ultimately UL depends on the person's acceptable comfort level.
or
simply spend the money along the way

that is..
if the luxury of provisions are available.

I wouldn't want to unless they were audio books, but most smartphones are good audio book players.

Out on the middle of nowhere the iPhone would likely be in airplane mode or off. And if it was used for reading or audio, I'd say time between outlets is a good measure. Back of the cafe. Washroom. Truckstop. 10 or 20 minutes here or there.

But for me, a dynohub (already have one on the randonneuring / road ride) and a charging setup.

This year's winner of the Tour Divide, who went super UL, carried something called a "minty boost" which is a USB charger in a small altoids gum tin. Basically, you still have to carry AA's (I guess he picked up and dumped a lot along the way at resupplies), but the batteries can be used to directly charge an iPhone, Garmin Edge, etc. There's another company that makes one with a solar charger that you can use to recharge a set of double AA's, or directly charge the device. That way when there is plenty of sun, you could leave your phone plugged in or simply let it charge a set of batteries to give your Garmin a boost overnight or power your light for some night riding.

That doesn't answer the obvious question of reducing your electronics, but it's one option for folks who will be far away from towns for a while. He was carrying a Garmin Edge 800, a Motorola phone, GPS Spot, and of course some lights.

In fact, here's a run down of his super UL list for those interested:

http://www.driven2divide.com/2012/06...r-divide-2012/

I looked into keeping my iPhone charged for multiple days between electrical sockets and I found that an external battery as the simplest and most reliable. I use a hyperjuice mini. It weighs 8oz, is very reliable but probably overkill for most places as it can recharge my iPhone 4 five times.

As a reader the iPhone works fine. I've read multiple novels on it and you can adjust the size of the type to be comfortable. However, I mostly listen to the radio and use the iPhone to listen to podcasts that I download when I'm at a wifi hotspot. This is one of my favorites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl

I limit my 3G usage to save the battery.

a garmin 705 or 800 is enough of a challenge to keep charged with a 15hr run time.
I've been contemplating an iPhone.
most my friends have one, and I'm constantly amazed how often they are plugged in.

so I've been using some solar set up from Brunton
a couple of different Freedom models

an Inspire battery pack that is 3200mAh
and a Duracell Instant USB charger

I've been toying with the solar bit for a few years now.
I think overall its more of a weight penalty than it is worth.

the USB chargeable battery packs seem to work out best for me.
which necessitates carrying a small USB AC charger.
currently this 4 port version is my favorite: http://www.amazon.com/4-USB-Port-Ac-...charger+4+port

the electronics dept is a problem.

it does seem prudent to want to use an iPhone or maybe a Galaxy S
I go round and round with this stuff.

another one that I thought was awesome is the Nexus 7
its big enough to have all your maps on it, and to actually sit there and work on it.

That looks like an impressive and well thought out list. Thanks for linking it

I'll apologize in advance for hair splitting, but...
I do question whether that list is super ultralight. In backpacking circles SUL is usually 5 pound base weight or under and ultralight 10 pounds or under, His list looks like about 12 pounds or so depending on what you count as part of the base weight. I am not sure where we as cyclists draw the line between light, ultralight, and super ultralight. I think we do typically carry a bit more than backpackers and still call it ultralight, but when I carried 12 pounds I definitely didn't consider it SUL. I did consider it UL, but it really wasn't even that by backpacking standards.

I was being a little loose with the word super, there. But, remember he had to pack for everything from sleeping in the snow to riding in 100 degree temps. To achieve this with 12 pounds and a modest looking load in a seat bag, Revelate tangle frame bag and handlebar roll is pretty impressive, regardless of where we want to draw the line numerically.

However, even he will say his load is fine tuned for speed and comfort. He specifically went with a full tent vs. a bivy and an inflatable pad vs thin foam because it gave him more options in the early stages where riders with less gear had to stop at cabins. He could push on into the night and be comfortable camping anywhere.

Also, I think it's not quite accurate to directly assign the same numbers from backpacking to bikepacking/touring. In tools/spares alone, you're looking at an extra 1 to 2 pounds minimum. Heck, a 29'er tube is half a pound. Plus, even with a lightish frame bag, you're looking at three bags to attach to a bike vs. one light backpack for a backpacker. The Revelate saddle bag alone is about the same as a lightweight backpack. I would say sub 10 base for cycle touring is doing pretty darn well. But, I won't pretend to be the authority on that. To me, light is light.

Quite honestly, I think we have a great many of the authorities here. While I agree that we can't simply adopt the numbers from backpacking, I think we're in a pretty good position to set the cutoff points for ourselves. I'll vote that anything below 10 pounds is a SUL baseweight, if we can get a quorum, we can pretend it's fact.

I would not call that SUL. For one thing, there is not that much to stop one from simply throwing the SUL pack on one's bike, and calling it a day. Ray Jardine has done that with his UL pack, and I have done that but put it in my small panniers, which themselves with racks weigh as much as the base weight. But the principle holds. You can just carry the same gear.

