Lightweight Touring Considerations

All about touring, whether you are a local or visiting from overseas.

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:07 am

barefoot wrote:...unless you plan to put a fork on your Ti frame, which will eat into the weight savings a bit ;-)

A light carbon fork is 450g. Something suitable for touring, CrMo with braze-ons for low-rider racks etc., is going to be quite a bit heavier than that.

So... call it a kilo difference.

Now, are you running with two or three water bottles? Same difference...

tim

Why would anyone defile a beautiful titanium frame with a crude, ugly and heavy CrMo fork?

The Columbus Tusk Trekking fork I'm using (see pic in my previous post) has fixings for racks and caliper/v-brakes, and has stood up to the punishment I have dished out to it. Its appearance compliments the ti frame perfectly.

Your rough totting up of component weights are inaccurate. The truth is revealed by weighing the complete bikes in identical trim. And I've done the comparison with the LHT I replaced.

So, with both bikes in ready-to-tour trim; that is, fill the bottles, throw on the panniers and go.

Long Haul Trucker: 16.1kg
Sabbath Silk Route: 13.6kg.

So, call it 2.5kgs difference.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

by BNA » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:25 pm

BNA
 

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby barefoot » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:25 pm

RonK wrote:Why would anyone defile a beautiful titanium frame with a crude, ugly and heavy CrMo fork?

The Columbus Tusk Trekking fork I'm using (see pic in my previous post) has fixings for racks and caliper/v-brakes, and has stood up to the punishment I have dished out to it. Its appearance compliments the ti frame perfectly.


Well, I was figuring on 800g for a fork, and you've pointed us at one that weighs 740g. Lots of tourers would shy away from a carbon/aluminium fork - for reasons that may or may not be justified - but either way, we're more or less on a par for fork weight. That is, somewhere in between a 450g carbon race fork and a 1000g CrMo LHT fork. More than the zero fork weight the OP was factoring in to his 1.8kg saving by switching a Ti frame for a LHT.

Your rough totting up of component weights are inaccurate. The truth is revealed by weighing the complete bikes in identical trim. And I've done the comparison with the LHT I replaced.

So, with both bikes in ready-to-tour trim; that is, fill the bottles, throw on the panniers and go.

Long Haul Trucker: 16.1kg
Sabbath Silk Route: 13.6kg.

So, call it 2.5kgs difference.


See, you've just demonstrated my point perfectly.

You are not comparing bikes in identical trim.

You can't take a 16.1kg bike, take away a 3.3kg frame/fork [1], build the exact same components on to a 2.4kg frame/fork [2], and in doing so, reduce your total bike weight by 2.5kg. The sums don't add up.

Your new frameset saved you 900g. If your new bike is 2.5kg lighter - and I don't doubt that it is - you must have taken the other 1.6kg out of the parts you built it up with.

And that's exactly what people do, and why LHTs have such a reputation for being insanely heavy. People tend to build LHT framesets up with heavy parts, and built lighter framesets up with lighter parts. Then they blame the frameset for being heavy, when really, it's only part of the difference.

The ready-to-ride weight of my LHT was about 13kg. That was set up for general road riding. It was overbuilt for the purpose - in both the frame and the components.
The ready-to-ride weight of the XACD Ti bike I replaced it with is about 9kg. Also set up for general road riding.

I'm not kidding myself that I saved 4kg by getting rid of the LHT frameset. The LHT frameset doesn't have 4kg to save. Sure, I carried a few components across to the new bike, but mostly it was a new build of lighter parts all 'round. On a 1600g frame instead of a 2300g frame.
If I swapped a Trucker frame in place of my Ti frame, I'd be pushing close to 10kg.
If I built my Ti frame up with strong durable parts that would normally be found on a 15kg tourer, it would weigh more than 14kg.

If the OP wants to build a light tourer for his wife, frame weight is one thing to consider, but it's not the whole story.

tim



[1] quoted weight of a LHT frame and fork
[2] your (very tasty) Ti frame weighs about 1700g according to the manufacturer. Your fork is 740g, as above. That adds up to a bit over 2.4kg.
User avatar
barefoot
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Ballarat

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby barefoot » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:12 pm

PS:
RonK wrote:Why would anyone defile a beautiful titanium frame with a crude, ugly and heavy CrMo fork?


You might want to ask the manufacturer of your beautiful titanium frame the same question:
Image

As shown on their own website, with what certainly appears to be a brazed crown CrMo touring fork.

;-)

tim
Last edited by barefoot on Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
barefoot
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Ballarat

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby Vintagetourer » Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:17 pm

Three quick thoughts:
-Spa cycles (UK )sometimes have very good Ti prices
http://www.spacycles.co.uk/
- My well fitted Bike Friday is most comfortable bike for long rides.
- And do check out the Thorn Audax/light tourer
Excellent value.

Aren't Warren's pics great?
They save me having to go on tour :)
Vintagetourer
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:24 pm

Graham, dealing with Spa Cycles is a bit like beating your head on a brick wall.

After much obfuscation, they refused to take my order for a complete bike to be shipped to Australia.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:19 pm

barefoot wrote:
RonK wrote:Why would anyone defile a beautiful titanium frame with a crude, ugly and heavy CrMo fork?

The Columbus Tusk Trekking fork I'm using (see pic in my previous post) has fixings for racks and caliper/v-brakes, and has stood up to the punishment I have dished out to it. Its appearance compliments the ti frame perfectly.


Well, I was figuring on 800g for a fork, and you've pointed us at one that weighs 740g. Lots of tourers would shy away from a carbon/aluminium fork - for reasons that may or may not be justified - but either way, we're more or less on a par for fork weight. That is, somewhere in between a 450g carbon race fork and a 1000g CrMo LHT fork. More than the zero fork weight the OP was factoring in to his 1.8kg saving by switching a Ti frame for a LHT.

Your rough totting up of component weights are inaccurate. The truth is revealed by weighing the complete bikes in identical trim. And I've done the comparison with the LHT I replaced.

So, with both bikes in ready-to-tour trim; that is, fill the bottles, throw on the panniers and go.

Long Haul Trucker: 16.1kg
Sabbath Silk Route: 13.6kg.

So, call it 2.5kgs difference.


See, you've just demonstrated my point perfectly.

You are not comparing bikes in identical trim.

You can't take a 16.1kg bike, take away a 3.3kg frame/fork [1], build the exact same components on to a 2.4kg frame/fork [2], and in doing so, reduce your total bike weight by 2.5kg. The sums don't add up.

Your new frameset saved you 900g. If your new bike is 2.5kg lighter - and I don't doubt that it is - you must have taken the other 1.6kg out of the parts you built it up with.

And that's exactly what people do, and why LHTs have such a reputation for being insanely heavy. People tend to build LHT framesets up with heavy parts, and built lighter framesets up with lighter parts. Then they blame the frameset for being heavy, when really, it's only part of the difference.

The ready-to-ride weight of my LHT was about 13kg. That was set up for general road riding. It was overbuilt for the purpose - in both the frame and the components.
The ready-to-ride weight of the XACD Ti bike I replaced it with is about 9kg. Also set up for general road riding.

I'm not kidding myself that I saved 4kg by getting rid of the LHT frameset. The LHT frameset doesn't have 4kg to save. Sure, I carried a few components across to the new bike, but mostly it was a new build of lighter parts all 'round. On a 1600g frame instead of a 2300g frame.
If I swapped a Trucker frame in place of my Ti frame, I'd be pushing close to 10kg.
If I built my Ti frame up with strong durable parts that would normally be found on a 15kg tourer, it would weigh more than 14kg.

If the OP wants to build a light tourer for his wife, frame weight is one thing to consider, but it's not the whole story.

tim



[1] quoted weight of a LHT frame and fork
[2] your (very tasty) Ti frame weighs about 1700g according to the manufacturer. Your fork is 740g, as above. That adds up to a bit over 2.4kg.

Quibbling about the weight of individual components does not explain the difference. Yes, the Sabbath had a carbon fibre (now ti) seatpost when it was weighed, but otherwise the difference in components (XT vs LX) won't amount to much. And the STI and Chukker rims are heavier and would make up for it.

Your reliance on the manufacturers published weights is where you are going wrong. You can add them up any which way and the result will still be wrong. The only reliable measure is the side-by-side weigh-in, the results of which were published here nearly 3 years ago.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Sun Jul 28, 2013 4:27 pm

barefoot wrote:PS:
RonK wrote:Why would anyone defile a beautiful titanium frame with a crude, ugly and heavy CrMo fork?


You might want to ask the manufacturer of your beautiful titanium frame the same question:

As shown on their own website, with what certainly appears to be a brazed crown CrMo touring fork.

;-)

tim

Yes, my bike is/was on the feedback page and on their Facebook page. They obviously haven't updated the picture, however after I raised this very matter with them and pointed out that the fork (it's a Surly fork) was inappropriate, Sabbath agreed and informed me that they have now sourced the Columbus fork I suggested.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby barefoot » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:00 pm

RonK wrote:Your reliance on the manufacturers published weights is where you are going wrong.

No, wrong again.

Out of interest, I weighed my LHT frame after stripping it down for sale. Just on luggage scales, but it came in at about 2.2kg. That's a bit under the quoted weight, but they quote for a 58cm frame and mine was 54cm.

I also weighed my XACD frame when it arrived, and it was a shade under 1600g. So I believe the Sabbath quoted weights, in the 1550 - 1750g range.

I don't remember actually weighing the LHT fork, but I've weighed a few others. Light forks are under 500g, heavy forks are over 1000g. No reason to doubt that the LHT fork is about 1kg, nor that your fork is somewhere around 750g.

You can add them up any which way and the result will still be wrong.

I don't know many different ways to add one frame and one fork.

A LHT frameset weighs about 2.3 + 1.0 = 3.3kg.
Your light tourer frameset weighs about 1.7 + 0.7 = 2.4kg

The only reliable measure is the side-by-side weigh-in, the results of which were published here nearly 3 years ago.

I must have missed the bit where you weighed a bare LHT frame and found that it's actually double the quoted weight.

I'm not sure why you're so defensive about this. You have a very nice Ti touring bike that's a few kilos lighter than your old touring bike, and rides a lot better. You saved some on the frameset, and some elsewhere. Doesn't really matter where. You could tally up the grams and post about them on weightweenies.starbike.com, or you could go riding. I commend your choice to do the latter 8)

tim
User avatar
barefoot
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Ballarat

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby Meditator » Sun Jul 28, 2013 10:17 pm

STC did you see my post about how your wife can do better on teh hills. I posted it just before warren with the pictures.
Meditator
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: North of Cairns

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby WestcoastPete » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:49 am

STC67 wrote:
WestcoastPete wrote: I'm using the Ground Effect Tardis and it's a good system.)


Hi Westcost Pete, I like the look of the Ground Effect Tardis but just wondering how you go with your racks went packing your bike?

Thanks


They have to come off obviously. Often you can at least leave the rear rack on when packing into a cardboard box. The rear rack, being wide enough to straddle the frame normally, fits in fine from the top of the Tardis (as in, when the frame is upside down in the Tardis, I just put the rack in from the top of the bag as one of the last things, staddling the frame). My front rack folds flat (apart from the hooks at the ends) and I just squeeze it into a gap.

To be honest, I don't really have a routine for packing it. Initially I was very cautious, but these days I just get it all in and then fiddle about until nothing is touching anything it shouldn't. If you look up my user name on the crazyguyonabike website and look at the South West Meander and First Great Indulgence journals you'll see some of my experiences with it.

STC67 wrote:We test rode the Bike Fridays. The concept is quite appealing. The steering was "twitchy" with the small wheels and I felt the stem had some movement when going up a hill. Not sure how we would go riding them all day as it is a bit hard to know from a test ride.


I understand the twitchy feeling you're talking about, but on ours it improves markedly with a load on the front. Panniers I mean; a handlebar bag is fine in combination with front panniers, but I find it a bit more twitchy on its own. The flex in the stem does exist, but I don't find it a problem. It may even help smooth out the bumps.

