Was I a bit harsh?

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:00 pm

I received an email today asking whether Bear Bones would like to place an ad' on the same page as this article about bikepacking in Scotland.
http://www.scotoutdoors.com/features/cy ... n-scotland

I obviously went and read the article, like you would and felt drawn to respond thus:

Afternoon XXXX,

Thanks for the email.

Bear Bones is a community not a company, so there'd be really no reason for us to advertise (and sadly no money to either) - sorry.

Having just read the article, I have to say it's a bit scant and if I'm honest a little ill informed and not wholly accurate ... as an example, the top picture shows a loaded road bike, where as bikepacking is generally carried out off-road, so while the luggage may be the same, the bike pictured would fall apart very quickly on the majority of the popular Scottish routes.

I understand that Scotoutdoors.com promotes outdoor activities in Scotland but I can't help feel an article painted with a slightly bigger brush might have produced a better picture. I really hope that doesn't sound all negative, it isn't meant to. It's just that whenever bikepacking features on-line or in the press , it often appears misrepresented and sometimes written without any prior participation or indepth research, which can make it appear like a thinly vailed advert.

Many thanks,

Stuart
PS. I feel guilty now ;o)

So, was I a bit harsh in my reponse? I recall TGO (same people) doing a bikepacking article last year in which trailers, panniers and 35c tyres featured quite heavily and while all those things have their place I wouldn't expect to be reading about them in a general article about bikepacking. However, I am wondering if it's just me.

ootini · Post by **ootini** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:06 pm

As a complete newbie, I'd appreciate articles to be researched and written properly, so I think a response outlining any short comings is definitely a good idea, however, I am one of the few people looking into bike packing on a road bike. So, although it may not be anywhere near as "off road" bike packing, I think it is still a valid aspect of the hobby. Although I may be completely wrong.

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:12 pm

Although I may be completely wrong.

No, not wrong at all ... although the caption 'a bikepacking bike looks like this' alongside a picture of a road bike, probably is.

Dave Barter · Post by **Dave Barter** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:19 pm

Where's the fishing rod carrier on that bike?

ianfitz · Post by **ianfitz** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:20 pm

That seems a well reasoned and polite response to me stu.

Quite surprised actually

ootini · Post by **ootini** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:20 pm

s8tannorm wrote:
Although I may be completely wrong.
No, not wrong at all ... although the caption 'a bikepacking bike looks like this' alongside a picture of a road bike, probably is.

Yeah, I did think that the picture probably wasn't representative of the "typical" bike packing bike, but more a smaller niche. The other bikes pictured seemed to be more typical.

Richpips · Post by **Richpips** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:24 pm

Was the article sponsored by Apidura?

benp1 · Post by **benp1** » Tue May 05, 2015 4:57 pm

Fair response I thought!

Why not link to some of introductory stuff on your blog? (seeing as they targeted you and not vice versa)

Pyro · Post by **Pyro** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:06 pm

I've come to minor loggerheads with the author of that article before over other matters. She's a friend-of-a-few-friends on Facebook and I've commented a few times, taking issue with things she's written, either over-simplifying things (like the 'this is a bikepacking bike' shot) or her criticism of other people's writing and opinion. So I'm probably biased, despite having never met her.

Taking that into account, I still don't think you've been harsh at all. I'd have been much harsher...

jameso · Post by **jameso** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:27 pm

From the article -

The activity of bikepacking has featured increasingly in articles, blogs and social media conversations of recent months, but I wondered if it is was really any different from cycle touring.

fair question .. it's not imo. The bags and terrain may vary but it's touring as far as most are concerned and I think this article is aimed at the general non-cyclist. So the image they show of a bikepacking road bike is fine, I think it just blurs the lines a bit, in a good way. I use kit like that for road tours, but I don't describe that as 'bikepacking' despite my approach being the same - light kit, kip in a field etc. Does it matter what terrain you do it on? I don't think so. That made me think about what I do off-road and why that is called 'bikepacking' (I know, just rambling here - ), there's no real reason just evlution of uses and terms, so aside from using the term bikepacking with cyclists since we all understand it generally it's 'lightweight touring' if I speak to friends/family who aren't into bikes.

Just my take on it. Seems like a fair-enough article and I agree that there's no point you advertising : ) they could just list you as a resource for more info.

I am one of the few people looking into bike packing on a road bike.

I think a lot more people are now. TransAM, TransContinental etc - it's gone beyond Backpacking with a Bike.

Edit to add, it does read as 'sponsored by Apidura'.

and I really think they messed up with one crucial point -

A more luxurious way to bikepack is to book into B&Bs along your route

Nope, that's lightweight in the shandy-drinking sense and luxury beyond dry sleeping socks is missing something about it all

but permissable now and then in times of grim weather, or a real thirst for more than water.

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:57 pm

fair question .. it's not imo. The bags and terrain may vary but it's touring as far as most are concerned and I think this article is aimed at the general non-cyclist.

It is a fair question and one I'm sure we've all asked ourselves at one time or another. I think she's answered the question for the non-cyclist simply by using pictures of bikes fitted with what we might think of as bikepacking luggage ... I doubt non-cyclists (and a few cyclists) would consider the bikes pictured as 'touring bikes'.

