Backpack or pannier

[Sir Ridesalot]

On another thread someone was looking for a new backpack to carry his commuting gear in it. Many people suggested panniers instead.

There are times when a backpack has advantages over panniers. One advantge is that the backpack is immediately ready to go with you and leaves your hands free. Another advantage is that the backpack makes it far easier to go up stairs if you have to carry your bike. I rediscovered that again today when I went to go out to the grocer for some milk and other items. Our elevator is out of service yet again. The idiots here keep holding the door open with their hand and that trips the sensor that is there in case someone falls and blocks the door. Even with 20 plus pounds and the bike it was a lot easier carryig the bike up the stairs than it would have been if those twenty pounds had been in panniers at the rear of the bike making it unbalanced towards the back.

I think that a lot of commuters prefer a backack over panniers because of the convenience of the backpack especially if they make stops to do something and leave the bike, the loa is only a few pounds or they carry their bike up any stairs.

To stop my backpack from moving around over my nylon jacket I use a leather toestrap as a cheststrap and it makes the pack quite secure whilst allowing it to ride lower on my back. That also helps a lot with cooling.

Cheers

[Joe Riel]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> writes:

> On another thread someone was looking for a new backpack to carry his
> commuting gear in it. Many people suggested panniers instead.
>
> There are times when a backpack has advantages over panniers. One
> advantge is that the backpack is immediately ready to go with you and
> leaves your hands free. Another advantage is that the backpack makes
> it far easier to go up stairs if you have to carry your bike. I
> rediscovered that again today when I went to go out to the grocer for
> some milk and other items. Our elevator is out of service yet
> again. The idiots here keep holding the door open with their hand and
> that trips the sensor that is there in case someone falls and blocks
> the door. Even with 20 plus pounds and the bike it was a lot easier
> carryig the bike up the stairs than it would have been if those twenty
> pounds had been in panniers at the rear of the bike making it
> unbalanced towards the back.
>
> I think that a lot of commuters prefer a backack over panniers because
> of the convenience of the backpack especially if they make stops to do
> something and leave the bike, the loa is only a few pounds or they
> carry their bike up any stairs.

I haven't had to carry a bike while wearing a backpack, but at my
previous job I daily carried my Moulton, with rear rack and trunk bag
holding clothes, lunch, and, once a week, hockey skates with a stick
lashed to the frame, up four flights of stairs---preferred to do that
rather then wait for the elevator.

--
Joe Riel

[Duane]

Another reason to prefer a backpack is if you have a bike that doesn't
support panniers. A Tarmac has no braise-ons (can I still say that with a
CF frame) and even if it did I don't think there would be enough clearance
for the pedals.

Your suggestion for the bag that attached to the seat post was an
alternative. Or I could just use my touring bike.

But for several reasons I'm opting for a backpack. One of my favourite
reasons is that on the days when I can't ride the next day I just leave the
pack in my locker and ride home like I wasn't commuting. Lol.
--
duane

[Sir Ridesalot]

Some handlebar bags are a pretty good size and if loaded are better mounted behind the seat as an oversize seat bag than mounted on the handlebar where weight or size can affect steering. A handlebar bag or one mounted behind the seatpost also cures the heating problem on the back of your body.

Here's one MEC bag.

MEC Rando Handlebar Bag

http://www.mec.ca/product/5026-252/mec-rando-handlebar-bag/?h=10+50002+50012&f=10+50002+50156

But a decent backpack isstill more convenient to load and move about with. I have a rather inexpensive pack I often use and fortunately don't find it too hot. Then again, if I'm riding 25 kilometres (15 miles) I usually opt for a small pannier or the trunk bag or the large handlebar bag mounted on the seatpost.

BTW, what material is your Tarmac frame made of?

Cheers

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://www.bikepacking.net/category/individual_setups/

[sms]

On 4/10/2014 3:11 AM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> Another reason to prefer a backpack is if you have a bike that doesn't
> support panniers. A Tarmac has no braise-ons (can I still say that with a
> CF frame) and even if it did I don't think there would be enough clearance
> for the pedals.
>
> Your suggestion for the bag that attached to the seat post was an
> alternative. Or I could just use my touring bike.
>
> But for several reasons I'm opting for a backpack. One of my favourite
> reasons is that on the days when I can't ride the next day I just leave the
> pack in my locker and ride home like I wasn't commuting. Lol.

There are a few panniers that convert to backpacks. Arkel makes a good
one.
<http://www.arkel-od.com/us/all-categories/laptop-bicycle-pannier/bug-cummuting-bag.html>.
Not cheap, but not made in China.

Never buy a bicycle that lacks braze-ons (or whatever they're called on
non-steel bicycles) for racks, fenders, bottles, etc.

[Duane]

I looked at bags like you posted but opted for a good backpack. I'm
headed to MEC shortly.

> BTW, what material is your Tarmac frame made of?
>

The Tarmac is CF. I also have a Bianchi Volpe from the early 90s that's
lugged cro-moly. I could use that for long distance commutes but for
the moment it's on my trainer in the basement. When I bought the Tarmac
I thought about a Roubaix instead that is more of a touring geometry but
I preferred the Tarmac after testing both.

I'm mostly doing club rides these days and commuting when I can. Out of
maybe 6000km in a season, probably 2000km is commuting. I thought I'd
use the Bianchi for commuting but the Tarmac is more fun to ride.

> Cheers
>

[Duane]

On 4/10/2014 9:12 AM, sms wrote:
> On 4/10/2014 3:11 AM, Duane wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Another reason to prefer a backpack is if you have a bike that doesn't
>> support panniers. A Tarmac has no braise-ons (can I still say that
>> with a
>> CF frame) and even if it did I don't think there would be enough
>> clearance
>> for the pedals.
>>
>> Your suggestion for the bag that attached to the seat post was an
>> alternative. Or I could just use my touring bike.
>>
>> But for several reasons I'm opting for a backpack. One of my favourite
>> reasons is that on the days when I can't ride the next day I just
>> leave the
>> pack in my locker and ride home like I wasn't commuting. Lol.
>
> There are a few panniers that convert to backpacks. Arkel makes a good
> one.
> <http://www.arkel-od.com/us/all-categories/laptop-bicycle-pannier/bug-cummuting-bag.html>.
> Not cheap, but not made in China.
>

Yeah, I was looking at some of these.

> Never buy a bicycle that lacks braze-ons (or whatever they're called on
> non-steel bicycles) for racks, fenders, bottles, etc.

Why not? I don't expect to have any racks mounted on this bike. I have
two bottle cages. I don't need anything else on this bike.

Maybe you mean never buy a bike that isn't set up for touring if you
plan to use it for touring? Or more generally, never buy a bike that
doesn't suit your needs.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

aha ! REI REI



http://goo.gl/4vIrBb

excellent n durabble

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

http://goo.gl/4vIrBb

excellent n durabble

read


http://www.outdoorgearlab.com/

[Sir Ridesalot]

I had a MIELE Equipe Pro Columbus SL tubing racing bike with all Dura Ace on it back in the mid 1980's. I used it for my commute because it was fast, quick handling and accelerated really well. It was really enjoyable. Fortunately Blackburn made adapters that fit the dropouts so that you could use a light rack and bag. It also camouflaged the quality of the bike. I actually used that bike for a lot of unsupported overnight rides. I could put a Bike 'N'Lite tent and lightweight sleeping bag on it.

I agree that a club riding bike shouldbe more dedicated to fast riding than a touring bike if the club you ride with rides fast. A couple of years ago I showed up for a club ride with my touring bike and panniers because I thought they were a casual riding group. Nope, they were a fast aced group and I felt like I nearly killed myself trying to keep them in sight.

To SMS, not everyone wants or even needs all those brazeons you mentioned. Many people ride for fitness or for race training.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:11:51 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

<snip>

>
> Another reason to prefer a backpack is if you have a bike that doesn't
>
> support panniers. A Tarmac has no braise-ons (can I still say that with a
>
> CF frame) and even if it did I don't think there would be enough clearance
>
> for the pedals.
>
>
>
> Your suggestion for the bag that attached to the seat post was an
>
> alternative. Or I could just use my touring bike.
>
>
>
> But for several reasons I'm opting for a backpack. One of my favourite
>
> reasons is that on the days when I can't ride the next day I just leave the
>
> pack in my locker and ride home like I wasn't commuting. Lol.

Apart from the lack of braze-ons, a short wheelbase bike can be problematic with panniers. You get heel strike with some bags. My son's Kona Dewdrop is an over-grown MTB with a high BB. It has a rack, and I whack my knee on it dismounting -- something to do with swinging my leg so high to clear the saddle. Racks have some minor issues. I do like carrying heavy stuff in a pannier on that bike, though -- and of course, racks and panniers are a must for touring. For commuting with a minor amount of stuff, I use a backpack. If I were commuting regularly with a laptop or lots of stuff, I would use a pannier and kludge a rack on my CX bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

My Bianchi Volpe was a similar bike. I call it a touring bike but it's
what was referred to as a sport tour bike. The geometry is similar to a
Roubaix and it is set up with all the braze ons that you can imagine. I
used it for years as a road bike.

> I agree that a club riding bike shouldbe more dedicated to fast riding than a touring bike if the club you ride with rides fast. A couple of years ago I showed up for a club ride with my touring bike and panniers because I thought they were a casual riding group. Nope, they were a fast aced group and I felt like I nearly killed myself trying to keep them in sight.
>

We have guys that ride bikes with racks. Even a couple with hybrids but
they usually change eventually. These are usually pretty strong riders
though.

My club rides are pretty much performance oriented but the speed depends
on which group you ride with. What's probably more important than a
fast bike is to have a bike that is stable enough to let you keep a
line, even in cross winds. Brifters are good to allow you to keep your
hands near the brakes for close pack riding. My Bianchi has bar end
shifters which are less useful under those conditions.

> To SMS, not everyone wants or even needs all those brazeons you mentioned. Many people ride for fitness or for race training.
>

Yeah, but he knows that. (sorry, couldn't resist)

[Duane]

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Tarmac has a short wheel base. I
wouldn't have clearance for my feet with a rack on the back. If I had
more to carry, I'd take the other bike. Or if I had a longer commute.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/10/2014 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>

> Apart from the lack of braze-ons, a short wheelbase bike can be problematic
with panniers. You get heel strike with some bags. My son's Kona Dewdrop is
an over-grown MTB with a high BB. It has a rack, and I whack my knee on it
dismounting -- something to do with swinging my leg so high to clear the
saddle.
Racks have some minor issues. I do like carrying heavy stuff in a
pannier on
that bike, though -- and of course, racks and panniers are a must for
touring.
For commuting with a minor amount of stuff, I use a backpack. If I were
commuting regularly with a laptop or lots of stuff, I would use a pannier
and kludge a rack on my CX bike.

Seems to me the heel clearance problem with panniers could be solved by
a minor redesign of the rack, no?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

try nut spacers in the dropouts if horizontal.

The Kelty packs have eternal bracing ! I may have a Redwing but no eternal supports.

a stiff metal internal support or a plastic knifelike form isn't necessary.

the smaller suggests in bike jargon a plastic surface doing what ? I dunno. The stuff supports the bag not bag supports the stuff.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 10:31:58 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
********************

Jay, dismount as if ura riding a burro....lean the burro over then swing leg.

there's a French phrase...... en jule montour ?

[jbeattie]

Sure, even a smaller bag might do the trick -- or a bag with more cut-away for heel clearance. I'm sure you've seen people touring on racing bikes. http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12702169 I've done it, and it was fun -- although I wasn't carrying much stuff. People will tour and practically anything.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Chalo claims several multi hundreds on a Schwine. I met a "German" with full Ortliebs ona skinny tired, tight to the seatpost rear tire frame. Doin the Upper Coast to SF....he said at times he was ambivalent but generally pleased.

All fabrics in BLACK.

There's AGAINST THE WIND's Columbia retiree...

I say uhuh uhuh uhuh then examine gleaming bike for dirt spots.

Sometimes I ask how the bike n equippe is kept so freakin clean Dude ?

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 5:38:07 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On another thread someone was looking for a new backpack to carry his commuting gear in it. Many people suggested panniers instead.
>

There are alternatives. On is a large saddlebag, another is a largish handlebar bag. If you already have a rack for panniers, a rack top bag is convenient for carrying with you, and you can get some with small foldout panniers (I had one by Agu and found it very useful for the 12 years it was on my bike), and in high crime areas people might be interested in the hardshell rack top boxes with quick releases sold in Europe. An alternative I like because I live in a low crime area is handlebar baskets as on the bikes of some of my pedal pals. And I like pannier shopping baskets very much for their versatility, though I suspect the roadies, more concerned with their image or weight or whatnot, will think them intolerably stodgy.

My fave pannier basket is the Basil Cardiff and, while I have a pair, I usually carry only one on the bike because that is enough space. There's a pic at the top of this page http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGbuildingpedelec4.html showing in the basket a huge, heavy reference book of flora and fauna I wanted with me that day to identify some weed, far too big to fit in the saddlebag or handlebar bag (which were anyway full of electronics I wanted to test), so I popped on the basket; the basket just slips on over the rack rails, very convenient at the shops or when you have more gear than the saddlebag and handlebar bag can handle. Notice that there is no possibility of heel strike because the basket is designed to sit far back on the rack.

A utility bike is a pose job if the owner doesn't have a Basil Cardiff pannier basket. Basil's California pannier basket (called a "side fit basket"; perhaps Basil fears Americans won't know what a pannier is) appears to be made on the same principle (in fact to me seems the same) but may have different dimensions, or may just be a renaming of the same thing with a more familiar name for Americans.

The rack on my bike is a Tubus Cosmo stainless steel job and cannot be as warmly recommended as the Basil baskets, though roadies may find its narrow fit appealing. Everyone else will find it too narrow, too short, and Tubus, for all that money, cheaps out by not supplying all the necessary fittings. if you order one, order the extended fitting kit (ten bucks plus) to save the second carriage charge; it will be necessary, I guarantee it; in fact, I had to add further fittings from an older rack to make the thing fit my bike. In summary then, overpriced, underspecified in the fittings, irritating. Also rock solid once you've managed to fit it, and impervious to the weather, and surprisingly light considering what it is made of. But the irritation of dealing with Tubus' penny-pinching remains every time I touch the thing. Overall, a rip.

Andre Jute

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

basket needs nylon

https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=558&q=basil+cardiff+rear+basket&oq=Basil+Cardiff+&gs_l=img.1.1.0j0i24l2.2893.2893.0.5088.1.1.0.0.0.0.85.85.1.1.0....0...1ac..40.img..0.1.84.SGiTItrEOD4

no complaints for Tubus here ?

