Camelbacks for Roadies?

Rutlandblue

Sorry if this is else where.
Im doing the fred whitton and thought about using a camelback for the 1st time.
1, Is that a good idea?
2, Which one? The 3 lt Lobo looks ok

Any advice please? Thx in advance

what brakes

Yep i use one if going for a long ride as mine holds 3ltrs! plus pletny of room for spare tubes etc.

ANy are fine mine is a cheap fleabay jobbie! works really well

Ginjafro

I use a camelbak for commuting but my crouched position means it tends to tap the back of my helmet. I would find that too annoying on a sportive. However, Camelbak offer the "Racebak" which holds about 2L and is a wearable bladder. Some roadies swear by them, some don't - It's all a matter of preference really. Another alternative is the Camelbak Flashflow which is a bladder pack (and cargo space) worn around the waist. Cargo space would allow you to carry tools, spares and food instead of a saddle bag. If you think about it, its is all well an good setting a bike up to be light and then adding upto 3 or 4lbs in water,bottles and saddle bags! You could on the other hand sling the extra weight to your back or your waist. Mind you that would then mean you have some extra "body weight" to haul up the hills.

Anyway whatever, I'm sure you've started an interesting debate.

fastercyclist

Make sure you know how to use it (actually drink from it) before you leave home. Took me 10 minutes to get it working when I first tried, had to take something off and put it back on to get it to work, ended up having to pull over to figure it out. Other then that I think they're great. Not a fan of the dark colours on them though - I wear bright jerseys so motorists can see me and Camelbaks kind of ruin that.

Other then that they're a fantastic piece of kit and I'm surprised I don't see them when I'm out.

fastercyclist

Ginjafro wrote:

I use a camelbak for commuting but my crouched position means it tends to tap the back of my helmet. I would find that too annoying on a sportive. However, Camelbak offer the "Racebak" which holds about 2L and is a wearable bladder. Some roadies swear by them, some don't - It's all a matter of preference really. Another alternative is the Camelbak Flashflow which is a bladder pack (and cargo space) worn around the waist. Cargo space would allow you to carry tools, spares and food instead of a saddle bag. If you think about it, its is all well an good setting a bike up to be light and then adding upto 3 or 4lbs in water,bottles and saddle bags! You could on the other hand sling the extra weight to your back or your waist. Mind you that would then mean you have some extra "body weight" to haul up the hills.

Anyway whatever, I'm sure you've started an interesting debate.

I don't see the debate with carrying extra water. Your weight will increase with the water whether you're on a light bike or a heavy bike. You still gain from riding the lighter bike.

nickwill

Two 750 ml bottles will carry more than enough liquid to get between checkpoints. Refill them at the checkpoint, adding energy drink powder as required. It's much easier to carry water on the bike, and the powder in your pockets. You really don't want all that liquid sloshing around when you are out of the saddle and fighting your bike up Hardknott at 100 miles!

Rutlandblue

Nickwill wrote:

Two 750 ml bottles will carry more than enough liquid to get between checkpoints. Refill them at the checkpoint, adding energy drink powder as required.

Thats what i thought. Having done an Etape doing the same.
'HOWEVER' you could argue that whilst grovelling up Hardknott you cant reach for a bottle? Thanks for the opinions all the same.

Brakeless

I bought one of the camelback vests last year. I used it once and got a seriously sweaty back, haven't touched it since! Two 750ml bottles filled at each station got me round the Fred Whitton fine last year

Kléber

Bottles. The weight is lower for a better centre of gravity and it's easy to refill the bottles at stops. As for taking a drink on Hardknott, have a good few slurps on the way there, you won't need to drink much during the climb itself, and reward yourself with more at the top. Concentrate on breathing as you climb.

nasahapley

Rutlandblue wrote:

Sorry if this is else where.
Im doing the fred whitton and thought about using a camelback for the 1st time.
1, Is that a good idea?
2, Which one? The 3 lt Lobo looks ok

Any advice please? Thx in advance

I'm quite well placed to answer this one - done the Fred the last two years, first time with a 3l 'bak and then last year with a 2l. Basically, the 2l is the better bet - you just don't need anything like 3l between the stops (1.5 did the job for me). Most people prefer bottles but I think 'baks are pretty good - I particularly like only having to take my hand off the bars for two seconds and not having to ease off the power at all. In the real world the centre of gravity being higher will make not a jot of difference, and unless you've got a rather enthusiastic riding style, it doesn't slosh about either! If you can get a basic 2l job for not much cash it's probably worth trying.

Tom Butcher

I wouldn't worry about drinking whilst climbing Hardknott - 90% of the riders are pushing their bikes at some point up that one so it's quite easy to stop and take out a bottle.

I've never used a camelback but certainly bottles are good enough and I imagine may be slightly easier to fill during the ride and clean out at the end. You'llbe out of the saddle quite a lot on some of the hills so effectively your legs will be supporting the extra weight if you carry it on your back - not a big deal but as with the centre of gravity thing - any small advantages seem to be with the bottles.

andrew@snowrace

I find i get a very sweaty back (cold on the downhills) when I use a camell back on the road so I use bottles, off road camel back every time as I want both hands on the bars.