Rear Rack For Salsa Fargo?
(PeteCresswell)
Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:
http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
But it seems a little "nicer" than I really need.
Anybody got a better idea?
--
PeteCresswell
landotter
Axiom Journey, non-disc model, is strong and cheap. It should work
fine with the inboard caliper.
AMuzi
We're partial to Wald #215 steel carriers for urban use.
Especially in our neighborhood, where they commonly carry a
human home from the bar. Tough, under $20, choice of chrome
or black and welded right here in the US of A.
Rear carriers range $10 to $280 as cyclists have different
needs and different opinions.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Andre Jute
Gee, that's nearly Tubus Cosmo money, Pete.
Depends what you want to do with your rack. I like the Cosmo because
it is stainless and looks good; it's overpriced for what it is,
though. It isn't very wide and the lower side rails curve in under the
top for the triangulation, but it is rock solid and carries twelve
bottles of wine in outrigged baskets without complaining. It is
important to order the fitting extension kit with the main rack; it
won't fit without the extension on a big bike, and without it you
don't even get enough stainless steel hardware to fit the rack
properly to your bike. I wrote a review on this newsgroup earlier.
Whatever you do, don't buy an ali rack. I had an expensive SL ali rack
that just folded up under a parking lot impact. I straightened it but
any kind of a load would cause it to sag after that. Also, the baskets
would have rubbed it through in a couple of years. Looked the business
though, whereas the Cosmo looks a bit poncey, you know, like it was
designed for a roadie to fit to a drop handle bike, shouting, "I'm
expensive and lightweight and I belong to a cafe racer who just
pretends to do loaded touring because the sag wagon waits outside the
town to take most of this crap off his bike." It is a lot tougher than
that but it doesn't look butch enough, IMO.
Andre Jute
Ein perfektes Sorglos-Rad für Schöngeister
Antitroll
Depends on what you are doing with the bike. If you are planning to use the
Fargo's capabilities as a rough road expedition bike you could not go past the
Surly Nice Rack *IF* the Fargo rear disc caliper placement does indeed allow
fitment of a "normal" rear rack. Nice Rack is not excessively heavy and has vast
mounts of adjustability in both vertical height and in reach of top stays so you
can get your fit just so. Bolted clamps for adjustment are well made and remain
secure. I know from experience that this will carry a heavy touring load wihout
complaint and the rear loops are shaped to keep the pannier bags out of the rear
wheel. If your feet match the rest of you, you would probably be mounting
panniers pretty far back in which case the rear loops will be a plus.
On the other hand, if you aren't planning on crossing the Andes you might like
aluminium Topeak Super Tourist DX seen here
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Categories.aspx?CategoryID=312
The disc brake version clears an inconveniently placed caliper with ease. I have
both versions on bikes and have carried 12kg per side with no breakages. A
convenient point is that the 10mm horizontal bar for clipping on pannier bags is
a little lower than the top platform so if you have a top bag or junk bungied to
top platform you can unhook the panniers without removing the top load. They
also have the rectangular rear loop to enhance stability of the panniers.
I also have one on a Surly Crosscheck that looks exactly like this aluminium
Axiom
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=14335
except that it was called a Lifeline when I bought it equally cheaply. An easy
fit, has the large rear loops which I like and has some interesting tube
crossings where the tubes are shaped to run parallel for a distance with a long
TIG weld joining them. I have not carried more than commuting loads but it
feels solid and the fancy tube bending and welding suggests that someone has put
some thought into it. I like it a lot.
Best regards,
PH
Dan O
> 700c-wheeled frame.
>
> Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
>
I had one for a few days. It's heavy, and I didn't like the
mounting. I got a Tubus instead and love it.
> But it seems a little "nicer" than I really need.
>
The Tubus cost just about as much as the Surly.
> Anybody got a better idea?
Blackburn?
SMS
> 700c-wheeled frame.
>
> Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:
> http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
The problem with it is that the top platform is only 31cm long. This is
very short if you have big feet, and you may experience heel
interference with panniers. They have made some improvements on it since
I evaluated it, they added the detents on the bottom tubing (not shown
at the Surly site, but shown in photos from resellers), and a welded on
mount for a reflector/light (again not shown on the Surly site, but
shown in photos from resellers).
> But it seems a little "nicer" than I really need.
>
> Anybody got a better idea?
Depends on how big your feet are and what you want to carry.
What to look for:
1. Minimum of 16” (40 cm) platform length so panniers can be positioned
far back enough that your heel doesn't hit them.
2. Supports to the seat stays that are long enough to position the rack
properly (level), though these are available after-market if the rack
doesn't come with them (this is a very common problem depending on the
rack and frame).
3. No double tubing for the last inch so Arkel type clamps could be
placed all the way back
4. Reflector/light bracket
5. Adjustable strut height for proper positioning.
6. Pivot type attachment hardware to the seat stays, such as used by
Tubus, Robert Beckman, and what’s on the REI rack
7. Long level area on rear dog-leg strut before it angles up to the
platform area, to give wide adjustability for bottom hook/strap
8. Multiple positions for bottom hook/strap, with detents or holes in a
plate, or a design with a captive bottom rail like the Robert Beckman
design, so the pannier hooks won't slide out of position or off the rack
entirely.
9. Triangulation of the tubing for strength.
10. No wide gaps in top platform (sufficient cross beams or a solid
platform.
11. Flat, with no load stop, or a flip up load stop (this is pretty
rare, most racks have load stops).
12. Tig-welded from Cro-Mo (rare, most are made from aluminum).
You're unlikely to find all of these, except perhaps from Beckman at a
very high price, so you'll need to make compromises.
The Massload CL-476
<http://nordicgroup.us/bicycleluggageracks/rackimages/cl-476_3.jpg> is
one good choice though inexplicably it's only available from LandRider
in a strange color <http://www.landriderbikes.com/accessories_1.asp>.
The Hebie Expedition and Tortec Expedition are good, but are not sold in
the U.S., though you can order the Tortec from the UK
<http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/sp/road-track-bike/Tortec-Expedition-Rear-Pannier-Rack/TORTRACK250>.
The Topeak Super Tourist DX is good
<http://www.amazon.com/Topeak-Super-Tourist-Tubular-Bicycle/dp/B000ZKFXM0>.
Dan O
> On 11/19/2010 1:21 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
> > 700c-wheeled frame.
>
> > Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:
> >http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
>
> The problem with it is that the top platform is only 31cm long. This is
> very short if you have big feet, and you may experience heel
> interference with panniers. They have made some improvements on it since
> I evaluated it, they added the detents on the bottom tubing (not shown
> at the Surly site, but shown in photos from resellers), and a welded on
> mount for a reflector/light (again not shown on the Surly site, but
> shown in photos from resellers).