STC67 wrote:Otherwise, we are starting to go away from 26" wheels to 700cc wheels as it widens the scope a fair bit. I'm now revising the budget so Ti may still be an option for my wife and maybe a Vivente for myself.


I think this is a good idea for your type of riding if you decide against the folders. I think it would really open up the options. Personally, I'd stick with steel, for various reasons, but that's just me.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
WestcoastPete
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:59 pm
Location: Peoples Republic of Coburg, Victoria

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby WestcoastPete » Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:52 am

Oh, and the Dahon TR is certainly worth a look if you stick with folders. They seem to be proving themselves well.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
WestcoastPete
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:59 pm
Location: Peoples Republic of Coburg, Victoria

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby Vintagetourer » Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:36 am

"The flex in the stem does exist, but I don't find it a problem. It may even help smooth out the bumps."

I'd agree with this.

This short blog covers an example of a recent, short tour of mine on the Bike Friday. It shows some of the reasons why they are such a popular bike.
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/11918
- Combine well with other travel modes eg train
- Can handle most touring surfaces, even a bit of rough. But not extreme rough.
- Versatility
- Ride quality...frame geometry is spot on for a tourer/utility bike
- Fun style, especially in urban riding

I have quite a few bikes. When the revolution comes and I am forced to choose only one bike to keep, my Bike Friday New World Tourist will be the one.

My Thorn Sherpa would be a close second choice. It is not for your lightweight list though.
Vintagetourer
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:50 am

STC67 wrote:Hi Ron, I had actually got the idea of a titanium touring bike from your posts so thanks for that. I had a look at your link and I still think there is potential for us for 1 titanium framed tourer so will see how much it is to land a Ti frame in OZ. More to research.

Cheers

Since you are in Brisbane, let me know if you would like to have a look at the Sabbath. I often ride it on a Sunday, so we could meet up for coffee and a chat.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby snafuspyramid » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:21 pm

In lieu of offering any suggestions borne of objective research or even extended experience, I’d like to offer my unsubstantiated opinion instead. I recently spent a lot of time researching and building a bike for touring.

Long Haul Truckers are not heavy frames. As has already been pointed out, the difference between these steel frames and titanium – that is, friggin titanium – is not going to me more than a few kilograms.

If you’re really that concerned about weight, it would be cheaper to reduce weight in your sleeping bags, tent, helmet, shoes and stove (or yourself!). It’s also cheaper to reduce weight in the componentry, but you probably don’t want that for touring.

There’s nothing wrong with weight in a touring frame, provided it’s doing stuff. Thick and properly butted tubing is more robust and less likely to flex. Frame flex is usually pretty academic in road racing (yep, it’s true) but you’ll sure notice it when you’re carrying 35kg on your rear wheel.

However, if you aren’t enthusiastic about building your own bike (fair enough) I’d recommend a Vivente World Randonneur instead. It’s much better value than the LHT.

I personally find the LHT to be tremendous fun to ride unloaded (I commute with it), I just put lighter wheels with narrow tyres on it. There’s a heck of a lot of weight in the wheels and tyres.

I’d also put in a vote for the Kona Sutra. It’s a fantastic touring bike and excellent value, but it sure is solid and heavy – it makes my LHT look like a sissy.

I don't really understand getting a titanium frame for bicycle touring, at least from a weight perspective. I hear it rides wonderfully though.
User avatar
snafuspyramid
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:03 am

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:37 pm

snafuspyramid wrote:There’s nothing wrong with weight in a touring frame, provided it’s doing stuff. Thick and properly butted tubing is more robust and less likely to flex. Frame flex is usually pretty academic in road racing (yep, it’s true) but you’ll sure notice it when you’re carrying 35kg on your rear wheel.

Coming from someone who is planning to undertake his first ever tour in EnZed, you may yet find yourself reconsidering. :)
Last edited by RonK on Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby Vintagetourer » Mon Jul 29, 2013 6:58 pm

"I just put lighter wheels with narrow tyres on it. There’s a heck of a lot of weight in the wheels and tyres."

