Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Cycle-touring, Expeditions, Adventures, Major cycle routes NOT LeJoG (see other special board)
Manalishi
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Aug 2011, 9:57am

Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by Manalishi »

Despite the fact that we all have an obligation to be happy there is turmoil in my world.
I have owned a number of touring bikes over the years and have enjoyed some memorable tours.
My current bike is a Thorn Nomad Rohloff. Whilst it's a very well built bike, it weighs a ton. Somewhere in the region of 19kg without bags.
I have now hit the tender age of 50 and carry a fair amount of excess weight I'm struggling to enjoy cycling. Hills kill me and anything over 20 miles loaded is a real challenge.
In the back of my mind I can't help but resent the weight of the bike. (Yes, I should lose 20kg myself).
I'm toying with the idea of going with a light road bike such as a Trek Domane and then strapping on a couple of dry bags to carry an ultralight shelter etc.
I was wondering if anyone has experience of extended touring with such a lightweight setup?
Any advice would be great!
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by horizon »

I don't think you need go from one extreme to the other. What you might find though is that you are caught in vicious circle: the more you carry, the heavier the racks, the stronger the bike. Start the circle the other way and you can start to get rid of the front bags, the front racks, the heavy duty rack, the wide tyres ... etc etc. And then you're almost in Audax bike country.

It depends as well what touring you're doing: the Thorn IMV is well over-spec'd for this country (or similar) and you can easily tour on a lighter bike. OTOH, if want to carry 30 kg of equipment (on poor roads in Africa), then the Thorn is the bike for the job.

I think you're going to get a lot of advice to go lighter, though a road bike might be a step too far.

PS I'm guessing that you might want to cycle up all the hills. IMV, if you are carrying a lot of gear you might have to walk a few, even with the low gears that the Thorn has. Even a superfit cyclist may have to do that - weight is weight.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by PH »

Not wishing to be rude, but if you could loose 20kg, then a lightweight roadbike is probably not the way to go.
I'm sure that even your Nomad and current touring setup will have plenty of weight saving potential without compromising strength and reliability. For extended touring, you'll have to decide how much comfort you're prepared to sacrifice for weight saving. It's a delicate balance.
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11537
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by al_yrpal »

You suggested exactly what I did. Trailing up hills behind touring companions is what motivated it. I swore I would loose fat equivalent to the weight of my panniers and I did it over 10 months, 48lbs in all. But, I also got a few bits of lighter gear, a 'coffin' type tent, a lighter sleeping bag and stove and some lighter bits and pieces of clothing. Sadly last July whilst I was loosing weight I fell off injuring my shoulder and I have been unable to do more than 25 miles at a stretch. I am hoping I can fit something in in the next couple of months. Your Thorn sounds like a very nice bike, the best way to achieve your objective IMO is to fight the flab! :D

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
User avatar
Heltor Chasca
Posts: 3016
Joined: 30 Aug 2014, 8:18pm
Location: Near Bath & The Mendips in Somerset

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by Heltor Chasca »

Alpkit do some fantastic bike-bag options which are light and can be added to light MTBs or road bikes (I think) However by stripping down your load you need to rough-it when you sleep by using ultralight/small kit. In my lithe youth I could sleep on a clothes line but now I need a decent mat and sleeping bag. So now you are back to needing the luggage space.

Vicious circle this outdoors malarkey. It should be banned...b
hamster
Posts: 4131
Joined: 2 Feb 2007, 12:42pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by hamster »

My steel MTB-based tourer is only 25lbs and it's survived 25 years of general off-road abuse. I personally think Thorn went severely over the top with the Nomad. I'll expect a suicide attack from the Thorn taliban any moment though. Probably half the weight is stem stackers :lol:

However it is horses for courses. The Nomad is overkill for tarmac, so an old 90s steel MTB with a rigid fork would give you much the same and be a cheap experiment. It will also allow you to run any tyre from 1" to 2.2". Alternatively a Dawes Galaxy or Surly Long Haul trucker would be a good starting point.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by PH »

hamster wrote:However it is horses for courses. The Nomad is overkill for tarmac, so an old 90s steel MTB with a rigid fork would give you much the same and be a cheap experiment. It will also allow you to run any tyre from 1" to 2.2". Alternatively a Dawes Galaxy or Surly Long Haul trucker would be a good starting point.


How much weight difference do you think there will be between a Nomad frame and a steel MTB one?
The Nomad frame weighs I think 2.8kg, so any saving is going to be counted in grams rather than kilograms.
If it is a sus fork model, then you could swap it for a rigid and save a bit of weight and effort.

I swapped my Raven frameset for a custom Ti one, it's now a bike that I like a lot better in many ways, but the weight saving on the frame was 230g.
ipswichcycler
Posts: 97
Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 9:19pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by ipswichcycler »

I thought the same a couple of months back. I've also got a thorn nomad. Recently bought a boardman hybrid pro. Swapped a few bits over and have used it for a local bike and bivi trip using a small rucksack and very light weight sleeping bag and mat. I'm liking the hydraulic disk brakes but the frame and forks are more vibey than the nomad. The ride comfort is not the same. I think both can be good.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by horizon »

PH wrote:
How much weight difference do you think there will be between a Nomad frame and a steel MTB one?
The Nomad frame weighs I think 2.8kg, so any saving is going to be counted in grams rather than kilograms.



I weighed my cheap Dawes cro-mo MTB the other day (with racks both ends, bottle, cheap heavy seat post, butterfly bars, big tyres etc). It came in at 16.5 kg so I'm wondering if the OP could lose a few kg from his Nomad just by re-weighing it.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by mjr »

PH wrote:How much weight difference do you think there will be between a Nomad frame and a steel MTB one?
The Nomad frame weighs I think 2.8kg, so any saving is going to be counted in grams rather than kilograms.

Yep, next to naff all. The bikes (fully-built - you can't ride only a frame) I've weighed range from 11kg for a too-small-for-me modern carbon/aluminium/plastic road bike to 18kg for my large opafiets with metal guards and a rack as thick as the stays. My own road bike weighs 13kg (I'm fairly tall) and a steel MTB (borderline too small for me) was 16kg.

The UCI racing bike weight limit was 6.8kg for a long time and I think anyone bikepacking would soon be adding sturdier bits to them, or even just longer stems and so on for a more relaxed riding position. The lightest bike I've seen reported is about 3kg but almost everything is custom, which isn't great for touring - and I wouldn't like to guess at the rider+luggage weight limit on that! Credit-card touring only?

So it's probably practical to lose at most 7 or 8kg from an 19kg bike like the Nomad and that costs quite a lot. I feel it's far more effective to lose that weight from the rider or luggage if you can. Ignoring the rider weight loss, try bikepacking or credit-card tourist tactics on the luggage anyway? That could also let you know whether you can tolerate a tour with less kit or if you like the comforts.

Oh and I ride the opafiets most. It's practical and comfortable... so say it cruises at 16mph rather than 17mph which I think would mean each mile cruising takes 13 seconds longer... Touring is dominated by stops and navigation anyway, while the greater comfort means less rest required IMO, so more time for tourism. The main reason I consider a road bike for anything is when I need to lift it up much or pack it up for transport but I want something more than a folding bike.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
ferdinand
Posts: 376
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by ferdinand »

hamster
Posts: 4131
Joined: 2 Feb 2007, 12:42pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by hamster »

PH wrote:
hamster wrote:How much weight difference do you think there will be between a Nomad frame and a steel MTB one?
The Nomad frame weighs I think 2.8kg, so any saving is going to be counted in grams rather than kilograms.
If it is a sus fork model, then you could swap it for a rigid and save a bit of weight and effort.

I swapped my Raven frameset for a custom Ti one, it's now a bike that I like a lot better in many ways, but the weight saving on the frame was 230g.


If your Thorn is 2.8kg for the frame only (no fork) then it's a tank! My midrange Kona is 1.8kg, plus a 750g Kona P2 fork.
I don't quite see how it gets to 19kg though, especially as a Rohloff is the same as a high-end gear set.
simonhill
Posts: 5226
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 11:28am
Location: Essex

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by simonhill »

I love these sort of posts and all the replies. Loads of considered opinions without actually knowing what the OP wants.

Where are you touring, what is extended, etc,etc? Ride somewhere like SE Asia and you can go very light as hotels and food are plentiful and cheap. Ride in Iceland and it is a different story.

I also question the bickepacking thing as being intrinsically different. For many years some people called normal touring "bikepacking" as per backpacking (I think originally a US term). Now the gear salesmen have introduced it as a way of buying lots of strange shaped bags to wedge into your frame.

There were a couple of bikepackiing set ups in a recent Cycle Mag and I thought they looked odd, if not downright funny. How much extra nylon, Velcro, zippers, straps, etc make up al those tiny bags.

If you want to go light I believe there is something called a saddlebag, although a bit too traditional for me - I would favour a pair of small (front) panniers on a lightweight rear rack. Oh and I would call it cycle touring.
ipswichcycler
Posts: 97
Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 9:19pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by ipswichcycler »

hamster wrote:
PH wrote:
hamster wrote:How much weight difference do you think there will be between a Nomad frame and a steel MTB one?
The Nomad frame weighs I think 2.8kg, so any saving is going to be counted in grams rather than kilograms.
If it is a sus fork model, then you could swap it for a rigid and save a bit of weight and effort.

I swapped my Raven frameset for a custom Ti one, it's now a bike that I like a lot better in many ways, but the weight saving on the frame was 230g.


If your Thorn is 2.8kg for the frame only (no fork) then it's a tank! My midrange Kona is 1.8kg, plus a 750g Kona P2 fork.
I don't quite see how it gets to 19kg though, especially as a Rohloff is the same as a high-end gear set.


My 590l nomad is also 19kg.
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11537
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by al_yrpal »

For the OPs info my bog standard Salsa Vaya 3 complete with rack, bottle cages and odd things like computer, pump strap and bar bag attachment weighs in at 14.6kg, 4kg lighter than the Thorn.

A sensible thing to try would be to calculate what your total bikepacking load might be. Borrow a light bike and load up a single pannier to equal that load and go for a 50 mile day ride over some decent hills to see how you get on. If you are near an Evans store I think you can borrow any bike for a day as a tryout.

Or, calculate the bikepacking load and ride your Thorn with a bikepacking load reduced by 10kg, representing the weight difference between a light road bike and the Thorn. This would tell you what you need to know and save you making a costly mistake.

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Post Reply