| |
Main
Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:22:36
From: SMS
Subject: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/".
This site looks at long rear luggage racks that provide sufficient heel
clearance for use with large panniers, for persons with big feet.
This quest started when I purchased an Arkel Bug pannier/backpack and
found that my current rack (Blackburn Expedition) was too short, and my
foot would hit the bag with every pedal revolution.
I've also included information and photos of how to shift the rack
position back a couple of inches, and how to mount racks on bicycles
where the seat stay braze-ons are too far back to use the brackets that
are included with the rack.
If anyone knows of any racks I've missed on the site, please let me know.
Steve
"http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/"
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:49:37
From: Jym Dyer
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Hey spammer, this stuff goes to rec.bicycles.marketplace ONLY.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 23:59:41
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Jym Dyer wrote:
> Hey spammer, this stuff goes to rec.bicycles.marketplace ONLY.
What are you talking about? No one in this thread posted anything for
sale. There is nothing for sale at the web site either. It's all just
informational.
|
| |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 19:15:18
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 13, 1:08 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <46bfe43d$0$16392$88260...@free.teranews.com>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@invailid.com> writes:
>
> > Tom Keats wrote:
> >> In article <TpidndruUpSZeCLbnZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@speakeasy.net>,
> >> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> writes:
> >>>> Incidentally -- Zoot extolls the various virtues of the
> >>>> XtraCycle.
> >>> that chick rocks! talking the talk means nothing - it's walking the
> >>> walk that matters. and she's right there.
>
> >> Well, ermmm ...
> >> Zoot's a guy, like you 'n me....
>
> > And all this time I thought Zoot was a dinosaur!
>
> If you want dinosaurs, all you've gotta do is look
> closer to ...
>
> Nuhh.
>
> Never mind.
>
> I hope you Americans get something like FDR back.
> (along with Eleanor.) Heh -- the 2nd (3rd? 4th?
> 5th?) Coming :-)
>
> Hey, