CargoDane

Maybe they then need to update their thinking if that were true.

Just like going on a short overnighter with bikepacking gear doesn't take much gear, a week takes more, and winter trips and/or weeks on end in changing weather takes even more.

Even in bikepacking, there are degrees to how much one packs. They even have another word too for a special kind of "bikepacking" - namely "basketpacking".
I think you're selling the bikepackers' minds short. I think that in context, most would be able to know what "fully loaded bikepacking" means.

CargoDane

Found a couple of links. Turns out the term "fully loaded" isn't so foreign in the bikepacking "community":

Fully Loaded Bikepacking - Fully Loaded: Lessons from first time Bikepackers

https://www.bikemag.com/fully-loaded-bikepacking/

And this kind of thing:


From here:
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/best-bikepacking-bikes

Turns out that my thoughts that it was all relative seems to be true - even for bikepackers.

indyfabz

I crossed the country with a guy who would sometimes get fully loaded during the day. He crashed twice and nearly got arrested. One night he didn’t show up at camp until long after everyone else was asleep.

staehpj1

I think there are a number of factors at play there. When and where you choose to tour are one, how warm you sleep, how you manage your sleeping bag and clothing, how you pack them, and a number of other factors.

I'd wager that the majority of us try to stick to a weather window where we have somewhat decent weather. That probably means we might get overnight freezes but not real winter weather. I have had frost at night countless times. It has gotten into the 20s now and then and into the teens at least once, but it pretty much always gets to 50 as a daytime high on my tours. I manage that by choosing the time and location. If I go in the winter I stay south. If I go further north I try to pick a time after the snow is out in the mountains. I might still see a little snow. There might even still be a lot of snow on the passes, but I don't need to carry my winter bag.

It worked out fine for a mid Feb thru mid Mar W-E Southern Tier, spring in the Sierras, and quite a few other tours, some in the shoulder seasons, almost all with at least a portion in the mountains.

My bag packs to the size of a small grapefruit and I have slept fine in it down to the mid teens in a bivy with some clothing to supplement it. I can cram my sleeping bag, pad, bivy, tarp, and pillow into a stuff sack the size of a loaf of bread. If it is too cold for those particular pieces of gear I'd rather be doing something else rather than bike touring (Snowshoeing, xc skiing, backpacking...).

Also it helps that I sleep pretty warm.

balto charlie

I don't think folks try to portray ultralight as normal, just doable. I do agree with the rest of your statement though. I consider myself fairly ultralight during summer. I don't use panniers and very little extra clothing, wash clothes as I travel. As weather cools my gear increases, especially clothes. The rest of my gear does not increase except my sleep bag. It is not that much larger but much warmer. Throw food and extra warm clothes into the mix and I have to use panniers.
As I age I prefer a lighter bike and find heavier loads difficult on long climbs. This is my main reason for smaller and lighter.

Happy Feet

Again, don't really want to argue about how you want to describe your touring. Do what you want. Just saying certain terms generally mean certain things in general palance.

FWIW,

In your first example "fully loaded bike packing" isn't used anywhere in the article as an adverb. Two words "Fully Loaded" are the actual title of the article and only describes the fact that their bikes that had nothing on now has camping stuff on. Written for new people by someone outside the genre.

Your second example, the direct quote, isn't really indicative of general genre terminology because it refers to fully loaded luggage. No one in modern bike packing speak refers to their bags as "luggage". Again, wriitten for new people by a writer outside the genre.

Go to the bikepacking.com forums and start talking about your fully loaded luggage and see what happens. There they will refer to bags, in touring we will refer to panniers or saddlebags. If you start talking about luggage people will assume you are new and haven't picked up the lingo.

Happy Feet

I was thinking more of advertising and internet buzz articles. I get it though, in the sense that sleek looks sexy, but sometimes I feel it's not realistic. IRL, I see people with minimal bags who then have to bungee a bunch of stuff onto them which in my mind defeats the purpose a bit, though I do it myself when I need to.

I have also gone lighter and gradually upgrade my gear as I have a few bucks here and there. To me it totally depends on the goals of the trip. I look forward to one day touring the Danube area of Europe and would take a far more traditional pannier setup so I could enjoy on and off bike activities. Sometimes in Western Canada you have big gaps between services and straight(ish) roads and I have found the enjoyment is covering large distances faster so light is the way to go.

CargoDane

Whatever, Happy Feet.
I gave examples and said how "fully loaded" would be understood by bikepackers if it was put in context.

The first link has a plethora of articles of what "fully loaded" entails when it comes to bikepacking, the second link another example.

Go to google and find your own "fully loaded" examples.

Again: There is difference as to how much you normally carry with a bikepacking setup vs. a bike touring setup, just as there is a difference between how much you normally carry in a compact hatchback vs a station wagon or SUV, how much you carry in a pickup, how much in a van, and how much in a lorry.

