I agree with that completely. I know folks who happily carry 100 pounds or more of gear and have a great time, even in the mountains. For them that is the right answer, but I don't think that is for most people either.

Again I agree. But I do think that a lot of the limits that are perceived to be hard limits are actually somewhat arbitrary self imposed ones rather than actual needs. Starting out I thought that 20 pound base weight would be crazy minimal, but as I experimented with lighter and lighter loads I was amazed just how much it was possible to cut and still maintain what I find to be an acceptable level of comfort. There obviously are limits to how much you can reduce the load both in weight and volume, but for me at least I have found that what I actually need is surprisingly little. It is a lot less than I would have imagined. I still have what it takes to ride, eat, and sleep in comfort. I even have things that might be considered luxuries; a 4:3 camera with an extra lens, a pair of trail running shoes, a pillow.

For one person the lower limit might be 100 pounds, another 50, another 30 and so on. I expected that 20 would be mine, but was surprised with each iteration when my lower limit plummeted more than I would have thought reasonably possible. I now figure that I could get to an 8 pound base and maintain comfort if I was willing to leave the camera and trail shoes home. That doesn't require any exotic cottage industry gear, no cuben fiber, and no sleeping on bubble wrap.

I could reduce a bit more with exotic gear and may do some of that, but I suspect that the benefits will be smaller and smaller, especially on a per dollar basis. Despite that I am considering a lighter bivy and a different tarp. Not sure if it is worth it to save a half pound, but I think I might be able to make the bivy suitable for a wider range of conditions with the upgrade though. As it is, it is pretty bad if it is hot and buggy at the same time and with my current gear if I expected much of those conditions I'd bite the bullet and take the tent.

Also I like that the lighter gear weight means that I can ride a lighter sportier bike.

Sorry to have gotten so "windy" here.

My limit is 20lbs so I think I go in the lightweight rather than UL category. I just can't give up enough camp comfort or clothing to get much lighter. I also have a 6 day iPhone battery. Fleece is a no no for me far too bulky. Far better to include something like a DriClime jacket or some down if really cold weather is anticipated. I want to enjoy myself on tour and I like road riding and doing touristy things like museums, so going lightweight lets me ride 50 miles in the morning, enjoy the hills and have a full afternoon to sightsee and find a motel or campsite. I wouldn't try to cross a desert with my setup without adding more water. Common sense is a good thing to apply when touring.

Another nice result of lightening your gear load and going to no racks, or ones that don't need eyelets is that it opens up the kind of bike you can use. Consideration for the terrain you'll be riding and tire size is important, but I'm very happy with the way the Cervelo RS has carried my gear on mettled roads so far.

This is true, but the concept of comfort will differ. An enclosed shelter to avoid bugs is big for me as is a way to cook something at night.

You can certainly find items that perform well but at reduced volume/weight. Examples would be a UL down jacket vs a fleece. Also just taking a critical look at your gear will often produce weight and volume savings because you realize you don't need an item.

The need for water is a given, but how much you carry depends on where you're riding. Most tourists ride in developed areas, the sort that want to ride across the Mojave, the Tibetan plateau or wild camp every night are the rarities. So 2 liters is more than enough for most tourists riding between stores, motels or campsites with potable water.

Probably wasn't an UL evangelist, though. 4 panniers, handlebar bag AND a trailer.

Yes, but his gear might be appropriate for the extreme nature of the trip

I only recalled I said Cross Country MTB is dead, and made no mention of the whole of mountain biking. Cross Country has now been replaced by All Mountain riding, basically a little bit more gnarly than typical tame Cross. You always need to keep in mind that mountain biking came into the scene after the touring bike boom. The touring bikes were languishing on the store floor for a few years during the mid 80s, while mountain bikes were being sold like hot cakes and stocked fully on the shop floor. It took many many years until the demographics shifted and went back to road bikes again.

It is also not so true that people never tour off-road. People actually did when they first bought mountain bikes. Many of the so-called rail trail beds of today got their start in the mid-80s because of the mountain bike boom. Authors who wrote and became famously known were off-road touring pioneers. They shifted from touring on the road to off-road and there are few books published in the 80s to mid 90s (I still have a few here) that promoted off-road mountain bike touring with cross country bikes. Even wonder why BOB (Beast Of Burden) trailer came to be?!? The older cross country bikes were an ideal touring platform because of their longer chainstays and longer top tube, so this is not new. It's been done before. I started touring off-road off my Miyata 1000 and using a Giant ATX 780 chromoly framed MTB. Did Hawaii, Rockies, Kettle Valley etc and had fun. There were a lot of people who did that then compared to now, but most of us then had some sort of navigational skills cause some of us are expert hikers and kayakers which do rely heavily on getting their ways right! Today however, most people are so lazy they relied too heavily on their GPS and their cell phones navigation app, which I think will get them into more trouble than it's worth in dicy situations off-road.

Mountain bikes of today are not ideal touring platforms, so people create bikes like the Surly Moonlander or Salsa Fargo to fill the void. It's nothing new. It goes to show how far back some people started bike touring when they mentioned -- oh off-road touring is so new and wow people are making Salsa Fargo and 29ers perfect for off-road touring. No it ain't.

Today, like the mountain biking scene, off-road touring had gone more extreme. Like mountain biking of today is about extreme, people pushes the envelope further and go further. That's all.

Yeah, I have nothing against rackless systems, but it is quite possible to go pretty light with a light rack and a dry bag. In fact using lighter bags with the rack I find that I can come in as light with a rack as with something like the Relevate seat bag and at a much lower cost.

