Not all of us tour with four full panniers, etc. etc. ... several of us tour somewhat lighter than that, or quite significantly lighter than that.


[HR][/HR]
This is our 8-month tour setup, and is roughly the setup we usually use. This photo was taken about 6 weeks into that tour. I can't think of anything we would have put into front panniers.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/...40bc3988_z.jpg

Ah that's more like it -- very similar to what I think mine is. Minus the flowers, of course.

How much do those flowers weigh, anyway???

:lol:

We left the flowers on the wall. Figured the owners of the flowers wouldn't appreciate us taking them away. :D

That is sort of what I was trying to say.

I will add that I sometimes find that single purpose items work out better than multifunction ones so it is a good idea to consider the merits of both choices. I find it best to ask:

1. Does the multifunction item actually weigh less than the single purpose items it replaces
2. Does the multifunction item actually do the functions all as well or at least well enough
3. Are all of the functions actually necessary, if not is the item lighter than the single purpose items that it replaces that are actually necessary
4. Are any problems created by the multifunction item? For example do you need it for two different purposes at the same time or will the item be wet or dirty from one use when it is needed for another

Multifunction items can be great choices, you just can't assume that will always be the case.

Hah! Same thoughts here.

I switched from heavily loaded bike touring to heavily loaded trekking about 20 years ago, then lightened my load so I could do the long trails (trailname Garlic, AT'08, CDT'07, PCT'04). While hiking with a ten pound base load, I started wondering what bike touring would be like with that load. So I tried it a few years ago and I'll tell you, there's no comparison. When I encounter the conventional bike tourist with five packs and a pile of stuff on the rear rack, sometimes with a trailer too, we look at each other in wonder. My packed bike:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=425507

You may need a little more weight for the bike--a few more tools and spares, a lock, oil. I consider the bike a companion and I need to pack some stuff for my companion. I carry a little more clothing for wind protection on mountain pass descents--the 30+ mph wind chill while you're just sitting there very exposed can be nasty. The packs can weigh a little more since they're subject to more abrasion--leaning against things, road hazards, etc.

Bike touring is a little different from backpacking. An excerpt from my journal: " I spent some time pondering the differences between cycle touring and long-distance hiking. They are hard to compare, and personal styles can blur the differences. For instance, there were several days in a row on this trip where I stayed outside and did not buy any groceries, just eating out of my pack and camping--very similar to a hiking trip. During some portions of the AT I left the trail quite often for restaurant meals and hotel stays, spending a lot of money, as you would expect a cyclist to do. In general, I found it was easier to stay clean on the bike, to get a shower nearly every day, and to eat better. But it was more difficult to find a good place to camp. Skin problems on the feet got traded for skin problems elsewhere. I had to use more sunscreen on the bike. I think cycling is lower-impact on joints, but higher risk for major trauma. Hiking is very appealing in its simplicity, but riding a bicycle is pretty fun. As I said, lots to consider and no clear answer. I have enjoyed each equally as well and it would be impossible to choose a preference.

Andrew, that was an outstanding reply, and clearly summarizes what is bubbling just under the surface of my (somewhat warped by the '70's) mind as I try to draw parallel lines between the sports. I love to backpack and I love cycling as well. As a quasi-ul guy i revel in light weight and my ability to extend my fun through judicious selection of gear (and methodologies), spending not too much on weekend towns and pointless 'necessities'. And therein lies the issue - I, too believe in meticulous maintenance and contingency planning, so I figured I'd need a few extra lbs. on the bike trip - namely, an assortment of allen wrenches and a philips, along with a spare tire/tube and my beloved Finish Line lube, some wind / sun protection --- and, of course, some extra dead presidents to stay in motels as needed. But from a base view, it seems to me the base gear is similar and logistics for both sports can easily be transported over - for example, my quilt is 19 oz, my tarp or hammock less than that, I have wicking everything and breathable lightweight everything, a ul kitchen, all the toys for backpacking that can easily be morphed into a couple of decent-sized panniers and a handlebar bag.

I am concerned about the 'places to camp' part, though.... Even on the trail, I found it difficult at times to find anything to hang my hammock on, so 'going to ground' happened. But on a cycling trip, it may not be so simple as 'going to ground', since that 'ground' may be restricted-use. Guess we'll play that one by ear. Thanks!!! for the entry and reply! And GREAT KIT!!!

