How to rationally determine the cost of a pound?
 

I'm in the "light as possible, but not ultralite" camp. One piece of gear I added a few years ago which is a bit heavy but dang useful is a Bear Vault.
It keeps food from being crushed or invaded by creepy crawlies, critters and uh bears, but doubles up as a camp chair and clothes washing tub.

In keeping with Machka's multi-purpose goal you can't beat the Thermarest Trekker chair. It converts the pad you may be already carrying to a chair. It rolls right up with the pad adding virtually no additional bulk and weighs in at only 9.5 ounces.

http://www.cascadedesigns.com/therm-...ir-kit/product

It's particularly useful if you're touring in Europe where you don't often find a picnic table at the campground. If you get stranded in your tent for a rainy day you can sit up comfortably and read. I bet you can't even find the one I'm carrying in this photo!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post16337606

edit-

Indeed the current model in the link above has a high back as djb has noted in his post #94 below. I have an older model pictured below which utilizes a 3/4 length (48") mattress. A third of it is folded over to double up the seat section leaving 16" of height on the back. Not ideal but does offer some lower back support. I don't know if Therma-Rest still makes the short back version or not.

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/a...hermARestR.jpg

I used to be the same, never thinking of a chair/stool. As I got older, I began to notice that even car camping, after numerous days of using "slouchy" typical camp chairs, or even sitting with picnic benches, my back missed having either lower back support or sitting straight. I even found some "kiddie" camp chairs we have to be the best for me, as the lower back support was perfect for me with them being short.
Sure, this is my personal back issue, but the cheap tripod stool I have similar to Walter S's one, works for me cuz it keeps my back straight when sitting, keeps me from slouching all the time. Again, maybe its an age thing as well, but probably a combo of age plus some past fall, in any case, keeping sitting straight helps a great deal for me when camping day after day, hence my idea to take this "extra" pound.

Like I said earlier, I still haven't taken it for a bike trip, but probably would for a long trip--the extra pound or so being worth it versus back comfort, kinda like sleep comfort for some being worth the bulk of a pillow or whatever.

Robow, the one you show is probably "short" as well, giving lower back support if it doesnt go up too high on your back--but then it really does depend on each person doesnt it?

This is a perfect example of what works for one person doesnt for another.

We got these about 15 yrs ago or more, you cant beat the compactness of them and lightweight, but for me, because of the shape, the height of the "back" and how it tends to "bow" under at the bottom/lower back area. The lower back support isnt great and my lower back would get sore.
See how high the back goes up, the straps are at the top, so your lower back tends to end up curving back outwards because your weight pushes that part out.
Short backed chairs are much better in this regard as the design actively supports the lower back.

As always, your back may, and will, vary.

So does the consensus have it that you cannot rationally determine the cost of a pound? Far be it from me to be critical of the advice represented by the depth of experience here, but still it looks like the forest is getting lost in all the trees. Surely an analytic approach is still possible.

Suppose you've already determined that you want cookware. You have to decide if a pound lighter cookware is worth the higher cost. We can already calculate how much a certain weight slows you down. Even better, someone like Rowan or Macha could just tell you, 20 pounds extra will make the daily target take one hour longer (or whatever it is). You can't put a global number on that, but you could for example say, "Seven hours of riding is enough for me, and I'd give 20 dollars a day to not have to ride eight hours instead." So with a five day tour, (with these made up numbers) the 20 pounds extra is worth 100 dollars, or $5/pound. If the lighter cookware is less than $5 more, it's worth it for a single tour. Clearly my numbers are off, and you'd want to consider multiple tours, and it says nothing of the subjective pleasure of the ride, but why can't that approach be used when tempered with those objections?

the choice is: take it, or leave it at home. bring it, then mail it home, works too..

Actually it goes up the back pretty high. I was surprised how easy it was to "balance" yourself and after a few minutes you didn't think about it. Getting in and out did take a little adjustment.

http://whygo-amr.s3.amazonaws.com/ww.../2010/08/4.jpg

One problem with this whole line of thinking is that most of the weight saving measures are not necessarily more expensive. I often find that with many choices saving weight also saves money. For one thing much of the weight saving that I have done is leaving things home and that costs less not more. Then there is the fact that the lighter items are not necessarily more expensive.

I am pretty sure I have less invested in my 12 pound base gear load than in my 45 pound base gear load from years ago, with one "if". It might even be true without the "if". That "if" is if you don't count my sleeping bag and sleeping pad choices. I think that is a reasonable "if" though because the choice was also a big upgrade in comfort not only a weight saving measure.

I have found that the cost per ounce saved didn't become a big deal until you are down to saving the last few ounces. I was under 20 pounds base before I bought any titanium stuff and at 12 pounds I still am not buying high dollar stuff like cuben fiber.