Also, I don't really hold with the idea of having a base weight that includes anything other than what is in the backpack, because that is the controllable minimum. The bike and bike gear should be taken separately. Just for clarity sake. There are decisions on the bike that add to the load, but make the bike faster. Like light wheels with some spare parts, would add to the load, while making the bike easier to reel down the road. So if I ride high pressure 35 slicks but carry a tire, is that par of the load, when if I rode 2" knobbies my load might be lighter in the bag.

While I carry tools, I optimize my mechanics to keep the number of bits and pieces to allen keys only as possible. And my patch kit tubes, tires, as required. But the tool fit in the palm of my hand.

That said one could skip a lot of the tools under certain circumstances. Often there are resources to fix stuff. A patch kit is necesarry, though I have gone whole tours without a puncture, as well as having several in one day. But on a sprint type tour, dump it all. The maximum downside on the road is pretty minimal.

Have we agreed to toss the head padding in the interest of weight. I didn't read the whole thread...

I carry half an ensolite and a quilt. I read Jardine's book back in 05, and later read some other books of his. I think he failed to convince some to adopt his seemingly masochistic approach. So in one of his recent books he spent about 300 pages trying to make the case that minimalism was more comfortable, and safer, not just because of reduced weight on the back, but because the gear was designed better. So for example, lime disease has forced him to pretty much adopt a net tent inside, so he is basically using a tent and fly. But he would point out that with tarp camping the fly goes up first in the rain, so the site is prottected, as is the camper, from the earliest point. Just one minor wrinkle he has hundreds, so yeah, some stuff is hacked back, but the intention is not to leave comfort at home but to really rethink utility across the board. And in his case to build from scratch or kits. So the maybe it is worth it, if one fully drinks the Kool-aid.

That said a bike is pretty effective at carrying stuff so I don't worry so much about what I am taking, and whether it is new or old. I think the mindset is way more important than anything else. I think you can be an ultralite person and carry a heavy pack. And you can be all kitted out with the latest super light stuff, and still be clueless.

I could live with that number as the definition of SUL, but I don't think it goes to the lengths that most of the backpacking SUL lists do. My latest bare bones list is 7 pounds 9 ounces and it doesn't give up much if any comfort to my 15 pound list. It also is not all that high dollar and uses no cuben fiber, etc. To be fair I count the 1 pound tool/parts bag, empty water bottles, and 4 ounce pump as part of the bike. So if you add those items to the base weight in it gets you close to 10 pounds. I consider it ultralight and it never occurred to me it might be considered SUL, but I guess maybe it could be. FWIW that list includes cooking and camping capability and the sleeping gear and clothing in the list has been fine down to overnight lows in the mid teens with more unused clothing in reserve.

So if we call 10 pounds SUL what is UL? 20 pounds base? 15? Is light 25? 30?

I guess it doesn't really matter that much in any case as it is just a number. The experience is more of a state of mind. Also needs will vary from person to person. For example, someone who sleeps colder might need another 1/2 pound of sleeping bag or maybe even a pound.

I tend to not count the stuff that stays on the bike all the time as part of the gear, but rather as part of the bike. So I count racks, water bottles, pump, and seat wedge with tools and minimal spares as part of the bike. Panniers or other bags are part of the gear in my reckoning.

Oh, no!
Imelda Marcos' shoes are in trouble!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...llection-mould

I guess if we want to draw lines in the sand, we could throw out things like tools and spares to keep the base weight more focused, but it seems to miss the point. It's been a while since I hung out at backpackinglight.com, but guys will post their lists including whatever they would be wearing at any given time down to their socks and underwear. So when they said base weight, they usually meant before food and water, and on a naked body. Heck, there are even threads there about lightweight watches. Because that extra 3 ounces on their wrist was killing them. And in backpacking terms, this was pretty quantifiable, especially when guys were coming from old school backpacking ways and dropping their trusty 3 pound boots in favor of trail runners and heavy external frame packs for sub 1 pound bags.

So let's say I put together an 8 pound list before food and water, but I throw out weights like tools and spares where I have a chain, three tubes, a spare tire, a can of chain lube, a leatherman multi tool plus a bike specific multitool, etc. And I'm throwing it into panniers that weigh 3 or 4 pounds on a rack that weighs nearly a pound. Oh, and I put it all on a 30 pound steel bike with metal fenders. I that traveling ultralight? I pretty much doubt it.

This is part of the reason that I tried out a "UL" setup on my carbon Roubaix. Again, that was rookie route planning that destroyed that trip, but the gear worked great at camp. Minus water, but with bags plus food plus bike, plus whatever I was wearing, I was at about 40 pounds. Again, it seems more quantifiable compared to a "fully loaded" touring bike that hits that weight with bike plus racks and panniers alone.

Anyhow, I personally am more interested in what a loaded bike will tip the scales at before food and water. I'm less interested about the weight of the clothes I'm wearing. But overall, any list minus food and water is going to be a good gauge. Also, part of packing light is minimizing things like tools and spares, so I'm interested in seeing lists that include those. If I wanted to see lists with just gear and clothing, I can cruise backpackinglight.com.