[sms]

On 4/10/2014 7:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Apart from the lack of braze-ons, a short wheelbase bike can be problematic with panniers. You get heel strike with some bags. My son's Kona Dewdrop is an over-grown MTB with a high BB. It has a rack, and I whack my knee on it dismounting -- something to do with swinging my leg so high to clear the saddle. Racks have some minor issues. I do like carrying heavy stuff in a pannier on that bike, though -- and of course, racks and panniers are a must for touring. For commuting with a minor amount of stuff, I use a backpack. If I were commuting regularly with a laptop or lots of stuff, I would use a pannier and kludge a rack on my CX bike.

You have to choose both the rear rack and the panniers carefully. A lot
of rear racks are very short so even with the panniers all the way back
you get interference. But you can buy some rear racks that are long
enough that when you position the panniers all the way back you
eliminate the interference.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't think about rack
length when selecting a rear rack and don't realize the problem until
it's too late.

One of the nicest rear racks, and one of the longest ones, is
embarrassingly only available here:
<http://www.landriderbikes.com/accessories_1.asp>. It's a Massload
CL-476 out of Taiwan, but it's not sold anywhere under that moniker.
It's 42 cm long. A Blackurn Expedition Rack is only 32 cm long. That
extra 10 cm makes a big difference in heal clearance.

Robert Beckman used to make racks with long platforms but apparently
he's no longer in business as the website no longer is there.

There's also hacks you can do to solve the problem, i.e.
<http://nordicgroup.us/bicycleluggageracks/rackimages/extender.JPG>

[Sir Ridesalot]

For best handling of the bike you want the pannier center of mass to b e over the rear axle. Movingthe weight to far back can result in very squirrely handling especially if there is no load up front to help keep the front wheel touching the pavement of other surface you are riding on. I often see bicycles with the panniers aft of the rear axle or a least a vast majority of the pannier aft of the rear axle and I wonder what the handling of the bicycle must be like especially at speed. Genuine touring frames usally have longer chainstays so that the panner can be mounted in the best position to ensure good handling of the bicycle at various speeds. Moving panniers rearward to avoid heel strike usually introduces handling problems if there is a fair bit of weight in the panniers or on the rack.

Cheers

[Duane]

Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel
base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you
want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The
Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/11/2014 4:29 PM, Duane wrote:
> But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel
> base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you
> want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The
> Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.

Well, some reasons people do that are:

1) They don't understand that there are different frame designs best
suited to different purposes.

2) They already have a bike that they're trying to adapt, rather than
buying another one.

3) They're getting a really, really good deal on a bike and don't even
want to think about its possible shortcomings.

4) They have too hard a time finding a more suitable bike at a price
they can accept.

5) They've been convinced to buy a less-than-optimum bike by an
aggressive salesman pushing what he has in stock.

6) They spent too much time reading a bike magazine that over-emphasizes
"fast recreational riding" or racing.

7) They think an inch taken off the wheelbase is going to make them
much, much faster, or make their ride much, much easier.

8) They don't personally mind the detriments of the mismatch.

There are probably other reasons. I've seen all of the above, and of
course, they're not mutually exclusive.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

I was replying to SMS as his advice could result in a very squirrley handling bicycle if tthe weight is shifted rearward of the rear axle.

The only way I can see to enjoy riding with a rear rack on a short wheelbase bike is to mount very small panniers or a larger trunk bag. People with short wheelbase bikes often use backpacks rather than try to kludge something that is not going to be very enjoyable to use anyway.Just like you wouldn't enter a Clydesdale or Percheron or Shire horse in a race geared to thorougbred horses it's not gret to try to convert a racing geometry bike to long didtance loaded touring.

Cheers

[Duane]

Right. I was just agreeing.

> The only way I can see to enjoy riding with a rear rack on a short
> wheelbase bike is to mount very small panniers or a larger trunk bag.
> People with short wheelbase bikes often use backpacks rather than try to
> kludge something that is not going to be very enjoyable to use
> anyway.Just like you wouldn't enter a Clydesdale or Percheron or Shire
> horse in a race geared to thorougbred horses it's not gret to try to
> convert a racing geometry bike to long didtance loaded touring.
>
> Cheers

--
duane

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

well, upright or relaxed tourers are available over the TdF holdovers....the field is open for consumer choice.

But the racks doahn chose the consumer who has and will always come 429 Mustang/ 430 Challenger/454 Camaro colors with Mitty stripes. HOMBRE !

?! DIY bag are possible n also possible I'll get a DIY BAG video out if I can persuade Rita into some filmy underwear....

Is possible to remount with a thin 3 layer balsa plywood cut as a trapezoid leaving heels free to revo. Mount the ply then move bag south. The trap when well packed both frees heel and keeps weight near axle.

Jute's basket recommend looks a lot like the Chinese waste baskets seen at Walmort. Correspondence and review with the Bikepack crew made my steel Redline CX/Trekker A LOT HEAVIER AND THE BIKE GET HEAVieieieiR every time I pick it up n move it outside so I can walk back into the garage.

But around town a bag with skeleton removes a lotta mid distance wear n hassle.

until you run it into someone.

[x]

not that the 429 gives snappy handling like a TdF frame...JB recently bought a more relaxed ride in damping CF...a cobblestone racer ?

Tha's what many believe they want......crispness....where snappy handling is tiring over long distances....

people buy 'sports car' n they are buying very low power GT systems but with the bike you GET A SPORTS RACER SYSTEM.

if 'they' were happy then wood we see the more relaxed market ? prob. once the sports was saturated.

oh right, Lance came out for publicity earlier...I'll go check that.....

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/11/2014 5:28 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> The only way I can see to enjoy riding with a rear rack on a short wheelbase bike
is to mount very small panniers or a larger trunk bag. People with short
wheelbase
bikes often use backpacks rather than try to kludge something that is
not going
to be very enjoyable to use anyway.Just like you wouldn't enter a
Clydesdale or
Percheron or Shire horse in a race geared to thorougbred horses it's not
gret
to try to convert a racing geometry bike to long didtance loaded touring.

Again, if I had to tour with a short wheelbase bike, I'd go with front
panniers, plus maybe a saddlebag.

Front panniers put the load on the stronger and more lightly loaded
wheel, can give an aerodynamic advantage (mostly from shielding the
rotating feet from the wind, I think) and slow the steering a bit, which
can be beneficial if you're trying to ride relaxed on a tight bike.

I've used that packing scheme (plus a handlebar bag) on some "credit
card" tours, although that was on my touring bike, not a short wheelbase
bike. The scheme works very well, in my experience.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 4/11/2014 1:29 PM, Duane wrote:

> Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel
> base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you
> want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The
> Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.

You would not run out and buy a short wheelbase road bike for commuting
or touring. A lot of people try to re-purpose an old road bike into a
commute bike or errand bike because they prefer the road bike wheels,
bars, etc..

Unless you're carrying heavy loads for long distances it's fine to hang
some panniers on a rack. A rack with a long enough platform to ensure
sufficient heel clearance is essential, especially for those with larger
feet. We're only talking a few inches difference between a rack that
works and a rack that doesn't.

It doesn't cost much for the manufacturer to include the mounts for
racks and fenders. I haven't bought a new road bike recently, but in
searching for one for my son I was pleased that as I narrowed the choice
down based on size, frame geometry, material, price, braze-ons/mounts,
rims, gearing, shifter types, etc., the two acceptable models both could
have racks if ever needed.

[Duane]

Yes like I said you can find a bike to use for both. Roubaix works for a
road bike and panniers fit fine.
--
duane

[jbeattie]

I wonder how front bags would affect a bike with a steep front end (typical of short wheelbase bikes). I assume it would just make it sluggish rather than making it more twitchy. I never tried front bags on my racing bike because a rear rack worked and was convenient (plenty of room on the Cannondale drop-outs to drill and tap an eyelet). Kludging a front rack was far more difficult and would have required clamps.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Actually, a lot of people do commute on short wheelbase bies aka racing bikes. Many of those people use their commute to do intervals and/or sprint training.