This is a really good suggestion, and possibly the best way to almost get two bikes for the price of one.
As sensible as it is, I have never done the two sets of wheels trick.

I have however, got a huge range of uses out of my cross-country hard tail MTB by carefully choosing different sets of tyres.

I've used the venerable 26" wheeled Norco for road events (with 1.1" Conti slicks), loaded off road touring (with 2.4" Nobby Nics), unloaded single track rides (also with the Nobby Nics) and commuting (with Schwalbe Marathon Plus).

Changing the tyres and tubes according to usage, changes the weight, handling and personality of a bike dramatically.

Good suggestion.
Vintagetourer
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby snafuspyramid » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:05 pm

RonK wrote:
snafuspyramid wrote:There’s nothing wrong with weight in a touring frame, provided it’s doing stuff. Thick and properly butted tubing is more robust and less likely to flex. Frame flex is usually pretty academic in road racing (yep, it’s true) but you’ll sure notice it when you’re carrying 35kg on your rear wheel.

Coming from someone who is planning to undertake his first ever tour in EnZed, you may yet find yourself reconsidering. :)


True. Someone mentioned something about there being hills on the south island?

Nonetheless, you'll agree that extra weight in a quality frame represents one variable in a compromise between things such as ride quality, stiffness, and expense. The weight isn't there only because it's cheaper to make 'em that way. I don't deny that a titanium frame would be superior in most respects, but I don't see the benefit justifying the cost. Of course, I might feel different if I were wealthier or toured more; it's a personal thing.
User avatar
snafuspyramid
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:03 am

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby il padrone » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:00 pm

Most world expedition tourists are not riding titanium. They generally ride steel frame bikes, mostly because that's what is available at a reasonable price, and because there are many very good quality steel frame manufacturers. This is not to say that titanium is not suitable to the job, just that people happily tour many thousands of kilometres on all sorts of diverse bikes. Even on aluminium ;)

If you want lightweight, back in 1947 Rene Herse made touring bikes like this one. It's the bike that won the 1947 French Cyclotouriste Trials, a steel tourer (was there anything else?) that weighed 9kgs.

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18164
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Mon Jul 29, 2013 10:13 pm

snafuspyramid wrote:
RonK wrote:
snafuspyramid wrote:There’s nothing wrong with weight in a touring frame, provided it’s doing stuff. Thick and properly butted tubing is more robust and less likely to flex. Frame flex is usually pretty academic in road racing (yep, it’s true) but you’ll sure notice it when you’re carrying 35kg on your rear wheel.

Coming from someone who is planning to undertake his first ever tour in EnZed, you may yet find yourself reconsidering. :)


True. Someone mentioned something about there being hills on the south island?

Nonetheless, you'll agree that extra weight in a quality frame represents one variable in a compromise between things such as ride quality, stiffness, and expense. The weight isn't there only because it's cheaper to make 'em that way. I don't deny that a titanium frame would be superior in most respects, but I don't see the benefit justifying the cost. Of course, I might feel different if I were wealthier or toured more; it's a personal thing.


Yes, you will find a hill or two, or three or four - well actually there are quite few. The South Island is probably not as hilly as Tasmania, but the hills are bigger.

You don't see the benefits justifying the cost, because you completely misunderstand the benefits. I see the benefits in terms of my physical well-being, comfort and enjoyment of the journey, and as a solo traveller, my safety. Ride quality, stiffness and weight have a major impact on these. The cost is of secondary importance to me.

I like hills - I've spent a lot of time trekking at high altitude, and if you read my journals you'll quickly see that the routes I take seek them out rather than avoid them. Last tour I crossed Dansey's Pass and Hakataramea Pass (both unsealed), Lindis Pass (which I've crossed before), the Crown Range and the hilly Catlins, all of which I could have easily avoided. And I've was also surprised by a few unnamed hills that I didn't know about. But I've learned from bitter experience trekking in the Himalaya the despair I felt when I reached the limits of my endurance and was faced with the prospect of jettisoning gear or even perhaps abandoning the journey, all because I was carrying too much. And as a result my knees are now permanently damaged. So when I ride up hills I want it to be a good solid workout that I can really engage with and enjoy, and not a gut-busting slogfest test of my endurance and the condition of my knees.

