Advantages of front loading

[Patrick Moore]

Just curious, after adjusting my Ortlieb Sports Packers to the front lowriders and carrying home about 12 bulky lbs on the front of the 2020 Matthews which is a geometrical clone of a 2003 Riv Road custom -- Riv lost the geometry chart but I think it's med trail.

10 or 12 lb makes almost no difference in handling, but it does make wheeling the bike one-handed (gripping stem and adjacent bar) through the aisles less easy; 20 lb does slow the handling noticeably though not impossibly. ~15 evenly divided is about the max for happiness.

Rear loads are more stable. 20 lb in the rear is not noticeable, 30 lb in the rear affects handling less than 20 (evenly distributed) does in front, and I've carried 45 with the bike still rideable. (For comparo, my best rear loader was an early 1970s thinnish wall and normal gauge 531 framed racing bike with long stays and shortish front-center: Motobecane Grand Record. Though light and flexy, with a very stiff 400 gram Tubus Fly this carried 45 better than any stouter-tubed road bike I've owned, including any of 4 Riv road models (well, if a first-gen Sam Hill is "road). Another nice rear grocery load carrier was an '80s Fuji Royale "12 speed" that actually handled better with 20 lb in back than it did unladen; that one hated front loads.

So, after that long windup, what is the benefit of front loading on Rivendell models. Is it purely convenience?

And, different question: what is the benefit of front loading on non-Rivendell low-trail bikes: convenience?

Just curious and describing my own experience.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

[Chris Halasz]

Just a month or so ago I transitioned from front-loading to rear-loading on my Riv after asking myself the same question. 

Moving that ten pound load from a front basket to the rear, complemented by my (typically one-sided only) Ortlieb pannier, makes the bike feel so much better! 

Note the ten pound load is dynamic (a little dog), and the stability experienced with her squirming around (she's tethered) is remarkable. 

For many years, I've sought only bikes with fork eyelets. (Now free of that requirement, I wish the Roadeo had seat stay eyelets!)

As to the 'why', maybe had to do with appearances. Front-loading offered me the perception of a more spirited-looking ride, or something. 

From here on, I may limit front loads to a light bar bag, Ian Hibell stye. 

Cheers, 

Chris

Ketchum, ID

[rlti...@gmail.com]

I think my only low trail bikes are my Bromptons. Loading the front on that is the best option since the luggage carrier block is there and I have a bunch on Brompton bags to fit it. Plus, placing anything on the rear rack that is much wider than the rack itself will interfere with my feet when pedaling.

I can say that riding a Brompton without a front load makes the front wheel very light and it does feel more twitchy. I often have the front wheel wheely a bit when taking off from a stop when riding without a load. With weight in a front bag the bike is much more stable.

Robert Tilley

San Diego, CA

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 3, 2022, at 6:14 PM, Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

And, different question: what is the benefit of front loading on non-Rivendell low-trail bikes: convenience?

Just curious and describing my own experience.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgsELdFhPeYmmXW6vFu5q-6AL7_G9%3D-jUuKyX-cHN2m9Ug%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Hawrylak]

Patrick

Have you tried any loads split between the front and the rear???   Say 15# in front and 30# in rear??   

John Hawrylak

Woodstown NJ

[John Moore]

Aww, that 80’s vintage Fuji Royale wasn’t so bad as long as you distributed weight properly - about double weight in front compared to back. What was scary were the descents with those side pull road brakes - seriously outmatched for a weighted Royale. 

How do I know this? 5+ months touring Europe in ‘84 from UK to Crete. It was an awesome adventure. 

Far older now but looking to get back into touring again. Atlantis frame arrives Wed. Can’t wait. 

On Sep 5, 2022, at 3:22 PM, 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Patrick

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/71f8081d-1b81-4629-b121-374866e6e25cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Garth]

Back in the day I had a nice front bag that had a coated steel loop-over-stem frame that the bag slid in to. For vertical stability it had 2 elastic cords that attached to the fork eyelets. It didn't rely on anything to keep it in place in the frame with it's L at the end that the bag slid in to.

Anyways, it was perfect for food and a light jacket, with a map sleeve on top. That's about as as much load as I like not only in terms of handling and feel, but practicability. I didn't have to stop to access them on the road. Anything else non essential can go to the frame or back, if applicable.

These days I don't care if I have to stop for some clothing, so a rear rack top bag is fine. Even then, carrying anything changes the way a bike feels. It's just not the same, ever. I never found riding a loaded bike particularly enjoyable no matter how I tried to justify and rationalize it. It doesn't work. I've never ridden a carbon racing bike, but I have had fine steel racing bikes back in the day. That to me is the funnest kind of bike to ride of all. Training loads typically involve a pump, tire levers and a tube, or a spare tubular. Any food went into the jersey pockets. Oh the burden !

[Nick Payne]

I've never owned a low trail bike and I've always carried the great majority of the weight in front panniers when touring with more than just a saddlebag. The handling definitely gets slower but after a couple of kilometres riding with the panniers I don't notice it. For tandem touring I made my own *large* panniers so that I/we could carry sufficient without needing rear panniers as well.