>
The one I had (but never rode) came from universalcycles, included no
printed mounting instructions, had incomplete parts taped to the
inside of the bag, had what looked like asphalt dings on one side (!),
and would not mount straightly on my bike without adjusting the cheesy
telescoping struts unevenly. So I sent it back. The Tubus Cargo I
got at LBS for a bit less is penomenal in every respect.
(PeteCresswell)
>On the other hand, if you aren't planning on crossing the Andes you might like
>aluminium Topeak Super Tourist DX seen here
>http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Categories.aspx?CategoryID=312
>The disc brake version clears an inconveniently placed caliper with ease
That's what I have on the Fargo right now.
But I'm getting my Surly 1x1 ready for winter utility riding and
it needs the disc brake bypass feature of that rack - so I
figured I'd get a replacement for the Fargo - whose inboard
brakes (as you observe) do not require the bypass feature.
If I'm going to admit being influenced by looks, I'd have to say
I'd like to do away with the adjustable height hardware and have
a more elegant fore-aft connector than the grooved steel straps
that come with a lot of racks.
Looks like Salsa is coming out with something that meets those
two specs in the near future:
http://salsacycles.com/culture/new_salsa_rack_prototypes/
I guess now the question becomes price... I'm betting it's not
gonna be $29.95....
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>problem with it is that the top platform is only 31cm long. This is
>very short if you have big feet
Oops.... So much for Surly.
Glad I started this thread.
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
> The Tubus Cargo I
>got at LBS for a bit less is penomenal in every respect.
I'm looking at it right now and it seems tb right on the money.
viz: http://www.rei.com/product/768568
--
PeteCresswell
Lou Holtman
It is a nice rack, but $120 WTF. I have one on my commuter but It cost
only 59 euro here and I found that even steep.
Lou
landotter
$120 is obscene. You can get an Old Man Mountain rack, that's made in
the USA, for less. Depends on what needs to be hauled. For panniers,
I'd go for an Axiom Streamliner for $40.
Chalo
>
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> >
> > 700c-wheeled frame.
> > Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:
> > http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
> > But it seems a little "nicer" than I really need.
> > Anybody got a better idea?
>
> We're partial to Wald #215 steel carriers for urban use.
> Especially in our neighborhood, where they commonly carry a
> human home from the bar. Tough, under $20, choice of chrome
> or black and welded right here in the US of A.
I like those. But they have a short top, and they tend not to play
nice with small or sloping top tube frames. That's the rack I most
often have to invent an unforeseen front stay for.
As an alternative to an expensive Surly rack, I'd look at a less
expensive Jandd Expedition rack. It has the longest and widest top of
any rack I've tried, along with heavy aluminum stays. If it had any
real lateral bracing, it would be just about perfect.
Chalo
Chalo
>
> What to look for:
>
> 1. Minimum of 16” (40 cm) platform length so panniers can be positioned
> far back enough that your heel doesn't hit them.
The Salsa Fargo has 18" chainstays, which do some of that work for
you.
How long a platform you need is a result of a number of factors,
including shoe size, pannier size and shape, pannier hook
adjustability, chainstay length, seat tube angle, and probably some
other things I'm forgetting.
Mounting the panniers farther back than necessary promotes frame wag
and shimmy, though just having a long rack top does not require you to
mount panniers all the way to the rear.
1/2 point.
> 2. Supports to the seat stays that are long enough to position the rack
> properly (level), though these are available after-market if the rack
> doesn't come with them (this is a very common problem depending on the
> rack and frame).
This is a short-person problem that I doubt Pete will be struggling
with. The corresponding tall-person problem-- a rack platform that
extends far enough forward that it can't be placed level on a very
tall frame-- is the one I often face on my own bikes, and no finagling
of the front stays can cure it.
1/2 point.
> 4. Reflector/light bracket
Adding a reflector to any rack, trunk, or pannier is not rocket
science.
0 point.
> 5. Adjustable strut height for proper positioning.
In my observation, a rack must be tall enough to clear a fat tire on
the frame in question, but there is no noteworthy drawback to having
more clearance than that. In fact, it can help when threading a
bungee cord underneath between the fender and the rack top. So having
a rack that is amply tall, but without the points of failure
introduced by adjustable struts, is preferable.
0 point.
> 6. Pivot type attachment hardware to the seat stays, such as used by
> Tubus, Robert Beckman, and what’s on the REI rack
These can be more rigid and secure, but they are less versatile than
flat leaf-type stays. They are more likely to foul the brakes or run
out of adjustment range before good fit is established. Sometimes
cutting them off cures the problem, and sometimes it doesn't.
There's no need to avoid pivoting stays if they fit your bike, but
they may or may not fit.
0 point.
> 8. Multiple positions for bottom hook/strap, with detents or holes in a
> plate, or a design with a captive bottom rail like the Robert Beckman
> design, so the pannier hooks won't slide out of position or off the rack
> entirely.
I have yet to discover a need for this feature on anybody's bike. It
could make fitting a little more convenient in some cases.
0 point.
> 11. Flat, with no load stop, or a flip up load stop (this is pretty
> rare, most racks have load stops).
Most bikes have brakes there, which are not a first choice for a load
stop. The location of the brakes is usually non-negotiable.
0 point.
> 12. Tig-welded from Cro-Mo (rare, most are made from aluminum).
Like with the bike's frame itself, both these materials can be used
well or poorly. Steel has the advantage of smaller top rail diameter
for any given strength and stiffness. Aluminum has the advantage of
not corroding where the rack gets scratched up (and it will get
scratched up if you use it). For most people, it's probably easier to
contend with a fatter top rail than to have a rusty rack or an extra
chore touching it up (or jacketing it until it's fatter than an
aluminum rail anyway).
0 point.
I give your recommendations 5 out of 12, or 41.7%. At least that's a
much better showing than you make on bicycle helmets.
Chalo
Dan O
> SMS wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > 12. Tig-welded from Cro-Mo (rare, most are made from aluminum).
>
> Like with the bike's frame itself, both these materials can be used
> well or poorly. Steel has the advantage of smaller top rail diameter
> for any given strength and stiffness. Aluminum has the advantage of
> not corroding where the rack gets scratched up (and it will get
> scratched up if you use it). For most people, it's probably easier to
> contend with a fatter top rail than to have a rusty rack or an extra
> chore touching it up (or jacketing it until it's fatter than an
> aluminum rail anyway).
>
Been taking panniers on/off my Tubus weekdays for going on a couple
years now. Sure the most notable scuffs in the powder coat are right
there where the bags hook, but only really one is very notable, and
it's still just a scuff in the powdercoat.