Here's my beast. I may lose the low riders and keep the mini rack.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=425517

It's funny. Two large bags on the rear, stuff strapped on the rack, and a handlebar bag was pretty much the norm before Jim Blackburn did a study showing how much better bikes handled with a low rider and front panniers. I read the article when it came out and was convinced that this was the future (back then, :). When I made the switch to lowriders up front (and kept the rear bags), I noticed an impressive difference in handling esp. coming down a mountain side. The bike tracked really well with low riders.

I don't know if you can find the Blackburn study online, but John Schubert references it in his "rack primer" piece for Adventure Cyclist, A Rack Primer | How To Department | Adventure Cycling Association

That said, I understand the reasons why you might want just one rack and bags. That's a lot of weight savings in the rack and bags alone not even including the extra stuff you are not tempted to bring just because you have the space.

neat topic here.

It certainly is an interesting balance finding out what equipment one is comfortable with vs keeping the weight down as much as you can to make the ride more enjoyable vs how much cost.
Growing up doing canoe camping and having to lug packs over portages certainly taught me to appreciate less weight on my shoulders, and as I am not a big strong guy (younger or now) I have always certainly noticed less weight when going up long hills.

One aspect that I think is a real factor for a lot of people is the cost of having lighter stuff like a tent. Yes, this doesnt apply to only taking minimum clothing--and the error of taking too much clothing and/or heavy clothing is always going to be an issue with people who don't have self propelled camping experience, ie who have only car camped and never had to carry all the crap they take.
Cost thing I'm thinking of stuff like a tent, my example is probably pretty common-for years I had a 3 person tent (really a two person tent) because thats what I had (even single, hoping to meet an outdoor type of gal) and so it weighed probably 6.5 lbs easy, but its what I had and I wasnt going to buy an expensive one person tent, I always preferred to use that money on other stuff or to put towards a flight somewhere.
Clothes are fairly easy to chose light stuff and keeping the actual amount of clothes to a minimum, like you all have said, multi use and layering works fine for all "summer-ish" type temps we will usually see when bike touring, and even for a skinny guy like me who doesnt like to be cold, layering up can keep you comfortable.

re tools, and going back to the spare cable question, this is where being familiar with your bike and having repair/maintenance experience really makes a difference. Having hands on experience and really knowing your bikes condition is really going to make a difference of not having a mechanical problem. New cables, tires in good shape, and all of this stuff on a bike you ride regularly and not changing cables or whatever the day before you leave on a trip means you know everything is working fine beforehand with confidence--ie no need to take chain whips, cone wrenches or whatever- and yes, I figure I'll just get a lift somewhere if it is ever needed. So far my bike prep has meant I've never had a surprise needing a lift, so I'm sticking to what I've always done in the past, which translates into keeping the tools and parts list to a minimum.

Nuns mentioning of a cross country trip certainly made me think that with his RS setup and total bike/load weight, this will certainly make a real difference in days and days and days less traveling on such a long trip. For anyone, we tend to have a certain power output that we are comfortable putting out for all day, and especially day after day. Yes we get stronger over a trips duration, but for a given power output, pushing a 40lb bike/load combo is always going to be a bit faster than a 70lb bike/load combo, especially with all the ups we hit every day depending on the terrain. So it certainly makes sense to me that if you can cover lets say 25km more per day on a lighter bike expending the same amount of energy (a number I completely picked out of the blue), imagine how this will add up over many weeks--600km per month easy, and its not even meaning that you are pushing yourself more.
Could mean a cross country trip time could be easily a week or two less than on a bike with 40lbs of stuff, plus you save on accommodation, food costs.

I still think that for everyone there will be some doo-dad, piece of clothing, an inflatable pillow or whatever, that makes a comfort difference that is worth taking, but maybe because I'm getting older I can certainly see the attraction of getting the load weight down and finding your personal balance of weight/comfort/cost.

Two things about that to factor in...

First, it is less and less true the lighter you go. It seemed pretty true to me when I carried 45 pounds, but not since I have gone a lot lighter. When you get to less than 15 pounds base weight where you carry it becomes pretty much a non issue with regard to handling.

