light touring?

[andrew_s]

Front panniers at the rear is what I think Andrew meant. They are about 25 litres for two, i.e. just as large/small as a large saddle bag such as the Carradice Camper. Total weight would be about 10 kilo, I guess, taking you into pretty light backpacking territory. I like to cook my own meals, if only to save money.
Willem

I did. It's that "front panniers" is more descriptive of size than "small panniers".
Having said that, I've often toured with panniers on the front and a rack pack or modest saddlebag on the back.

Light touring with a tent:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=650520#post650520

 

[willem]

Just as for Andrew, light touring for me is something like a bar bag plus a saddle bag or small panniers. Total volume about 30-35 litres, and a weight of 10 kilo maximum. If you go camping, this means joining the ultralight campers, with a small tent, a light mattres, and a light sleeping bag. For me it also includes cooking kit. The interesting thing is that the camping gear is actually not necessarily very heavy. A light solo tent (TN Laser) is just over a kilo, a light mattress and sleeping bag (Neoair and PHD minimus) is just under a kilo, and the lightest stove plus pots is only 400 grams (the woodburning Bushbuddy plus Trangia UL pot plus pan, but sans fuel....). So the whole lot weighs about 2.5 kilo.
Willem

 

[p90ade]

im in two minds now after every1s very helpful info.
1. put it on the trek and hope for the best.
2. go on the boardman which im sure is a bit stronger than the trek.

and even a 3rd has now started creeping in my head...
buy a dawes ultra galaxy.

but then it becomes expensive, lol.

 

[andym]

im in two minds now after every1s very helpful info.
1. put it on the trek and hope for the best.
2. go on the boardman which im sure is a bit stronger than the trek.

and even a 3rd has now started creeping in my head...
buy a dawes ultra galaxy.

but then it becomes expensive, lol.

Discussions like this can tend to get a bit out of hand. Bottom line (excuse me if I'm repeating myself here): maybe the Trek isn't ideal for touring, but it's not going to break by putting a few extra kilos on it. Tyre clearance and gearing are way more important issues. Try doing short tours with the Boardman and the Trek before you start thinking about buying another bike. Work out what works for you.

 

[p90ade]

thanks andy but i think deep down i was hoping for " buy a new bike" lol.
ill stick with the trek and try it, iv used the boardman loaded up for a 3 day tour before so i know that will be ok.

 

[p90ade]

Lol at maggot, that was my next post!

 

[andym]

thanks andy but i think deep down i was hoping for " buy a new bike" lol.

Well the thought was going through my mind 'is this a "give-me-an-excuse-to-buy-a-new-bike" thread?'.

 

[RedBike]

Last year I bought a Bob trailer (copy of) for touring. I've found that the additional weight / resistance of the trailer has a huge impact on just how far I could travel in a day.


On a virtually unlaiden (change of clothing only) fixed wheel bike I could chug along easily at about 12/15mph unless the terrain was hilly. So a days riding 6/8hours would see me covering 100ish miles.

With a touring bike complete with trailer I would be 3/4mph slower, espeshially if the route was hilly. So I would only cover 70ish miles a day.

Only you can decide just what you'll need. But the more stuff you take with you the harder the ride will be.

 

[jay clock]

Why the f*** do people think that these bikes are good for light touring? They have narrow tyres, not very strong frames, a racy geometry, and gearing for top class athletes rather than real people

Don't agree. I have one. It is a triple with a huge range of gears, and will carry a couple of panniers fine, geometry is not at all sporty (mudguard clearance is good so wheelbase longish)

My view would be try it out and see but be scrupulous about whittling down the kit list.

 

[willem]

Great jay clock - so you do not seem to have 'one of these bikes'
W

 

[MarkF]

You'll be fine, I've got sporty hybrid, a Disco 501, it tours just fine and your Trek will too.

 

[p90ade]

Well the thought was going through my mind 'is this a "give-me-an-excuse-to-buy-a-new-bike" thread?'.

Allways looking for a reason to buy a new bike but I think I'll stuck with the trek and see how I go.
Thankseveryone for the advice.

 

[MarkF]

Mark, your water bottle has the same colour scheme as a Fruit Salad sweet

Thank you. I remember that set-off morning well, couldn't find my water bottle, I looked and looked, eventually I gave in, I didn't want to take it but needs must, I nicked my lads Bradford City bottle. Oh, the shame of cycling around the Dales with custard and purple bottle Y'know, I look at that pic and cringe..........

 

[Danny]

I'd agree with jay clock and Mark F.

I'd also say that unless you have some good reason to travel ultra light, it's worth having two decent size rear panniers so you can carry everything you need for an enjoyable tour - particularly if you are on the road for a week or more. By decent size I mean proper rear panniers like these which are currently on sale at Edinburgh Cycles.

You could easily fill one pannier with just a couple of changes of clothes, a warm top, waterproofs, and sponge bag, and use the other for camping gear.

 

[willem]

The good reason here, of course, is that the Trek is a light bike that was never designed to handle heavier loads. So only light loads on the Trek, and if you want to take more, use your hybrid. The choice is yours - but heavy loads on the Trek is not a real choice.
Willem