Or to keep it two-wheeled:
A fully loaded scooter (as in those you kick to move you) will carry less than;
a fully loaded road bike, which will carry less than;
a fully loaded bikepacking bike, which will carry less than;
a fully loaded bike touring bike, which will carry less than;
a fully loaded cargo bike, which will carry less than;
a fully loaded motorcycle. Which will carry less than;
a fully loaded motorcycle with a sidecar, and so on.

You claiming that my use of it is somehow not agreed upon and that we all have to agree is simply just a way for you to try to make everyone else fall in line with your very narrow definition.

Try these links to see how "fully loaded" changes with the object in question:

Scooter (yes, a kick scooter)

Bikepacking bike

Bicycle

Cargo bike

Motorcycle

Car

Pick-up truck

Van

Lorry

Road train

Train

Cargo ship

In other words, it is you who refuse to conform to how other people use the term.

"Fully loaded" is a relative term, even though you try to make it mean one very specific narrow thing and one thing only.

Happy Feet

Sure you can "fully load" any system but in regards to touring the words "fully loaded touring" carries a certain connotation. That's all I'm saying.

But I'm just not that invested in this tangent as I have no desire to say I'm right and you're wrong. We are only talking past each other emphasizing different ways language can be used. These days I think we need a little less arguing.

Cheers

CargoDane

So you agree that one can "fully load any system". Thanks, because that means a very narrow definition is trying to not actually find common ground in the language, but rather try to define it anew to mean something very specific.

It may have those connotations to you, but the term is actually not that narrow that it only conforms - and must conform solely - to the connotations you perceive.

fishboat

...a sad waste of good electrons..

pdlamb

It's OK, they'll get recycled.

Happy Feet

At some point the disconnect becomes apparent and then one sees two people trying to prove two separate points.

It's like one person arguing any old drinking cup full of sugar, regardless of size, is a cup of sugar while someone else is talking about baking and says a cup of sugar means a specific sort of thing. Who's right or wrong depends on the context.

In one sense, if you have either one small seat bag filled up with stuff or four panniers loaded up with stuff one could argue both are fully loaded, That's one way to look at it I suppose and following that logic a credit card tourer with a stuffed day pack could claim to be "fully loaded" but the downside in conversation is that then all terms lose any meaning. The CC tourer could wonder why the expedition traveller needs so many panniers when they are able to tour fully loaded without them.

Most hobbies or pastimes have phrases or terminology that refer to specific things to aid ease of understanding within that community. A fully loaded touring rig is one of those things.

CargoDane

Haha, now it's a question of "terminology" - again trying to force a very narrow definition despite what "fully loaded" actually means.

"Fully loaded" is not "terminology. It's a description of how much load you have in relation to capacity.

Happy Feet

I fully understand how you are looking at this.

staehpj1

It has been used as terminology in the touring community in the past enough to expect it to be used that way in this thread.

The links below are an example of what the term means to at least a large subset of folks here. I don't know their current policy but in the past I was disallowed posting pictures of a rig because it only had two panniers and therefore wasn't 'fully loaded". I personally don't care for the term, but it is definitely in common usage to refer to bikes with 4 panniers and maybe some more capacity in the form of rack top and handlebar bags.
https://www.pbase.com/canyonlands/fullyloaded
https://www.facebook.com/LoadedTouringBikes

CargoDane

So, some people think that "fully loaded" means "a lot of panniers" because they have seen a bicycle with a lot of bags being called "fully loaded", not realising that it is the amount of "stuff" that matters. And now you want everyone and everything to conform to that misinterpretation of what the term "fully loaded" actually means.

I already know you want the entire world to conform to it, in order for us all to use a "terminology we can all agree upon".

I'm reminded of people who have heard that quality is expensive, and then goes to argue that "it's expensive, so it must be quality".

Yes, you can carry more in a fully loaded 4-panniers+seatbag+handlebar bag than you can in a bikepacking setup. Hence the context is the type of setup. So a fully loaded bikepacking trip will carry less than a fully loaded cargo bike trip and so on.

If, on the other hand, you merely use the term "bicycle" without mentioning the different kinds of bikes and setups, it is like the "expensive=quality" squad:

You think it solely means "four panniers etc.". But even your example earlier on, that bloke pulled a trailer in additon to the four panniers. So it doesn't just mean "four panniers, handlebar bag, and seatbag"). You too actually think of it as a relative term.

And, lastly, if "fully loaded" means four panniers and the other ones I mentioned, what is a fully loaded cargo bike, carrying much more? Can it be more than "full"? Or what if I only use the cargo platform and do not have panniers? Is it then "basketpacking on steroids"? Or perhaps it can't be fully loaded since I don't have panniers at all?

Edit: I've just realised I like the "basketpacking on steroids". I think I'll use that to explain what it's like to tour on my bikes.

staehpj1

My observation of the term and how it has been used...

I don't actually like the term. It just happens to be a term that has gained common usage. That common usage has been by and for folks carrying a lot of stuff. At some point the litmus test of whether you were carrying enough stuff to qualify was whether you had enough baggage. Not my terminology. Not my qualification. But it has been common usage at least for a self identified group who called themselves fully loaded tourists. At the time the "fully loaded" picture site was created the qualifications for posting there was defined as such.