The throwaway line that "an extra kilo or two doesn't matter" rolls of the tongue very easily, but doesn't matter to whom? It certainly matters to me. It matters to STC67, or at least Mrs STC67 who is quite petite and struggles on the hills with her heavy bike. You may think it doesn't matter to you, but your gf may not agree and you may find yourself halfway up Lindis Pass carrying her load as well as yours, and wondering where the next post office is so you can send home some of the baggage that you don't really need but brought along "just in case". You've probably heard the expression "happy wife, happy life". Unhappy wife/gf may even mean an abrupt end to your tour and no more touring for you. It happens, believe me. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby snafuspyramid » Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:29 am

RonK wrote:
The throwaway line that "an extra kilo or two doesn't matter" rolls of the tongue very easily, but doesn't matter to whom? It certainly matters to me. It matters to STC67, or at least Mrs STC67 who is quite petite and struggles on the hills with her heavy bike. You may think it doesn't matter to you, but your gf may not agree and you may find yourself halfway up Lindis Pass carrying her load as well as yours, and wondering where the next post office is so you can send home some of the baggage that you don't really need but brought along "just in case". You've probably heard the expression "happy wife, happy life". Unhappy wife/gf may even mean an abrupt end to your tour and no more touring for you. It happens, believe me. :lol: :lol: :lol:


The thought had certainly crossed my mind, hence the degree of preparation :D

I don't think a few extra kilograms would make much difference to me, but I agree it will make a difference to my partner. I'm around 95kg, 6'4", mostly composed of legs, and have been regularly cycling fairly long distances since I was a teenager. My girlfriend is a little more than half my weight and has only taken up cycling recently. Her bike (Kona Sutra) is actually a kilogram and a half heavier than mine, since mine has high-end MTB parts, rim brakes and a less robust frame (despite being ten sizes larger). Still, on practice rides I've simply been carrying more weight than she, so the "extra" weight on her bike is effectively borne by me. I very much anticipate being half way up Lindis Pass carrying her load, and am training for that event.

I still think that it makes more sense to reduce weight in other (cheaper) areas, such as spending the extra on UL camping gear. However, I'd guess that you'll have done that already if you're investing in a Ti frame...
User avatar
snafuspyramid
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:03 am

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:20 am

snafuspyramid wrote:
RonK wrote:
The throwaway line that "an extra kilo or two doesn't matter" rolls of the tongue very easily, but doesn't matter to whom? It certainly matters to me. It matters to STC67, or at least Mrs STC67 who is quite petite and struggles on the hills with her heavy bike. You may think it doesn't matter to you, but your gf may not agree and you may find yourself halfway up Lindis Pass carrying her load as well as yours, and wondering where the next post office is so you can send home some of the baggage that you don't really need but brought along "just in case". You've probably heard the expression "happy wife, happy life". Unhappy wife/gf may even mean an abrupt end to your tour and no more touring for you. It happens, believe me. :lol: :lol: :lol:


The thought had certainly crossed my mind, hence the degree of preparation :D

I don't think a few extra kilograms would make much difference to me, but I agree it will make a difference to my partner. I'm around 95kg, 6'4", mostly composed of legs, and have been regularly cycling fairly long distances since I was a teenager. My girlfriend is a little more than half my weight and has only taken up cycling recently. Her bike (Kona Sutra) is actually a kilogram and a half heavier than mine, since mine has high-end MTB parts, rim brakes and a less robust frame (despite being ten sizes larger). Still, on practice rides I've simply been carrying more weight than she, so the "extra" weight on her bike is effectively borne by me. I very much anticipate being half way up Lindis Pass carrying her load, and am training for that event.

I still think that it makes more sense to reduce weight in other (cheaper) areas, such as spending the extra on UL camping gear. However, I'd guess that you'll have done that already if you're investing in a Ti frame...