Our tandem on a three week tour of Tasmania in 1987:

My own bike during a tour in Europe. I needed the saddlebag as well because one of the front panniers was packed with my wife's gear, so that she could ride with just a saddlebag and handlebar bag. Doing that meant that our speeds were more approximately equal:

Nick

[Joe Bernard]

My extremely biased view is Rivs aren't built for heavy front loads and I just won't anymore, it feels unweildy and unsafe. Can it be done anyway? Sure. By people who aren't me. 

[Brian Turner]

I thought it might be somewhat pertinent to the discussion to link to this article about low-trail bikes and handling. Written by James from Analog Cycles a couple years back when it seemed like everyone was desiring a low-trail frame:

https://analogcycles.com/pages/debunking-low-trail

While it doesn't directly address the original post's questions about front-loading on Rivendells, there's some good info about how certain bikes handle with or without loads, but mostly how the design of trail on a bike affects the ride in general.

[Berkeleyan]

Here's some discussion on lower rake, and consequences for handling.

https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-vintage/1164491-people-who-have-had-forks-re-raked-lower-tr-do-you-notice-lowered-front-end-2.html

My custom Rohlhoffer Diagatube frame has a re-raked RBW fork, and we did that specifically to accommodate carrying weight in front (I have a great big WaxWing Porteur sitting on a small front rack). I also have two low-rider racks I have not yet used. For reference, I also have a '98 LongLow and an Orange 66cm QuickBeam, both with stock forks. The stock forks make for quick and light unladen handling, and both feel heavier with Wald baskets and ShopSacks. Heavier, but not really problematic, and I appreciate the convenience of gear up front, whether shopping, riding to a picnic, or camping. The handling on the re-raked fork is quite light without any weight on the fork, but feels really good with a full bag, and I'm glad we made the modification, it's perfect for all the riding I do.

- Andrew, Berkeley

p.s. Shoutout to Nick Payne for his Rohloff touring rig.

[John Rinker]

Patrick and others, 

Others may have more refined opinions about the 'advantages' of front loading, but my take is that I'm really comfortable with it. I like the balance of the load across the whole bike. When in full expedition mode I have about 7 kg in the rear and about 6-8 kg in the front. The front fluctuates as the panniers serve as my kitchen. I find the Hunq is very stable setup like this, and I've ridden every kind of surface from smooth-as-glass Japanese roads to molar-shattering cobblestones in Nepal. 

I've always assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that because the bicycle carried most of my body weight in the rear that a balanced load otherwise was a good idea. I have yet to try this setup with my older Atlantis which has a shorter wheelbase, but I have done some light touring with a medium saddlesack and basket. This worked out very well.

Here is my very typical Hunq setup while touring in Japan:

Cheers, John

[ascpgh]

I loaded my Rambouillet with a Caradice Nelson Longflap when new to do a credit card camping take on the TranAm/Western Flyer route from Norfolk, VA to SF, CA via Pueblo, CO starting in early May. It was perfect, although I could see being a bit more prepared for contingencies (more stuff) would be good, but I was within tolerance range of the Rivendale stated optimal max load. All the good handling attributes felt like they were  without damping by the rear load which in fairness was in front of the rear hub. I dare say every Rivendell model is different and presents a varying capacity by design for carrying loads on the front. Those that are more able in total still have an order by which you add your increments (bags and contents) of load as you close in on your total. 

Fast forward a decade, I joined a group of Riv riders on the GAP starting at Cumberland, MD in April. The food and drink needs of the route and overnight,  the climate changes from warm at the start, cool and rainy by Confluence, PA and snow from Ohiopyle on West Newton, PAwarranted that I added another bag which was a small VO Berthoud knock-with a  little old French rack. Seemed innnocuous but either the total weight or the front load itself really snuffed the nice handling. It became more ponderous than the load would have predicted. My feeling riding it those hundred miles was that a bike needs to be designed for your load, meaning enough heft of the tube set and geometry that won't make necessary lots of fine inputs. Not a super riding bike empty. Loaded as it was, my Ram was awkward because of the deliberate effort necessary to input the small adjustments for its specified trail.

Trail and handling are a dimension and outcome and the relationship overlooks lots of other dimensions with input to how the bike rides in your uses. I am over 6" tall and have long legs and a short torso for my height. That made the under square Rambouillet a very good option for me since I was a bit short of the experience I later found helpful when pursuing a custom bike but did prefer a sportier riding bike than say an early '90s MTB conversion. The front load on the Rambouillet overrode many of the details that kept it predictably handling without my toe ever tangling up with the front fender. It has, as previous Ram riders (Steve P.) have noted, a tendency to veer off track on slow, low-cadence, out of saddle climbs unloaded or rear loaded due to the higher trail. That I believe is a combination of the compensations of things that resulted in the front end geometry including trail and the out of saddle weight distribution coming forward. The trail dimension can also surprise you when a brief surface change that addresses the front wheel implies any lateral force to it. I have short, steeply ramped driveway curb cut that you cross on an angle in mind. The Ram can be flustered on my exact example, my subsequent lower trail bike is not, loaded or not.  