There are a few ways folks might identify as fully loaded, but the one that the folks who coined the term and self identify with it is carrying a lot with a lot of baggage which they equated with being well equipped and prepared. I presume they dismissed those carrying less as being less prepared, but I may be making an incorrect assumption there.

One could possibly say if you have every thing you need you are fully loaded, but the folks who coined the term and self identify with it wouldn't claim them if they were packing in a minimalist really style. I know since I pack in a minimalist style these days and they use the term specifically to separate what they do from what I do.

One could also say that if you pack in the least amount of volume possible you were fully loaded. Again I pretty much do that and they use the term specifically to separate what they do from what I do.

CargoDane

Yes. Indeed: It's a relative term. Even the time of year/temperature will make it mean different things/levels.

However, It's not the people who load up bikes and self-identify etc. with it that "coined the term". It is a term that was already there and used by people outside of bike touring (regardless of type). It's not cyclists who coined the term. But, yes, it obviously means carrying a lot of stuff - to have your capacity maxed out.

Happy Feet

CargoDane, you seem to be taking this very personally, as if someone is accusing what you do as not what you say.

That's not what's going on.

The thread was what does unsupported mean. ie. what does the term mean? It has morphed into a discussion about another term: fully loaded touring. You can look at the phrase in terms of what it means to you personally, or what it means in the common lingo used by the collective group. This comes up occasionally with other terms as well.

Someone will ask what a touring bike is. Generally, there are some features that the collective group traditionally considers features of a touring bike; eyelets for racks, strong wheels, long chainstays etc... Even manufacturers classify "touring" bikes. That idea has undergone a split recently with the more mainstream influence of bike packing. However, whenever the topic comes up someone will invariably point out they once toured on a flimsy 3 speed or beach cruiser and that really, any bike can be a touring bike "if you tour on it". True in a sense but within the community there is still a conception of what a touring bike is that follows some guidelines.

Then someone will ask what a tour is? Same thing. The group has some general idea used in conversation but an individual argues their outlier experience still counts as such.

Lightweight tent. Is that 2lb's, 3lb's, 20lb's? Is there a general consensus within the biking community or does it just depend relatively to what you are willing to carry?

At some point groups use terms to describe certain concepts so they can have discussions. If the terms have no meaning it gets pretty hard to move past that because the reference points are all over the map.

Q: Can someone recommend a good touring tire?
A: 700x23 sew up tubulars, because that's what I used once on a tour.

The thing is, it's not a contest and no one (except maybe that group Staehpj1 is talking about) is trying to say you did or did not tour with a full load of stuff. We are just talking about how the terms are commonly used within the touring community. The same question of terms comes up in the Classic and Vintage forum and in the mountain biking forums. "What defines this"?

FWIW, I could care less about fully loaded touring. My bent is towards the lightweight for the most part, but with enough practicality to remain self sufficient.

staehpj1

Just for fun I dug up the old 2012 thread link for the "Fully Loaded Touring - Photo Gallery - New Website and Focus" thread. It captures me getting all huffy and asking to have my older heavy rig's picture removed from the gallery. There are also pics of my heavy setup from my first tour (TransAmerica) and a couple later, lighter, setups.

If interested check out the link at https://www.bikeforums.net/touring/7...e-focus-3.html

Sorry to have belabored this point, especially since I dislike the term. I will concede that using the literal meaning of the words I always tour "fully loaded", but I doubt many here would put me in that category. There are plenty of coined phrases that are commonly used that do not follow the literal meaning of the words. If you say buffalo wings, muffin top, or bucket list folks know you most likely don't mean the literal meaning of the words. Someone who has been on this forum since 2012 would probably assume that "fully loaded" was being used as a coined term. Other folks maybe not. Given that CargoDane has a join date of 11-13-20 I can see where he may not have seen the term used that way as much.

Happy Feet

Yes, I totally get the misunderstanding. This issue probably effects me more when trying to define bike packing as I have what I consider a bike packing rig that uses two small panniers instead of a seat bag. Some get stuck on the "luggage" for definition, others the activity.

My first understanding of a "touring" bike was from the 70's (there is a recent thread about them here) as being a ten speed type bike with a rat trap on the back and maybe a handlebar bag. I did not really see many four pannier examples. Then, with the mtb boom I saw more converted bikes like that. My first dedicate touring bike was a 4 pannier 2x5 26" tank. Terrible bike but it worked. I pretty well bypassed the classic touring bike genre (Trek 520 style) and just kept upgrading rigid mtb's. After watching "Inspired to Ride" I caught the UL bike packing bug a bit and began leaning that way so that now I have a definite split mainly between a fat bike off road tour bike and an endurance road touring bike, both as light as possible without being impractical.

indyfabz

It's definitely going to be a long winter.

mstateglfr 

Dude.

Happy Feet

Terminology:

I'll never look at a rider who says he's "pooped out" the same way again.

Back o the paceline mate.. back o the line!