Yes, all my gear is UL, mostly carried over from my trekking days, except for the tent, which is a 4-season design. In my view must-have for touring southern latitudes in spring. I set myself a limit of 20kg absolute maximum on my baggage, but try to keep it lower than that. I'm still finding a few items I've carried but not used, so there remains potential for further load rationalisation. But keep in mind there is nothing cheap about UL gear.


About here is where you will likely stop for a breather on Lindis Pass. I noted in my journal "From Omarama, the climb to Lindis Pass, some 30 kms away, starts immediately, but gently, and the serious bit doesn't start until the last 10 km, with 2 km of steep climbing nearing the top."

You may find yourself thinking "Why didn't I listen?", but actually I didn't find it too difficult on my Sabbath. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Image
It was bright and sunny, and quite warm when I took this picture. A few days later it was under 20cm of snow. In November.

After the pass it's another 50kms to Tarras, but you will find another challenge on the way at Cluden Hill. If you are heading for Wanaka, which I would suggest is not to be missed, then you'll only have 35kms (and some steep moraine crossings) to go.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby Vintagetourer » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:35 am

"I still think that it makes more sense to reduce weight in other (cheaper) areas, such as spending the extra on UL camping gear. However, I'd guess that you'll have done that already if you're investing in a Ti frame..."

Weight can be, and is, discussed endlessly in the touring context. So I better add to the endless flow.:)
I like to keep the total load weight as light as practically possible, because even 1 kg makes a difference on big climbs, poor surfaces, when fatigued, unfit or unwell. It makes no difference on the flat, downhill, early in the day or to exceedingly strong riders.

My own priority order for seeking load weight reduction with cost in mind is:
- bodyweight
- less clothes and footwear
- minimal tools and spares
- lightest tyres which are fit for purpose
- minimal number of gadgets
- minimal books and paper maps
- lighter, or less camping gear

I recently toured with the heaviest load I have lugged in decades. Just about all of it was necessary.
In better serviced areas, I could easily travel with far less. Probably with as little as 10 kg if I really tried.
Vintagetourer
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby RonK » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:03 pm

Vintagetourer wrote:This short blog covers an example of a recent, short tour of mine on the Bike Friday. It shows some of the reasons why they are such a popular bike.
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/11918
- Combine well with other travel modes eg train
- Can handle most touring surfaces, even a bit of rough. But not extreme rough.
- Versatility
- Ride quality...frame geometry is spot on for a tourer/utility bike
- Fun style, especially in urban riding.

Actually the Bike Friday is far more capable than many would imagine. Bill Hoadley has used his 15 year old New World Tourist on the Carretera Austral, a route which conventional wisdom dictates, requires an expedition grade tourer.
Southbound on the Carretera Austral
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5227
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby Vintagetourer » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:14 pm

They are certainly more robust and better handling on unsealed roads than I'd expected Ron. Even owning one, it has taken me quite a while not to associate small wheels with small, less capable bike. They are perfectly capable, comfortable, robust, full on touring bikes.

I very nearly took mine on the Gibb River Road instead of my Thorn. In hindsight, I think I made the right choice as the corrugations were very severe and smaller diameter wheels are somewhat twitchier on big bumps. The other component which would have been vulnerable on the BF in the real rough would be the folding rear rack. It is very good, but would not take as much of a hammering as the Tubus.
Bill Hoadley gets to extraordinary places on his BF folder. So do many others.

My wife and I have found our Bike Fridays to be everything they were claimed to be before we bought them. The only con is they are relatively costly. There's a premium to pay for buying from a small company, rather than one of the bigger manufacturers with economies of scale.

Still, compared to many other things, it is not really that much difference.
Vintagetourer
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Lightweight Touring Considerations

Postby STC67 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:18 pm

RonK wrote:
STC67 wrote:Hi Ron, I had actually got the idea of a titanium touring bike from your posts so thanks for that. I had a look at your link and I still think there is potential for us for 1 titanium framed tourer so will see how much it is to land a Ti frame in OZ. More to research.

Cheers

Since you are in Brisbane, let me know if you would like to have a look at the Sabbath. I often ride it on a Sunday, so we could meet up for coffee and a chat.


Sent you a PM Ron, but not sure if it has worked
STC67
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Touring Australia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter