Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Cycle-touring, Expeditions, Adventures, Major cycle routes NOT LeJoG (see other special board)
ipswichcycler
Posts: 97
Joined: 10 Sep 2013, 9:19pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by ipswichcycler »

al_yrpal wrote: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


I might be talking non sense here but I thought it was not just about overall weight. Something about heavy wheels and rotational mass. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Putting some light weight folding tyres might make the nomad a hit more spritely. Marathon mondial will really slow you down compared to some light pasela tour guards.
Manalishi
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Aug 2011, 9:57am

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by Manalishi »

Thanks for all the replies. Food for thought indeed!
The Nomad is over engineered for the majority of our roads but it is rock solid. That may be the issue with it. I find it very boring to ride. It feels like a juggernaut. This makes perfect sense when fully loaded but riding it just out for a day is very unrewarding.

I don't have a particular type of riding that I prefer.
I absolutely should lose the weight and cycling is a great way to do it but I would see a good road bike as a better way to do it than the Thorn
m-gineering
Posts: 254
Joined: 23 May 2015, 12:01pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by m-gineering »

Manalishi wrote: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'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?


The thorn is paid for, so why not put it on a diet: remove all the bits the Domane doesn't have like racks, lights, mudguards, locks, leather saddle, sidestand, huge pedals, Marathon plusses etc. With a lightweight saddle, lightweight tyres and tubes it will ride a lot better
Bikepacking setups are great for off road, where balance (load between wheels) and solid mounting and being able to get off the back are important. For road only a light rearrack and minimalistic bags work fine. Spend the money saved on a sub kilo tent, sleeping bag etc

Current roadbikes make terrible tourers: gears are too high, and the maximum tyre size is too narrow for comfort
Marten

Touring advice for NL: www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm
Merry_Wanderer
Posts: 1002
Joined: 31 Aug 2012, 9:33am
Location: North Leicestershire

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by Merry_Wanderer »

I weighed my Surly Troll with rear rack attached but no bottles or load attached and it is 16.5kg. FWIW I would do as others have suggested and keep the same bike but reduce the weight of the load. I would get all of the items that you normally take and weigh them one by one and then have a look at how you could reduce the weight
22camels
Posts: 302
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 8:15pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by 22camels »

I love the way people have of quoting their bike weights. It makes so little sense. Comparing apples to oranges.

Exactly which extras are you including? What model of rack? What is the margin of error - +/- 1kg on kitchen scales?

In my opinion only two things matter and can be compared meaningfully - the frame+fork weight and the weight of the wheels without tyres. Everything else is either fairly standard (can't see there being much variation in the weight of standard touring drivetrain derailleur components and rim brakes, and a few hundred grams can be saved on a saddle) or (/and) optional e.g. big tyres - and tyres make a massive difference to the feel of a bike. Of course nobody knows their frame weight because manufacturers don't like to reveal it because everyone is so weight conscious. So they have to guess.

I did a weight analysis of my bike recently, breaking it down into its parts, guessing (or rather calculating) what I couldn't measure (because I didn't strip it fully down). It was quite good fun and I learnt a bit. I've done a similar exercise with my luggage. I like to know exactly what every single gram is there for.
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 »

22camels wrote:I love the way people have of quoting their bike weights. It makes so little sense. Comparing apples to oranges.

I like to know exactly what every single gram is there for.


Its not, if you would like a list of parts look at the Salsa website what you are saying makes even less sense, a bike is more than just a frame and fork. And I know exactly what I tour with down to the last gram too. The whole point is my bike is a pretty standard modern tourer, they are all 4 to 6 kilos less than a Rohlhoff Thorn. Tyres make less than a kg difference.

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......
22camels
Posts: 302
Joined: 21 Sep 2013, 8:15pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by 22camels »

Yes Salsa are one of the few to publish frame weights (and for every size). I am also curious how a Rohloff Thorn ends up 4-6kg heavier, I think a lot of this weight discussion is very subjective because people are measuring weights in different ways, some less precise than others.
simonhill
Posts: 5227
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 11:28am
Location: Essex

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by simonhill »

While you all argue your bike kgs, I have just gone back and reread the original post.

It strikes me that a big part of the problem is that the OP needs to get (touring) fit. He can't do hills, OK many struggle, but he also says 20 miles is a problem. He has a decent bike and unless he is carrying a huge load, that sort of distance shouldn't be a problem to a regular tourer.

My suggestion is a regular riding regime to get your fitness and riding levels up. Your excess 20 kgs may be more important to shed than 3 or 4 on the bike.
Merry_Wanderer
Posts: 1002
Joined: 31 Aug 2012, 9:33am
Location: North Leicestershire

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by Merry_Wanderer »

22camels wrote:Yes Salsa are one of the few to publish frame weights (and for every size). I am also curious how a Rohloff Thorn ends up 4-6kg heavier, I think a lot of this weight discussion is very subjective because people are measuring weights in different ways, some less precise than others.


I meant no offence to the OP by putting my bike weight in the post. I posted it to show that not everyone rides lightweight touring bikes :-)
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 »

simonhill wrote:While you all argue your bike kgs, I have just gone back and reread the original post.

It strikes me that a big part of the problem is that the OP needs to get (touring) fit. He can't do hills, OK many struggle, but he also says 20 miles is a problem. He has a decent bike and unless he is carrying a huge load, that sort of distance shouldn't be a problem to a regular tourer.

My suggestion is a regular riding regime to get your fitness and riding levels up. Your excess 20 kgs may be more important to shed than 3 or 4 on the bike.


+1 and tackle the weight if thats doable, it will help loads. Not easy but effective.

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
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by horizon »

This has been discussed before but what are people's views at present on body weight versus bike weight?

Don't some people say that body weight is carried by the muscles but bike weight has to be pushed? And what about wheel/tyre weight as opposed to weight in a pannier or frame?

On this basis, how many kilos of body weight equals 1 kg of bike weight? This I would have thought is crucial to the OP.
And how many gms of tyre weight equals 100 gms of bike weight? Are they equal when it comes to riding?
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 »

Manalishi wrote:Thanks for all the replies. Food for thought indeed!
The Nomad is over engineered for the majority of our roads but it is rock solid. That may be the issue with it. I find it very boring to ride. It feels like a juggernaut. This makes perfect sense when fully loaded but riding it just out for a day is very unrewarding.

How does it feel like a juggernaut? But although I've not ridden one, I think this may be a common sentiment because I know someone with a Nomad who also has a Hewitt Cheviot for rides where more hills or distance are involved.

22camels wrote:I love the way people have of quoting their bike weights. It makes so little sense. Comparing apples to oranges.

Exactly which extras are you including? What model of rack? What is the margin of error - +/- 1kg on kitchen scales?

My weights above are fully-built including whatever racks and guards came with it (usually Original Equipment, except for the road bikes). I weigh with luggage scales hanging the bike from a strap around the stem and seatpost. The scales should be good to within a few grams, but I do round to the nearest half-kilo because this isn't a precise thing, but if the margin of error on your kitchen scales is 1kg, then you must have awful problems baking cakes!

In my opinion only two things matter and can be compared meaningfully - the frame+fork weight and the weight of the wheels without tyres. Everything else is either fairly standard (can't see there being much variation in the weight of standard touring drivetrain derailleur components and rim brakes, and a few hundred grams can be saved on a saddle) or (/and) optional e.g. big tyres - and tyres make a massive difference to the feel of a bike.

I agree that tyres can make a massive difference, but what drivetrain derailleur and brake standards? The bikes in our shed have everything from hub brakes to ye olde single-pivot sidepulls.

Of course nobody knows their frame weight because manufacturers don't like to reveal it because everyone is so weight conscious. So they have to guess.

Or weigh it... but it's basically a lot of work to strip a bike to get a number that's essentially meaningless because you can't ride a bare frame.
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.
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 »

horizon wrote:This has been discussed before but what are people's views at present on body weight versus bike weight?

Don't some people say that body weight is carried by the muscles but bike weight has to be pushed? And what about wheel/tyre weight as opposed to weight in a pannier or frame?

On this basis, how many kilos of body weight equals 1 kg of bike weight? This I would have thought is crucial to the OP.
And how many gms of tyre weight equals 100 gms of bike weight? Are they equal when it comes to riding?


Errr.have a read of a Physics textbook, in particular how work is calculated. Whether the weight is in the body or the bike it makes little difference. As far as wheels and tyres are concerned extra energy is expended accelerating a wheel, so light tyres are good, but again overall its the weight of the whole thing that matters. The less the better, which is why bikepacking (touring on a light bike with light luggage) seems attractive. If I was very heavy what would worry me is touring on a light bike thats like a metronome, I have done that and its horrible.

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......
Manalishi
Posts: 23
Joined: 2 Aug 2011, 9:57am

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by Manalishi »

It seems to me that we are back to the fact that there is no single perfect bike. There will always be compromises.
If I wanted to embark on a multi week tour carrying a lot of gear then the Nomad would be a great choice. I don't find it much fun to ride generally though.
I need to drop 20kg and dramatically improve fitness. My chosen method is cycling and a change in diet.
Therefore a road bike seems to make sense. Light, responsive and fun. Yes, I would add a few extras, mudguards for one and probably a power meter.
I already own some very lightweight camping gear with a hammock being my sleep system of choice.
I will keep the nomad too as it has it's place. My Dutch "transportfiets" will get sold to help finance the purchase. Gazelle Heavy Duty NL anyone? :)
hamster
Posts: 4131
Joined: 2 Feb 2007, 12:42pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by hamster »

If you go for a road bike make sure the gears are low enough (i.e. a triple) or you will likely be back to square one. Road bike gearing is set for those who are already reasonably fit.
Post Reply