For example, here is a comparison of the Revelate and what I used last trip:

Relevate Viscacha
13.8 ounces
6-14 liters
$130

Nashbar 10 ounce front rack mounted on rear with a 20 liter eVac Dry Bag
13.8 ounces (rack 10 oz, bag 3 oz, straps 0.8 oz)
6-20 liters
$34 ($12 for the rack, $30 for the drybag, $2 for the straps or bungees)

I concede that folks may have other good reasons for going rackless, but it certainly is not mandatory to do so to go ultralight.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/7...8703b373_b.jpg

weekend camping trip, 4 people, ~10-12 kilos of luggage + trailer. I carried the water, the kitchen, food, tent, matresses, my sleeping bag and my clothes. And the kids of course. My wife had the clothes for her and for kids, her sleeping bag + a large blanket style sleeping bag for kids. No restaraunts, on this trip we had all the food and the water we needed.

I like it much more than my last year setup:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-h...2/P7279357.JPG

Always thought that UL is another sort of hobby with a half of the tooth brush as its emblem. Travelling as light as it still makes sense sounds much better to me. It is always a question how important is to save weight. If you spend hours and hours on ebay to grab the tent that is 300 grams lighter only to travel the same roads one would tour anyway and to arrive to the destination 5 minutes earlier, than it is obviously not worth it.

I've seen a nice story on the webs about a photographer and an MTB family guy riding tandem with kids. He worked hard on his UL setup, but the little stoker collected a bunch of nice stones to play in the evening that were way heavier than most of the weight savings. In the end the kid won the right to carry the stones as it was supposed to be a family trip for pleasure rather than satisfying dads desire to try UL touring.


Aside from all other aspects, 5 plain ortlieb bags look boring, make all travellers look the same.

When I first started messing with a rackless system that would allow for off bike travel, it was because I wanted to be able to rig up any bike I had access to for overnight self supported touring. While visiting friends for example, most of my friends keep an extra bike or two for guests, and not all have racks. Or, going somewhere by bus, train, whatever, and sourcing a bike there. As long as it fits, and I deem it road worthy, I would be willing to tour on it. And I would not want to mess with trying to find the "perfect" setup.
I have only done it once, when I flew to an artists residency. Took some small trips on an old Varsity. It was fun.

Actually that is one thing I do not like about ultralight touring. It bugs me that folks assume I am either on a day ride, credit card touring, or sagged. I got comments to that effect quite often on the ST.

To me it sounds like your setup bugs the folks you meet :)

They probably think you're too poor to afford the whole kit.:p

Which is a good thing i suppose.
Always leave your bicycle next to a better one...

It's worse when your buddy brings three pairs of shoes. I had a tiny bag and he had two overloaded Ortliebs and the #1 comment was "Your friend is carrying all the stuff!"

this is something worth repeating.

Racks also provide that emergency perch for whatever awkward item you've decided you want for dinner, a souvenir ukulele, or a couple of gallons of water.

I don't have any 'problems' with rackless, other than hoping to keep others cognizant of how much this limits one's packing volume.

While it's certainly perfectly acceptable to haul two large stuffsacks on the top of a carradice, at some non-arbitrary yet ill-defined volume the choice of more traditional bike luggage is clear.

I suspect that when I was riding with a young guy who had a trailer piled chock full of stuff, folks may have though the same thing but I don't recall anyone saying it.

By the way I did zero evangelizing when riding with him, but at some point he started pitching stuff left and right. Shortly after that he said that next tour he was going to go with a similar packing strategy to what I was using.

It is likely especially since the bikes I have used lately are all over 20 years old.

Has staehpj1 been touring near Seattle?

This exemplifies why I like lightweight.....it's not to make it possible for me to complete some extreme adventure, but so I can get more enjoyment out of my hobby of bicycle touring. Racks are good, two small panniers great, but I just wouldn't know what to put in 4x panniers anymore.......maybe water to ride the length of the Atacama. If anything comes out of this discussion I hope it's that people will look at their gear and bags with an open and critical mind....so be open to evengelism, but don't be dogmatic.

This thread has been an interesting read. A little more boisterous than previous ultralight threads. I have been building my light/ultralight setup for few years. Contrary to what some say I think it is pricey especially when I already have the gear, albeit heavier. I went w/ a Tubus Fly with a dry bag (versatility)and a small handlebar bag. The weather and destination determine the size of my dry bag. The single biggest change I made to my gear was the tent. HUGE drop in volume and weight. Went from 5lbs to .5lbs(tarp and bivy). Also I don't carry much clothing anymore. Switched from poly to wool, from fleece to down, colder temps sleep with most of my clothes.
FWIW: I have never weighed everything except my sleeping system(about 2.5lbs). All I know is that my gear is lighter than the empty trailer I use to schlep around.

mikhalit, demonstrated, Ultralight requires no children ,
and the spouse's needs, for things brought, with,
may also push you past the stoic ideal.

Fietsbob, no offense, but sometimes i fail to understand what do you mean. I posted the picture of our family train only because it's much smaller than itself during the last year trips and apart from the trailer and the passengers this setup for three people is lighter than many cyclists carry just for themselves.

Though my main concern is not the weight but the number of things, i become lost and unmotivated when there are too many bags, bells and whistles, taking the precious space of my tent.

KISS and (U)L approaches to touring is a nice match (now that's the right wording for my message).

I assume you meant "Has staehpj1 been touring near Seattle?" If so... Yes, I toured from Seattle to San Luis Obispo a year ago.

I am confused, am I missing something here?

that was a solo summit of Everest from Sweden with a return trip. no oxygen on everest and ride to and from sweden on a bike.
looks pretty much like Ultra Light to me. Most people drive or fly

NORCAL and NICA are primarily in the XC discipline