The title on HN seems to deviate from the one on the page. I say that because that's only 24 miles a day, and I've known plenty of people who bike commute and do _at least_ that. The article itself, IMHO, is also more interesting than the amount of miles biked.
Agreed. When I first glanced at the title, I was thinking about the RAAM (Race Across America), where the winners do roughly ~3000 miles in ~9 days (depending on course and year).[0] The actual logistics of this trip North/South along the western side of South America [1] are much different, and glancing at some of the blog entries and photos, very interesting. There's also YouTube videos. [2]
Riding 24mi (39km) a day for a few weeks is one thing, but sustaining that for over a year, including making up for days off due to weather, mechanical trouble, whatever is what makes this interesting IMO.
And of course there's the element of "carrying literally all of your clothes, water, shelter, and food" on the bicycle for the whole year. You might carry your laptop and a change of clothes to work, but probably not multiple litres of water!
There was a guy in Canada (Al Howie) who RAN about two and a half times (105km) that far every day for two and a half months(72 days, 10 hours). 2 weeks after he finished he set a world record in a 1300 mile race.
Documentary? Article? He must have spent most of his waking hours running to do that. I’d be interested to read about his (lack of) injuries, never mind anything else.
In the 1980's, a 61yo Australian potato farmer won an 875km (544m) race between Sydney and Melbourne in 5 days flat without ever stopping to eat or sleep.
He used a radical low energy shuffling technique, which was a slower pace then his competitors, but he made up for it during the 5 or 6 hours they slept each day. He ended up winning by 10 hours.
Yeah, 24 miles over how long time period, and that OK - ride as you like... but he mentioned *Patagonia* so im sure its not Flat like the Earth.
I HIGHLY recommend something like an Orbea Rise E-bike assist for a trip like this...
I am currently planning a 2,500 mile trip and am working with Orbea on it...
But first I am printing some addon parts for my unit and in process of designing a proper trailer using T-strut to build a trailer such that it can attach to my full suspension, have two wheels that are the exact same as my bike, ie spares... but as t-slot, aluminum, with the appropriate mesh interior area covered, can extend into a "cot" upon which I can put up the tent.
Hi! I wrote the post. I stayed about 10 days in each big city because seeing them was my goal in doing the ride. I was probably pedaling only half the days. And yes, some of the kilometers were tough! Climbing, wind, weather, or gravel.
Just curious. For a similar bit shorter travel across Canada from east to west during summer, is there any recommended commercial bike? (commercial bike means can buy in Costco/Canadian Tire/individual bike shops and not too expensive, say under 3000 CAD)
Most of the popular touring bikes fit your budget. Really you're just looking for durable, a wide gear range and the capacity to mount gear. Surly disc trucker has historically been one of the most popular as an example, but there are a lot of others.
Also, it can absolutely be done with cheaper. My partner and I finished a 4800 mile trip last year. I used a second hand cyclocross bike that I got off craiglist for ~500 a few years ago. She had a road bike that she bought for 200 from the local bike project.
Thanks a lot. Touring bike then. I'll probably consult some bike shop owner to give opinions. BTW how did you train for the long ride? Did you go from say 100 and then inter-city?
I have traveled from Spain till Iceland in a 300 euros bike. In my opinion, the bike is not that important if you do not carry too much weight, visit countries were certain spare parts are not available and finding someone that can weld aluminium is not impossible. Just avoid rear suspension. Do not put too much weight since this puts too much presion on the spokes.
Instead spend the money in: good tyres (schwalwe, continental), paniers (ortlieb) and racks (tubus) and saddle (brooks) since this are the components that wear out really fast.
Gas stove does not work well in moderate cold climate. I discovered this the hard way. If the temp. Is gonna be about 0C buy a petrol stove.
You can save a lot of money being pragmatic. I.e chopsticks are lighter than titanium fork.
If you travel alone buy a camping tent for two. You will need extra real state for your stuff.
Hi! I wrote the post. Good answers below. Decent generic mountain bikes with disc brakes are found all over South America, being pedaled by casual riders and kids in the town squares. Starting a tour with that equipment and adding racks and such would be affordable, and parts will be replaceable. Surly/Soma/Kona/Salsa/Fuji/Etc. touring bikes come with the main advantage of mounting points. But more DIY riders are rigging things up with hose clamps.
