djb

hi Gauvins,
I tend to agree, but I guess I can see how you could look at it from the views of
-for the same energy I would expend to go 70 or 80kms on a heavy bike, on a bike that weighs a lot less, I would go 100 or 120 or 150 if I got into the whole challenge thing of doing a far distance (while I have at times done longer days, Im really more of a slower wanderer)
-or for the same 70 or 80kms in a day, I would expend a lot less energy and be less tired, and or as I get older, I can see being more attracted to a lighter bike just for this, as I would have more energy left over , and or more time to explore places if I arrive hours earlier than on a heavier bike.

anyway, as you say, I guess I can appreciate the appeal, but I certainly dont have the mindset to be like the hard care folks who hammer out super long days.

as always though, to me all bike stuff is cool, and neat to appreciate what others do even if its not my thing.

Erick L

A Carradice Super C is 23L for 900g. no rack needed and you can strap extra stuff to it. The bag isn't light but you could probably drag it on asphalt for miles and sell it again "like new". I've put my backpack in it (UD Fastpask 30) to get from trailhead to trailhead on backpacking trips.

gauvins

Yes yes....

The numbers you evoke (70-80 becoming 100 or 120 or 150kms) suggest vast improvements in riding efficiency. Something like 50% or more. If that were that case, I would have switched to ultra-light touring. (possibly important that I mention that I own/use ultra light backpacking equipment, with a base weight of close to 5kgs)

To be honest, I do not have a precise idea of the impact that weight / aero profile have on touring. On a flat surface, weight differences have a trivial impact on "performance" . Ex: saving 25Kgs translates into something like 6% more efficiency. Something like 15 minutes faster on a 100kms ride.

OTOH, climbing (say 2%) will be significantly easier on a light rig. Back of the envelope gives me an efficiency difference of 17%. Less trivial. Now, what goes up must usually come down, and then being heavier is advantageous, but not much, such that on see-saw course, I'd peg savings at 8%.

That's regarding weight. Less clear wrt aero. At low speed (I tend to push at 125-150W), I'd say that backpacking instead of "panniering" would shave 2%. Not worth it for me.

I might also add that in the "money is no object" category, a credit card is very very light. So, yes, I can understand that touring on an ultralight rig might make sense. With the caveat that credit card touring works better in certain parts of the world and less so in other. If you want more freedom, you're probably better off with self contained touring, and the ruggedness of steel+panniers rigs is, in my mind, worth the loss of 10/15% in speed, which means, maybe, an half-hour more on the road. But since being on the road was part of the reason why I would tour in the first place, that solves it for me -- if getting there fast had been a concern, a motor vehicle would have been a more appropriate choice.

djb

I do suspect that as you say, the main diff is when climbing, and Im sure it adds up a lot.
but in any case, its all a moot point to me as I have never done an ultra light trip anyway.

you know though, having done a bunch of Le Grand Tours and Le Petit Aventure, Im never that fast anyway, even unloaded, so I guess I look at this whole UL thing just as an interesting thing, but Im not a fast fast rider no matter what.....

Rowan

My very first carriers for a long tour were four backpacks that were simple souvenirs from a Tasmanian motor event held about three years previously. They were made of a light cotton material and I cut the carry straps off before fitting two hooks on each that would originally have been used for ropes on covers for utility motor vehicles. I retained them at the bottom with belts. All up each one weighed less than a pound.

This was 20 years ago and I've often that of repeating the option several times, but have varying bike-specific option now and I've never come across similar lightweight back pack for conversion. The hooks are still about in shops. And no, they weren't waterproof, but the plastic bag holding stuff inside were.


Backpacks are red on the rear and green on the front. I haven't used front racks like this for a long time now.

djb

Rowan, was that the trip where you had an imploding rear wheel, improvised a fix and then it died again?

about 25 years ago I got some simple light small panniers with Velcro as the lower attach system, still have them and used to use one when I hardly had anything on a commute, plus they have horizontal compression straps built it so they can be made very slim. The Velcro system worked and works ok but was and still is a pain to attach and unattach, especially on a front rack where you have to stick your fingers through the spokes to get at the velcro.

some where I have a list I made where I weighed all my panniers, interesting to see how they got heavier, I'll try to find out sometime.

TimothyH

Don't mean to hijack the thread or take if off topic but....

Just because gear is light doesn't mean one has to go fast. One can always choose to slow down.

It's nice to have the option though.


-Tim-

Rowan

Yes, it is.

djb

Rowan, thought I remembered that.

oh, and here is a photo of both my early 90s MEC sold simple panniers made for off road travelling, with two criss crossing velcro setup to hold them firmly on a rack, and on this trip I had just gotten the DryLites and also took an Ortlieb rackpack that I had bought used and wanted to try out. This was a short trip in late sept and was pretty cold so I had a warmer sleeping bag and took more warm clothes. It ended up being very rainy and cold, so I was glad I had those extra clothes that saved a very miserable day from being a totally miserable day.
So despite having "lighter smaller" panniers, I still ended up with lots of stuff.....