We all have our own definition* of what bikepacking is or isn't and whether there's a difference between it and touring but I don't think that's the issue. In this case I think it's more to do with something appearing to be poorly researched, lacking any depth and possibly misleading / confusing.

*For the record, I believe there is a difference. Although it has very little to do with equipment, kit or bike choice and much more to do with personal attitude ... as outlined here.

Nope, that's lightweight in the shandy-drinking sense and luxury beyond dry sleeping socks is missing something about it all but permissable now and then in times of grim weather, or a real thirst for more than water.

jameso · Post by **jameso** » Tue May 05, 2015 6:13 pm

Fully agree on the touring/attitude stuff. The old image of touring may put some off (a bike that heavily-laden never appealed to me) and to non-cyclists it's all a bit fuddy-duddy, so maybe this article helps it seem a bit more appealing, lighter/easier, new, hipster staycation fodder even .. I can't see a load of non-cyclists rushing out all full of enthusiasm for cycling due to all that but it may sell a few sets of Apidura kit.

It does miss the attitude aspect of it all but for a lightweight filler-copy sort of article it's not so bad, maybe I'm just in a rather non-critcal mood though (unusual perhaps). It's all getting a bit blurred now, I like that. And if for some Bikepacking = Touring With Less Stuff, I'm ok with that simplification. Less Stuff will force an attitude appraisal sooner or later anyway, planned or not ..

paramart · Post by **paramart** » Tue May 05, 2015 6:26 pm

looks like the roadie is casing that bike, then he does a runner with it

whitestone · Post by **whitestone** » Tue May 05, 2015 6:32 pm

I think you are right about the attitude part: I've been "touring" with less kit than I would "bikepacking" but it was what commonly gets called "credit card touring" in pre-booked B&Bs or hostels. I'd see bikepacking as more random in the route/plan with a general target destination but no specific plans on how to get there (other than by bike)

mountainbaker · Post by **mountainbaker** » Tue May 05, 2015 6:43 pm

You should have told them bikepacking is an outdated term and we all now call it 'overlanding'

ootini · Post by **ootini** » Tue May 05, 2015 7:31 pm

Must admit I've never really thought about the difference between bikepacking and touring. It's probably a mispreconception but I'd think cycle camping is about getting away from it all, being independent and doing things 'light' (ish). Where as the term touring makes me think of people going on 'holiday' on a tandem heading from b&b to b&b, whilst wearing sandals.

jay91 · Post by **jay91** » Tue May 05, 2015 7:33 pm

mountainbaker wrote:You should have told them bikepacking is an outdated term and we all now call it 'overlanding'

I forgot we all need to follow the americans/media rubbish.

SteveM · Post by **SteveM** » Tue May 05, 2015 7:38 pm

not harsh at all, in fact a very reasoned reply to someone who hadn't even bothered to check what BearBones actually is.....

this need to name and compartmentalise an activity annoys me, since when did having fun on bikes have to be called anything more than that ?

yours

grumpy anti social bastard

ScotRoutes · Post by **ScotRoutes** » Tue May 05, 2015 7:51 pm

ootini wrote:Must admit I've never really thought about the difference between bikepacking and touring.

One is trendy, the other isn't.

http://bearbonesbikepacking.co.uk/phpBB ... f=7&t=4745

jameso · Post by **jameso** » Tue May 05, 2015 8:28 pm

One is trendy, the other isn't.

Which is which?

ScotRoutes · Post by **ScotRoutes** » Tue May 05, 2015 8:41 pm

jameso wrote:
One is trendy, the other isn't.
Which is which?

Neither now that we're overlanding.

jameso · Post by **jameso** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:04 pm

Neither, full stop.. I reckon : )

Touring is seeing a plaid and beards resurgance, but then I always thought the 70s / tourers like this were cool -

It's all weighing carbon pegs and crinkly technical fabrics now.

Bearbonesnorm · Post by **Bearbonesnorm** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:05 pm

I'm actually starting to believe that 'bikepacking' might only be trendy outside of cycling. I had a long telephone conversation a couple of weeks ago with a Telegraph travel writer who had been asked to write a piece about bikepacking "because it's going to be the next big thing". Then there's Mr Humphrays very nice bothie video, which I'm pretty sure was aimed at an audience of armchair adventureres rather than cyclists.

If it were trendy amongst those who already ride, then I think there'd be a lot more people actually doing it ... or perhaps thinking / dreaming about doing it is actually enough in these days of virtual experiences

jameso · Post by **jameso** » Tue May 05, 2015 9:29 pm

"because it's going to be the next big thing".

Big as in, in mainstream cycling replacing Wiggo-aspiring mamils? I doubt it, but there's certainly signs of more interest / demand for touring bikes of the non-trad Galaxy type.

fatbikephil · Post by **fatbikephil** » Tue May 05, 2015 10:02 pm

I guess the Americans started it my calling touring 'Adventure Cycling' and so making it trendy. Funnily enough they all look like the guys on the front of that '70's mag....

But now the CTC have recognised bikepacking - Some of their older members will be spinning in their graves!!

Was I a bit harsh?

Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?

Re: Was I a bit harsh?