Second, it is perfectly possible to use front panniers on a low rider rack with no rear panniers. I have found that works quite well using two small front panniers. Depending on how much gear you have you can put some on the back either on a light rack or just strapped under the saddle.

Good points, I agree...
I did the ST on a similarly light weight setup to what I think nun plans to use. My bike was a little heavier and my gear a little lighter, but overall it was a similar setup. I definitely found it to be faster, easier, and more pleasant.

Machka, I checked some photos on your web page and saw that on some tours you had fenders and some you did not. Was this choice due to expected precipitation for the area and time of year, or did you ditch the fenders to save weight?

I have only done one short tour, with fenders, and pedaled in the rain only one day, for about 3 hours in 50 degree F temp. I was wearing a Frogg Togg rainsuit, but sweat soaked my torso from neck to thighs. I had my rain pants tied at the ankle so the legs didn't get caught on the chain ring, so the water ran into my socks and into my gore tex shoes. If I had had my gaiters or those fancy shoe covers, I might have made it with dry feet, but as it was, I was pretty well soaked; it was exhilarating but the thrill wore off by the time we got to a warm shelter.

So I am undecided and am asking your opinion about the fenders. They didn't seem to keep me any drier than I would have been without them, but I have read comments that they are indispensable. This is for paved road touring in Florida in January. Do I need a different rain suit?

Bingo. One of my options is to put my panniers on front, and hang one of the trunk bag/pannier combos on teh back. Still minimal weight, plus balance, plus it meets the 60-40 tenet of the Blackburn 'study' (in quotes because it is not scientific, but more experiential). The problem is, as slovenly and badly evolved humans, we tend to fill all available space. That is an axiom of backpacking, traveling with your wife, and (I assume) touring as well. So get the stuff you need, and only teh stuff you need, into the smallest practicable space.

In backpacking, you go after the lightest weight..... OR, just take what you want and train for it. And be prepared to carry it. Having backpacked with up to 55 lbs, I can sincerely say I am in the former camp.

I, too, read the Jim Blackburn study long ago and took it to heart following a terrifying descent of one of our local mountain roads. Loaded in the "normal" mid80s way, the bike shimmied and was nearly uncontrollable at anything over about 20 mph and, on a 3 mile downhill, that's just too much brake riding. I bought low riders shortly after and haven't looked back. My wife even uses front bags and low riders without a rear bag.

However, just because I use rear backs and front bags doesn't mean that I carry all that much extra stuff. There are trade-offs to be made going the ultralight route that some evangelize about around here that I don't want to make and, I suspect, many others wouldn't make either. staehpj1 may want to wear the same clothing day in and day out and/or put on wet clothes each morning, as well as cut the handle off his toothbrush and use a somewhat dangerous stove set up but not everyone wants to go that route. I like to have a few creature comforts. Not a lot but a few.

I also find that having extra space in both the front and rear bags comes in handy because food isn't always readily available even if your route goes through towns. Some places where you might expect to find grocery stores don't have them any more. The very populated Missouri River Valley comes to mind. Many of the little towns that used to exist along that river just don't have the services that were available even 20 years ago. Helmart has driven many of them out of business.

Exactly my experience, though much more pronounced than your "guesstimate". On a recent 4500 mile transcontinental tour with my newly-lightened rig, I budgeted up to 80 days and US$3,000 based on previous trips. The trip took 55 days and only $1,500. I had never ridden a century before with a fully-loaded touring bike--I did 17 on that trip, with three in a row once. I was tempted to turn around and go back.

Too much de France. Not enough tour.

Really? I find that a little mind boggling. Do folks actually choose bags and then just willy nilly throw stuff in them until they are full? I can't imagine it. I would have thought that most folks would make their their decisions by making a list and going over it numerous times, not by throwing stuff in their bags until they are full.

Carefully thinking out a list before any packing would seem the sensible approach whether you pack ultralight, ultra-heavy, or something in between. That is why I advise picking your gear, then choosing your racks and bags, and then choosing the bike to best suit them in that order.

But I wasn't in France :).

Your opinion. It was actually very fun, with not a single bad day.