Either way, I just like seeing people take the LW and UL approach to bike touring. I'll let you guys hash out the details and decide on the weight brackets, but just keep posting lists and setups and I'll be happy to check them out and discuss gear and such.

Agreed.

If we're getting pedantic about weight (and why wouldn't we on a threat with "Ultralight" in the title) we should include the bike in our weight. Just like the UL backpacking crowd we should only exclude food and water from the base weight. I would propose lightweight being bike and gear weigh of less than 50lbs, UL being less than 40lbs and SUL being below 30lbs.

below 30 lbs is randonee : P

-that would be the "obsessed weight weenies" evangelism thread.

Except if those clothes are heavier-weight because you are leaving on the trip in cold weather.

No, I agree with the lightweight backpacker guys... include the weight of the clothes you intend to wear first-off, as well as all the other stuff that you may have, including wallet, keys, credit cards, gloves, and underpants.

I have done that with all my weight calculations.

The backpacking crew does not include shoes in the weight. Shoes could be heavy boots in mountaineering, skis, or lightweight hiking shoes, or probably someone uses bare feet.

I think the cart is leading the horse. Who cares what these definitions are if they end up turning a sensible approach to reducing necessary weight, into one in order to get a merit badge of sorts. That is why I think the number should apply to a focused part of the gear. Basically the overnighting part of it. If we both get our basic gear down to 6 pounds that is equal whether one person has a carbon fiber light bike, or another has Walmart bike. If the number covers too much it will reflect only some achievement level, but not really put the focus on the stuff that is discretionary and can be worked on. Two people can probably use the same or similar tarp, but someone weighing 100 pounds and someone weighing 300 pounds can't ride the same weight bike, it is too large a variable. You can use the same tarp whether camping in the dessert or the side of the road, but a road bike vs a Large Marge kind of offroad dessert bike is a large variable.

Also 30 pounds is far too heavy for SUL. SUL involves serious compromises where people start to spend often a lot more, and end up with stuff that is often a lot less durable. Silnylon tarp vs Cuban fiber kind of compromise. Silnylon is really light and fairly durable, and cheap. Stepping up to Cuban is a lot more compromised. You see videos where guys are holing the tarp on the initial deploment. It would clearly be possible to go 15 pounds on a bike, and 6 pounds on a pack. SUL if we were combining bike and pack, is probably around 20 pounds for lighter riders.

I agree that shooting for particular weights and arguing about the boundary between UL and SUL is pretty academic and the more important thing is to ride your bike at whatever weight. But pointless discussions are often entertaining.

My reason for including the bike in total weight is just to be consistant with the backpacking crowd. They include everything except food, water and what they wear, and as the bike is the single heaviest thing in a tourist's kit it seems strange not to consider it. Or should we think of the bike as the backpacker's boots and that we "wear the bike"?

My proposing 30lbs as the SUL limit will allow someone to use a readily available bike in the 18 lbs range leaving 12lbs for gear. This is close to the 10lbs SUL limit of backpackers, but allows a bit extra for the cyclist's need to carry extras like tools. Shooting for 20lbs would be RUL (Ridiculouly UL or Randonee UL).

Its interesting to see touring merging into Randonee as the weight gets less and less. The only thing that I contend that would distinguish Randonee from SUL touring would be the that an unsupported tourist should carry a shelter, sleeping bag, pad, maybe cooking equipment. But as those 4 things can be had for under 5lbs maybe the SUL tourist's weight can be just 5lbs more than that of the randonneur.

I think the context of the ride / tour is also important. UL road touring? On a carbon or ti rig, stripped of fenders and lights and etc. with a couple of credit cards for a hotel every third night when riding between towns with ample strip malls and gas stations or cafes every 20-30 miles is very different than being UL or L self sufficient on a bike with dynohub and lights capable of charging your gear carrying a light but capable shelter and sleep system in areas where resupply may be 60-80-100 miles between stores where you will likely be treating / carrying water as needed. With ability to carry calories and clothing to handle conditions. So a 14 pound base bike won't work for me. And I'd agree my Fargo at 27~ is heavy. My IF would work nicely, but I lose capability for certain types of riding. Fine for a roa tour. But currently I really like mixing it up.

Context I think is key. Much like it is for the UL backpacking crowd. No way (that I know of) to traverse parts of Alaska with a 6 pound base. (I'll have to go double check Ryan Jordan's trip and gear weight now... As I will likely be proven wrong). Just like there is no super lite way to do some of the remote bike / pack raft trips on coastal Alaska that I read about. The tubes alone blow the weight budget.

Yes context is important.......so maybe we have a couple of categories.....UL road touring and UL bikepacking and give bikepacking an extra 10lbs for the weight of the 29er and the iodine

Weather, altitude, season, etc. etc. it gets a little silly in the end. But I still like playing.