3speed

djb

Tricross, was made for many years.

3speed

djb

I think it goes back to about 2006, and had diff model levels, ie diff cranksets doubles, triples, shifters, lighter wheels on the various versions, it might have had a cf frame version also, dont recall. But up until 2011or 12 it was the same "formed" alum frame with the same cf fork. At some point they stopped the cf fork and put in an alum one, I think perhaps at some point there were some problems with cf forks and I recall some recalls on a certain year of the tricross fork and other spez models.
The cf fork has mid fork rack mounting points, and to be honest, I was always very aware of how murky the weight recommendations were for loading, so I always just erred on little weight and was more careful of not going over rough stuff fast when using a front rack (which I didnt do that much anyway, but was more aware of taking it easy and braking more for rough stuff with front panniers on).

then there was a mech disc brake version also at the end of the bikes run and they started making the steel framed "adventure bikes" whose names I forget now (AWOL etc)

at the time, for me it appealed because it had a triple on it, standard 50/39/30 which I eventually changed the 30 to a 26, and a long cage deore lx rd which has always been the bread and butter rd for touring cassettes up to 32 or 34.

I bought it to replace my old 1990 tourer, and was and still am very pleased in how it is a well handling, stable steering bike, nice long all day rides bike, but the alum frame is noticeably stiffer than my generation of touring bike, and so with a reasonable load, it still handled well and transfers power well, yet the alum frame is a good example of more modern alum frames in that it isnt too harsh at all.

Spez realized pretty soon that it wasnt "competitiony" enough for the cyclocross world, and came out with a more aggressive diff model, but the tricross remained as a good all rounder that Im sure most riders appreciated for its price point and being able to do diff stuff.
I never put larger tires than 28 slicks on it, but it has ample room for easily 40s Im sure. I just never got around to putting wider stuff on.

given the cf frame, if you ever look at used ones, be extra careful to look for crash damage and or wear damage to the fork. I imagine its a pretty tough fork, but cf is cf so you have to be aware of potential issues with it.

Happy Feet

Who's to say what touring is or isn't.

I do traditional loaded touring and lightweight bike packing and enjoy both. Horses for courses. Because I mainly tour in Western Canada there are some long distances to span and sometimes going fast and light is where it's at. Other times I may be doing a more leisurely trip through a smaller geographic region where loaded suits better. Sometimes I just like the challenge of seeing how far or fast I can go.

I do not like to sit around camp doing stuff. I spend a lot of time outdoors as it is so static "camping" has little appeal. I primarily like shooting pics and video and seeing new vistas and that usually requires travel so I choose the means that gives me the most options. If there are lots of choices in a small area speed/distance doesn't matter as much. If they are spread out it does.

UL gear (or close to it) doesn't need to be that expensive if you are willing to take your time and look for deals (which may include clearance or used products). Over the years I have gradually upgraded a lot of my stuff for fairly cheap. But, if you want to run out and buy it all now and new it most likely will. Outdoor pursuits is a long term lifestyle for me.

You can also make or modify UL gear. A revelate handle bar bag is nothing more than some nylon straps and a drybag. I took the double ender drybag and retaining strap from my Blackburn Outpost HB rig and left the rest of the platform on my loaded bike. You can make a very lightweight frame bag from ripstop nylon. A drybag on an Al rear rack is pretty lightweight and versatile as well.

Rowan

I have done a fair bit of touring in Western Canada as well, and what Happy Feet says can't be faulted.

A lot of touring depends on the experience built up over time on the bikes. It's easy to say all one wants it what is carried around in a lightweight gear setting for hiking, but the distances covered by bike and sometimes to hilly terrain make a different.

Already the bike can weigh a bit, then the stuff attached to it. The weather can be beautiful or really challenging despite starting in beautiful weather at the beginning of the road. And dissimilar to walking/hiking, the traffic on the road means a certain element of awareness needed by the rider. And there is the need to have a cover for food and drink supplies of some sort.

gauvins

Absolutely. There is no point in riding heavier than necessary, unless, perhaps, if one wants to burn more calories.

Now, my comment was addressed at the philosophy behind Apidura's line (i.e. "Why we race"). I have nothing against this philosophy. But racing is not a variant of touring. Like the Tour de France is not about a bunch of tourists visiting France. Like the Volvo Race (sailing) is not about bluewater cruising.

The question, I believe, goes beyond hair splitting and philosophical discourse. WRT sailing, for instance, racing rules are said to have promoted vertical bows among the unsophisticated cruising crowd, This racing design is meant to increase waterline length (thus increasing speed) while respecting overall length regulations. It is arguably counterproductive for a bluewater cruising boat, where ground tackle is heavy -- the boat benefits from a more buoyant/slanted bow. And a slanted bow provides a more stable and drier ride. In other words, you can't expect that maximizing racing performance always improve touring enjoyment/safety/performance. (interestingly, a plumb bow could be a good choice for the marina-bound cruiser, where prices are calculated on the basis of overall length, and if you are hopping from a marina to the next, you probably do not carry lots of chain and avoid well formed seas.)

I added (in a subsequent post) that the benefit of ultralight equipment for bicycle touring appears to be less than typically expected. It is far from linear in weight (i.e. a 10% reduction in weight does not translate into a 10% difference in speed). I did argue that minimal setup (a 6.5kg bike with 5kg of bikepacked gear (ie. bags + gear) would be roughly 10% faster than a traditional touring rig (15kg bike + 30kg of racks+panniers+gear), under typical route profiles. Most of the weight sits on the saddle, and bicycles are remarkably efficient machines.

Back to the first line -- no point in carrying extra weight. I agree

Happy Feet

There is something in what you say and that is why it is always important to think hard about what you (the individual) wants to achieve while touring as opposed to just following what's a trend or fad.

For myself, even though I own a good bivy sack I know that on a tour I prefer a small tent to sleep in. Partly for rain, and partly because I like a cave at the end of the day. There is a weight penalty for choosing a tent over a bivy and I'm willing to pay that price. At the same time I dislike cooking on tour (or more accurately, cleaning dirty pots and pans and having residual food smells around) so I forgo a kitchen or keep it very minimal. Some people would hate that but eating cold is a price I am willing to pay.

A Revelate HB roll is light weight and currently "cool" but a drybag strapped to the bars does just as well (sans the cool brand effect). Some people don't want to give up that real estate reserved for their traditional HB bag but others find the frame bag takes over that function. Etc...

It' all about experimenting and knowing what works for the individual. A person can think themselves in circles or become theoretically zealous about one thing or the other if they just read about it and imagine what those choices might be like. I am fortunate in that I have a knack for looking at what the thing does rather than what the thing is and can often figure hacks or diy's that do the same thing for less than the brand comparison.

djb

re bivy vs tent idea. This summer I finally did a self supported trip with my wife. As the whole idea was to make it an enjoyable experience for her, I chose to carry our larger 3 person tent, it weighs probably 2.5lbs + more than a lightish 2 person tent I have, but I knew it would make it easier for her, so I carried the extra weight around and was perfectly happy with it.
I tend also to be lazy for cleaning pots and stuff, so I often prefer a very basic kitchen kit, one pot and if I can get away with finding ready made stuff to eat, then great, less clean up, and hot water doing for coffee in the morning has no messy pots either. As much as I love oatmeal, I tend to just go with bread, jam, yogurt and fruit for breakfast, so again, little cleanup, usually just my spoon and coffee mug.

Rowan

Th last three posts really tell it like it is. I know what lightweight hikers are so because of the speed they can walk across land and mountains. And yes, sure, there are people who want to do the same things on bikes. But I have often discussed some of the incredible scenery after bike tours (and hikes) with people who then indicate they have been there, but didn't have the time even notice what I am talking about.

But, if you go by the other thread the OP started, the ambition has nothing to do with making the bicycle tour better and faster, it has to cheating the system by camping on the private property that surrounds the path he wants to take. I haven't done the cheating/theft on any bike tours or hikes I have done in various parts of the world.

TimothyH

Apidura bags were mentioned in the context of "Ultra light gear" which is the title of this thread and because others mentioned bikpacking bags. That's all.

I own three. They are really nice regardless of how they are marketed or used. Well made, simple, lightweight and two day shipping from London, England to Atlanta USA.


-Tim-

54OldnWay

Might want to give Dutchwaregear.com a call or email I was talking to him last week and he said he was going to start making light weight panniers. he showed me a set he made out of Cuben fabric. Dutch has been in business for about 10 years making light weight backpacking hammock equipment

3speed

gauvins

not an expert either but.

We have 2 CF tents from Zpacks. Extremely light and they're holding well after 3 years of frequent use (total 200+ nights for one, 100+ for the other). We rarely/never use ground sheets (what's the point of spending $300 extra to shave a few grams if you must carry a ground sheet.._). CF is also remarkably waterproof. We could probably set camp inside a car wash and sleep dry.

We also have several CF stuff sacks. As you mention, this fabric doesn't do well wrt abrasion. We've had to replace several. Stuff sacks live *inside* backpacks/panniers -- little to no exposure to the elements, only friction against other items. The most vulnerable is the sack that we use to store our kettle. The hard metal edges eat away at the fabrics within a season.

djb

gauvins, that is rather impressive how light and longevity has been for you.
Very cool looking shelters. And wow on the weight.

I would think that for panniers, with the inherent potential for rubs and everything, tougher material like what is used with the DryLites is probably a better "weight vs real life longevity" ratio. I'm not thinking of crashes, but more about your bike moving up against a wall when its leaned, or rubbing against something when moving the bike past an obstacle, that sort of thing.

gauvins

Yes, yes.

We are not contemplating the purchase of lightweight panniers. For us, durability/reliability/convenience matter much more.

We are quite satisfied with the ortlieb (front rollers). Even though one pannier has been damaged (rubbing against the curb).

So I "might" be in the market for kevlar reinforced panniers