I think it's great that Pete is getting correspondence back about how he tours. And everything in this thread is useful.

But it does get to a point, I suppose, that when someone looks at an UL or SUL set-up, the immediate reaction may well be: CC (credit card). That's because many people may not be able to comprehend that you could be comfortable camping out and being self-sufficient on such a small amount of stuff.

Which comes back to Pete's point about getting the message across better by actually camping with people.

I know that my eyes were opened to a large extent touring with a guy in his 50s who spent some time acquiring stuff that was small and lightweight and comfortable.

He was a long-time touring cyclist, and a hiker, too, I think, so he was very experienced.

He got all his kit all into two tiny panniers and a small handlebar bag, and was always at the front of the pack, or further ahead, on his bike. I was always amazed at what he pulled out of the panniers, because they seemed bottomless!

This was back in Tasmania, where you need to take stuff to cover you for weather changes by the hour. I think I caught him out shivering a couple of times.

That is quite true. I know that I have gotten comments like, "you must have a sag vehicle" or "you must be credit card touring" a number of times. So probably quite a few people assumed that.

None that I know of and I would think it would have to be kind of arbitrary if there was one.

I have found the difference in the riding experience can be quite significant, but agree that:

1. A similar difference in weight is not as significant as it is for backpacking
2. There is a point where law of diminishing returns sets in and the advantage of further loss is less obvious in the riding.

Part of the attraction of going lightweight for me is to solve a problem in the most efficient way I can. It's taken me a number of iterations to get a suitable combination of clothes and equipment to cover a wide range of weather and not be loaded down. For clothes it really does come down to layering and having a few really good versatile items. Things like a balaclava; it can be worn as a beenie, a neck gaiter or obviously as a combo of the both. A "buff" can do the same. I take 2 jackets with me; a rain jacket and a Marmot Driclime jacket as an insulation layer, wind layer, for wearing around town and it can even be comfortably worn next to the skin. Recently I abandoned my Smartwool long underwear because I was always fixing holes in them and they were only worn at night or under trousers in cold weather. I replaced them with a more useful pair of REI running tights. These do everything the long underwear does and I feel better wearing them to ride the bike and walk around without trousers over them. Seeing my legs in stretch tights might not make other people fell good though.

This thread is both informative and amusing. I think what nun is alluding to is valid. Is all this worry about weight of your gear and your bike worth it if the rider is over weight ?

Actually I think, yes it is worth it. The two are separate only somewhat related issues. Being at your optimum gear weight and body weight are both beneficial. You can get benefit from either or both, individually or in combination. There is no reason to ignore one just because you don't have the other under control.

It is easy to leave stuff home or take lighter items, you can get instant results. It is just much quicker and easier to get results in efforts to lower gear weight, so why not do it whether you manage optimum body weight or not.

+1 Touring and backpacking are very different.

• Touring involves a machine of wheels, gears, and levers that amplifies the human engine.
• The weight for a backpacker is adverse both climbing and descending.
• Backpackers are constantly fighting the force of gravity even "standing still".
• The impact of weight on a backpacker's body is considerably taxing.

I can't say for sure but I say off hand that 4 or 5 to 1 seems reasonable.

On another note: I once calculated that to carry an extra pound, 1000 miles, on a bicycle, is about equal to one Clif Bar, calorie wise.

garnered a chuckle there nun.

(and anyway, a real nun wouldnt be out in tights anyway!)

Dreaming by association -- I dreamed last night about Darby, the guy in this post... packing up his lightweight tent. But for some reason he ignored me (must have read the bit about him shivering).

Eerie, though.

This article says bike riding requires 1/3 of the energy of walking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance. So perhaps a 3 to 1 ratio when comparing bike touring to backpacking for weight reduction? That is, for a 3 pound reduction in rolling weight, an equivalent reduction backpacking weight would be 1 pound. Looking at it another way, you have the ability to carry much more weight on a bike compared to hiking for the same efficiency. Of course, part of your rolling weight is the bike itself, which the backpacker does not need to carry.

The article confirms that small weight reductions don't help you much on flat ground, but that on hills the benefits are magnified. It also highlights aerodynamics, so maybe putting the gear behind the rider in a bikepacking saddlebag is optimal......although at low speeds the benefits might not be that much.....pushing this even more, what about the advantages of recumbants?......I feel that the aerodynamic advantages would be offset by the greater weight and complexity of the drive trains and again the slow speeds.

All that is well and good, but let's not forget that all of the benefits are not just speed or distance covered, but the quality of the ride. While not necessarily a completely measurable tangible quality, the pleasure of riding a lighter sportier bike with a a lighter load is not to be discounted. Those are enough reason for me to go lighter with no need to calculate the greater efficiency. I figure the biggest benefit for me is in the ride quality and the boost in efficiency is a bonus.

Yes, quality of the ride is better when you are lighter. I love being able to ride at a reasonable speed up a hill and then get out of the saddle to push over the top and keep my momentum going. Having to slow down too much on hills if you have a heavy load must really mess up your cycling rhythm. Other lightweight advantages are: it's easier to change a tire; to pick your bike up and carry it if needed and it makes travelling on public transportation with your bike much less of a hassle. I've flown with my bike and gear a few times and have avoided the worry and fees that loaded tourers encounter. And I was able to easily put my bike and gear on Icelandic buses. The buses carry bikes regularly, but a bus driver commented to me that my bike was light and he was glad it didn't take up as much space as most.

