiking 35lb's of gear on their back 100-160km's per day, day after day.

The toughest climb I have done recently is out of Kamloops westbound onto hwy 5 to tje brake check pullout at the summit. It took me about 1.5 hrs of hard grinding but would have taken nearly 1/2 a day to walk. After the 1.5 hour grind I continued riding another 100km's to Merrit. Something no hiker would/could do.

I completely agree WRT an overall loop ride on asphalt. No one is arguing that there is a more efficient mode of human-powered transport than a bicycle. However, the general point was made (and I am paraphrasing) that on a steep grade, at some point, a bicycle's mechanical advantage will be more than offset by it's own weight disadvantage. For some reason, this valid comment ensued into a one-sided dog pile as if the bicycle were always able to retain a net mechanical advantage up any hill.

So, while I might a agree with Doug's specific example - hike 35lbs vs bike ~65 up a 6% grade - and prefer the bicycle as well, I think the efficiency (i.e., effort/energy) analysis vs walking is going to be a whole lot closer than a layman's extrapolation of his uphill 2x pace.

For my personal case - hike 20 lbs vs bike 50, I have absolutely thought about how much easier it would be to hike up some grades. I can now guesstimate my cross-over point to prefer hiking 20 lbs might be a 7-8% grade. This is based the empirical finish times of the 5th place females - who are certainly fitter than I, and I'd bet most of us here - with their run 0 lbs vs bike ~20 lbs time equilibriums on an ~10% extrapolated grade (i.e., runner beats cyclist by ~10% on an 11% grade, so should be ~even on a 10% grade).

Please enlighten me...

Regards,
Clueless Troll.

I can send you a PM if you really want the skinny.

Chuck, Maybe we could get a better understanding of your position, if you could post your packing list for a one- month self-sustained backpacking trip. Be specific, i.e., items you carry in your toilet kit, etc. We might be surprised about how close together we are on what we carry. It might also help replace assumptions with facts.

I agree with you. I pulled the 2x pace out of the air without anything to base it on except the assumption that if I was walking at 2 mph and riding at 4 mph I could do it twices as fast. I did get a perverse pleasure when I was younger (much younger) of passing cyclists while running up my favorite training hill

In the book Bicycle Science, David Wilson states that "15% gradient may be a critical one, and that at grades greater than 20% there is no really appreciable advantage in riding the bicycle, even in low gear." In this section he was comparing riding vs. pushing the bike up the grade.

In the same book there is a graph that shows the energy expenditure of a cyclist compared other modes of travel:
A cyclist expends 15 kcal/km at 10 mph and 8.4 kcal/ km at 4 mph; a walker expends 55.3 kcal/km at 4 mph, and a runner expends 68.3 kal/km at 10 mph.

While this looks god for the cyclist, I'm not sure if this relationship holds true on hills.

I don't think we disagree but this all started in post 32 when chuck suggested a cyclist need not take any more than a hiker. He was told that, while one need not take more, a bicycle offered certain mechanical advantages.

In post 48 he argued that only came into play on flats and downhills and that he would prefer to hike uphill rather than ride. Again, in most situations it's easier to ride.

Next we will be debating whether it is easier to alpine climb with weight on the back or on a bicycle...

This is the bicycle touring forum and I'm just trying to keep it real. Last trip was over the Rockies and I'm convinced it was easier and faster on a bike than on foot. Climbing Mt. Everest? I think that's another forum.

It's a hauntingly familiar situation wherein someone with little/no experience bike touring tries to tell others how it could be done by relating it to another activity. Hence the troll/sock references.

Just waiting for the whiteblaze plugs to begin.

:d

have you considered the katy?

What a great idea! Perhaps you could recommend a compatible companion?

Yup, I'm a bit surprised there, OTOH I've seen pro races where riders get forced to stop on short steep climbs & then they often choose to run up the rest of the hill & don't really lose much time. I'm so out of shape mountain touring is tough even w/o luggage, . UL guys often start out with big weight advantage of CF bikes, I'd love to see a production CF trad-touring bike--folks say there's no demand but I see lots of mediocre riders on local path twiddling around on $$ CF road Cervelos & Pinarellos. For them the weight saving of CF is psychological; for a tourist it's more real.

don't know if this helps the discussion any, went for a short
tour this week. qingming (tombsweeping) festival, had four
days off, did an ocean-mountains-ocean circuit. 400km on
the new 17.7 kg (39-pound!) touring rig. 23" steel frame,
full fenders, B17 clone saddle, 700*45 tires. carried 7kg,
just under 15 pounds, in the rear bags.