Sometimes it doesn't take much rearward movement to upset the handling of a bicycle. I had a bicycle that was nearly unmanageable at 30kph until the entire rear rack was rotated forward about 1 inch. The rack leg ws in theexact same position but the deck and panniers were nw 1ich closer to the rider. It felt like a totally different bike and it handled really well at all speeds.

Also, not much sense in adding mounts for fenders on a racing bike that has no clearance for fenders anyway. Diffeent horses designed for different courses and/or uses

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.

Also, using a front rack means you have to use two bags and have nearly equal weight in both so as not to have to constantly hold the bike on course. And you can probably forget about any no hands riding if you're on a quiet stretch of road where you might be tempted to ride no hands for a spell.

Cheers

[Duane]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:43:07 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>> On 4/11/2014 1:29 PM, Duane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel
>>
>>> base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you
>>
>>> want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The
>>
>>> Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.
>>
>>
>>
>> You would not run out and buy a short wheelbase road bike for commuting
>>
>> or touring. A lot of people try to re-purpose an old road bike into a
>>
>> commute bike or errand bike because they prefer the road bike wheels,
>>
>> bars, etc..
>>
>>
>>
>> Unless you're carrying heavy loads for long distances it's fine to hang
>>
>> some panniers on a rack. A rack with a long enough platform to ensure
>>
>> sufficient heel clearance is essential, especially for those with larger
>>
>> feet. We're only talking a few inches difference between a rack that
>>
>> works and a rack that doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> It doesn't cost much for the manufacturer to include the mounts for
>>
>> racks and fenders. I haven't bought a new road bike recently, but in
>>
>> searching for one for my son I was pleased that as I narrowed the choice
>>
>> down based on size, frame geometry, material, price, braze-ons/mounts,
>>
>> rims, gearing, shifter types, etc., the two acceptable models both could
>>
>> have racks if ever needed.
>
> Actually, a lot of people do commute on short wheelbase bies aka racing
> bikes. Many of those people use their commute to do intervals and/or sprint training.
>

Absolutely. And I'm not the only one. Lots of bike of all stripes. Even
saw a couple bents today.

> Sometimes it doesn't take much rearward movement to upset the handling of
> a bicycle. I had a bicycle that was nearly unmanageable at 30kph until
> the entire rear rack was rotated forward about 1 inch. The rack leg ws in
> theexact same position but the deck and panniers were nw 1ich closer to
> the rider. It felt like a totally different bike and it handled really well at all speeds.
>
> Also, not much sense in adding mounts for fenders on a racing bike that
> has no clearance for fenders anyway. Diffeent horses designed for
> different courses and/or uses
>

Well if you don't mind a back pack you can certainly commute on a road bike
without racks or fenders. Same horse different course <g>

> Cheers


--
duane

[Frank Krygowski]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:26:12 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
>

> I wonder how front bags would affect a bike with a steep front end (typical of short wheelbase bikes). I assume it would just make it sluggish rather than making it more twitchy. I never tried front bags on my racing bike because a rear rack worked and was convenient (plenty of room on the Cannondale drop-outs to drill and tap an eyelet). Kludging a front rack was far more difficult and would have required clamps.

Yes, clamps are likely necessary. They were when I adapted my daughter's road
bike for our coast-to-coast tour. I also fitted a rear rack, handlebar bag, wider tires and fenders. All of that required considerable work, but once
that was done, it worked well for her.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:12:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.

I've never used them on a racing-geometry bike, but I've certainly never had
any problems with twitchiness or crosswinds on "sport touring" or full-touring
frames.

I don't see a reason that adding mass to the fork would cause the bike to be more twitchy. The polar moment of inertia about the steering axis must obviously increase, so any angular acceleration of the forks & handlebars would
tend to be reduced, not increased. What mechanism would counter that
tendency?

> Also, using a front rack means you have to use two bags and have nearly equal weight in both so as not to have to constantly hold the bike on course. And you can probably forget about any no hands riding if you're on a quiet stretch of road where you might be tempted to ride no hands for a spell.

I think the equal weight thing is overblown. I've done thousands of miles
touring, paying no particular attention to balancing my loads left to right.
I've done thousands of miles of utility riding with similar disinterest in
balancing loads, including riding with only one rear pannier.

Your bike may lean a degree left or right, but it's no big deal, in my experience. Bikes and riders are pretty adaptable. If your experience
differs, I'd be interested in details.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:15:29 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:12:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.
>
>
>
> I've never used them on a racing-geometry bike, but I've certainly never had
>
> any problems with twitchiness or crosswinds on "sport touring" or full-touring
>
> frames.

Snipped
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Therein lies the difference. Pure racing bikes do handle differently than sport touring or touring bicycles. The lesser amount of fork rake on a pure racing bike can lead to a lot of problems if you hang panniers on a rack on the front. One of your problems might very well be fot striking a pannier in a low speed turn.

There's pretty good reasons why someone commuting on a pure racing bike usually uses a backpack for their gear rather than trying to kludge a rack and pannier(s) to fit where they were never designed to fit.

Cheers

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

https://www.google.com/#q=BICYCLE+PHYSICS+COUNTERSTEERING

loading the fork may reduce the bicycle's raison physics from squashing front tire's contact patch down onto the pave into a friction hold mode not the usual rolling mode as main component in the bike's physical attributes.

with more and more on fork weight, the bike asks tube ridden more and more upright...not falling into turns.

sensation is powering a FWD system with rear wheel as a trailer. Sensation of riding a bicycle is gone.

Brandt and I would go around on this with Brandt taking an antagonistic position for loading the front end increasing total braking stability and control.

I argued a rear weight bias produced directional control that as more important than total short stop performance. Esp on low friction surfaces where total short distance stop wazingonna happen anyway.

If you load left over right then again the contact patch is irregular. Your analysis please....

maybe in high winds ?

idea of a fatter front tire than rear for loose surfaces supports the almost universal low front weight opinion.

[sms]

On 4/11/2014 5:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

> I wonder how front bags would affect a bike with a steep front end (typical of short wheelbase bikes). I assume it would just make it sluggish rather than making it more twitchy. I never tried front bags on my racing bike because a rear rack worked and was convenient (plenty of room on the Cannondale drop-outs to drill and tap an eyelet). Kludging a front rack was far more difficult and would have required clamps.

Twitchiness is a problem with front bags on a touring bike. Following
Jim Blackburn's advice and mounting them as low as possible reduces the
twitchiness. But you still feel it on fast downhill runs when the bags
are fully loaded. Nothing much you can do about it.

Almost no road bikes have the braze-ons on the front fork for low-rider
rear racks. You don't want to be using U-Bolt clamps on anything but a
steel fork, and even then they're a kludge.

Panniers on a road bike are not for heavy loads for long distances, but
there are occasions when you want to carry stuff even on a road bike but
don't want to wear a pack.

[Király]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On another thread someone was looking for a new backpack to carry his
> commuting gear in it. Many people suggested panniers instead.

I use a backpack. But I don't wear it while riding. It goes in the milk
crate that is strapped on top of my rear rack.

