Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Cycle-touring, Expeditions, Adventures, Major cycle routes NOT LeJoG (see other special board)
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by PH »

mjr wrote: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.


I think that juggernaut feeling might be as much to do with Thorns geometry as weight. My Raven was a superbly practical bike and a very comfortable and a capable tourer, well made and ultra reliable, but I never really enjoyed riding it, impossible to define but lacked the fun factor. Despite being pretty similar weights, I enjoy riding my current Rohloff bike and my Hewitt Cheviot far more.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by PH »

Manalishi wrote: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.

You say in the OP you've had a number of other touring bikes, what were they and how did you find them?
I expect there's a bike somewhere between the Nomad and Domane that would suite you better than either. I have a fairly lightweight steel Audax bike (SOMA ES) and I'm 100kg. Adding even small panniers has a bad effect on handling, I wouldn't want to use it with even a light camping load.
If you do want to tour with a light bike, you might consider a trailer, it's not something I know much about though I met someone who does this for combining Audax and camping and it worked well for them.
User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 6044
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by foxyrider »

hamster wrote:...especially as a Rohloff is the same as a high-end gear set.


Really? I'll need to check that out if a Rohloff only weighs the same as my Campag gears, under 300 grams. Best let Froomy know as well coz i'm sure he'll be up for an upgrade!

To the OP's question, why not go part way - my Focus Mares AX weighs in @ 10kg including racks, mudguards and dynohub. It could go lighter but even with the stock parts it was only @ 1kg more. Quite nippy, go anywhere, comfortable - gets my vote for touring
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by PH »

foxyrider wrote: as my Campag gears, under 300 grams.


:o :o :o :o :o :o
Hub, cassette, front derailleur, rear derailleur, chainset for 300g, I want one.
Rohloff is claimed to be around the same weight as the components it replaces, offering the same sort of gear range and a similar level of robustness. So something like a LX MTB triple. That's probably a bit optimistic, it more likely to be a couple of hundred grams heavier, IMO not enough of a weight difference for me to bother about on a touring bike. Where it can make a difference on an unloaded bike is having all the weight concentrated in the bask wheel, it does make it feel different.
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 »

foxyrider wrote:
hamster wrote:...especially as a Rohloff is the same as a high-end gear set.


Really? I'll need to check that out if a Rohloff only weighs the same as my Campag gears, under 300 grams. Best let Froomy know as well coz i'm sure he'll be up for an upgrade!

Please compare like with like: rear sprockets, both derailleurs, all but one chainring, the front cabling and the shifters. The Rohloff is one of the lighter hubs for its 14 gears (3-speeds are lighter, of course ;-) which is how my robust-3-speed roadster ends up a similar weight to my "lightweight aluminium" hybrid... the hybrid has a slightly wider gear range but how often do I use the extreme gears? But I use the roadster's comfort more), and searching the fine web makes me think the typical Rohloff setup is within 200g of a robust Shimano gear set. In return, you get better efficiency and less maintenance. If you're OK with the initial purchase price, it seems a nice piece of kit.
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
honesty
Posts: 2658
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by honesty »

The nomad is a heavy bike. The frame alone weighs around 3kg by itself. Add over a kilo of fork and you've got 2kg sitting in the frame before you even add in other weights. Stick in a Rohloff, super robust rims, and massive tyres it can easily be 4 to 6kg heavier than other touring bikes. Then again it is not other touring bikes, it is an expedition bike and designed as such.

You can put it on a diet, but you cant realistically put lighter wheels in (unless you want to re-build the rohloff rear wheel), and you are never going to get rid of the 2kg of frame weight. By the time you've done that it would have probably be cheaper to have bought an Audax.

I'd have to say, what are your goals, and how much do you want to spend. You can make the nomad feel better. take off all the stuff you dont want, and put much lighter tyres on it. I'd question though, would it be more cost effectly just to go to Spa or Thorn and get one of their audax machines. Remember the Thorn audax comes with front mounts to carry 5kg as well...
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by PH »

honesty wrote:The nomad is a heavy bike. The frame alone weighs around 3kg by itself. Add over a kilo of fork and you've got 2kg sitting in the frame before you even add in other weights.


The Nomad frame weighs 2.8kg according to review where it was weighed. The Thorn Audax frame you recommend as a lightweight alternative weighs an average 2.3 kg according the the Thorn website. If the OPs Nomad is the rigid fork version, there isn't going to be more than a few grams between that and the longer, front rack ready steel Audax one. Where is this 2kg saving?
Whatever the OP decides to do, it is more likely to bring satisfaction if based on accurate information.
nez
Posts: 2080
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 12:11am

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by nez »

al_yrpal wrote:
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


I don't think the location of the weight is as neutral as you say. I recently bought a Specialized Roubaix for fun spins. It weighs 7k plus less than my usual bike - a SuperGalaxy with bags. There's just no comparison. My avg speed is up a couple of kph and I can cycle comfortably up hills I usually grind up. Yes it would be great to take off ten kilos from me, but don't underestimate a lighter, stiffer bike.
User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2658
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by honesty »

PH wrote:
honesty wrote:The nomad is a heavy bike. The frame alone weighs around 3kg by itself. Add over a kilo of fork and you've got 2kg sitting in the frame before you even add in other weights.


