Touring vs Bikepacking

[Mr. Coffee]

I know these terms have been indelibly mushed together over the years, but there does still seem to be a useful distinction.

"Bikepacking" usually refers to being substantially self-contained over a period of at least a couple of days. Also, the terrain that is covered is typically rougher and more remote. The bags you carry your equipment in often do not require any racking or special hardware (though that is changing over time) and are on the average smaller than typical touring bags (that is not changing over time). You are usually limited more by carry volume than by weight in a bikepacking rig.

"Touring" usually refers to bicycle travel on roads or bicycle paths of varying quality, being able to frequently resupply (often daily), and your bags are usually attached to dedicated racking on your bike. You'll usually have more volume to work with on your carry.

When originally invented, bikepacking bags were an attempt to solve the problem of how you carry on a bike with no eyelets for racks or with a suspension where racks are infeasible. Over time, the bikepacking people seem to be reinventing racking in various ways, still with the intent of often not requiring eyelets on the bicycle itself.

A lot of the "classic" bikepacking bags, like top tube bags and feed bags, are fantastic ideas for any cyclist whether on journey or not. And there is no Bicycle Police who will arrest you if you mix and match various bag types. So you can do you. If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid.

For myself, my trips seem to converge on to two "modes" of travel: in one mode I am camped out for multiple nights with little or no resupply; meals are typically either cold or "boil water and stir" preparations; and usually this activity is in very remote areas with poor roads and trails. In the other mode I am mixing camping with hotel stays; I usually aggressively resupply so I'm carrying very little food; and I'm eating somewhat better and meals often involve actual cooking. Of course, there is a lot of fuzzy overlap between the two modes on all but the very shortest trips.

So one of those two "modes" sounds a lot like bikepacking, and the other "mode" sounds a lot like bike touring. But I'm not sure the two words have distinct meanings any longer.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, and when I say "aggressively resupply" I mean "resupply whenever I can". So I try to start the day off with at most a lunch and pick up dinner and breakfast (and possibly a few snacks to start the day) before I stop for the night. Then the cycle repeats itself. This has two huge advantages:

1. You are only carrying what you are actually going to eat.
2. You are able to eat more fresh foods that are both much better for you and provide superior fuel for your travels.

Also, on camping. At least here in Western North America you have two camping situations:

1. Camping at established campgrounds, either public or private. The advantage here is that you will have comforts such as bathrooms, running water, and picnic tables. You might even have luxuries such as hot showers and laundry. The disadvantage is that you will have to pay (typically around $10 per person per night here in Washington, similar prices prevail in Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia). The other disadvantage is the camp may be crowded or noisy.
2. Camping just at some random place in the forest. This is often called "wild camping" or "stealth camping" (although actually the origin of the latter term implied something quite different). The big advantage here is that you can camp anywhere it is legal to camp which can make your trip planning easier. And it is typically free (although you might need to purchase a seasonal pass in some areas). The downside is that it can be difficult at times to know if where you wish to camp is a legal place to camp (e.g. on public land, and not subject to closure of some kind) and that you will almost always lack any of the facilities present in an established campground.

Note that in a lot of places (e.g. most of Europe outside of Scandinavia, the Eastern United States outside of Maine) the second option just doesn't exist (or rarely exists) from a practical standpoint. On the other hand, in remote areas you are typically just camping on public land with few or no established campgrounds to speak of.

At a certain price point you might as well stay in a hotel. In some places in the states where there aren't established "hiker/biker" campsites you might be charged $40 or more a night. At that point a bed and a roof over my head and a hearty hotel breakfast might be a better deal. A motel stay, while much more expensive, is also less time and energy consuming than camping. And if you leave before dawn or arrive after dark it is much easier to stay organized if you are sleeping indoors.

A cool thing about most "hiker/biker" campsites is that they often have a "no turn away" policy. So if you show up at 7pm tired, cold, and hungry they will make room for you even if the camp is technically "full".

I'm also not too proud or brave and if the weather is lousy miserable or the camping or other campers sketchy, I'll go for a cheap dumpy motel. Usually I try for a motel stay at most one night out of three or four. But if the camping and campgrounds are really good, the weather fine, and I can find a place with showers and laundry every few days I won't feel the need for a hotel stay.

 

[indianajo]

I vole for touring. I have the money for motels, I just refuse to buy a car that might have 24000 miles on it when it gets fatal check engine disease in 12 years. Problem, most motels will now prohibit battery charging in the room.
I like eating out but you can't get low saturated fat low carb high fiber meals in restaurants. Even staying at my brother's I buy lettuce, onion, low sugar salad dressing, low sugar 70 cal bread, lunchmeat, no sugar peanut butter & sugar free jam. I enjoy eating out with the brother but only the Vietnamese place he took us met my standards. I probably gained 5 lb in a 10 day visit.
**** I could not even buy low sugar 70 cal bread today at a 100000 sq ft megastore today. Italian bread was 1 g sugar but 100 calories a slice. That 40 cal "bread" falls apart.
I camped out professionally with the US Army, the thrill is gone. No way I'm staying in a stinky KOA near the sewage dump. I can sleep on a urethane mat okay with bug spray, but carrying all that gear on a bicycle would be a nuisance. Whining mosquitos gnats & buzzing flies could keep me awake, which are prevalent outside the northwest & Maine evergreen forests. Big Bend Nat Park was fun, no arachnids in February smaller than a tarantula.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Nothing wrong with not wanting to camp. Everybody's different and there is no one right way to do things.

I agree that getting healthy and nutritious food to make these trips can often be challenging. Reprovisioning from mini marts and not poisoning yourself is just as much an outdoor skill as navigating a complex and confusing road network and setting up a tent at night and in the rain. Usually I can manage.

One thing that makes camping more fun is that if you are on a more or less popular cycling route you will meet other bicycle tourists, which can be fun and interesting. Also if you are a solo traveler like me making some friends along the way is always a good idea.

Oh, and modern camping gear is astonishingly lightweight and compact. Though it can be terribly expensive unless you shop carefully.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, and I've noticed huge variations and quality and consistency at private campgrounds. Especially with respect to "hiker/biker" campsites, which often are just a flat spot off in the bushes. tripadvisor often does have ratings for private campgrounds (though not for public ones, go figure) and those can let you avoid the more blatant ripoffs. Of which there are quite a few. Having said that really good private campgrounds with decent laundry and a camp store on site can be key resupply and reorganization points for your trip.

State parks in Washington and Oregon and Provincial Parks in British Columbia seem to be offering a more consistent product on the average. You can usually get info on their web sites on whether hiker/biker camps are present and usually those are at least decent and often quite nice. Also their websites will (almost?) always have a basic map of the campground that will let you easily find everything.

 

[BikerG]

Most of my single night bikepacking trips are social events, usually on Meetup. We usually have a mix of both e-bikes and non e-bikes, and will spend nights at either trail camps or hiker/biker State campgrounds.
I prefer trail camps as they are always off road, dirt fire roads, and most of these trails camps we frequent have picnic tables and fire pits, and are next to creeks where we can filter water for cooking and such. Another reason I prefer them is that they are accessible only by hiking or biking in.
Some of the State Beach hiker/biker campgrounds are noisy with lots of RV’ers camped close by, which I don’t care for.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Most of my single night bikepacking trips are social events, usually on Meetup. We usually have a mix of both e-bikes and non e-bikes, and will spend nights at either trail camps or hiker/biker State campgrounds.
I prefer trail camps as they are always off road, dirt fire roads, and most of these trails camps we frequent have picnic tables and fire pits, and are next to creeks where we can filter water for cooking and such. Another reason I prefer them is that they are accessible only by hiking or biking in.
Some of the State Beach hiker/biker campgrounds are noisy with lots of RV’ers camped close by, which I don’t care for.

My own experience is that the very best Hiker/Biker camps at CA state parks aren't quite as good as the very lamest Hiker/Biker camps at OR or WA state parks.

Usually in Oregon or Washington the Hiker/Biker campsites are well segregated from the other campers. The downside is that you might have to walk a ways for water or a bathroom. But usually they are quiet and private.

In Washington Hiker/Biker camps usually have individual campsites, kind of miniatures of the car camping sites. In OR and BC you often just have a big corral with firepits, picnic tables, and places to pitch tents but no real individual campsites.

Some of the camps in Oregon have luxury features like a work stand (and sometimes tools!) to work on a bike, lockers, and charging ports. I don't know if you could charge an e-bike from the charging ports, though.

 

[EMGX]

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Yeah, those lockers are a Good Thing. Most of those campgrounds have a serious issue with raccoons which can easily destroy gear in their pursuit of a meal, so having those lockers to store groceries can save your trip.

Washington state parks aren't as consistent in having animal-proof storage available.

Oregon Parks Forever is providing more donations for those "hike/bike pods". The latest addition is at South Beach State Park. I look forward to Washington and British Columbia getting on board with this approach. Given that a lot more camping in those places is in Bear Country animal-proof storage becomes even more important.