Why do long distance riders always saddlebags?

rodgers73

No it isn't.

Besides, audaxing isn't a race so you don't need to be super light.

Grill

You don't need a sleeping or bivy bag for audaxes (see my previous post about what I carry on a 600 as for less all I use are my pockets), this is for the Transcontinental which is in fact a race. Lightweight touring is a thing too bro, look it up.

rodgers73

No, I'm happy with the weight of my bike thanks

Grill

What exactly is the point of this thread? You ask a question that a few of us answer and then you attempt to dispute said answers by saying that they're inconsequential.

Here's the rundown in case you're too lazy to read the thread again.

You: Why use a saddle bag when a rack and pannier will do?
Me: Too heavy and unnecessary.
You: It's not too heavy, it weighs xxxxxx.
Me: That's far heavier than my setup making it unnecessary.
You: Its not too heavy and weight doesn't matter.
Me: It does to me their wise why would I mention it...
You: It doesn't to me.

Seriously, it's like asking why someone would load up the boot do their car to go camping when they can just use a trailer. Different strokes hombre...

rodgers73

I asked a question based on puzzlement over why it is seemingly always saddlebags that are used. I'm happy with the answer that it is often an absence of rack mounts that is the issue. Saying it is down to weight doesnt really convince me as you can fill a saddlebag with bricks and a rack bag with feathers. Also, the equipment itself isnt fundamentally light or heavy - that depends on the quality of the gear you buy.

Your aggressive and slightly contemptuous tone from the first post onwards, however, makes me extremely reluctant to accept anything from you, regardless of how well proven it is. Seriously, if I asked you this question in person would adopt such a tone? The bloody internet...

ai_1

rodgers73 wrote:

.....Saying it is down to weight doesnt really convince me.....

You've asked "why do long distance riders always use saddlebags?" not why you should use them yourself. It's irrelevant if you're convinced of the legitimacy of the reason. If a long distance rider tells you why he uses a saddlebag, he's answering your question. It's quite odd that you're deciding to accept one answer and reject the other just because it doesn't sound sensible to you. As an impartial 3rd party I can quite understand the annoyance that's been caused by your rejection of the information you requested. Do you think contributors are lying?

Now, if you'd made the thread title "Why should long distance riders use saddlebags?" then it would be reasonable to have a debate about it - but you didn't.

marcusjb

The real reason is, of course, so we can be identified as British on Paris-Brest-Paris - steel frame, carradice barley, mudguards - all mark us out as British. Fixed wheel, even more so.

We are the only nation that really uses the Carradice style saddlebag.

Several nationalities use small rucksacks (I kid you not - riding 1200km with even a small rucksack, no thanks!).

A large number of Americans have adopted the French front rack bag style.

The majority of French have a saddlebag the size of an apple (because they are supported and have someone waiting In a motor home at each control.

It is very enjoyable to play the stereotype cards when riding on the continent and getting into groups with overseas riders. I spent several happy hours in Italian chain gangs on PBP 2011 - very noisy, bit disorganised and very quick! I swear they also had a clean kit at every single control as they always looked impeccable.

rodgers73

Ai_1 wrote:

rodgers73 wrote:

.....Saying it is down to weight doesnt really convince me.....

You've asked "why do long distance riders always use saddlebags?" not why you should use them yourself. It's irrelevant if you're convinced of the legitimacy of the reason. If a long distance rider tells you why he uses a saddlebag, he's answering your question. It's quite odd that you're deciding to accept one answer and reject the other just because it doesn't sound sensible to you. As an impartial 3rd party I can quite understand the annoyance that's been caused by your rejection of the information you requested. Do you think contributors are lying?

Now, if you'd made the thread title "Why should long distance riders use saddlebags?" then it would be reasonable to have a debate about it - but you didn't.

No, he adopted the position that it was not possible for my own set up to be anything other than "too heavy" simply because it was a rack and rack back. He knows nothing at all about my set up yet was basically telling me that his set up weighed a fraction of mine. That seems a lot like someone who isnt too bothered about listening. Why on earth that was necessarily I've no idea. The way you talk to someone as much as what you say will influence the reaction you get. I absolutely despair of forums sometimes.