--
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/12/2014 1:10 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:> On Saturday, April 12, 2014

12:15:29 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:12:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy
especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't
have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and
P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've never used them on a racing-geometry bike, but I've certainly
never had any problems with twitchiness or crosswinds on "sport touring"
or full-touring frames.
> Snipped
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Therein lies the difference. Pure racing bikes do handle differently
than sport
touring or touring bicycles. The lesser amount of fork rake on a pure
racing bike
can lead to a lot of problems if you hang panniers on a rack on the front.
One of your problems might very well be fot striking a pannier in a low
speed turn.

-----------

I certainly agree that racing bikes handle differently. But
mechanically speaking, I still can't see any mechanism that would cause
front panniers to increase twitchiness. Again, the mass slows the
steering response, which is the opposite of twitchiness.

BTW, I've used at least three different makes of front panniers over the
years. With every set I've used or seen, it's impossible for a rider's
foot to strike a pannier while riding. The panniers never reach anywhere
near the rear quadrant of the front wheel.

> There's pretty good reasons why someone commuting on a pure racing
bike usually uses a backpack for their gear rather than trying to kludge
a rack and pannier(s) to fit where they were never designed to fit.

---------

It's fine by me if people prefer backpacks. The descriptions of
benefits and detriments should be realistic, though. I don't think
twitchiness from front panniers is realistic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

ddddddddddddddddddd]]]]]]


?! no Europa Buick for SMS !

TWITCH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Give or cause to give a short, sudden jerking or convulsive movement:
[no object]: 'he saw her lips twitch and her eyelids flutter'

[with object]: 'the dog twitched his ears'


More example sentences {less humor}





Synonyms





1.1 [with object] Cause to move in a specified direction by giving a sharp pull:
'he twitched a cigarette out of a packet'


how forks twitch over a squashed contact patch ?

maybe with 140 pounds air front and 40 pounds of BS on the back....

Brandt's Disease ??

[Dan O]

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:16:26 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

<snip>

>
> I certainly agree that racing bikes handle differently. But
> mechanically speaking, I still can't see any mechanism that would cause
> front panniers to increase twitchiness. Again, the mass slows the
> steering response, which is the opposite of twitchiness.
>

You're right, I think. I think they've mischaracterized the effect
of loading the front end on bike handling. I agree with you that
it's the opposite of twitchiness.

And while it might be possible to find one perfect balance point
to put the mass up front that would allow for at least elegant
(if less readily responsive) handling, twitchiness is not inherently
bad; it's just a parameter. Some of us prefer it to sluggishness
(which becomes pronounced as relatively small amounts of mass are
added around and attached to the front end of a bike IME).

Worse than the sluggishness (for me) is the latent inertia added to
the steering, which, to be frank, I find scary.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Go borrow a racing geometry bicycle mount a lowrider rack on the front fork. Put a pannier on it or two panniers (one on each side) and go ride that bike. You'll soon find that the handling is a lot more squirrely than if you did the same thing with a sport touring or touring bike.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/12/2014 4:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
>
> Go borrow a racing geometry bicycle mount a lowrider rack on the front fork.
Put a pannier on it or two panniers (one on each side) and go ride that
bike.
You'll soon find that the handling is a lot more squirrely than if you
did the
same thing with a sport touring or touring bike.

Well, I thought the claim was that the racing bike with front panniers
on low-rider racks would be more twitchy than without the load in front.
IOW, I thought the comparison was between the same bike, loaded and
unloaded. That's why I said adding mass would increase the polar moment
of inertia.

I don't doubt that a racing frame would be a bit twitchier than a
touring frame. But ISTM that was not the question being addressed.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 13/04/14 02:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
> It's fine by me if people prefer backpacks. The descriptions of
> benefits and detriments should be realistic, though. I don't think
> twitchiness from front panniers is realistic.
>

My first full size bicycle was a Repco Superlite. Not very "lite"
actually. Just 4130 CroMo steel and cheap parts.

I joined the local touring club and went camping touring a few times on
that bike. It had eyelets on the drop outs.

Ok, it wasn't high end race, even for back in the 80's, but it handled
fine with heavy panniers, front and back and a handlebar bag.

--
JS

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

weight not mass....weight is force, mass is substance....

at extreme front weights , balance concerns when moving are frontal, when not moving more rearward...distributed evenly or not.\

I've tried recalling moments of tire grab or pull....not twitchy...but the motion isnot that the motion of pull is lack of forethought in balance...as the load(s) diminished or eliminated the bike geometry/physics of falling into a turn. There's no'fall'here the position is upright or crash.

32c Messengers on double wall Sunrims...maybe 50 pounds front...80 pounds rear I weigh abt 165.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Take a pure racing bike, ride it, add a front lowrider rack and load some stuff into panniers attached to that rack, ride that *SAME* bike again. Notice difference in handling. Cross winds and strong gusts will really affect the handling of a racing bike with panniers on a low rider rack. That wind is also why discsor disc covers are not a good idea on a road bike on the road but are okay on the rear wheel.

Cheers

Cheers

[Joe Riel]

Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> writes:

> Take a pure racing bike, ride it, add a front lowrider rack and load
> some stuff into panniers attached to that rack, ride that *SAME* bike
> again. Notice difference in handling. Cross winds and strong gusts
> will really affect the handling of a racing bike with panniers on a
> low rider rack. That wind is also why discsor disc covers are not a
> good idea on a road bike on the road but are okay on the rear wheel.

My Moulton came with wheel covers. I used the one on the rear for
a few years, but don't bother anymore. I tried the one on the front,
but it made riding no hands exceptionally sketchy, so that didn't
last long.

--
Joe Riel

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm curious how much you've actually used front low rider panniers,
and on what type of bike.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

Seems that you belive that adding a lowrider rack and pannier(s)will not negqtively affect the handling of a bicycle. Okay. Take a bicycle, any bicycle and try riding it with no hands. Now put a lowrider rack on that bike add panniers with a commuting load in them and try riding it with no hands/ I'm positive you'llnotice a deterioration in the handling of the bicycle with the lowrider rack and panniers on it. A gust of wind could have you eating pavement before you know it if you ride a front lowerider rack bike with panniers no hands.

As an additional thought. Why do you think thst bar end shifters, Brifters or Ergo levers are prefered by most riders instead of downtube shifters when carrying gear on their bike - especially gear on a front lowrider rack?

Cheers

[James]

On 13/04/14 09:55, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> Take a pure racing bike, ride it, add a front lowrider rack and load
> some stuff into panniers attached to that rack, ride that *SAME* bike
> again. Notice difference in handling. Cross winds and strong gusts
> will really affect the handling of a racing bike with panniers on a
> low rider rack. That wind is also why discsor disc covers are not a
> good idea on a road bike on the road but are okay on the rear wheel.

I guess there's a couple of things. A "pure racing bike" might not be
as stiff and strong as a heavy and solid touring bike. Also the wheel
base might be shorter on a racing bike.

My road bike, that I use for long all day rides, training rides and
racing, was designed with a slightly longer wheel base than the modern
"pure racing bike" I would say. I don't like hitting my toes on the
front wheel, and I wanted to be able to fit a fat tyre (up 28mm) on the
rear.

I'm still highly competitive at our club. I race A grade and regularly
get in the top 3 - sometimes a win.

If my frame had eyelets, I'm certain it would make a very effective
tourer as well.

--
JS.

[sms]

I only noticed the twitchiness on fast downhill runs where speeds can
get up into the 40 MPH range. This was on a true touring bicycle with a
low rider rack, front and rear panniers.

As someone else mentioned it may have been crosswinds hitting the front
panniers and causing the problem (this was out on the California and
Oregon coasts). I don't know if it would have been better or worse on a
shorter wheelbase bike. I'm sure that with a front high-mount rack that
it would have been even worse.