Canadian Tire and Costco are two places you should absolutely avoid. If you aren't experienced with bikes their bikes look fine on paper for the price. In reality, you will spend lots of time and money to get them to perform properly, and will still have a bike that is likely untrustable.
Go to an independent bike shop and explain what you want to do and your budget. They will be able to kit you out appropriately. For Canadian made bikes, my wife has a Devinci which, so far, has been great for rugged urban use with panniers and racks. I suspect that it would hold up great to touring travel.
It should be totally possible to buy and outfit a bike for $3k CAD
I must confess that I just cringed incredibly hard at the thought of trying a 6000 km tour on a canadian tire bike. The budget of 3000 CAD for the bike itself before accessories is a possibility, but I advise you to get information from specialty bike shops that focus on road bikes, and ask them about good touring bikes.
for the americans: a bike sold at canadian tire is often a $195 "bicycle shaped object" similar to what you'd see for sale at walmart.
some useful info on touring bike frames and components:
Touring bikes are weird animals, and are built to a wholly different set of requirements than other bikes.
Classic choices are the Trek 520, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, and the Kona Sutra. REI has consistently impressed me with their offerings as well.
For the most part, frames get built with a carefully selected set of parts that balances reliability, repairability, and availability. Weight is really only a consideration for the wheels, and it's pretty far down the priority list even there.
Over 5000mi/8000km, everything is consumable, except hopefully the frame and associated components. I didn't blow up a hub over 7000 miles of touring, but I replaced chains, the cassette, the chainring that got the most wear, a couple of spokes, a rim, a saddle, and maybe a few other things. Oh, and several tires.
Mom and pop bike shop availability is clutch when you're miles from even a bigger town. A touring bike is not the bike to have the latest group set on, nonstandard spokes, or anything that you can't fix, replace, or make a workable substitution for in the boonies. AIUI, if you're touring internationally, you really want 559mm rims; 622mm is much less common outside of North America and Europe and finding tires can be a big problem.
You'll often find that frames get built up with an absolute hodgepodge of components that only makes sense if you consider all of the above, plus the fact that gearing runs more on the mountain bike end of the spectrum.
Components tend to run a generation or two behind bleeding edge, and manufacturers mix and match freely between road and mountain stuff as appropriate to get what they're looking for for durability and ergonomics. A good touring bike usually has mid-range components. Good enough to stay adjusted, beefy enough to hold up to a lot of miles with less maintenance than might be ideal.
All that to say, I haven't answered your question per-se, but I hope this helps you understand for yourself whether and answer put forward by a salesperson is a good one.
Most bike shops aren't making most of their money selling touring bikes. You run a very real chance of dealing with salespeople who are totally out of their depth when you shop for a touring bike. The ones that are both good and also honest will admit as much.
> Over 5000mi/8000km, everything is consumable, except hopefully the frame and associated components
That may be touring-specific? I have tons of components on my regular bikes that last well over 5000 miles, including spokes/rims/wheels and saddles (derailleurs, shifters, pedals, cranks). Many tires even last 5000 miles, although not the lightweight racy ones I use.
When doing long tours you want to replace stuff before they break. For instance, I did several tours between 3000 and 5000 kms. I might have gotten away with not replacing the drive train between tours, but spending that extra cash (especially when on the more budget friendly end, like me) is money well invested.
Also, with heavy load (bike+luggage for me was usually in the 35-40 kg range) and more riding in rain than I would do when not on tour, leads to increased wear.
My worst failure was a cracked rim on a rear wheel that I should have replaced before the tour. It had started to wear down due to bad breaks. It was still rideable for another 100k to the nearest bikeshop (this was in southern Spain).
I had two friends who did about 1/3rd this distance at about the same pace. In an era before folding beads, if memory serves I think they changed their tires out before day one, carried lots of spare inner tubes, but ended up carrying spare tires figure-eighted long before they hit the Continental Divide. The roads in our county were exceptionally good. That alone made our organized events pretty popular, but the organizers were also really good at what they do.
Going across the country you're gonna be hitting way more counties and states than you would even as someone who travels for cycling events. More importantly you're also not on a curated ride. Our club was top twenty and people agonized over the relative safety of certain back roads. Pavement quality, debris, traffic, blindspots, pets. Sometimes they got it right, sometimes wrong. It was an iterative process and some segments were only ever tried once (or twice if people forgot why we said no before).
On a cross country trip you don't have locals curating for you, so it's going to be more wear and tear.
In America, there are curated maps and routes by groups like the Adventure Cycling Association. Sure, there won't be members living along your whole route sweeping shoulders clean of debris, but they do a lot of work of trying to find routes that are as safe as can be, have good overnight stops, etc.
> Over 5000mi/8000km, everything is consumable, except hopefully the frame and associated components. I didn't blow up a hub over 7000 miles of touring, but I replaced chains, the cassette, the chainring that got the most wear, a couple of spokes, a rim, a saddle, and maybe a few other things. Oh, and several tires.
That seems... unusual? I'm at 11,000 miles on my current road bike and I've replaced less than that even though I'm using components designed for weight, not durability. I'm on my fourth chain, third cassette, second rear tire (although both tires need replacement soon), and other than those the only things I've replaced are brake pads. Hauling a heavier load obviously increases wear and tear, but I wouldn't expect it to be that much.
Literally anything that's not build out of bargain bin parts will do fine. And better one will not necessarily prevent that many failures, over some point it's mostly incremental improvements in experience quality, not reliability.
I had 3 bikes, 2 of them did around 10k, 3rd one, well, I bought it at start of pandemic, then we moved WfH so it did much less.
Around 20% was riding around local forests, rest in city.
The first bike was literally like $300 (...probably closer to $400 now with inflation and all). I only replaced the saddle for more comfortable one but that's all. No disc brakes, literally the fanciest thing on it was that it had shocks on front.
But after finding job in big city and moving there I was using it for commute every day so after few years I decided "well, might as well buy something nice", bought one for I think like $2000, nice disc brakes, rear shock, lighter, "good" etc.
Comparing those two I went from mechanical rim brakes to hydraulic disk brakes and they did feel nicer, but in the end the rim brakes stopping power was just fine, it didn't feel as that much of an upgrade. Sure, a bit lighter to use but I could still yeet myself thru the front tire on rim brakes (probably). And rear wheel disc brake was entirely a waste, there is way less braking force needed on rear to lock up wheel.
In general I liked it but managed to break the frame (I was on max range of weight for that bike which probably didn't help), and decided to get something slighty cheaper, no rear shock (not much use for what I drive), cheaper accessories etc. (think it was about $1000). After a bit of riding turned out that only thing I missed was that tiny screw to adjust preload on brakes as the pads wear out. Drove few K so far, think some bearing in pedal broke (it's a bit wobbly), but not annoying enough yet for me to fix it.
In every case I had to replace sprockets as they use, replace the saddle for more comfortable one and install some accessory bits, replace the handlebars for one that fit me better and few smaller bit. But even the cheapo was reliable enough.
Generally the thing worth investing most is frame (as that will not change) and derailleur, as that will generally stay, brakes depending on riding (as I said, people driving hard off hills will probably have different needs than me driving some random forest dirt roads). Everything else you probably want to fit to your needs and you want to drive the bike for a bit to know exactly what you want.
I e never heard anyone use the phrase ‘drive a bike’ before, always ‘ride a bike’, you use drive several times - is this a regional thing I’ve not come across before?
Nope, I hust don't talk about bicycles in english all that often (well, basically never).
I also find the word "bike" annoying, as it seems to mean both bicycle and motorbike, while in my native language there are entirely separate words with no common root (but funnily enough colloquial term for motorbike is same as "engine")
Polish. Bike is "Motor" (engine) or "motocykl", bicycle is "rower", scooter is also basically "skuter" but it is just about the form factor, not the engine
Also 50cc ones are called "engine bicycles" although that name isn't really used that often.
It may sound odd because "biker" colloquially refers to a motorcyclist, but not many people would call a motorcycle a "bike" in day-to-day conversation.