I guess you could start with calculating the weight and price of everything you take on tour. That'd give you an average dollar/gram

I'm not sure I want to know the total though :eek:

My focus was to find out what impact weight has on speed. That gives me a "rational" basis to consider cost vs. benefit of carrying that weight. So I do think we can rationally determine the cost of a pound when considered in those specific terms. That was my goal.

When you go beyond that and consider things like how much you care about that impact and what you might want to do about it, there you enter a realm that will vary a whole lot based on specific personalities, trip plans and schedule constraints, and why we're touring by bicycle in the first place. I don't see much value if trying to reduce all that to a formula.

For example, in the case you outline above, one need only decide not to have a firm daily target mileage, and there need not be any riding for an extra hour so you can hit that target. These are all personal decisions. For me sometimes my target is very important. Othertimes not at all. It all depends.

So it's actually a false premise that light-weight (within reason) base gear necessarily costs more. That's reasonable, aluminum implements and cheap plastics would be light - I can see that. So the real weight decisions for you are based on what to bring, and what can be multi-purposed. But could you still see using the basic reasoning, calculating that shedding a pound is worth $5 in my example, as one factor in deciding what's worthwhile to bring relative to the extra load?

I think you can model that, either estimating by using one of the calculators after profiling the route or using the equations and a spreadsheet with the route data. Probably some of these experienced touring cyclists could give a more accurate real world estimate.

Yes, but it is usually a cost/weight/comfort decision for me with bulk possibly also being a factor. For me the cost gets too high when I get to the point where I am comparing Cuben fiber ($$$$) with silnylon ($$).

I didn't mean to imply that I'm still unclear on weight vs. speed. It's been discussed on this thread to my personal satisfaction.

If you're worried about weightiness, the carry a credit card and leave all the junk at home. Water will get you there fine, with stops along the way for food. You'll eat better, sleep better, and enjoy the ride all that much more.

Packing for what you know is easy enough. With experience, what to bring and what to leave at home can be custom tailored for your trip.
But what about the unknown, a change in weather comes to mind. Do you bring extra layers for a drop in temperature? I have had snow in the rocky mountains in July equipped with a summer weight sleeping bag. My route has been changed because of road closures with no available food along the detour. Packing for the unknown can certainly be a challenge when the tour takes you far from civilization where that credit card has no value. What you leave at home can be a regret but at the same time you can't take everything. There is no calculator, no spreadsheet unless it is a crystal ball.

I'm, not picking at you. But really the equation has to come down to efficiency, rather than just speed. The greatest impact on you as a rider at the end of the day is how much energy you have expended to get from Point A to Point B and the terrain in between.

For a given distance, the efficiency factor is going to be better with a lighter load than with a heavier one. That efficiency that going to affect things such as fluid and food intake, which can have a bearing on costs. It could affect intangibles such as emotional outlook (especially if conditions are tough on the road), or maybe even getting in later means you don't have the pick of the campsites.

There is a balance in the end that you have to be happy with. And if you tour with others, you can learn a lot just from observing them. I know I did when I participated in regular rides put on by members of the Hobart Walking Club's bicycle group. These were very experienced walkers and they had translated their knowledge to cycle touring. Back then I couldn't get over how one guy could get all his camp stuff into two quite small panniers. And he was always fast and hardly ever stressed, and had a decent tent and always slept well.

Now I know...

IF you can afford to do it that way. A campground is always going to be cheaper than a motel in most cases, and the money saved can be used to extend the tour or participate in other activities along the way.

It isn't always about the money. I can afford to take a trip, fly some place, rent other gear, hotel at 5 star space. (Been there, done that, enjoyed it while I was there.)

But this is different than the touring I want to do. There is something about camping. It is a different experience.

IMHO, I don't NEED it. I am happy enough sitting on the ground (with garbage bag under butt) leaning against tree, wall, ....

What I have on my last shake down ride is what I have. This should keep me from replacing something that worked with something that doesn't. But it also means that I didn't pick up something cool at the last moment.

It also means that I am not on an epic tour like some where I will spend enough time out there, that things will wear out and need to be replaced.

You can do experiments too.

Weigh everything and load the bicycle up so that you've got 60 lbs (bicycle + all the gear + water ... everything) ... then go ride a particular route that includes wind, hills, etc. Make it a decent route, at least 50 miles. Note the wind direction. Note the speed. Make an observation about fatigue.

Next weekend ...

Weigh everything and load the bicycle up so that you've got 120 lbs (bicycle + all the gear + water ... everything) ... and repeat the experiment.

You might want to repeat each experiment a couple times to compare the data.

And then you can compare the data from the experiments with your calculations and see how the calculations compare with real life experience.

So far. :D

But that's the thing ... we see things like that and we might file it away in the back of our minds ... and then one day we're on a tour, and the garbage bag just isn't working (no trees to lean against, ground too lumpy ...), and the chair comes to mind ... :D


Yes ... what you have on your last shake down ride before the longer tour should be what you bring, unless you've found some sort of difficulty with what you brought on the shake down ride.