If you read the sales blurb on low rider racks back then, they claimed
that the extra weight, low on the fork, would actually help stability.
But they didn't take crosswinds into account.

[John B.]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:31:17 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I believe that the term "racing bike" would need further
clarification. Is it a track bike, a crit bike or (for want of a
better definition) a Tour bike. Or even a Tri bike as they all will
have different head angle, trail and bottom bracket height (or drop if
measured the other way :-) and often longer or shorted wheel base.

I had a LeMoud steel frame bike which was stated to be the same
geometry as ridden in the Tour and I found it quite stable. On the
other hand I had a Giant TCR-2 aluminum frame, carbon forks, that I
thought quite twitchy. Both so called "racing bikes" but totally
different in feel.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

try this again......adding fork weight DAMPENS or DAMPS fork response to environmental factors/vectors.

On racing bikes...not designed for fork weights...maybe added weight reduces already minimal trail to a point in the geometry where twitch happens. We non racing frame types may SEE this before racers.

Guessing touring frame designers go for a trail/head tube sweetspot in stability/response AFTER adding weight....15-20 ponds ? I'd design for Café not serious types who can go elsewhere if they know beforehand. No $$$ building for extremists unless ur S&W

intelligent and experimental weight distribution reduces overall negative steering problems esp at 'cruising speeds.'

But if the front wheel is unblanaced, headset bearings/races loose n elliptical then vvvvvrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Contact lost.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

UH uh YAWL KNOW when adjusting a system for optimum often...sometimes with fatal results...adju-sting past increasing positives to a negative where the 'bolt' snaps off...


a 'racing' frame's fork angle when loaded may do this and at unexpected moments, polar or tropical.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

its 'like' starting a fire by spinning a wooden dowel

[John B.]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:17:05 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

(that should have been spelled "LeMond" :-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/13/2014 12:47 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:29:46 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm curious how much you've actually used front low rider panniers,
>> and on what type of bike.
>

> Seems that you belive that adding a lowrider rack and pannier(s)will not negqtively
affect the handling of a bicycle.

First, let me repeat that I'm _still_ curious how much you've actually
used front low rider panniers, and on what type of bike. Your
statements are sounding speculation-based.

> Okay. Take a bicycle, any bicycle and try riding
> it with no hands. Now put a lowrider rack on that bike add panniers with a commuting
> load in them and try riding it with no hands/ I'm positive you'llnotice a deterioration
> in the handling of the bicycle with the lowrider rack and panniers on it.

I haven't used low-riders for a commuting load. I have used them on
many long tours, with full camping load, which (at least for me) is much
heavier than a commuting load.

The change in steering that I've always noticed is that the bike reacts
more slowly. That difference is immediately obvious. Again, it's the
opposite of "twitchy."

It is still possible to ride no-hands, at least on the Cannondale I've
used for most of my touring. It may be more difficult; I can't really
recall. I'll admit I don't do it as much when I have a load, partly
because I'm (even) more careful then, and partly because on a long tour,
I tend to treat myself very kindly. I'm willing to stop much more
frequently either for breaks or to, say, take off a jacket.

> A gust of wind could have you eating pavement before you know it if you ride a
front lowerider rack bike with panniers no hands.

Well, that's not my experience. Maybe I haven't hit enough wind gusts.
I remain curious about your experience.

> As an additional thought. Why do you think thst bar end shifters,
Brifters or Ergo levers are prefered by most riders instead of downtube
shifters when carrying gear on their bike - especially gear on a front
lowrider rack?

I think the _main_ reason most riders prefer shifters in places other
than the downtube is because it's now rare to find a bike for sale with
downtube shifters! That's especially true for touring bikes.

Personally, I moved from downtube shifters to bar end shifters in the
1970s and 1980s because the downtube shifters on the old Raleigh (the
one that's now my utility bike) were a bit low for my reach, requiring
me to bend down a bit. I realized I was having to do a sort of mini
pushup each time I wanted to shift.

The last bike I bought was a Bike Friday, which was custom built.
There, the options didn't even include downtube shifters, due to frame
design. Between STI and bar-ends, I chose the latter.

Incidentally, the Friday is certainly "twitchier" than the other bikes I
own, although it's certainly not objectionable. Perhaps I should
consider low rider front bags, to damp that effect! But I've come to
really like a completely different luggage scheme for the type of travel
we do with those bikes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 4/13/2014 1:31 AM, James wrote:
> On 13/04/14 09:55, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
>> Take a pure racing bike, ride it, add a front lowrider rack and load
>> some stuff into panniers attached to that rack, ride that *SAME* bike
>> again. Notice difference in handling. Cross winds and strong gusts
>> will really affect the handling of a racing bike with panniers on a
>> low rider rack. That wind is also why discsor disc covers are not a
>> good idea on a road bike on the road but are okay on the rear wheel.
>
> I guess there's a couple of things. A "pure racing bike" might not be
> as stiff and strong as a heavy and solid touring bike. Also the wheel
> base might be shorter on a racing bike.

One of my friends once bought a really nice custom touring frame, a
steel frame built just for him. (This was back in 1991, I think.) He
came along on one short tour with my family. He was very disappointed
to find that the bike had terrible shimmy at any speed over about 25
mph. Since he was using the same panniers that I was, we suspected that
the tubing itself was too flexible.

And it's possible he specified a super-light tube set, even thought
that's not wise in a touring frame. He is the most "weight weenie" of
all my bike friends.

Anyway, tubing choice, material choice, etc. certainly can make a bike
less stiff. I happen to really like the stiffness of my touring
Cannondale, although I gather there are people who would not.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 13/04/14 19:46, sms wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 2:41 PM, James wrote:
>> On 13/04/14 02:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's fine by me if people prefer backpacks. The descriptions of
>>> benefits and detriments should be realistic, though. I don't think
>>> twitchiness from front panniers is realistic.
>>>
>>
>> My first full size bicycle was a Repco Superlite. Not very "lite"
>> actually. Just 4130 CroMo steel and cheap parts.
>>
>> I joined the local touring club and went camping touring a few times on
>> that bike. It had eyelets on the drop outs.
>>
>> Ok, it wasn't high end race, even for back in the 80's, but it handled
>> fine with heavy panniers, front and back and a handlebar bag.
>
> I only noticed the twitchiness on fast downhill runs where speeds can
> get up into the 40 MPH range. This was on a true touring bicycle with a
> low rider rack, front and rear panniers.

If anything, steering becomes heavy with front panniers, but isn't very
noticeable at speed, where turn radii are big.

> As someone else mentioned it may have been crosswinds hitting the front
> panniers and causing the problem (this was out on the California and
> Oregon coasts). I don't know if it would have been better or worse on a
> shorter wheelbase bike. I'm sure that with a front high-mount rack that
> it would have been even worse.
>
> If you read the sales blurb on low rider racks back then, they claimed
> that the extra weight, low on the fork, would actually help stability.
> But they didn't take crosswinds into account.

My guess is that if the pannier is about centred on the steering axis,
the wind side load wont try to turn the front wheel.