Maybe "driving a bike" will get more popular as electric velocipedes continue to blur those lines.
The Surly he was riding isn’t a bad choice. They’re pretty stout, and have all the necessary braze ons for racks and fenders. You’re going to need panniers and/or frame bags, though current style is to put a bit more weight on the front than he seemed to have.
This just popped up today: https://theradavist.com/cycling-africa/ Connecting Two Distant Corners: Cycling the Length of Africa. The two bikes -- a Knoa Sutra and a Surly Long Haul Trucker.
I would suggest finding a touring bike from somebody who has maintained it well; there are many reputable forums and sites for these secondhand sales. You’ll get a considerable discount and have a better chance to ensure it has all the features you want.
I would then immediately ensure everything works to your satisfaction, using this post-purchase assessment to not only bring the bike to the state it needs to be but to inform yourself on how your bike is put together, so that you can more easily repair her whilst on your trip.
I myself was able to pick up an incredible secondhand race bike built by a Japanese man who constructed such bikes for both the JP and US Olympic teams. Not only did I only spend a few hundred on it but I also was able to meet the man who built it and learn so much more about bikes and sprinting on them successfully than I had prior to the purchase.
TL;DR: Go secondhand, you’ll get a better bike and you’ll find people in the community who will help you become a better and more knowledgeable biker.
this is a really entertaining and descriptive summary of the nuts and bolts of bike touring through south america written by a friend of mine. i recommend the whole blog!
Recently a person I know celebrated climbing to space by bike in a year- their total climbed altitude was ~50miles which is generally recognized as the edge of space.
I misremembered and claimed they had climbed to the moon by bike in a year. That's about 650 miles per day, every day, for a year. It's likely beyond the world's best cyclists (the record is 637 miles in a single day, but not sustained over multiple days).
Reminded me an ultra cycling event in the Pyrenees called 8848 where riders climb an altitude of 8848 meters (roughly the height of Everest) in a single long day (with rest stops, but not sleeping overnight).
I used to be on a running listserve that included monthly(quarterly?) updates on the million mile run. That kind of record keeping was beyond me, and I wasn't a terribly driven runner except in competition with a few friends. Still the scale of the race was hard to wrap my head around and you reminded me of it.
http://ice.he.net/~mmahoney/ultra/million.htm
The record is also for distance traveled, not elevation change.
650 miles of elevation change in a single day is impossible once. Even a ridiculously steep gradient would have you travelling thousands of miles which would require an average speed of 100mph +, up a 20-30% gradient.
I don't even know if a car could ascend 650 miles in a day!
Hi! I wrote the post. Yes, this was a weekly meeting at a community center where language learners speak, or nearly fluent people. Ideally a mix, and people can make corrections.
I was sending emails daily in the year 2000.... then I probably went 6 months without any internet.... I think I lost my rocketmail.com account during that time because of innactivity.
Ha, if I ever get my tiscali.co.uk back (I won’t) I’d have some great memories ! Did the same as you. This was all pre gmail and webmail providers were stingy.
From the photo of the shoe, unless I'm wrong, this guy is using a crank brothers eggbeater system MTB shoe and cleat system which is very popular for hybrid road/touring/MTB purposes where you want a shoe you can walk in.
I've rarely seen 3-bolt full road cleat systems used for touring because the shoes designed for road cycling are not walkable at all.
Yep, the Crankbrothers Mallett so I could also use the pedal in my other shoes. The shoe that broke wasn't durable enough but a Specialized one lasted the rest of the way. It was like a hiking shoe. I bought spare cleats at a shop once along the way but never needed them.
Flats are increasingly popular for touring as well. Turns out that unless you're trying to maximize efficiency at race levels, flats work pretty damn well. And even for racing, the value of clipless pedals is dubious compared to a decent-sized flat. I suppose weight weenies shy away because a decent flat is probably twice the weight of a decent clipless pedal. Deity black kats are 402 grams, whereas the most popular Shimano clipless pedal is 228 grams.
I do a lot of my touring and even bikepacking in vibram-soled sandals. Socks get so smelly even after a day or two that it's better to just go without them IMO.