How many times did you model accelerating from a stop in your calculations?

I argue (I could be wrong) that unless you have perfect cadence, you accelerate your load every time you pedal. That adds up over 1000 miles.

And you're neglecting wear and tear (fatigue) from the extra power (wattage) needed to accelerate the extra mass. It's not all about the energy (calories). It's sort of like climbing a steeper grade to make the same climb--same energy consumed, but you're more worn out.

This is the dumb stuff I think about on long tours.

Sure, sure, sure, of course I factored all that in

Why, how many calories would you say?

I'd throw in an extra Clif Bar just to be safe.

I just use a Garmin 800 and it calculates calories.
which lets you gauge your intake.

here's an example from today:

[TABLE="class: summaryTable overall"]
[TR]
[TD="class: summaryTableLabel"]Distance:[/TD]
[TD]59.72 mi[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: summaryTableLabel"]Time:[/TD]
[TD]3:33:18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: summaryTableLabel"]Avg Speed:[/TD]
[TD]16.8 mph[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: summaryTableLabel"]Elevation Gain:[/TD]
[TD]3,461 ft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: summaryTableLabel"]Calories:[/TD]
[TD]4,035 C[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: summaryTableLabel"]Avg Temperature:[/TD]
[TD]53.9 °F[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Sorry, but if you believe any of the calorie counters on computers like that, you will be severely overestimating the burn. I think you should be looking at 500-600 calories an hour, as the long-distance cyclists do in calculating their on-bike nutritional requirements.

In the illustrated case, you'd probably burn less than 2000 calories.

from experience I know I can ride for a long time day after day on about 1 scoop of perpetuem per hour.
just by having something that actually calculates calories, is a boon. i suppose about as useful as an inaccurate gas tank gauge or a compass thats not declinated correctly.
its a measure, something to go by.

somewhere at some point I think I read that you can only assimilate about 300calories per hour.

The info from the Garmin or any other gauge is useful if you now the correction factor.

The calorie burn does depend on your output/intensity. Machka uses the 500-600 calorie burn as a metric, and it seems to work quite well across a range of cycling activities.

I eat a Clif bar, or nuts and raisins, or 3 or 4 fig newtons etc every hour to keep me going......so I imagine I'm eating 300 calories an hour. That way when I stop for lunch I don't feel really hungry and I can avoid that feeling of extreme hunger that makes you eat too much and then feel full on the bike.

I pretty much refrain from "eating food" when it comes to intake.
calories/hr.

typically 300 calories per hour is hard to digest.
instead I stick to the likes of Perpetuem, Boost, ensure, etc...
my preference is Perpetuem.

at the moment, being back home, I'm pretty much on HEED for the first 2hrs of the day, then mix in Perpetuem after 3hrs.
however, I've been fairly focused on my rides, opting for more intensity vs mileage.

when on tour typically I take in real food for dinner, or at the end of the cycling day.

Hey, all. So I was supposed to go camping last weekend. But then I realized I had a big test Tuesday and to top it all off, I was going to be leaving work at 6, getting there at about 8 in complete darkness, and it was raining all day long. That and my plan was to leave rather early in the morning the next day. Suddenly all the fun was gone, so I wussed out. Then I was planning on setting up another weekend soon and Monday morning on the way to school, a truck pulled right out in front of me, so I nailed the side of the truck, fell on my shoulder and have some heavy muscle bruising along with a sprain or possible small tear in my AC joint. All in all, a fabulous weekend followed by a fabulous Monday. Hopefully I'll be able to even ride a bike without pain in a couple of weeks.

But, I did want to share a quick picture of my overall setup.



That's everything loaded, but the seat bag is open. Closed, maybe it was about 50% full. This setup was a strictly Texas Summer/Fall setup as I was only carrying my primaloft jacket and knee warmers as sleep insulation. No bag. But the bag I would like to buy is only about 6-8 ounces more than the jacket. Also, I need to make another frame bag that the poles would fit directly into. I'm just making do with the first bag I made because it's pretty time consuming with school, labs to teach, a part time job and a baby.

Base weight came to 12.4 pounds before food and water. That includes a heavyish rain jacket at 14.35 ounces. And it also includes my 3 pound tent that I talked about a few pages back. Definitely not in the UL tent range, but it's stupid cheap, comfy and pretty compact.

EDIT: Oh, and that front bag is in an awful place in that photo. I kind of just threw on the harness I made for my road bike to see how it would work. Ideally, I'll make another one that mounts lower. But it only weighed a couple of pounds, so even that mount point would have probably been fine for the short jaunt I was planning.

EDIT2: And after me insisting bike weight is a factor, I failed to mention mine. It's 24 pounds.

This brings up something I`ve wondered about. What`s the difference between long johns and tights? I have a set of long johns that I use to add extra temperature range to light outer clothes, by themselves in a sleeping bag, or (the bottoms) under my shorts. I would think that at least the bottom part would be the same thing as cycling tights, but maybe not since this and previous posts have mentioned trading for a little weight savings. Maybe there`s some overlap in the definitions?

FWIW, the labels are no longer legible in mine, so all I can say is that they`re some kind of "polyester-ish" synthetic, upper and lower were each house brands from a different major sporting goods retailer.