Grill

rodgers73 wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

rodgers73 wrote:

.....Saying it is down to weight doesnt really convince me.....

You've asked "why do long distance riders always use saddlebags?" not why you should use them yourself. It's irrelevant if you're convinced of the legitimacy of the reason. If a long distance rider tells you why he uses a saddlebag, he's answering your question. It's quite odd that you're deciding to accept one answer and reject the other just because it doesn't sound sensible to you. As an impartial 3rd party I can quite understand the annoyance that's been caused by your rejection of the information you requested. Do you think contributors are lying?

Now, if you'd made the thread title "Why should long distance riders use saddlebags?" then it would be reasonable to have a debate about it - but you didn't.

No, he adopted the position that it was not possible for my own set up to be anything other than "too heavy" simply because it was a rack and rack back. He knows nothing at all about my set up yet was basically telling me that his set up weighed a fraction of mine. That seems a lot like someone who isnt too bothered about listening. Why on earth that was necessarily I've no idea. The way you talk to someone as much as what you say will influence the reaction you get. I absolutely despair of forums sometimes.

It's called deductive reasoning, something I would have expected you to pickup in law school. I know my setup weighs less than yours (as I'm easily one of the lightest packers around). The fact that you started this thread proves this (if you're asking the question, our setup is heavy: fact). Your rack alone weighs the same as what I pack for a 600k.

Even without my aforementioned skills, the load you carried for L2P shows that your lightweight credentials need a lot of work. Why on earth would I ask you questions about your setup when you can't even grasp the reasons for mine?

rodgers73

Ok, if weight is the only factor for you, fair enough. It isnt for me. I'm not racing, I'm doing an audax, so I'm more bothered about having all I need for my trip than shaving off grams here or there. Therefore, my own particular set up and its weight vs. yours isnt really a worthwhile comparison. We're comparing apples and oranges.

I was a bit put out by your tone because you seemed to be suggesting that my set up was somehow at fault because my aims when packing weren't the same as yours. I'm happy carrying an extra kilo or so if it means I have what I want/need on the ride.

The point I was making earlier was that whether I use a rack and a bag or a saddlebag is only half of the story. If I use a saddlebag but put heavy stuff in it then that may well end up weighing more than a rack and bag with lightweight stuff in it. So to say saddlebags are used just because they are lightweight isn't quite right. You have to take into account the gear you are carrying as well as the method of carrying it on the bike, and I'm not 100% convinced that all audaxers are taking such a lightweight approach as you are.

Grill

rodgers73 wrote:

Ok, if weight is the only factor for you, fair enough. It isnt for me. I'm not racing, I'm doing an audax, so I'm more bothered about having all I need for my trip than shaving off grams here or there. Therefore, my own particular set up and its weight vs. yours isnt really a worthwhile comparison. We're comparing apples and oranges.

Actually it isn't. I also said that I don't have rack mounts on my bike in my first response.

rodgers73 wrote:

I was a bit put out by your tone because you seemed to be suggesting that my set up was somehow at fault because my aims when packing weren't the same as yours. I'm happy carrying an extra kilo or so if it means I have what I want/need on the ride.

This is the internet. There is no tone from which to make such inferences.

rodgers73 wrote:

The point I was making earlier was that whether I use a rack and a bag or a saddlebag is only half of the story. If I use a saddlebag but put heavy stuff in it then that may well end up weighing more than a rack and bag with lightweight stuff in it. So to say saddlebags are used just because they are lightweight isn't quite right. You have to take into account the gear you are carrying as well as the method of carrying it on the bike, and I'm not 100% convinced that all audaxers are taking such a lightweight approach as you are.

Not only does this point make no sense, but you've started treading on your own dick. You were just saying that we're comparing apples and oranges and yet in this paragraph you say that heavy stuff in a saddlebag can weigh more than light stuff in a pannier with a rack... Surely the correct why to achieve an accurate metric would be to compare the same items packed in the two different mediums...