They're not walkable because the are designed for cycling long distances in a day. Some find the eggbeater platform doesn't work for long distances because the platform isn't as big as SPD or SPD-SL pedals. Not everyone is planning on doing big daily mileage when touring so it depends on the rider.
notably the eggbeater with a platform (Candy series) pedal has much more surface area for a MTB style shoe to press on than the bare eggbeater, and is popular for touring.
I have that bell, it makes a beautiful sound. It's not quite loud enough, but it's real problem is that its spring is the only thing holding the striker on, and that gets bent out of shape way too easily.
Hi! I wrote the post. I agree. I got a $3 bell later (kinda like a hamburger) and it lasted forever. The beautiful bell may go on a sophisticated city bike distant in my future. (Oh, also, Knog replaced it.)
I have it on one bike, have the same issues. The stamped metal bells (Incredibell) with a plastic base are louder, are cheaper and are easier to actuate and are sturdier.
How would a different kind of bike setup fare? Like tubeless, or belt-driven etc, any gains doing untraditional things? Of course, one value in doing it plain is it's easy to fix and get parts anywhere.
> one value in doing it plain is it's easy to fix and get parts anywhere
That's probably the main value. In the article it says he waited three days for a bike chain - I imagine it would have been even longer waiting for a belt. Belts also limit you to single-sprocket rear wheels since they don't work with derailers - hub gears can be reliable (see the legendary Rohloff hubs) but they're expensive and add another difficult-to-source part to the build in case something goes wrong.
There's even something of a cult myth in touring that steel frames are superior since they could be theoretically fixed by anyone with a welder. I'm not sure if I've ever heard of this in practice, though.
I made around 11000 km with a belt on a cargo bike before selling it and the belt on the current one is at ~6000km. Belts are amazing, especially when it comes to maintenance.
But I would still avoid going with a belt on a tour anywhere that’s remote - not because the belt itself might break, but the hub (as for this guy), or a sprocket or anything that is uncommon, but required when riding a belt.
I started a long tour across Europe with my bike set up tubeless and gave up about halfway through. Even in Europe, access to consistent sealant to top up inconsistent, and reseating a tubeless bead with portable tools is difficult when possible. And one still needs to carry tubes in case of tubeless failure, which is generally messy. Tubeless ideally trades less roadside maintenance for more at-home maintenance.
Alternate ways to reduce flat risk while touring include armored touring tires (which can be somewhat slower & less comfortable due to how stiff they are) and/or by adding sealant to one's tubes.
Tires and rims differ substantially but you often don't need to reseat the tire bead if you remove the valve core and inject sealant through the stem. High volume hand pumps and soap can usually seat tires in place of CO2 cartridges. If you do need to insert a tube, the mess from the sealant makes life absolutely miserable, you're totally right.
Topping up, reseating? My experience with tubeless (on a mountain bike) is that I buy a new set of tires, pour some sealant in (Stan's NoTubes), put them on a bike and then ride until there's no tread left. I don't think I've ever had the sealant dry up. And that's with a regular rim meant to be used with tubes, converted to tubeless with an aftermarket kit.
I agree with having to carry a tube or two in case the tire fails catastrophically, but other than that I consider tubeless bulletproof. No experience with touring though.
Wondering what "long tour" means here, because you usually don't need sealant top-up very often - maybe once or twice a year in my experience. You have to pump tubeless tires regularly though (lose pressure more quickly than an inner tube), BUT in exchange you need a severe encounter with something extreme to get a real puncture. I had travelled with finger-sized nails in my tires without even recognizing it...
This isn't a ton of miles for the period of time; the main complication is that he's doing it in rural areas, carrying a bunch of gear, in a foreign country. Given that scenario, bike tourers frequently opt for the equipment most likely to have replacement parts available. Which means boring, conventional stuff.
It is a ton of miles for the period of time, because it's an average including all stops. If something breaks, you lose time. If you get sick, you lose time. If you get saddle sores, you lose time. Doing that many miles without a serious injury that sidelines you for weeks is a skill in itself.
Many people, with at most a month of practice, could survive riding 40-100 miles in a day, but many of them would be so worn out or would injure some sort of muscle such that they couldn't do 2 in a row - much less 200.