Andre Jute
Yeah, I wondered at Chalo, of all people, not condemning ali racks out
of hand. The only one I ever loaded up much, an expensive SL (since
mine was made, this firm has been bought by Hebie, I think), rubbed
about halfway through on the lower leg in a year. It would have been
right through in two years if not trashed in a mall carpark by a
carelessly driven SUV. Replaced with a Tubus Cosmo that is actually
*lighter* than the ali SL. We'll see how long the Tubus lasts. --
Andre Jute
landotter
> Scharf wrote:
snip
> > 6. Pivot type attachment hardware to the seat stays, such as used by
> > Tubus, Robert Beckman, and what’s on the REI rack
>
> These can be more rigid and secure, but they are less versatile than
> flat leaf-type stays. They are more likely to foul the brakes or run
> out of adjustment range before good fit is established. Sometimes
> cutting them off cures the problem, and sometimes it doesn't.
>
> There's no need to avoid pivoting stays if they fit your bike, but
> they may or may not fit.
I prefer the flat stays. Easy to bend into submission. The pivoting
ones are more aesthetic than anything.
>
snip
> > 12. Tig-welded from Cro-Mo (rare, most are made from aluminum).
>
> Like with the bike's frame itself, both these materials can be used
> well or poorly. Steel has the advantage of smaller top rail diameter
> for any given strength and stiffness. Aluminum has the advantage of
> not corroding where the rack gets scratched up (and it will get
> scratched up if you use it). For most people, it's probably easier to
> contend with a fatter top rail than to have a rusty rack or an extra
> chore touching it up (or jacketing it until it's fatter than an
> aluminum rail anyway).
>
> 0 point.
Scharf being a materials hysteric? Say it isn't so. Quality alu racks
are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
Yuehs:
http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
One got hit by a Subaru. Didn't break. I've loaded them with single
sided Wald baskets so heavy that the bike was nearly un-walkable.
Never a break.
Using steel on a bike part that's guaranteed to get nicked and chipped
isn't a great choice.
>
> I give your recommendations 5 out of 12, or 41.7%. At least that's a
> much better showing than you make on bicycle helmets.
>
> Chalo
Better, but still tainted with way too many straw men.
Dan O
<snip>
> Using steel on a bike part that's guaranteed to get nicked and chipped
> isn't a great choice.
All four of my ready-to-ride bikes are steel. The fifth - a basket
case (needing 27.4 seatpost and shifters) - is aluminum, and I'm
interested to get it on the road and see what it rides like (running
the same wheels and tires and bars and maybe even saddle as my old
steel Trek), but do not expect it to diminish my enthusiasm for the
other four.
<snip>
landotter
Put a steel seatpost in it to get the magic carpet ride. ;-)
Dan O
Hey, I might have one under the bottom tool drawer! Thanks!
landotter
Shim it with alu flashing to get the best of both materials!
Dan O
Or if it's a tad big maybe I can use some emery cloth on it.
SMS
Sometimes a shorter platform isn't a problem. I.e. on the Nitto "Big
Back Rack" it mounts further back than many racks so the 34.5cm length
may not be a problem. Of course it's $182. Beautifully constructed out
of CroMo.
<http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/big-back-rack-nitto/20-022>.
I have size 11.5 feet (46). Many shorter racks don't work for me because
of heel clearance. The disadvantage of placing panniers further back is
that it decreases stability, but it's better than heel interference.
Guess if I were you I'd choose the Topeak Super Tourist DX as long as it
fits your bike. Non-adjustable height, and it uses the less desirable
flat slotted supports to the seat stays, but it's long enough and not
too expensive. But if you don't mind the "champagne color" the Massload
CL476 is a better design <http://www.landriderbikes.com/accessories_1.asp>.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Steel has the advantage of smaller top rail diameter
> > for any given strength and stiffness. Aluminum has the advantage of
> > not corroding where the rack gets scratched up (and it will get
> > scratched up if you use it). For most people, it's probably easier to
> > contend with a fatter top rail than to have a rusty rack or an extra
> > chore touching it up (or jacketing it until it's fatter than an
> > aluminum rail anyway).
>
> Been taking panniers on/off my Tubus weekdays for going on a couple
> years now. Sure the most notable scuffs in the powder coat are right
> there where the bags hook, but only really one is very notable, and
> it's still just a scuff in the powdercoat.
You must have panniers with plastic hooks-- which is a very good idea
if you have a steel rack. Panniers with metal hooks would leave your
expensive rack an ugly rusty mess. My kitty litter buckets with steel
hooks leave my aluminum racks an ugly mess, but without rust.
Chalo
Chalo
>
> Dan O wrote:
> >
> > Been taking panniers on/off my Tubus weekdays for going on a couple
> > years now. Sure the most notable scuffs in the powder coat are right
> > there where the bags hook, but only really one is very notable, and
> > it's still just a scuff in the powdercoat.
>
> Yeah, I wondered at Chalo, of all people, not condemning ali racks out
> of hand. The only one I ever loaded up much, an expensive SL (since
> mine was made, this firm has been bought by Hebie, I think), rubbed
> about halfway through on the lower leg in a year. It would have been
> right through in two years if not trashed in a mall carpark by a
> carelessly driven SUV. Replaced with a Tubus Cosmo that is actually
> *lighter* than the ali SL. We'll see how long the Tubus lasts. --
Stainless steel seems like the ne plus ultra of rack materials. I
have yet to buy one of those, which are off-puttingly expensive in the
USA.
One of my buddies made a beautiful pizza delivery rack out of brazed
stainless steel tubing. Maybe I should cook up my own rack that
way.
Chalo
SMS
> Scharf being a materials hysteric? Say it isn't so. Quality alu racks
> are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
> Yuehs:
>
> http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
I've got some Bor Yueh's too. But if you're touring with heavy loads you
want something better. Too many reports of broken Bor Yueh's to trust
them with 25 kg of cargo. They're cheap, but they're very low quality.
I have aluminum racks on all of my bikes. But that doesn't stop me from
recognizing the facts regarding the advantages and disadvantages of
different materials.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > Dan O wrote:
>
> > > Been taking panniers on/off my Tubus weekdays for going on a couple
> > > years now. Sure the most notable scuffs in the powder coat are right
> > > there where the bags hook, but only really one is very notable, and
> > > it's still just a scuff in the powdercoat.
>
> > Yeah, I wondered at Chalo, of all people, not condemning ali racks out
> > of hand. The only one I ever loaded up much, an expensive SL (since
> > mine was made, this firm has been bought by Hebie, I think), rubbed
> > about halfway through on the lower leg in a year. It would have been
> > right through in two years if not trashed in a mall carpark by a
> > carelessly driven SUV. Replaced with a Tubus Cosmo that is actually
> > *lighter* than the ali SL. We'll see how long the Tubus lasts. --
>
> Stainless steel seems like the ne plus ultra of rack materials. I
> have yet to buy one of those, which are off-puttingly expensive in the
> USA.
Offputtingly expensive anywhere, which is why I expected you to have
concocted your own by now.
> One of my buddies made a beautiful pizza delivery rack out of brazed
> stainless steel tubing. Maybe I should cook up my own rack that
> way.
>
> Chalo
While I bought the Tubus Cosmo because it is one of the most popular
racks for my Utopia Kranich ex-factory, I am not at all certain it is
a heavy duty rack in the same style as their steel touring racks. It's
pretty stiff but the tubing is thin and the wall very thin, and it's a
*small* rack, not very practical at all; I think I already mentioned
the lower horizontal rails ducking in under the top rails towards the
back, which makes putting panniers and baskets on a pain.
You might do a lot better making your own, whether you make a saving
or not. Also, on a 29er you must have the extra-charge fitting
extension kit or the Cosmo won't fit. Also, the Cosmo comes with
threaded fasteners without nuts, so unless every hole on your bike is
tapped, you must in any event buy the extension kit to get the nuts.
Silly marketing to annoy customer with that sort of greedy crap.
I agree with your remark to Dan about ali racks being chewed up. My
fave Basil Cardiff pannier basket is steel, with steel hooks, and it
just ate that SL rack.
There is a cheaper, competent-seeming stainless rack made by some
people in Taiwan Scharfie is impressed with -- give us the link,
please, Steven -- but I couldn't source any supplies in Europe though
their steel racks are finding distribution.
Andre Jute
landotter
> On 11/21/2010 7:46 AM, landotter wrote:
>
> > Scharf being a materials hysteric? Say it isn't so. Quality alu racks
> > are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
> > Yuehs:
>
> >http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
>
> I've got some Bor Yueh's too. But if you're touring with heavy loads you
> want something better. Too many reports of broken Bor Yueh's to trust
> them with 25 kg of cargo. They're cheap, but they're very low quality.
Really? You're lying again, Steven. Seriously--you're such a
compulsive liar that you've gotta lie about the weld quality of a
bicycle rack. Un-fucking-believable.
Where are these broken racks? In your mind? Where the horrible flaws
of sloping tube aluminum frames reside?
Tºm Shermªn ™ °_° «»
butbutbut, Steven M. Scharf is the World's Greatest Expert™ - just ask
him and he will cite his website!
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Dan O
Plastic coated metal hooks (Banjo Bros Waterproof panniers - like
about $40 apiece). The rack also came with little adhesive protective
pads of some sort, but I never stuck them on.
The Tubus Cargo rack is very nice and light and elegant and strong. I
liken it in value to the pair of King SS bottle cages ($15 is on the
steep side for a bottle cage, too). The bike is not very elegant
overall, but someday it might get a really nice pair of wheels, and
then... who knows :-)
Jeff Liebermann
<land...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Quality alu racks
>are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
>Yuehs:
>
>http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
Nashbar has one model for peanuts ($13/ea).
<http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_217197_-1_201497_10000_200319>
I bought one, liked it, and now have 3 more on order. A few problems.
There's no place to easily attach the bungee cords. It does include a
crude bracket of sorts to attach a rear reflector, but it won't stay
vertical and tends to rotate when hit. The seat stay mounting ears
are fairly universal and will probably fit every bicycle except for
one of mine. No instructions were included.
>One got hit by a Subaru. Didn't break.
Ummm... I drive a green Subaru Forester 2001. I don't recall hitting
any bicyclists recently, but it's certainly possible.
>I've loaded them with single
>sided Wald baskets so heavy that the bike was nearly un-walkable.
>Never a break.
Ditto, except it was three brief cases, tools, cables, spare parts,
laptop, chemicals, paper, etc. The only problem was the brief cases
would only fit sideways, making getting on and off the bicycle rather
awkward. Having the whole mess topple on top of me was a clue that it
was top heavy and overloaded. No damage to the rack, which is not
surprising as it hit me, not the ground.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
landotter
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:46:17 -0800 (PST), landotter
>
> >Quality alu racks
> >are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
> >Yuehs:
>
> >http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
>
> Nashbar has one model for peanuts ($13/ea).
> I bought one, liked it, and now have 3 more on order. A few problems.
> There's no place to easily attach the bungee cords. It does include a
> crude bracket of sorts to attach a rear reflector, but it won't stay
> vertical and tends to rotate when hit. The seat stay mounting ears
> are fairly universal and will probably fit every bicycle except for
> one of mine. No instructions were included.
>
> >One got hit by a Subaru. Didn't break.
>
> Ummm... I drive a green Subaru Forester 2001. I don't recall hitting
> any bicyclists recently, but it's certainly possible.
>
> >I've loaded them with single
> >sided Wald baskets so heavy that the bike was nearly un-walkable.
> >Never a break.
>
> Ditto, except it was three brief cases, tools, cables, spare parts,
> laptop, chemicals, paper, etc. The only problem was the brief cases
> would only fit sideways, making getting on and off the bicycle rather
> awkward. Having the whole mess topple on top of me was a clue that it
> was top heavy and overloaded. No damage to the rack, which is not
> surprising as it hit me, not the ground.
>
Yup, for a fleet, they're a fine choice. It wouldn't surprise me if
it's anything like bike frame manufacture, where BY makes others under
contract.
Could use a proper light mount, like pretty much all bikes you see in
Sweden, and maybe a mousetrap clamp. But it's a rack plenty strong
enough to hang panniers from.
The only terrible modern alu rack I've used was an Axiom Journey with
the disk brake strut. They're boring for the most part.
Dan O
The spring on one of those mousetraps cut a hole through tough denim
and put a deep scratch in my leg the first time I swung it over one
bike.
> But it's a rack plenty strong
> enough to hang panniers from.
The Banjo Bros on my Tubus Cargo almost never even flap unless I hit a
pothole. The weight back there affects handling, sure, but it never
throws a curve into it.
>
> The only terrible modern alu rack I've used was an Axiom Journey with
> the disk brake strut. They're boring for the most part.
I've had good times w/ (2 Blackburn) alum racks, too, but again, I
can't get enough of that Tubus Cargo's strength and elegance (very
nice light bracket, too).
landotter
You must have mistakenly bought the Topeak Vasectomy. it's really not
the best choice.
Dan O
It was already installed on the "City Bike" that I converted to
wheeljie bike - that shitty rack is the first thing I stripped off of
it :-)
SMS
> On Nov 21, 8:12 pm, SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2010 7:46 AM, landotter wrote:
>>
>>> Scharf being a materials hysteric? Say it isn't so. Quality alu racks
>>> are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
>>> Yuehs:
>>
>>> http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
>>
>> I've got some Bor Yueh's too. But if you're touring with heavy loads you
>> want something better. Too many reports of broken Bor Yueh's to trust
>> them with 25 kg of cargo. They're cheap, but they're very low quality.
>
>
> Really? You're lying again, Steven. Seriously--you're such a
> compulsive liar that you've gotta lie about the weld quality of a
> bicycle rack. Un-fucking-believable.