However, I find that the longer tours are very revealing. On a short tour you may discover that the thin foam mat is OK, and it may be OK for the first couple weeks of a longer tour ... and then you start to think that a 3/4 thermarest mat doesn't look like it would weigh much more, and doesn't look that much bulkier, but it does look a bit more comfortable than the thin foam mat .....

I make lists during my long tours of the things I would like to change for the next long tour. My shake down tours are to trial those items to see if they could work or if I might need something a little bit different.

It's not just the energy outputs that change with increased weight. The entire feel of the bike can alter dramatically. My old Fuji Touring felt almost unrideable at low speeds with a very heavy load (I never measured, but it was about double what I would take now simply because it had all my work gear on board). I did get used to it and compensated, but it needed every ounce of concentration in close-quarters manoeuvring, and hills weren't much fun (think low granny of 22-32, and 3mph and that wobbly handling).

That's what I'd do, no question, probably 3 or 4 days successively to nail it down. I'm a big believer in experimenting to verify and correct theoretical guesswork. The reason I'm interested in the OP's question is because it's a different way of looking at it - to quantify the negatives of taking something along, weight bulkiness etc, and comparing it to the cost of a solution. The unusual approach, that people naturally balk at, is what makes it interesting.

Personally I'm more of a minimalist and I'm no stranger to camping out in remote areas, so I've got the idea that I'd travel light regardless. That's not bike touring, but I think you can plan for the unexpected, judge the probabilities and consequences and make analytical decisions. It's your experience and knowledge that brings that judgment of probabilities into play.

Lot of good stuff here but I have to laugh when I see a fellow proudly displaying how light his bike and or gear is and then you look at his tummy and it's obvious where he could lose 10 or more pounds for free, ride more efficiently and be healthier in the long run. So in that sense, the cost of a pound is zero.

How do you support a claim that efficiency goes down with load? I would think that factor, if true, is already accounted for in calculators/math on this topic. Since calculators such as bikecalculator.com are translating energy output into actual speed, losses due to inefficiency are built into those calculations by necessity. Otherwise the calculated speed value will be wrong and I would think experts raise that as an issue.

Do you think there are efficiency losses that the math does not account for?

+1. I like getting in touch with nature. That includes an intimate connection to outdoor life along with preparing a comfortable place to sleep, the opportunity to witness the sunrise, moving water, wildlife. The delightful reluctance to escape from a warm sleeping bag. It helps when all that is free.

I do think that accounting for the speed hit of a pound needs to include more than the math discussed so far because you have to account for not only the weight, but the potential volume of the item. I say the volume is potential because an individual item does not necessarily have volume that will impact speed.

The volume is a consideration when the volume of an item increases the overall surface area exposed to the wind and thereby increases wind drag. Depending on how an item affects your pack there may be an increase or not. By eliminating a number of items from your pack you might get rid of an entire bag on your front rack. That could turn into significant savings. Then, getting rid of a bag on the rear rack might have less of an effect (assuming that bag was tucked in behind your body mass) but still be significant in cross winds.

There are so many variables involved here that I don't know how this can be well quantified. Wind drag is not intuitive and calls for wind tunnel testing to accurately assess it. But given the much larger relative impact to realistic variability of wind vs. realistic variability of load it does seem like this is a factor that casts doubt on the validity of considering weight without volume.

I always laugh at people who say that. Some people have trouble loosing weight, news flash. The reality is they need the lightweight gear moreso than the people who are superbly prepared in every way. Unless you are climbing Himalayan passes bike touring is not a particularly impressive sport. The people who are actually pushing it are the couch puppies. If you have the body of an olympian, you aren't exactly pressed repeating a trip across america say, that has been done by thousands of retirees, or families with children.

We have this ridiculous culture today where there is endless chatter about the "better experience" offered by some piece of electronic; where you can buy special chairs to play video games on so your circulation doesn't come to a full stop. But if some fat guy decides to get some exercise he has to put off buying the light weight sleeping bag until some guy with the physique of a ferret deems it's ok to make the purchase. I guess that is what we get for creaming the beanpoles in dodgeball.

massd, I agree with much of what you say, please understand, this is the pot calling itself black. I know I'm guilty myself for thinking, oh great I can save 1/2 pound with this new sleeping mattress only to look at my middle waist and realize that there is undoubtedly a better way to lighten the bike up, of course I buy the new mattress anyway. It's all relative but there is nothing wrong with cutting a few grams at significant expense if someone deems it of value or gains enjoyment from that quest. That's all so subjective but what is more analytic is if we're looking for a lighter more efficient bike, you must look at the total mass that you must produce enough energy of which to move. I know I enjoy my touring so much more when I'm in decent enough shape that I can thrive and not just survive the days.