79pmooney

I rode a fix gear as my primary transportation for years. A rack in back until the early '80s when I started using a LowRider rack up front instead. The LowRider was less versatile for unusual large objects, but as a way to carry real weight in smaller packages, it did and does rule.

The fix gear was the real test. Uphill (and I have always lived in places where I had to go uphill on most rmy rides), a fix gear requires that you ride out of the saddle. Being able to rock the bike on steep/hard hills is a real plus. Going uphill on that fix gear with weight means rocking harder. Putting weight on back of the bike means having use the handlebars as levers to control that weight at the end of a stick. (Like trying to stop the swing of a heavy sledge hammer.) But that weight in LowRider panniers has almost no effect on the bike at all beyond making you pedal harder.

Small weights aren't a big deal I don't mind going up my usual hills with up to 10 pounds in a small backpack. But 20 pounds gets quite old, especially if the day is warm. 30 pounds or more in the panniers up front and low? Not a big deal (unless you ask my legs).

If you go LowRider there is one thing you need to be aware of. When loaded, they are very hard on front rims. You will need a bigger front tire with adequate pressure or you will find potholes and the like destroying the rim. Jumping stuff and riding "light" ain't happening. At 155 pounds, I like to use 28c or bigger tire up front and often put a couple more ponds in it than in back.

Fun memory - coming home from a shopping trip with very heavily loaded panniers on the fix gear. Stopped at an light to make a left turn. Got a good pedal pick up, then sprinted/accelerated through the turn, cars behind me, rocking the bike wildly and coming out of the intersection with real speed, all with the heavy panniers. I put on a very good show for the drivers behind. That same acceleration would have been far less fun with that weight anyplace else.

Ben

JohnDThompson 

By carrying weight on yourself, do you mean a backpack? If so, carrying it on the bike on a rack
is better. Carrying weight on your back puts more load on your butt, which gets tiresome quickly.

Hardrock23

I'd rather have stuff on the bike than on me...if that is the question.

cyccommute 

Well you obviously don't understand what is meant by "riding light". I'm not standing. But my full weight isn't on the saddle either. And I have done this for 6 to 10 hours per day for several weeks. I ride this way whenever I ride.

Hovering over the saddle is so ingrained in the way that I ride that even with nearly 20,000 miles my highest mileage Brooks saddle has no discernible divots in it.

cyccommute 

A bicycle saddle is just like a saddle for a horse. It is "a supportive structure for a rider". I'm not much of a horseman...gave it up long ago...but even I knew at a very young age that you didn't want to "sit" on a horse saddle...at least not if you wanted to walk the next morning. You hold yourself above the saddle so that it supports you but you can let the horse move under you.

Same applies to a bicycle. Done properly, the bike will move up and down under you as it rolls over the road and you glide over the top of the bumps. Done improperly and the saddle will pound your nether regions black and blue.

pbekkerh

That's what I call standing

The only way you can lessen the weight on the saddle is by transferring it to the legs, That's called standing.

MikeyMK

The bike is the donkey, ideally.

But the weight should be sprung - if you're carrying fragile goods, and the only thing dampening the rack is a 1.25in tyre, then you're gonna be handling broken goods on arrival...

pesty

I'm going to say it depends on the situation and it's going to be subject to rider preference.

When I was commuting by bike (30-40min), I preferred to have my pack on my back as opposed to on my bike. Reason being is I don't like the way putting the weight on the bike affects the handling, especially as I was navigating traffic in Downtown Dallas on a normal road geometry bike.

That being said, if I was going long distances on rural roads, I'd probably opt for panniers and put that weight on the bike where I'm not putting strain on my arms and back supporting the pack.

Reynolds 

On the bike, unless it's eggs.

Fr4nk

Pretty much same answer I would give...

BobbyG

"Take a load off Fanny, take a load for free
Take a load off Fanny, and you put the load right on me"

BlazingPedals

My weight is a given, so the weight of the bike is what's variable. Which is better/worse? Bike weight is only there when you're riding, then it goes away. So I guess body weight is worse because you can't just leave it in the washroom with your dirty bike clothes.

Ironfish653

This. I still think like an XC rider, and ride my commute like one. 3 or 4 lbs. on one end of the bike does things I don't like to the handling, especially when it's time to get the wheels off the ground.

Touring or bike-packing is a whole other animal, and the bike carries the load.

drlogik 

Assuming you are asking about gear weight? Definitely on the bike. Extra gear and weight carried on the body fatigues the whole body. Gear on the bike mainly fatigues the legs. At least that's been my experience.

Maelochs

If you are getting a lot of air during your "commute" .... well, I guess you don't pack a laptop. (I commuted with 30-50 lbs for years no problem ... but I couldn't bunny-hop curbs.)

I think Ironfish's answer, though, is pretty complete: If by "load" you mean lunch and a change of clothes .... whatever. Anything much more than that, I definitely recommend packing on the bike and learning to handle the load.

ironwood

I'm surprised that some of the backpack advocates on the LCF foum haven't posted here.