9-spd transmission has a 22-32-40 crank and 11-36 cassette,
which gives a range of 17-91 gear inches.

this here is a small island, flat on the edges, tall and pointy
in the middle. first two days mostly uphill, third day all
downhill, final day a cruise along the beach.

not sure about the gradient without researching, but i'd
put it at 8-10% for long stretches. nothing like the 40-km
long 12% grades in yunnan, but whatever.

anyhooooo, toodling uphill, i found the lowest cadence i
could comfortably maintain without getting too "twitchy"
was about 60 rpm. with 700*45 tires and 22:36 gearing,
that was 4.91 km/h (3.05 mph) without getting winded
or having an excessively increased heart rate. basically,
a "do it all day" pace. another 10-15 pounds in the bags
would not have made much difference.

it was possible with a bit more concentration to manage
55 rpm, at 4.50 km/h (2.80 mph), just not as relaxing.

Well that's a first... at least for this thread.

Now that you mention it, for THIS ~90 mile overnighter, I had a VERY similar choice to get the top of the dam - a) ride on the longer street loop, or b) hike a 30-story staircase with pannier/bike on my back/shoulders. For the sake of science, I chose b).

But I suppose you are right and there's no point in discussing it - having such options are unrealistic on a bicycle touring forum and would only incite another dog-pile of nay-sayers.

I don't think people are knocking you and I think the post you wrote about why you choose UL was spot on. If it's what you enjoy that's all that matters. Most of the troll stuff is directed at Chuck, who may or may not realize how close he sounds to another character.

Of course weight matters, but it is a case of varying degrees (personal enjoyment of the pursuit aside).

For racing it absolutely does. For light/fast rides where distance/time matter it's important too. And, even with straight up traditional touring, it makes sense to be sensibly aware of weight - but not to an obsessive degree.

One way to look at it is to determine what the average rider uses on an average tour. If for some reason one thinks their weight needs to be either overtly heavy or light one ought to ask themselves what that reason is.

There may be a perfectly good reason - or it may be fear based regarding comfort while riding or comfort while not riding. People can get crazy either way.

Chuck hadn't even posted before our first 'dialogue' here and I get strong sense of distaste for any type of discussion re: UL, not to mention plenty of subtle ribbing in totally unrelated posts. I do realize that there's history, and certain past/current members (myself incl.) may at times be overzealous/indelicate with their thoughts, but from an outsider's POV, the resulting beatings/dog-piles appear to be way out of proportion, and with collateral damage that stifles new ideas and good conversation.

Even a little trolling/combativeness can lead to health debate and ideas - I personally was interested in getting a sense of where a bike started to lose its mechanical advantage on a steep grade (as mentioned, I had the same thoughts on certain climbs), and even your sarcastic 'alpine climbing' comment is important to me because I physically carry all my gear with reasonable frequency (eg, ~quarter mile 2x day when stealth camping) across un-ride/push-able terrain.

As far as trolling is concerned, isn't the best medicine to simply ignore it? Some feed on attention... so starve the worst of the troll posts and focus on the interesting tangents (at least to some of us).

Peace.

I didn't think my alpine comment was sarcastic and was not directed towards you but let's leave that aside as water under the bridge.

There is no dislike for UL from my perspective. I was heavily (pun intended) engaged in it more than 30 years ago when involved in climbing. My friends and I at the time did some sensible and also pretty funny stuff. Back in the 80's I owned very lightweight gear including thinsulite sleeping bags, thermorest mats and gortex bivy sacs which were pretty pricey and cutting edge (at the time). I cut my toothbrush handle in half, my buddy cut all the labels out of his clothes and even shaved his head to cut down on weight. It was one part serious and one part kooky most of the time.

From that I have developed a fairly level headed approach to weight wherein I find savings where they are practical but also recognize when savings come at the cost of diminishing returns. I've also been able to vary my approach to depend on the goals and parameters of the activity. I think I said before that, rather than fixating on weight as an arbitrary and abstract goal, my philosophy is to look at what systems are required to achieve the goal and refine from there. It's not one size fits all. I would not tell a racer they ought to take heavy gear with them nor would I tell a tourist they need race quality gear. In opposition, I don't get chucks plan to simply meet a 35lb gear goal. That says nothing about what that gear is or what conditions it's intended to address. Those are the concepts that I challenge, not to be a dick, but to illuminate ways of thinking about what we take and why.

Sorry for the confusion, I did not take your alpine comment as directed toward me, my point was just that it was an interesting tangent that I would have enjoyed expanding on, under different circumstances. Also I did not mean you, per se, as having a particularly UL distaste, it is more of an overall sense I get from this sub-forum every time the issue is raised, and even when it's not raised. I plead guilty to UL evangelism (a rather common term here) because for me, it was THE tipping point that got me back into backpacking, bicycle touring (bicycling in general), and motorcycle touring after long hiatuses.

/hijack

On topic, FWIW, being weight goal oriented out worked well for me. With plenty of camping experience, I had a good sense of what would be comfortable for me, and then just had to juggle the finer points between weight/comfort/cost... and then later, even volume.

Thank you for making the effort to clear things up.