The Nomad frame weighs 2.8kg according to review where it was weighed. The Thorn Audax frame you recommend as a lightweight alternative weighs an average 2.3 kg according the the Thorn website. If the OPs Nomad is the rigid fork version, there isn't going to be more than a few grams between that and the longer, front rack ready steel Audax one. Where is this 2kg saving?
Whatever the OP decides to do, it is more likely to bring satisfaction if based on accurate information.


Thorn say the frame weighs 3kg in their sales material. The fork - whilst no weight is given a similar Thorn fork has its weight as 1.48kg. Say 1.5kg for ease. A total of 4.5kg

The Thorn audax (I could go with a spa Ti on here at 1.5kg for even more saving) weighs 2.3kg. Standard forks at 1kg, carbon forks are 0.6kg. So a range of 2.1kg to 3.3kg. Or a weight difference of 1.2kg to 2.4kg. Or 2kg ish for short.
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3244
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by bigjim »

you really need to read this
http://ultralightcycling.blogspot.co.uk/
Then this
https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=tS&page_id=284357&v=FF#pic_1280395.
i try to tour as light as possible. I'm not particularly overweight but I am heavy. I'm happy with that as Cycling is not all of me. I enjoy weight training a lot, which means carrying upper muscle that is useless on the bike, but I want to keep it. Light road bikes are fun to ride and I've toured on one with panniers and camping gear. I can't remember thinking that I was uncomfortable though I stuck a Brooks saddle on it and bigger tyres. It had a stiff aluminium frame but it was fine. And fun. If I had to stick with one bike it would probably be a light road bike.
khain
Posts: 245
Joined: 5 Feb 2014, 5:42pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by khain »

A road bike might not be that much easier on hills due to the higher gearing. I would try stripping as much weight as possible from the Thorn first before buying a new bike. Lose absolutely everything that isn't essential. I find having less stuff in itself makes touring more enjoyable. Get some narrow, high-pressure road tyres and see if that makes a difference. But as others have said, if you're cycling only on good roads there isn't much need for an expedition bike. If you're heading somewhere remote there is.
geocycle
Posts: 2177
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by geocycle »

The nomad is a brilliant bike for expedition touring ie carting 60kg of kit and water across continents. The weight but more importantly the geometry make it a very stable bike that can be pedalled for long days according to friends. My personal experience is of a raven tour and a raven sports tour, the 'lightweight' siblings of the nomad weighing in at 16kg and 15kg respectively. These are likely to be a very similar ride to the nomad. An absolute pleasure to ride with perfect handling, complete comfort, totally reliable and excellent load shifting: or very boring depending on your perspective. Both Raven's feel almost exactly the same unladen as with up to 15kg on them, above 20kg you begin to notice a bit. The sports tour is a bit quicker (1mph) unladen and my preferred all rounder. So I think geometry has a big role here, plus the weight of the rohloff on the back wheel. It is not much heavier overall than an XT set up but the distribution is different. If I were the OP I'd be looking for an audax bike to complement the nomad that could take a bar bag and large saddlebag, although 'audax' covers a multitude of bikes and not all are as good with kit.
MockCyclist
Posts: 161
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 7:18pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by MockCyclist »

My Raven Sport Tour weighs 13.5 Kilo net of racks and bottle cages. Will it ride similar to a Nomad? I'm doubtful. Chainstay length of the Nomad is from 32mm to 64mm longer than the Sport Tour. I think that's what give the juggernaut feeling.
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 »

MockCyclist wrote:My Raven Sport Tour weighs 13.5 Kilo net of racks and bottle cages. Will it ride similar to a Nomad? I'm doubtful. Chainstay length of the Nomad is from 32mm to 64mm longer than the Sport Tour. I think that's what give the juggernaut feeling.

I suspect it's a more complete set of geometry differences, as someone suggested above. My ~200mm longer (yes, really, although that's the effect of the fork angle and bend as well as chainstay length) roadster doesn't feel much more juggernauty than my hybrid. When turning into a tight gap at slow speeds, I can feel a handling difference (sort of a need to lean more for longer, if that makes sense) and the 2kg extra weight makes it feel like it has more interia, but it doesn't handle that differently in general. Or maybe I'm just insensitive :lol: but I can feel the road bike being a lot more jumpy... I'm almost afraid to sneeze if I'm not balanced!
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.
whoof
Posts: 2519
Joined: 29 Apr 2014, 2:13pm

Re: Bike packing versus conventional touring.

Post by whoof »

In response to the OP request I have some limited experience of this.

We have a couple of things in common; age and I've looked at moving from touring on a 'touring' bike (mine's a converted mountain bike) to using a road bike (Kinesis T2 with mudguards and rear rack).
There is a weight difference between the two bikes ~5kg but there is also a difference in the geometry and how the bike handles.
I've also reduced the load that I carry so now every thing fits easily in a single pannier. These have included ditching the tent and sleeping mat and using a tarp and hammock.
Personally I have found this very enjoyable.

However, there are also differences between us. I have only used this set up for weekend touring in good weather and I'm not sure I would on an extended tour. Even for a two week camping tour this summer I used my touring bike and carried more stuff. This is obviously down to the individual and what they deem as essential and the level of comfort they require. I've met people touring (albeit in hotels) with their luggage in one bottle cage and a couple of rear jersey pockets.

The other difference is personal fitness. I am sure you know that as this increases that you will find cycling, on whatever you choose to ride to be more enjoyable. I wish you all the best with this, happy riding.
Post Reply