Tubus Vega rear rack first impressions

[Earl Grey]

Hi,

thought this would be of interest to the group. I have a Nitto mini
front on my Sam, and had a Nitto Big Back for a while, which I just
replaced with the Vega (in silver, ordered from Germany).


Reasons for replacing the Nitto rear:

1. My Bombadil-riding friend coveted it. ;)

2. Overbuilt for my purposes.

3. The front stop on the rack interfered with my saddlebag (banana
style), and didn't allow me to carry my Manduka yoga mat
longitudinally (I tried once, but the rear overhang was too great).

4. I got the size L, but think the M would fit the 56cm Sam better
(the L sits too far back), and all my other bikes would only fit the
M. May get an M in the future for my Ibis tandem. Still the most
gorgeous rack out there. Btw, the Riv site says M for up to frame size
54, but the drop down selector says up to 56.999. I would say the drop
down is more accurate. Go for the bigger rack if you want it farther
back, the small one if you want it closer to you.


Reasons for settling on the Vega:

1. I wanted a light-weight, silver rack with a flat top that can take
panniers on occasion.


First impressions (photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/25150892@N08/5185320523/):

1. Well-made rack, very complete set of bolts, etc., and great
instructions (it's a German company, after all).

2. Silver paint not nearly as jewel-like as Nitto nickel, but much
better than I was lead to believe by statements explaining why the
silver isn't available in the States. Time will tell how it holds up.

3. Tubes much bigger in diameter than Nitto. Makes for a less elegant
look, but should be very rigid. Tube walls are surprisingly thin.

4. Distance between drop-out mounts 165mm! I don't know if they think
that Santana tandem owners make up the bulk of their customers
(Santanas DO have 160mm rear hubs), but that's ridiculous. The rack
came with spacers, and a warning not to bend the stays more than 15mm.
I sighed and installed the spacers (see photos). Actually the spacers
match the plastic stay clips of my Berthoud fenders well, so
aesthetically this is fine, but I assume the spacing reduces the
actual max payload, and it just seems like poor engineering. Or
perhaps the extra triangulation outweighs the disadvantages of the
longer bolts? Any opinions?

5. The top of the rack is quite narrow. I knew this, but was still a
bit surprised. Not ideal for carrying 3 yoga mats sideways (I am a
yoga teacher and bike-commute to private classes, so I need to bring
mats for my students).

6. The seatstay connector attachments don't allow much outward
rotation. I could just barely connect to the outer brazeons on the
seatstays. No biggy, could have bent the rack stays but was too lazy.

7. The cutouts for lower pannier attachment hooks could be bigger, but
at least they are there (the older version didn't have them). Also has
attachments for fender stays, which is nice.

All in all am very pleased with the purchase. Not a Nitto, but a good
alternative between the Nitto R14 and the Nitto Big Back.

Cheers,

Gernot

[PATRICK MOORE]

I use the Fly, which looks very similar except that it's black and has
a single, seatstay bridge strut (and IIRC it might have a slightly
higher load rating) on two bikes and the Logo on the Fargo. Excellent
racks. I've carried 45 lb on the 12 oz Fly, and just now carried
almost 40 lb of groceries and things to Mom's. Very good racks and
very reasonable.

Tangent: riding fixed as I do most of the time, the Fargo being my
only multispeed and coasting bike, I am a bit disconcerted and feel a
bit guilty at how easy multiple gearing makes climbing steep hills
with a big load. The F weights a good 37 lb and, adding almost 40 lb
made a total bike weight this afternoon of over 75 lb. Nonetheless, I
twiddled up the very steep (40 mph downhill on a good day if you let
it all out) 4/10 mile hill up the side of the mesa to Rio Rancho in
the 36/34 at 5.5 mph with little difficulty compared to grunting up it
in a 65" or higher gear with load -- and usually, fixed, I walk the
last 1/10 mile steepest part, unless I am feeling good or have a wild
tailwind. And this was with massively heavy, 800+ gram, 12/16 psi 65
mm Big Apples on 800 gram, 45 mm SnoCat rims.

I don't want to get soft!

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumesp...@gmail.com

[Montclair BobbyB]

The Vega looks identical to the Logo without the extra (lower) pannier
rails. I previously owned a Logo on my Fargo... Very nice, very
solidly built rack, no question. The primary difference I noticed is
that the Tubus is narrower than the Nitto. Some may prefer this; I
personally like a rack to be as wide as possible to better balance any
cargo that sits on top. That said, Tubus racks are of exceptional
quality, and very strong.

Good luck.
BB

> > First impressions (photos athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/25150892@N08/5185320523/):

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com

[Michael_S]

Patrick, you have it reversed. The Vega has a 25 kg load rating and
the Fly only an 18.

I had bought the Fly originally as I really like the single front
attachment but returned it for the Vega as the width of the Fly is
very narrow.

They are both very nice racks. I got my silver ones from one of the
UK on-line sites at a quite a bargain price.

~Mike~

> > First impressions (photos athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/25150892@N08/5185320523/):

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact

> Patrick Moore, ACRW at resumespecialt...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Earl Grey]

Yes, the Logo is a Vega with additional lower pannier rails.
Surprising they would make a full touring rack (Logo) with such a
narrow top. The Logo has a rating of 40kg vs. 25kg for the Vega. Can't
believe that the lower rails would allow 15kg more, as they don't
really add that much structurally, and the attachments to the frame
are identical, which are often the weak link. Thus my assumption is
that the Vega is fully tour-able if you can do without lower rails.
Not sure how soon I'll get to test that, as most touring in the near
future will be on tandems with child seat, and the tandem that's not
in storage in the US needs a disk-speific rack. Checking everyday
whether my 3 month old can hold up his head yet. No worries, I'll wait
at least until he is 7 or 8 months, but he does have an uncommonly
strong neck. :)

Cheers,

Gernot


On Nov 18, 8:20 am, Montclair BobbyB <montclairbob...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Earl Grey]

Does anyone else have a Tubus with ridiculously wide spacing between
the bottoms of the legs? Is this intentional or is mine a freak of
manufacture? (as opposed to nature)

Gernot

[Scott G.]

On Nov 18, 3:13 am, Earl Grey <earlg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone else have a Tubus with ridiculously wide spacing between
> the bottoms of the legs? Is this intentional or is mine a freak of
> manufacture? (as opposed to nature

I had a Cargo, no spacers needed, 135mm rear spacing.

[Michael_S]

My Vega fit easily on my mid 90's Trek tandem. I took it off to give
the frame builder who is putting rack braze-on's on my new Singular
Grypyon. I'm going to try it with the Tubus QR disc brake rack
adapter http://www.tubus.com/en/rear-carriers/vega

~Mike~

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Phil Bickford]

My Logo measures 165mm at the drop-out attachments, so it takes a
little squeezing to install.
No big deal, but it does require an extra hand. It's a stainless
model, if that should matter.

Earl says -

> The Logo has a rating of 40kg vs. 25kg for the Vega. Can't
> believe that the lower rails would allow 15kg more, as they don't
> really add that much structurally,

I'd reply by saying if you had the rack in hand, it may be easier to
understand how it adds to it's rating.
There are a few more repeating members, but then again - I'm not a
structural engineer.

Phil B