You know, you really should think carefully about what you post and even
a modicum of research before flying off the handle, as it only serves to
make you look foolish. What would I have to gain by making up stories
regarding the failure of Bor Yueh racks?
Here are two reports of failure:
<http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure1>
<http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure2> (actually 1.5 failures)
SMS
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:46:17 -0800 (PST), landotter
> <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Quality alu racks
>> are my choice. They aren't expensive. My last three have been Bor
>> Yuehs:
>>
>> http://www.boryueh.com/en/alloy-carrier/175-by-311
>
> Nashbar has one model for peanuts ($13/ea).
> <http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_217197_-1_201497_10000_200319>
> I bought one, liked it, and now have 3 more on order. A few problems.
> There's no place to easily attach the bungee cords. It does include a
> crude bracket of sorts to attach a rear reflector, but it won't stay
> vertical and tends to rotate when hit. The seat stay mounting ears
> are fairly universal and will probably fit every bicycle except for
> one of mine. No instructions were included.
I've got Bor Yueh's on two bikes in the fleet.
One is at
<http://nordicgroup.us/bicycleluggageracks/rackimages/IMG_0271.JPG> but
Nashbar stopped selling this model (which I liked because it had the
reflector/light bracket unlike the current model they sell). Then the
reports started of Bor Yueh failures under heavy loads. I would not use
them for heavy loads or for touring.
Here are two reports of failure:
<http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure1>
<http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure2> (actually 1.5 failures)
If you're wanting to attach bungee cords to the struts, attach wire-rope
clamp to the dogleg strut, similar to this:
<http://nordicgroup.us/bicycleluggageracks/rackimages/saddlecliprei.jpg>
But yes, they are very inexpensive, and if you don't pile on 25 kg of
stuff they probably are fine.
SMS
<snip>
> Here are two reports of failure:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure1>
> <http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure2> (actually 1.5 failures)
And one more...
<http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure3>
See 10-27-08, 12:38 PM and 10-28-08, 10:44 AM.
SMS
> These can be more rigid and secure, but they are less versatile than
> flat leaf-type stays. They are more likely to foul the brakes or run
> out of adjustment range before good fit is established. Sometimes
> cutting them off cures the problem, and sometimes it doesn't.
I find the exact opposite to be true.
Besides being more rigid and secure as you state, you have a much
greater range of adjustment so you can clear things like brake cables.
Besides fore and aft adjustment, you also have side to side adjustment
(since the rack often has a slot that they can move in), you can rotate
them to match the seat stay angle, and you can angle them up or down to
keep the rack level, all without having to bend them like the flat
stays. This is why most of the higher end racks like Nitto, Hebie,
Tortec, Axiom, Tubus, Zefal, Civia, Biria, and Surly use that type of mount.
I've had to fabricate so many different flat leaf type stays for various
bikes because of the limitations of the leaf stays. You also have the
issue of often having to buy longer stays, where the lack of rigidness
is an issue. I fabricate them out of aluminum flat bar that's thick
enough to to flex over the long run, i.e. some extensions I made for the
infamous Bor Yueh rack, mounted on my "shopper" bike, along with some
considerations for the Bor Yueh rack sold by Nashbar:
<http://i51.tinypic.com/2yyqtm8.jpg>
You can also see the common point of failure in these racks, where the
struts are welded to the flat piece where the adjustable height piece
with the holes slides into. One reason this Bor Yueh rack is appealing
is because of the wide range of adjustments, but they didn't do a good
job on the construction.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
><http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure3>
>See 10-27-08, 12:38 PM and 10-28-08, 10:44 AM.
"My rack failed due to the bolt shearing, so in theory
i could have used another bolt, but i don't really want
to risk that kind of failure again if I am carrying
sensitive items, such as a laptop, or when i am on a
tour and counting on my equipment to hold up to loaded
conditions."
Bolt shearing? It's stainless bolt on mine. I can see the aluminum
parts failing if the bolt were loose, but not shearing a stainless
bolt.
Helmut Springer
> Bolt shearing? It's stainless bolt on mine. I can see the
> aluminum parts failing if the bolt were loose, but not shearing a
> stainless bolt.
Actually the standard "stainless" bolt is somewhat weak compared to
high-strenght steel ones of 10.9 or above quality.
Sheared rack bolts are a common issue on loaded tourers going over
rough roads, being that cheap rusting of standard stainless steel.
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
SMS
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:29:42 -0800, SMS<scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure3>
>> See 10-27-08, 12:38 PM and 10-28-08, 10:44 AM.
>
> "My rack failed due to the bolt shearing, so in theory
> i could have used another bolt, but i don't really want
> to risk that kind of failure again if I am carrying
> sensitive items, such as a laptop, or when i am on a
> tour and counting on my equipment to hold up to loaded
> conditions."
>
> Bolt shearing? It's stainless bolt on mine. I can see the aluminum
> parts failing if the bolt were loose, but not shearing a stainless
> bolt.
I can definitely see some those el-cheapo steel bolts shearing, but I
don't see why he would abandon the rack rather than buying a better
quality bolt, like a class 8 bolt. There can be a lot of stress on those
bolts. Besides the weight of what's on the rack, often the bolts are
pulling the struts into position because the spacing of the struts
doesn't match the spacing of the holes on the frame. Still, it may be
better for the bolt to shear than for the frame to be damaged.
SMS
It's not easy to find high-strength metric stainless steel bolts,
especially in the U.S.. You can find high strength metric bolts at
McMaster, but they aren't stainless. Really not a big deal though, after
you install the rack you can put some clear coat over the bolts to keep
them from rusting.
SMS
As well as rack bolts that don't have thread lock on them loosening and
falling out. I always carry some extra bolts on a tour for those riders
that didn't install their racks properly. Cable ties and hose clamps are
also useful for jury-rig repairs of racks. If there's space, a metric
lock nut is another solution.
SMS
<snip>
> I've had to fabricate so many different flat leaf type stays for various
> bikes because of the limitations of the leaf stays. You also have the
> issue of often having to buy longer stays, where the lack of rigidness
> is an issue. I fabricate them out of aluminum flat bar that's thick
> enough to to flex over the long run,
s.b. "thick enough _not_ to flex. Mike J. cautioned against gentle bends
in flexible long leaf supports (such as sold by Jandd
<http://www.jandd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=FEXT> in 8", 12", and 16"
lengths), you want a hard angle bend.
Mike wrote:
"When you mention a "creative bend" in what I assume are the struts,
make sure you bend them in a *permanent* way. Don't allow them to have a
graceful curve. You want a nice sharp bend, so that the struts are not
acting like a spring, pushing up against where they mount. We've seen
that sort of thing cause racks to fail in the past. Strange, but true!"
In any case, I think Pete is learning more about racks than maybe he
wanted to know, but it's amazing how many poorly designed and fabricated
racks are out there, and there's a lot of things people may not think of
when they select a rack.