As for me, I've used a backpack, panniers on a rear rack, on a front rack, and on low riders. I've used a handlebar bag, suspended from the bar, and also on a front rack. I 've also carried weight in a saddlebag and towed a BoB trailer (the best way to haul beer). They all work, depending on the bike and the amount of weight. I like the Carradice style long flap saddle bag and a front bag on a rack for most moderate loads.

I haven't tried a porter rack, but some people prefer them.
.
I very rarely use a back pack, and then only for short trips with only a little weight.

The OP will find what works best for him.

cyccommute 

Ever been to a function where you had to stand up a lot and you eventually leaned up against something to ease up the weight on your legs? That's similar to what I'm talking about. You aren't "standing" on the pedals. The saddle supports a lot of your weight but the action of pedaling keeps a significant fraction of your weight off the pedals. Yes, it requires a bit more effort from your core muscles and from your legs but, in the end, it's easier on the rider and the bike.

Standing up on the pedals, on the other hand, is a complete lifting of your weight off the saddle. Ideally you shouldn't even be within about a half a meter of the saddle as you pull up towards the handlebars and hammer away at the pedals.

Another way to think about riding light is to think of how you handle a pothole that you can't go around. Most people lift up off the saddle slightly but they may still be in contact with the saddle as they post over the hole.

kcblair

Here's my real world experience. Last year 2016 (April) I was diagnosed with diabetes. In the process, of figuring what is going on, I had lost 31 lbs. and feeling real weak. Over the prior years I had weighed 180-188, and had not ridden much. Only bike path and avoided the hills like the plague .

When I retired from the USAF, I was at 165, my ideal weight. I club raced in Europe.

Now onto 2017, After spending the last months of 2016, working out my blood sugar control, on the bike, I hit the hills with a vengeance. I turned 70 this past year, and was out climbing guys and gals in my club that were in their upper 50's and 60's. Folks that the club consider good climbers. I took on a ride, up to a local hill town with 1800 ft. of climbing for 5.8 mi. I'm climbing better than I ever have in the last decade. There is nowhere I can't ride in my area. It has opened up a number of rides, that I would have never attempted.

Yes , I lowered my gear inches from 34 to 28, but the lost of 30 lbs. got me up hills. Nothing else on my bikes had changed.

So, "it's not about the bike", so to speak. KB

Here is that climb.
https://www.strava.com/activities/1219549779

hotbike

Two meanings of "Spare Tire" here, LOL...

Gyro_T

If you ignore the comfort issue of carrying a pack, the weight on the wheels is the same if you assume equal distribution. Although, when you stand on the pedals, forces will become different and very complex to account for. Distribution is critical because it will be affect by hysteresis, which is energy lost through the tire/tube material. Once you account for those factors, wind resistance becomes the most important factor. Especially if you are Mr. Ride Fast!

sunburst

I've been riding this way most of my life, and have tried to explain it to novices. I suppose that's why I find B17s to be perfectly comfortable. Although I'll admit to transforming most of my vintage bikes to uprights in more recent years, with my body weight more focused on the sit bones. As a result, I have switched four of mine to B67's for the springs.

With every new build, I proclaim (to myself) that I'm not going to load it down with a rear rack/panniers/U-lock/etc. Yesterday, after a trip to the post office with two packages, U-lock, and cable in my messenger bag, I came home and mounted a rear rack on my latest build. Soooo much better. It seems to be a lesson I have to learn every time.

fietsbob

This.. you getting off the bike a lot , and traveling short distances, between those many stops?

1voyager2

Having read only the OP and skipping over all the responses:

Carrying weight on the bicycle rather than on your body would be more efficient, center of gravity would be lower, you would not be expending energy to move the weight around as your body moved as you pedaled, steered and other movements. Not sure if I've got the correct terminology, but the "moment of inertia" for side to side movement of the weight would be less on the bike as opposed to it being on yourself, less leverage on then road contact and side to side movement.
Or, so it seems to me.

Kapusta

Road riding and commuting: on the bike

Mountain biking: on my back (most of it, at least).

MikeyMK

Can anyone explain how a rock-hard seat can be so widely acclaimed..? How soft can a thick, tensioned leather structure be?

I've had some slimline seats and they're no good for me, i don't carry body weight and i don't even have any, but i sit quite upright. I generally aim to have my seat at the same height as the handlebars (or vice versa).

I currently have a Dawes classic style riveted thing on my '96 Merlin, which is a reasonably well padded take on the San Marco Regal. This really is as hard as i can bear.



I've tried all manner of stuff, from gels to foam, and my best seat is actually a foam thing that was probably fitted as standard to my '70s Hercules shopper. It probably put the hole in the ozone layer too, but it was worth it, it's lovely - the only reason i don't use it on my e-bike is because of it's plastic flat-rail fitting, and won't go on my round-rail Velo Orange seat post. Unless i fabricate a custom chassis for it.

So, i look at the Brooks leather saddles, and i just don't get it. Yes i get that they mould to shape, and there's little in the world more comfortable to sit on than a moulded-top stool.
But i don't move much on a stool. My cranks are mostly 170mm. That's well over a foot of vertical knee movement, and that means there's a lot going on with regard to my arse bones.
I just don't see how a saddle can mould to that.

Experiences with saddles such as the Brooks B-series would be welcome.