I get this all the time on my long distance hikes, the people who say I'm not "smelling the roses" when I hike 25 miles over a 14 hour day. But if you make me stop after eight hours and sit in a campsite for the next 16, I'd go nuts. Just different styles for different people, as there are different tools to get different jobs done.

Funny thing is that when I compare notes with folks who think I don't take time to smell the roses I usually find that I met more interesting people, ate more interesting food, took more pictures, and saw more stuff than they did. It isn't how much time you take, but how you use the time you take.

This topic certainly touches on how there is no right or wrong way to do a bike trip, I certainly can appreciate the diff approaches, but as for the comment about people not filling up the space they have, I would think that this is a very common beginner thing. In fact with laptops, bigger cameras, chargers and whatnot, I figure new folks to touring probably take more than before.

I've mentioned before that Machkas rough estimate of bike+gear < half body weight certainly reflects what works for me.

A great rule of thumb for people starting out.

After reading this thread, there's only one thing coming into my mind, ''Am i a superhuman or what?''
I am not a super experienced cyclist, i carry over 40lbs of stuff + the weight of my bike and i never had difficulty going uphill.
Of course i am aware that with half the weight it will go faster and easier i guess, but, seriously, i don't care.
I like and use everything i bring, i also often carry for a week of food, i often ride country roads with not many town and even less many groceries.

I did many long hills and never heard myself complain about my load.
I will never cut weight in unnecessary things(thiings that i could survive without) such as my joggling balls, 3-4 books, drawing pad+ pens or my pair of hiking boots, just for the sake of riding faster and farther.

Not willy nilly in the sense of throwing in stuff that has absolutely zero utility, but when I spoke with Bruce Gordon when shopping for my first set of panniers he expressed the belief that many people do tend to take advantage of all available space, at least the first time out. My guess is that such people pack what they "need" and if they are left with additional capacity they say "Well. I still have room so maybe I will take X because it might come in handy. Oh. And Y might be nice to have once in a while, and since I have the room I must not be overpacking." I think a good example of this was the woman on my cross country tour who started out with a Watchman TV and a blow dryer. It was her first tour. Those items (and others) got shipped home at the start of the third day, a few days before we got into the mountains. In fact, at least three people shipped home significant weights on that day.

I am thankful that I have never had that mindset. That doesn't mean I go to great lengths to lighten the load, but I have never felt the need to fill every cubic inch.

That makes sense I guess.

Truth be told, I over packed (45 pounds) and sent stuff home on my first tour (TA). I don't think I was influenced much by available space though.

Each tourist eventually comes to the style of touring they like most; long weekends, cross country, motel hopping, ultralight, or heavier. Personally I carry between 15 and 20 lbs of gear because it is the most comfortable for me. I'm more comfortable camping with my current gear than with older, heavier and more numerous bits of gear I once used. But I don't want to go to a tarp, rather than a tent, because of bugs, that's my limit. I'm more comfortable riding with less gear and find it far easier to use public transportation when necessary. I don't like wearing dirty clothes, so I have one spare set and I wash the day's clothes every night. If they don't dry overnight I hang them on the bike and they are dry by lunch time and can be packed away.

I travel on a CF bike with a handlebar bag and a saddlebag because I find it more comfortable and enjoyable than with a more conventional touring set up. The goal isn't to go ultralight in itself, but rather to make touring easier and more fun. I enjoy my riding more with a more lively/faster bike and knowing that I can ride longer and faster than with a heavier setup reassures me. Lots of people will not enjoy the approach, but some will and I encourage those that find it intriguing to give it a go.

Are you kidding? a CF bike? I have a Trek 520 and a Masi CF roadbike. Other than the fast-twitch handling of the shorter wheelbase, I'm sort of afraid to put the CF frame through too much - it's so lightweight it almost feels - well, fragile. I'd love to see your gear list for a CF-based tour....Funny, DeadGrandpa and I have been hashing and hashing on platform selections and weight, right now my 520 is at about 29 lbs without gear (but with racks), and I figured I'd get off lucky with 12 lbs or so additional stuff, bringing total weight to 40-42 lbs or so. You must have a huge saddlebag....

Well, then. If you're not obsessed with grams, I guess you probably hate America. ....Just kidding:):);)
As lots of folks said, everybody has to find their own sweet spot and just manage it for themselves.

Welcome to the forum!