SMS
> On 11/22/2010 11:16 AM, SMS wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I've had to fabricate so many different flat leaf type stays for various
>> bikes because of the limitations of the leaf stays. You also have the
>> issue of often having to buy longer stays, where the lack of rigidness
>> is an issue. I fabricate them out of aluminum flat bar that's thick
>> enough to to flex over the long run,
>
> s.b. "thick enough _not_ to flex. Mike J. cautioned against gentle bends
> in flexible long leaf supports (such as sold by Jandd
> <http://www.jandd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=FEXT> in 8", 12", and 16"
> lengths), you want a hard angle bend.
Speaking of Jandd, if you had a valid e-mail on file with them prior to
October 21st, they are having a "Buy one get one free sale" on
everything they sell. It's non transferable. And it's unlimited, buy 5
get 5 free, etc. Their "Expedition" rack is pretty good
<http://www.jandd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=FREXP>.
SMS
>
> <snip>
>
>> I've had to fabricate so many different flat leaf type stays for various
>> bikes because of the limitations of the leaf stays. You also have the
>> issue of often having to buy longer stays, where the lack of rigidness
>> is an issue. I fabricate them out of aluminum flat bar that's thick
>> enough to to flex over the long run,
>
> s.b. "thick enough _not_ to flex. Mike J. cautioned against gentle bends
> in flexible long leaf supports (such as sold by Jandd
> <http://www.jandd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=FEXT> in 8", 12", and 16"
> lengths), you want a hard angle bend.
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> "When you mention a "creative bend" in what I assume are the struts,
> make sure you bend them in a *permanent* way. Don't allow them to have a
> graceful curve. You want a nice sharp bend, so that the struts are not
> acting like a spring, pushing up against where they mount. We've seen
> that sort of thing cause racks to fail in the past. Strange, but true!"
I.e., don't do them as Jandd shows in this picture!
<http://www.jandd.com/ProdImages/RacksRackTrunks/RearRacPacwPan/RRPwPdeployedd.jpg>
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:29:42 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>><http://tinyurl.com/boryuehfailure3>
>>See 10-27-08, 12:38 PM and 10-28-08, 10:44 AM.
>
> "My rack failed due to the bolt shearing, so in theory
> i could have used another bolt, but i don't really want
> to risk that kind of failure again if I am carrying
> sensitive items, such as a laptop, or when i am on a
> tour and counting on my equipment to hold up to loaded
> conditions."
>
>Bolt shearing? It's stainless bolt on mine. I can see the aluminum
>parts failing if the bolt were loose, but not shearing a stainless
>bolt.
Ok, I lied. When I arrived at the office and inspected my bicycle, I
found that I had replaced some of the bolts with stainless cap screws.
The stock bolts are galvanized steel something.
I also changed my mind about the quality of $13 Bor Yueh racks. I
took some photos:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Bor_Yueh/>
Note that some of the welds are little better than tack welds, and are
only welded on one side. Weld penetration is minimal. One weld looks
like a paint covered slag weld.
All the weight load is concentrated where the rack attaches near the
rear axle, which might explain shearing that bolt.
For my use, fair weather running around town with a load of tools and
junk, the rack is good enough. It's not going to get pounded and
bounced to death.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
SMS
> Ok, I lied. When I arrived at the office and inspected my bicycle, I
> found that I had replaced some of the bolts with stainless cap screws.
> The stock bolts are galvanized steel something.
I have all the original bolts. And the rack is on my "shopper" bike
which gets rained on all the time and the bolts aren't rusted.
> I also changed my mind about the quality of $13 Bor Yueh racks. I
> took some photos:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Bor_Yueh/>
> Note that some of the welds are little better than tack welds, and are
> only welded on one side. Weld penetration is minimal. One weld looks
> like a paint covered slag weld.
>
> All the weight load is concentrated where the rack attaches near the
> rear axle, which might explain shearing that bolt.
That's the case with most racks unless they attach to the seat stays.
This is how I attached an REI branded rack to my mountain bike
<http://nordicgroup.us/bicycleluggageracks/rackimages/marinrackmount.jpg> and
I like those hooks for panniers.
> For my use, fair weather running around town with a load of tools and
> junk, the rack is good enough. It's not going to get pounded and
> bounced to death.
Nice bike.
Note that the older Bor Yueh rack from Nashbar had a very good reflector
bracket welded on.
A rack isn't rocket science. If they took the time to weld it better and
supplied better hardware it could be a lot better. But then of course
they would want more money for it.
SMS
> 700c-wheeled frame.
>
> Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:
> http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
>
> But it seems a little "nicer" than I really need.
>
> Anybody got a better idea?
So after all this, what did you end up buying?
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>On 11/22/2010 6:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Ok, I lied. When I arrived at the office and inspected my bicycle, I
>> found that I had replaced some of the bolts with stainless cap screws.
>> The stock bolts are galvanized steel something.
>
>I have all the original bolts. And the rack is on my "shopper" bike
>which gets rained on all the time and the bolts aren't rusted.
Mine are a mess of original and replacement bolts. I can't tell
which. I'll wait until Nashbar delivers more Bor Yueh racks to see
what's in the bag.
>Note that the older Bor Yueh rack from Nashbar had a very good reflector
>bracket welded on.
Yes, but it gets very close to where the rear fender passes. My
guess(tm) is that they removed it to give more clearance.
>A rack isn't rocket science. If they took the time to weld it better and
>supplied better hardware it could be a lot better. But then of course
>they would want more money for it.
I just looked at various old Blackburn racks with similar aluminium
construction. They're also welded on one side, but seem to have
better penetration. However, they cost 3 times as much as Bor Yueh.
(PeteCresswell)
>> Anybody got a better idea?
>
>So after all this, what did you end up buying?
Nothing so far and probably nothing for the next few weeks.
What I've come away with so far:
- Length: My size 15's may be a determining factor,
although in the past I've had success with bungeeing
a length of fiberglass rod to the pannier side of a
rack to extend the point where the pannier can hang
backwards a couple inches.
- Material: Although steel seems tb the clear winner
durability-wise, my use is quite modest (only on
pannier, and never loaded for camping - just cloths,
bike lock, pruning saw, and whatever I buy that needs
tb transported home.
- Cost: Looks to me like there are plenty el-cheapo racks
out there that will fit my bill and I agree with the
observation that $120 is "obscene" - at least for use
by a dilettante like myself.
--
PeteCresswell
SMS
> Per SMS:
>>> Anybody got a better idea?
>>
>> So after all this, what did you end up buying?
>
> Nothing so far and probably nothing for the next few weeks.
>
> What I've come away with so far:
>
> - Length: My size 15's may be a determining factor,
> although in the past I've had success with bungeeing
> a length of fiberglass rod to the pannier side of a
> rack to extend the point where the pannier can hang
> backwards a couple inches.
Size 15, wow.
Remember, on some racks you can do what I did here:
<http://nordicgroup.us/bicycleluggageracks/rackimages/extender.JPG>
If the rack has a strut that has more than one mounting hole you can
bolt a section of aluminum or steel flat plate to two of the holes, then
drill a hole in the flat plate through which an M5 bolt will attach the
plate to the bicycle. You fabricate the plate to the length you need
(height shifting is also possible). Of course the seat stay mounting
brackets need to be long enough to accommodate shifting the rack further
back. Ensure that the plate is thick enough that it won't flex, 0.25"
thickness is good, and is thick enough to do tapping of holes. You
wouldn't want to shift the rack back more than two inches or so, but
often that's all that's necessary to fix heel clearance problems.
Just beware that this sort of adapter puts more stress on the eyelets on
the bicycle, so you might not want to try this on an aluminum frame
bicycle, but fortunately you were smart enough to purchase a CroMo
framed bicycle.
Between a 41cm rack like the Jandd Expedition, and shifting, you could
probably get away without those fiberglass rods.
Also, disc brakes can sometimes be a problem.
(PeteCresswell)
>Between a 41cm rack like the Jandd Expedition, and shifting, you could
>probably get away without those fiberglass rods.
>
>Also, disc brakes can sometimes be a problem.
Luckily my frame has inboard calipers: no problem there.
Just spent the last hour or so trying to shoehorn a rack that I
bought out of somebody's junk pile couple years ago onto the
bike.
In doing so, I uncovered another dimensional consideration: width
of the struts. The rack in question was a good 35mm too narrow.
I'm guessing something like road vs MTB.
You'd think that the struts could just be spread to fit, but I
didn't find it that easy. Spreading them "by hand" (i.e.
pivoting near the point where they attach to the rack) introduces
subtle misalignments into the holes that the bolts have to go
through into the frame.
A bench vise and a little judicious bending down towards the ends
might remedy that, but it's something to consider when buying
new.
I also surfaced a nice-to-have: some means of using the rack's
struts to stabilize the rear fender instead of having both the
rack struts and the fender struts all coming together down at the
rear dropout. Seems like it would significantly more sano.
--
PeteCresswell
SMS
> Per SMS:
>> Between a 41cm rack like the Jandd Expedition, and shifting, you could
>> probably get away without those fiberglass rods.
>>
>> Also, disc brakes can sometimes be a problem.
>
> Luckily my frame has inboard calipers: no problem there.
>
> Just spent the last hour or so trying to shoehorn a rack that I
> bought out of somebody's junk pile couple years ago onto the
> bike.
>
> In doing so, I uncovered another dimensional consideration: width
> of the struts. The rack in question was a good 35mm too narrow.
>
> I'm guessing something like road vs MTB.
>
> You'd think that the struts could just be spread to fit, but I
> didn't find it that easy. Spreading them "by hand" (i.e.
> pivoting near the point where they attach to the rack) introduces
> subtle misalignments into the holes that the bolts have to go
> through into the frame.
Exactly. Putting even more stress on the bolts. If the struts are a bit
too wide you can use spacers, but when they're too narrow it's a real
pain in the butt.
> A bench vise and a little judicious bending down towards the ends
> might remedy that, but it's something to consider when buying
> new.
Those are difficult bends since you have to make two of them on each
side. Sometimes people will mount the rack struts on the inside if
there's room and they don't interfere.
> I also surfaced a nice-to-have: some means of using the rack's
> struts to stabilize the rear fender instead of having both the
> rack struts and the fender struts all coming together down at the
> rear dropout. Seems like it would significantly more sano.
Not sure how you'd do that without it looking like a real kludge.
Andre Jute
> In doing so, I uncovered another dimensional consideration: width
> of the struts. The rack in question was a good 35mm too narrow.
>
> I'm guessing something like road vs MTB.
You have to check that the rack is suitable for a 29er, then you get
the width and also, if you're lucky, the correct height. Not with
Tubus: you really the extra-cost extension kit.
> You'd think that the struts could just be spread to fit, but I
> didn't find it that easy. Spreading them "by hand" (i.e.
> pivoting near the point where they attach to the rack) introduces
> subtle misalignments into the holes that the bolts have to go
> through into the frame.
Tubus tech support wrote that I could spread the Cosmo legs but even
spreading them only a little, less than a quarter-inch, I ran into the
beginnings of a problem with misallignment. I solved it by vice
gripping the tab for fixing to the bike, then pulling the leg further
up out towards me until it was aligned. Then found I needed the
extension kit because there really wasn't enough clearance over the
mudguard. It is easier with the extension kit, because you mount the
extension bracket flat on the dropout, then align the rack lower tab
and the extension upper end with the wrench.
> A bench vise and a little judicious bending down towards the ends
> might remedy that, but it's something to consider when buying
> new.
Forget it. I experimented on my wrecked SL rack, which is ali and
should be easy to bend neatly. It wasn't.
> I also surfaced a nice-to-have: some means of using the rack's
> struts to stabilize the rear fender instead of having both the
> rack struts and the fender struts all coming together down at the
> rear dropout. Seems like it would significantly more sano.
A well designed rack should have holes for the fender struts on the
rack's mounting tab above and behind the axle nut. My bikes have
custom Gazelle, Tortec, Tubus racks, and they all have this feature.
In fact, it seems to me that SKS fenders, anyway the fatter ones,
assume this feature, the way their struts are designed.
A feature on European bikes that is very nice, but seems to be custom
designed for each rack/fender/bike combo (there is no common hardware
for this between four racks I have inspected on my own bikes), is a
fitting on one of the crossbars of the rack, usually towards the rear,
with a bolt extending downwards through the centre of the mudguard,
which centres the mudguard over the tyre. That's how the designers
manage to get such a close fit of mudguard over tyre on all my bikes,
and how they manage to fit mudguards at all on the Big Apple 60mm
where the biggest available fender, SKS P65, has about 2mm of sideways
play before it hits the tyre: they hold it stable to the rack (assumes
an ultra-stable rack though, but these are bikes that come with good
racks by default -- it's not even a delete option, you take the rack
or you don't get the bike). The bolt fixing the mudguard to the
fitting on the rack may have a very low profile head and run upwards
from under the fender through the fitting on the rack, or it may be a
piece of rod welded into a flat shape ovaloid washer fitting snug
inside the mudguard, or it may be fixed to the rack fitting and have a
thin nut inside the mudguard. The interesting thing is that this is
all such low-production run stuff (these are all very limited edition
bikes) that nobody appears to have had a shaped-head threaded-rod
nylon piece cast to run from inside the mudguard to the fitting on the
rack crossbar, which to me seems an obvious solution.
As far as I know, SKS mudguards don't come with a hole, so the hole is
custom-drilled for each bike design/rack combo.