As James' at Analog's article points out no one thing is panacea. Everything has limits, beneficial or otherwise. I found that loading my Rambouillet enough for rides in austere place for more than a day, keeping the front unburdened enough left me with a limited size tire that had to be pumped up pretty high to account for the odd edge, rock or whatever rim pinch or worse. Not the best ride for this bike and it goes against some thought that the cargo load, even when compensated with tire pressure, makes a bike ride smother. I've had two rear wheel destroying hits on this bike the front wheel floated past unharmed. This rear bias in load preference, the declining comfort as the load or the road dictates rear tire pressure to increase and as the geometry for the front end's contribution to handling gave me the confidence I needed to step off into a custom. 

I wanted a bike that fit my non-stock body that had enough tire to ride on the mixed surfaces I frequent, capable of several days of non-camping load without feeling over burdened, more equalized F-R weight distribution so I can benefit from the tires' inflation instead of nearing the max to avoid flats, no toe overlap with fenders and that was fun to ride unloaded. I have a Disc Trucker commuter so that last point is emphasized as I find it intolerable after 35 miles due to both being generically overbuilt for loads and the top tube stock geometry.

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[J J]

This is such an interesting thread. I found myself nodding my head reading John Rinker's note. I bought my Hunq new in 2012, and I never thought about trail per se until 3 or 4 years ago when it seemed trail was in the air, everywhere I turned, and everyone was talking about it. Maybe it's something particular to the Hunqapillar compared with other frames, but I've never felt a need to ruminate over what I had on a front rack or rear rack, balancing loads, whatever. I just never had to think about it. It has always felt stable whether the front was loaded with nothing in the rear, or vice versa, or both front and rear were loaded, or without any load at all. That's not to say that hauling a good sized watermelon on the front rack — which is common for me during the season — doesn't change handling characteristics. It certainly does, but not anywhere close to a degree that I find uncomfortable or problematic at all. I carry what I need to carry, I do what I need to do, and my riding adjusts and compensates accordingly, with little thought about it. It's natural. Anyway, I think we are constantly adjusting how we ride due to varying surfaces, wind patterns, energy or fatigue level, tire pressure, how our muscles and brains feel, elevation, and so on. There are countless dynamic variables that affect handling, requiring us to adjust and readjust on the fly and then we get momentum. On the Hunq, for me at least, the net outcome is a sense of stability, comfort, and confidence regardless of how much I am hauling or where the haul is positioned on the bike. 

Except when I experienced a puzzling shimmy. The handlebar would vibrate and swing wildly back and forth at speed if I removed one or both hands from the bar. The oscillation was palpable, annoying, and very much out of character for the bike. It  was not related to any front or rear load dynamics, nor to any lights, bells, or mirror mounted to the handlebar. The shimmy would diminish a bit if I touched either leg to the top tub or diagonal tube, but not completely. I bought an IRD double roller bearing headset thinking it might solve the problem (Rivendell was out of stock of their Tange/IRD NeedL BlastR at the time). But before having the new one installed, I reached out to Rivendell to ask about shimmy. In typical transparent and helpful fashion, Grant and Mark both said (paraphrasing): sometimes shimmy happens for no apparent or solvable reason. Bike physics and dynamics are super complicated. Keep your hands on the bar, don't ride ride no-handedly! Try removing the racks (it didn't help). 

Finally Grant said, no need to spend money on a new headset. It doesn't always solve the problem. Try heavier grease in your headset, and tighten it down more than you normally would. You're not after "buttery smooth" movement. You want some friction and resistance. It won't interfere with steering. 

Sure enough, these simple steps completely eliminated the shimmy. Stability returned to the Hunq! 

I wished I had contacted Riv before I bought the new headset. It's a nice piece of kit, now taking up space in the parts bin. 

[Will M]

I have a 1990s Cannondale adventure tourer with low-trail fork. With the low riders (and front panniers), it's as stable as a motorcycle, no matter how much I overload the rear panniers.  Influenced by Grant's Riv Readers of the late aughts, I removed the low riders for a two-strut Nitto front rack and Wald 139.  Don't notice so much difference from the higher center of gravity, but the wobbliness of the lower-capacity Nitto rack...

Will M    

[Wilson Wilson]

When it comes to front load whether be a Riv or not, placement to the headtube or hub are key. Even with a basket and high trail, placement matters relative to how high stacked above or below the top tube. Then is that load close to the headtube or not. My best practice no matter the trail is to get the load between those points: headtube, hub, and toptube, in some same manner. Sometimes it requires tossing out the stock rack and basket hardware for better positioning. One thing I do often happens on climbs. I will take the bags from the rear and mount on the front. It makes climbing much more sane and especially less stress on the legs when the gearing aint quite right.