I do many audaxes, and there are many who travel light (Marcus can attest).

rodgers73

Grill wrote:

Actually it isn't. I also said that I don't have rack mounts on my bike in my first response.

Fair enough, I missed that once we got talking about weight.

Grill wrote:

This is the internet. There is no tone from which to make such inferences.

Come on, the lack of a tone of voice with which to judge how someone is saying something increases the possibility of text sounding rude, not lessens it. Forums are littered with such examples.

Grill wrote:

Not only does this point make no sense, but you've started treading on your own dick. You were just saying that we're comparing apples and oranges and yet in this paragraph you say that heavy stuff in a saddlebag can weigh more than light stuff in a pannier with a rack... Surely the correct why to achieve an accurate metric would be to compare the same items packed in the two different mediums...

If you're comparing me and you then that is apples and oranges. Because my set up is not at all motivated by weight saving. Yours is.

If you're comparing saddlebag v rack per se then my point was that the method of carrying the gear alone isn't a guarantee of weighing less. You have to look at what's in the bags. And unless you know what every audaxer is carrying then its hard to say that saddlebags are only used because of weight saving. If all audaxers are travelling light and that's their top priority then I can accept that, no worries. I was assuming that there were other motivations as well though, such as the lack of rack mounts, better stability by having load centrally mounted etc.

Grill

If we're speaking specifically in regards to audaxers, then the main reason they (we) prefer saddle bags is that rack/panniers are simply not necessary. I can't imagine a single audax where you'd need more that what can be carried in a Carradice Barley.

rodgers73

Mainly audax, yes. That's where I've seen most saddlebag users.

My rack bag actually has a smaller capacity than a Barley (6ltr vs 7ltr) so I expect I'm carrying the same amount of stuff as most audaxers. Not sure why I prefer the rack though. Just wondered if there was some unexpected reason why the saddlebags were so popular - they always look to me like they'd get in the way a bit.

marcusjb

Grill wrote:

I do many audaxes, and there are many who travel light (Marcus can attest).

True enough.

Audax attracts all sorts and you see all manner of setups from those who look like their are off to ride around the world to those who are on the Sunday club run.

There is no right and wrong - we are all different and our choice of luggage is often an expression of our acceptance of risks and failures. People (like me I will admit) who are more risk averse will tend to travel heavier ("what if I need this piece of clothing?" "What if XYZ breaks?").

I am amazed by certain riders I ride with regularly who just don't carry or need the same clothing as I need - I feel the cold, and on night sections might have 3-4 layers and a jacket, whereas my riding companions might have a gilet over their jersey and arm warmers. That isn't something easy to get around, for all of my 40-odd years in the planet, I have felt the cold, so I will always have to travel with more layers than many of my friends.

But it really doesn't matter what or how anyone else carries their stuff or what they carry. Long distance cycling takes a while to work out how you want to do it and how you are going to make that happen.

pdstsp

rodgers73 wrote:

Mainly audax, yes. That's where I've seen most saddlebag users.

My rack bag actually has a smaller capacity than a Barley (6ltr vs 7ltr) so I expect I'm carrying the same amount of stuff as most audaxers. Not sure why I prefer the rack though. Just wondered if there was some unexpected reason why the saddlebags were so popular - they always look to me like they'd get in the way a bit.

I use a Barley with a bagman support and it doesn't get in the way at all. I do a fair bit of lightweight (credit card) touring and can get everything I need for a 10 day tour in a Barley and a bar bag (Topeak tourguide). In the past I have used a seatpost rack with compression bags strapped to it but my present set-up is easier to pack and un-pack, feels better on the bike and gives easier access to food, camera etc.

Mr Bunbury

Harrogate Velo50 wrote:

Hi

Serious question, honestly. Why do you want to do a 600k audax ride, just getting the odd bit of sleep here and there? It's not a race. If your just touring around and camping or b/b can see that, but..... guess just the challenge?? If so, fair enough, hats off to you, I couldn't or want to do it mind

It is a race if it's a 24 hour time trial!