Citation: I've done a variety of 200-400 mile community group rides and seen people in all sorts of shape, but have done it enough times with enough different people to see a diverse number of outcomes.
Tubeless is probably the least problematic of the newfangled bike tech when it comes to bike touring in remote areas. You get the benefit that most punctures will seal themselves. If the puncture is too severe for the sealant to work, you can easily convert to a conventional setup with a tube.
I agree with this, but you do need to "refill sealent" every 3-6months. The fallback from tubeless->tubed is an advantage that I've used for both recreational and racing.
The other nice thing about tubeless is less rotational mass, meaning less caloric burn.
One radically different approach would be going for low weight, basically the bikes you'd see in road racing with some minor changes for longevity. For 10k miles you'd want to carry two replacement chains and three or four tires (not pairs), and a generous amount of tubes (the author's argument against tubeless is perfectly valid, they are only tubeless until they are not). Even with all routine spare parts (and some selected not-so-routine) much lighter than the "unbreakable heavy duty" bikes that keep breaking in surprising ways, 10k miles isn't much to those fragile-looking speed machines. But the caveat is that you'd have to radically minimize luggage, because if you'd pack the fragile-looking like the seemingly unbreakable, they would quickly cease being fragile-looking. Just like the seemingly unbreakable would completely fail to disappoint, without the load they usually get burdened with. (bags impose far more stress on the bike per unit of mass than the rider, because the rider separates his mass from the bike with active, predictive suspension while the bags just hang on)
Assuming that you still want offroad capability, you basically just described a cyclocross bike. And going on an ultralight tour on a modified CX bike sounds super fun!
I've done long distance rides in Asia and I'd strongly suggest using as standard parts as possible, for exactly that reason: the bike shop in some middle-of-nowhere village will likely have something you can use.
When long distance touring you're also usually pulling around a fair amount of baggage, so don't bother trying to save a few hundred grams here and there on bike components if it isn't standard stuff.
Hi! I wrote the post. I was pleasantly surprised how widespread the pads for mechanical disc brakes are, the rotors, and a 10-speed chain. In general, a complete new 26" or 29" MTB wheel is going to be readily accessible.
How feasible are tubeless setups on long tours? I'm curious. Anyone who MTBs knows about the dramatic improvement. In just the past year I would have had 50+ flats using tubes. I'm positive because I pull out thorns by the dozen. None require patching since the sealant fills the submillimeter holes immediately.
Being able to locally resupply with a compatible sealant is the main impediment. 4-8oz spare fluid in a packed bottle covers one refill. How often do you need to replenish sealant on wheels being used all day every day in mixed weather?
Very in my opinion, but I'm coming from a bike packers perspective.
Start the route tubeless and run it until it fails. When that happens throw a spare tube (that you should be carrying anyways) in it. If that goes flat, patch it.
Converting back to tubes is easy: take the value stem out -> put in tube. Yes, it's messier but it's not like you're showering regularly anyways.
> Being able to locally resupply with a compatible sealant is the main impediment
I would think that tubeless setup + plugs with spare tubes + a patch kit would get you far enough for this to not be a major issue. Carrying a small bottle of sealant would help. Worst case, you run tubes the rest of the trip.
Note: These are just my thoughts as a (formerly) sponsored bike packer.
Hi! I wrote the post. I had a friend talk to me about tubeless before I went, and I'm happy I didn't do it. The sealant would need to be replenished. And the first real gash would mean going back to a tube. I was super happy with the Tannus liners (13mm of protection) despite adding some weight and rigidity (the bike was already a tank).
Gotcha! It was impressive how fancy gear mountain biking is popular in all the big cities along the Andes. They "road bike" on MTBs a lot. In Colombia they are nuts for cycling and have some seriously pricey rides. Definitely the sealant is in all the big cities. Some of my tune-ups were in small towns.
> After 13 months, and 15,825 kilometers of pedaling, my South America bike tour is finished!
that's 9,833 miles.
The road distance distance from Cartagena, Columbia to Ushuaia [1] is ~ 10,433 km (by Google) so the actual distance pedalled over 13 months seems reasonable given side trips, indirect paths, back tracking, non main roads, etc. [1]