On one of my bikes the fitting on the rack for the mudguard stabilizer
is some kind of a rod-clamp with a threaded hole for a bolt at right
angles to the rod it clamps onto, perhaps from farm fencing work,
clearly of hardware store origin rather than custom made. Perhaps the
guys who know the McMaster catalogue off by heart can tell us its
name.
***
All of that said, on a bike I was building up myself, I wouldn't even
try for the rod-clamping solution, which strikes me as a lot of
fiddling and opportunities to get it wrong. Instead I'd bend up an L-
bracket from the light bracket that all good racks have (50mm drilling
centres or 80mm or both) to the mudguard. Simple, adjustable by just
making the hole in the bracket elongated, or by rebending the bracket.
Does the same job.
***
BTW, one you've bolted your fender to the rack that far back, and
you're of course bolting it to a crossbar between the chainstays, you
need either no fender struts or you need only one set really low down
at the back of your fender, depending on how long and stiff it is.
This seems to me an opportunity for the fender and rack manufacturers
to get together.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
jay
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > 700c-wheeled frame.
>
> > Surly's "Nice" rack is looking good to me:
> >http://tinyurl.com/28jw8f9
>
> > But it seems a little "nicer" than I really need.
>
>
> Fargo's capabilities as a rough road expedition bike you could not go past the
> Surly Nice Rack *IF* the Fargo rear disc caliper placement does indeed allow
> fitment of a "normal" rear rack. Nice Rack is not excessively heavy and has vast
> mounts of adjustability in both vertical height and in reach of top stays so you
> can get your fit just so. Bolted clamps for adjustment are well made and remain
> secure. I know from experience that this will carry a heavy touring load wihout
> complaint and the rear loops are shaped to keep the pannier bags out of the rear
> wheel. If your feet match the rest of you, you would probably be mounting
> panniers pretty far back in which case the rear loops will be a plus.
>
> On the other hand, if you aren't planning on crossing the Andes you might like
> aluminium Topeak Super Tourist DX seen herehttp://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Categories.aspx?CategoryID=312
> The disc brake version clears an inconveniently placed caliper with ease. I have
> both versions on bikes and have carried 12kg per side with no breakages. A
> convenient point is that the 10mm horizontal bar for clipping on pannier bags is
> a little lower than the top platform so if you have a top bag or junk bungied to
> top platform you can unhook the panniers without removing the top load. They
> also have the rectangular rear loop to enhance stability of the panniers.
>
> I also have one on a Surly Crosscheck that looks exactly like this aluminium
> Axiomhttp://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=14335
> except that it was called a Lifeline when I bought it equally cheaply. An easy
> fit, has the large rear loops which I like and has some interesting tube
> crossings where the tubes are shaped to run parallel for a distance with a long
> TIG weld joining them. I have not carried more than commuting loads but it
> feels solid and the fancy tube bending and welding suggests that someone has put
> some thought into it. I like it a lot.
>
> Best regards,
> PH
Re: Topeak DX; Baybsitter Rack et all......
I am not able to understand how any rack that attaches to the bike via
thin gauge flat
strips of sheet-metal could have any stiffness. I must admit that I've
grasp the seat tube
& rear rack of this type of mount & torqued the hell out of them, &
been surprised by
how stiff they are. But I also know how god awful heavy a measly 40 –
50 lbs is on a
bike. (It miraculously becomes 150lbs) It totally changes the dynamics
of riding & shaking.
I'm very fortunate to have a very old Blackburn rack that attaches
directly the the rear stays
by braze ons on my Specialized Expedition, & wouldn't get rid of the
Blackburn for love nor $.
Best wishes, JD
SMS
> Re: Topeak DX; Baybsitter Rack et all......
> I am not able to understand how any rack that attaches to the bike via
> thin gauge flat
> strips of sheet-metal could have any stiffness.
The seat stay supports are not really supporting any weight, they're
just holding the rack level. A rack with triangulated struts is very
stiff, and the mounts down by the dropouts don't flex much.
> by braze ons on my Specialized Expedition,& wouldn't get rid of the
> Blackburn for love nor $.
I've got the same bicycle and rack. Back in the olden days, when there
weren't a thousand different frame set-ups you could do things like the
Blackburn Expedition and the Specialized Expedition, and you didn't need
multiple points of adjustability.. Even the Blackburn CL1 (custom low
rider) was designed for the forks of the Specialized Expedition though
apparently there was some mis-communication prior to 1985. My Expedition
bicycle didn't quite match the CL1. I mentioned it to someone from
Blackburn that I had met at a show, and a few days later I got some
little adapters in the mail that let me attach the CL1.
(PeteCresswell)
>
>Gee, that's nearly Tubus Cosmo money, Pete.
I've read several comments so far to the effect that if the bike
tips over with a Tubus rack on it, there's a significant chance
of the rack's being toast.
Intuitively, for something welded up out of CroMo, this is
unexpected - but the comments are there.
Anybody?
--
PeteCresswell
Dan O
My "Cargo" is still fine. While I do try to treat the bike with great
care, as you may imagine ;-) it has been tipped over a few times (once
on the bare rack, twice with panniers).
Please don't spend double what you have to based on my endorsement,
but, FWIW, I have absolutely no complaints about this rack.
(PeteCresswell)
>
>So after all this, what did you end up buying?
One of these: http://tinyurl.com/2dzkrt6
At twenty bucks, the price was right.
For my dilettantish use, the capacity is more than adequate.
Also, I had thought that the adjustment nuts would also supply an
attachment point for fender struts, but it turned out that the
standoffs - even though I don't need them to clear disc brakes -
provide additional room so the fender struts can easily attach to
the extra receptacles on the frame.
--
PeteCresswell
landotter
If you feel like being fancy, you can attach the fender to the bottom
of the rack, instead of using the seat stay bridge. LP brake hardware
is a good source of spacers.
SMS
I have that rack on couple of bikes in the fleet.
The problem I have with it is that it's not good to use with panniers
because the bottom connection point has to be where the two struts come
together, so you can't position the pannier far enough back.
(PeteCresswell)
>> One of these: http://tinyurl.com/2dzkrt6
>I have that rack on couple of bikes in the fleet.
>
>The problem I have with it is that it's not good to use with panniers
>because the bottom connection point has to be where the two struts come
>together, so you can't position the pannier far enough back.
Far enough back for heel clearance?
It seems tb working for me. Maybe the Salsa is just longer in
the back.
--
PeteCresswell
addre...@invalid.invalid
> of the rack, instead of using the seat stay bridge
My ideal would be 100% attached to the rack except for the very front
behind the BB.
landotter
You can't get away from that single back set of stays, unless you have
a quite fantastical rack, or ludicrously short fender.
I like going straight into the bottom of the seat stay bridge, if it's
threaded or has a threadable vent hole. Usually, two or three brake
shoe spacers will get the curve correct.