--
JS

[James]

On 13/04/14 19:46, sms wrote:

> On 4/12/2014 2:41 PM, James wrote:
>> On 13/04/14 02:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's fine by me if people prefer backpacks. The descriptions of
>>> benefits and detriments should be realistic, though. I don't think
>>> twitchiness from front panniers is realistic.
>>>
>>
>> My first full size bicycle was a Repco Superlite. Not very "lite"
>> actually. Just 4130 CroMo steel and cheap parts.
>>
>> I joined the local touring club and went camping touring a few times on
>> that bike. It had eyelets on the drop outs.
>>
>> Ok, it wasn't high end race, even for back in the 80's, but it handled
>> fine with heavy panniers, front and back and a handlebar bag.
>
> I only noticed the twitchiness on fast downhill runs where speeds can
> get up into the 40 MPH range. This was on a true touring bicycle with a
> low rider rack, front and rear panniers.

If anything, steering becomes heavy with front panniers, but isn't very
noticeable at speed, where turn radii are big.

> As someone else mentioned it may have been crosswinds hitting the front
> panniers and causing the problem (this was out on the California and
> Oregon coasts). I don't know if it would have been better or worse on a
> shorter wheelbase bike. I'm sure that with a front high-mount rack that
> it would have been even worse.
>
> If you read the sales blurb on low rider racks back then, they claimed
> that the extra weight, low on the fork, would actually help stability.
> But they didn't take crosswinds into account.

My guess is that if the pannier is about centred on the steering axis,
the wind side load wont try to turn the front wheel.

I guess a wind gust not at some angle, not side on or direct head wind,
may affect one pannier more than the other. The other may be in the
wind shadow of the first.

--
JS

[James]

Yes, in 1991 the available steel tubes were still 1" diameter.

You can do a lot better these days with oversize steel tubes, that are
very similar weight, but a hell of a lot stiffer.

My frame uses (Columbus Spirit) 1.125" and 1.25" tubes in the main
triangle and is TIG welded.

My 1993 frame (Reynolds 853) has 1" tubes in the main triangle and is
lugged.

The frames are the same size. The 1993 frame is actually 50g heavier,
and quite noticeably more flexible. I wouldn't want it as a touring
bike, but it might be ok as a CX bike, being a bit softer. If only the
clearances around the back wheel were bigger.

--
JS

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

>
> My guess is that if the pannier is about centred on the steering axis,
>
> the wind side load wont try to turn the front wheel.

unless you stand it right side up....

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

###################

GNAW this tubing biz is a lotta whoeee. ITS THE CONTACT PATCH ****** !

your firend bought a super nice tourer then loaded the rear unbalancing front where tire/rim/hub may have minor probs. Figure incorrect tire pressures...

deal is contact patch looses adhesion on bumps then goes into a shimmy.

we advise filling a gallon water jug half full tying to top tube then sliding jug for the sweet spot rebalancing the rig without unloading/reloading.

has Frank toured Lake Eire ? we had herd the lake was coated in stinking green slime then Sea Kayaker did 2 reviews both ends sounds kinda Midwest nice.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:46:56 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>
> I only noticed the twitchiness on fast downhill runs where speeds can
> get up into the 40 MPH range. This was on a true touring bicycle with a
> low rider rack, front and rear panniers.

My Cannondale, with low rider front panniers, rear panniers, handlebar bag plus
tent & sleeping bag atop the rear rack, has exceeded 45 mph many times. No
problems whatsoever.

The most exciting time was descending Lolo Pass into Idaho. It was a
high-adrenaline scene for a few minutes. I kept thinking that if the heat from
braking blew a tire, I'd be in deep trouble; so I didn't brake much. But I
also kept thinking that if I ran off the road, I'd also be in deep trouble.

But no trouble occurred. The bike tracked perfectly then, as always.

> If you read the sales blurb on low rider racks back then, they claimed
> that the extra weight, low on the fork, would actually help stability.
> But they didn't take crosswinds into account.

And you know that... how? Seems it would be an odd thing for them to mention. "BTW, we forgot to ride in crosswinds."

I recall reading not a sales blurb, but an article describing how Jim Blackburn
tested load placement schemes by mounting weights to bikes in various positions,
then doing test rides. He claimed, IIRC, that low in front, but close to the
rider and _not_ low in back worked best.

IME, that scheme is indeed best. I've used others (rear panniers plus
handlebar bag, mostly) and I've certainly done well enough with them. But
handling is best with a good portion of the weight moved forward and low.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 6:46:00 PM UTC-4, x wrote:
>
> has Frank toured Lake Eire ? we had herd the lake was coated in stinking green slime then Sea Kayaker did 2 reviews both ends sounds kinda Midwest nice.

I've toured near some lakes in Eire, notably the ones near Killarney.

I've also toured the south shore of Lake Erie in the U.S., from Buffalo
to near Cleveland on a couple different trips. Most of that was on a ride
from Toronto to NE Ohio.

The thing I remember most was brutal headwinds, riding down on the aero bars,
staring at my cyclometer as it said "8 mph" for hours. Didn't get close
enough to the Lake to inspect water quality on those rides. But we were
at a beach on Lake Erie last fall. It was very nice indeed.

- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

I have been talking about commuting on a road racing bicycle not a loaded tourng bike.

A front lowrider rack on any bike lowers the center of gravity more than the same load on a front deck rack would and also allows the pannier to be mounted further aft towards the bike itself rather than hanging off the rack forward of the steering axis as it would on a platform front rack. Both of those improves handling.

A handlebar bag is about the worst lace you could hang a lot of weight on a bicycle as it too is mostly forward of the steering axis and creates a high center of gravity on the steering. Most cycling books and magazines warn about utting much weight in a handlebar bag lest the steering deteriorate.

Slow to move off track is also slow to recover. Thus the lowrider is still better than a higher rack. But again this thread is about commuting ona racing bike.

The nicest setup I had on any bike were my front AND rear lowrider racks. They had an open deck, lowrider racks, and a protrusion pointing downward from the middle of each side of the rack that a strap or something could be hooked onto. Many times I'd hook the handles of a grocery bag on that protrusion, swing the bag over the rack and secure it to the side of the rack with a strap. It was great for those unexpected stops when riding without a pannier.

Here's an image of the same racks but on my friend's bike.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/7987036102/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Cheers

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

But we were
>
> at a beach on Lake Erie last fall. It was very nice indeed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


https://www.google.com/search?q=state+parks+in+the+lake+erie+area&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=-GVLU9anKuXj2wXgyYG4Cw&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=558

Lake wind!

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/ofs/leofs/leofs.html

mounting weight down and inside contact patches increases stability with response as speed goes up...to limits of the patch.

my engineering math background runs out here....but centripetal...wrong word ? force from wheels with that touring weight placement allows touring as a possibility.

the racing bike's upright fork leaves minus room for loading weight inside the patch...

'like' loading luggage into your F2

[Duane]

Not sure if it would turn the wheel or not but any flat surface
perpendicular to the wind will cause handling problems.

Even aero wheels make life difficult with crosswinds. Though maybe if
the weight that you're carrying in these front loaded panniers is enough
it won't be an issue?

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++


try the water jug weight on rope to top tube .....weighted jug damps movements from bow and stern up top where swing is greatest.....as in Frank's tale.

the jug effectively 'moves' that lower bag weight more to bike's center eliminating the pendulum effect of two weights swinging back n forth at the end of a long length member - which is destructive, chaotic.

[Duane]

Let me get this straight. We're talking about road bikes here? Maybe
even what someone is calling racing bikes?

Ok, I'm going to be carrying some stuff going up a hill. Rather than
use a back pack in the off chance that I'm actually going to be climbing
with gear on a road bike, I will put front panniers on my bike.
Probably having to modify the fork to accept something like this. Let's
ignore for a moment that my front wheel won't even turn with my foot
forward as it is. Now because I may have problems with handling because
of this scenario, I'm going to put EXTRA weight on this bike? Pardon my
french, but fuck dat.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Hi Duane.

You got it. I was referring to Pure Purpose Built ROAD RACING Bikes and the thread got morphed to loaded touring and/or sport touring bikes.

Cheers

[sms]

On 4/14/2014 5:14 AM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> Ok, I'm going to be carrying some stuff going up a hill. Rather than
> use a back pack in the off chance that I'm actually going to be climbing
> with gear on a road bike, I will put front panniers on my bike. Probably
> having to modify the fork to accept something like this. Let's ignore
> for a moment that my front wheel won't even turn with my foot forward as
> it is. Now because I may have problems with handling because of this
> scenario, I'm going to put EXTRA weight on this bike? Pardon my french,
> but fuck dat.

As bicycles have changed in design and materials it's become more
impractical to use front panniers. Or rear panniers for that matter. So
you don't really need to worry about handling with front panniers since
the chance you'll be using them on a road bike are slim and none, and
Slim just walked out the door.

Shorter wheelbases, lack of braze-ons/threaded mounts, carbon forks, and
more fragile frame materials have conspired to make it impractical to
put a rack, front or rear, on many road bikes. But many cyclists really
hate riding with a pack.

There needs to be a distinction between "road bike" and "racing bike."
It's reasonable to expect that a racing bike will never have a rack
attached to it and the rider will never be carrying much beyond a patch
kit, a tube, a pump, a water bottle, and a multi-tool. On a road bike
that may not be a good expectation since many cyclists prefer a road
bike for, OMG, "vehicular cycling."

[jbeattie]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 6:49:19 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 4/14/2014 5:14 AM, Duane wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Ok, I'm going to be carrying some stuff going up a hill. Rather than
>
> > use a back pack in the off chance that I'm actually going to be climbing
>
> > with gear on a road bike, I will put front panniers on my bike. Probably
>
> > having to modify the fork to accept something like this. Let's ignore
>
> > for a moment that my front wheel won't even turn with my foot forward as
>
> > it is. Now because I may have problems with handling because of this
>
> > scenario, I'm going to put EXTRA weight on this bike? Pardon my french,
>
> > but fuck dat.
>
>
>
> As bicycles have changed in design and materials it's become more
>
> impractical to use front panniers. Or rear panniers for that matter. So
>
> you don't really need to worry about handling with front panniers since
>
> the chance you'll be using them on a road bike are slim and none, and
>
> Slim just walked out the door.
>
>
>
> Shorter wheelbases, lack of braze-ons/threaded mounts, carbon forks, and
>
> more fragile frame materials have conspired to make it impractical to
>
> put a rack, front or rear, on many road bikes. But many cyclists really
>
> hate riding with a pack.

You need to go to a better LBS. Mine are filled with bikes capable of mounting a rack. REI sells many rack-worthy or even rack-equipped bikes. Also, you can buy carbon forks with disc mounts and front rack mounts -- or use clamps. Only real touring frames/forks typically have front rack mounts (taps or through holes). You can put racks on a disc Secteur or Synapse and any number of other fast-ish bikes.

There is this weird belief that there were more options 30 years ago -- or 40 (or whatever your magical good old days were). There weren't. I can't think of a single bicycle type that I could buy then that I couldn't buy now. I can think of dozens that I can buy now and couldn't buy then, including moon-rover clown bikes with 60mm tires, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

uh apols to SR but the discussion is abt geometry and how geometry relates to loading a bike frame that is we expect conclusions as apullicable ideas.

SMS has assumed Brandtian proportions ! having escaped TdF Mania....what ? 5 years now ?

question: if the race geometry doesn't allow much front fork baggage room, what does happen when a front load is placed ahead of a fork without much trail ?

[sms]

On 4/14/2014 7:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> You need to go to a better LBS. Mine are filled with bikes capable of mounting a rack. REI sells many rack-worthy or even rack-equipped bikes. Also, you can buy carbon forks with disc mounts and front rack mounts -- or use clamps. Only real touring frames/forks typically have front rack mounts (taps or through holes). You can put racks on a disc Secteur or Synapse and any number of other fast-ish bikes.

Obviously you did not read the third sentence in my post, which you
conveniently omitted in your reply.

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

zzzzzzzzzzoooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmm

So
you don't really need to worry about handling with front panniers since
the chance you'll be using them on a road bike are slim and none, and
Slim just walked out the door.

Not so. SR The Canadian is off mulling this over...I meet Euro racers with luggage on the coast road. Grand Touring ?

[G.Dubois]

Today there are models like




http://www.vaude.com/fr-FR/Produits/Bagages-et-sacs/Sacoches-pour-v-lo/Cycle-28-black-anthracite.html




and, smaller




http://www.vaude.com/fr-FR/Produits/Bagages-et-sacs/Sacoches-pour-v-lo/Cycle-22-black-red.html

(sorry, references in french)

hibrids, i.e. they are backpacks AND pannier. With this type of bag I can
enjoy the pros and cons of both.




Cheers




GD



"Duane" <sp...@flarn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1506408998418816722....@news.eternal-september.org...
> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On another thread someone was looking for a new backpack to carry his
>> commuting gear in it. Many people suggested panniers instead.
>>
>> There are times when a backpack has advantages over panniers. One
>> advantge is that the backpack is immediately ready to go with you and
>> leaves your hands free. Another advantage is that the backpack makes it
>> far easier to go up stairs if you have to carry your bike. I rediscovered
>> that again today when I went to go out to the grocer for some milk and
>> other items. Our elevator is out of service yet again. The idiots here
>> keep holding the door open with their hand and that trips the sensor that
>> is there in case someone falls and blocks the door. Even with 20 plus
>> pounds and the bike it was a lot easier carryig the bike up the stairs
>> than it would have been if those twenty pounds had been in panniers at
>> the rear of the bike making it unbalanced towards the back.
>>
>> I think that a lot of commuters prefer a backack over panniers because of
>> the convenience of the backpack especially if they make stops to do
>> something and leave the bike, the loa is only a few pounds or they carry
>> their bike up any stairs.
>>
>> To stop my backpack from moving around over my nylon jacket I use a
>> leather toestrap as a cheststrap and it makes the pack quite secure
>> whilst allowing it to ride lower on my back. That also helps a lot with
>> cooling.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Another reason to prefer a backpack is if you have a bike that doesn't
> support panniers. A Tarmac has no braise-ons (can I still say that with a
> CF frame) and even if it did I don't think there would be enough clearance
> for the pedals.
>
> Your suggestion for the bag that attached to the seat post was an
> alternative. Or I could just use my touring bike.
>
> But for several reasons I'm opting for a backpack. One of my favourite
> reasons is that on the days when I can't ride the next day I just leave
> the
> pack in my locker and ride home like I wasn't commuting. Lol.
> --
> duane

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

Cela vient-il de couleur orange?

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:24:49 AM UTC-4, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
> Cela vient-il de couleur orange?

POLYESTER

Main Fabric: 100% Polyester; Polyurethane coated 600 D; Contrast material: 100% Polyamide; 210 D Baby Ripstop Polyurethane coated; Lining: 100% Polyester; Polyurethane coated 200 D; The rain cover: 100% Polyamide; Polyurethane coated 190 T

and clearly stated !

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

more polyester


http://www.seaskin.co.uk/acatalog/Seaskin-Tactical---Rucksack.html

[DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH]

On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:54:21 PM UTC-4, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:

more polyester

http://www.seaskin.co.uk/acatalog/Seaskin-Tactical---Rucksack.html


MORE BAGS



http://drybags.com/military-products.html