Grill

Mr Bunbury wrote:

Harrogate Velo50 wrote:

Hi

Serious question, honestly. Why do you want to do a 600k audax ride, just getting the odd bit of sleep here and there? It's not a race. If your just touring around and camping or b/b can see that, but..... guess just the challenge?? If so, fair enough, hats off to you, I couldn't or want to do it mind

It is a race if it's a 24 hour time trial!

These are done on my TT bike with everything (food) stored in a top tube bag. After all, skinsuits don't have pockets.

vorsprung

I have looked at all the combinations of racks, saddlebags etc etc for riding audaxes the way I like to ride them

I am not Grill so I don't ride them like he does

I currently favour a drybag attached to the saddle somewhat like this http://audaxing.wordpress.com/2012/05/1 ... ubstitute/ plus an Ortlieb barbag. I have improved the way the drybag attaches with an old Carradice "bagman" support

I have considered using a rack and a topbag as this would give a slightly lower centre of gravity for the stuff being carried, also a rack on a bike is a great addition to make the bike more versatile. My second best bike has a rack. Although I tend to use a saddlebag on an SQR if I go audaxing on the second best bike.

I did various calculations that involved the weight of the supports and the saddlebag and a rack etc etc
Even when I was using a relatively heavy Carradice SQR Tour bag, the total weight was better than a similar carrying capacity on a rack

Not all audax riders use saddlebags, some use racks.

On the recent BCM Mike Hall ( round the world record holder and tour divide champion ) was riding. He had a small saddle bag and an amazing custom frame bag. I would guess that would give the optimum space/weight ratio

Grill

Mike was using a Revelate Design bag (the Viscacha I believe although it may have been a Pika). Hardly small, but certainly the best on the market for its volume to weight ratio.

mattsccm

Ignoring the arguments, another point is that a saddle bag can be whipped off and replaced with something smaller for short rides, in a few seconds, whereas a rack needs tools. I for one, prefer to do this. I much prefer nothing at all so take the minimum for the ride.
Also a saddle bag needs nothing but a saddle ie no frame mounts. You'll see an awful lot of Brooks saddles on the big events so fitting a bag is easy.
IMO the bike feels better with a saddle bag as the load is closer to the "magic triangle" where weight is best carried. For me and my bike/setup a rack puts weight up and back. It doesn't feel as nice.
Conversely a mate uses a rack and for and aft back. Suits him. Of course we both also use our favourite set up as its what we have so why bother to change?
I'll ignore the idea of panniers as long distance events don't tend to need that much kit and the idea of just one is plain abhorrent!!!
Coming back to the argument. The OP's responses did appear a bit argumentative. Perhaps it didn't come out nicely in his writing?

apreading

The handful of Audaxes that I have done seem to be evenly split between saddle bags and rack bags. Some of the rackbags are the ones that only secure to the seatpost mind you, which I have found really not that great in the past.

I have a rack because its what I started with and I commute etc with side pannier but I dont worry about the weight - made it up the hills before all the riders on fancy carbon bikes with tiny saddle packs on an Italian tour recently with my rack bag on a flat bar hybrid with disc brakes!

ai_1

apreading wrote:

.....I have a rack because its what I started with and I commute etc with side pannier but I dont worry about the weight - made it up the hills before all the riders on fancy carbon bikes with tiny saddle packs on an Italian tour recently with my rack bag on a flat bar hybrid with disc brakes!

Good for you. However I think you can take credit for that, not your bike or accessories! It doesn't really prove anything.

apreading

Ai_1 wrote:

apreading wrote:

.....I have a rack because its what I started with and I commute etc with side pannier but I dont worry about the weight - made it up the hills before all the riders on fancy carbon bikes with tiny saddle packs on an Italian tour recently with my rack bag on a flat bar hybrid with disc brakes!

Good for you. However I think you can take credit for that, not your bike or accessories! It doesn't really prove anything.

I wasnt trying to prove anything, other than it takes all sorts and whatever works for us personally is not necessarily scientific about weight/performance etc, sometimes its just personal preference. That was my only point - its what works for you personally and what you prefer, for whatever subjective reasons.

I did consider swapping to a saddle bag for that Italy trip, but just couldnt be bothered or see that it was worth the expense.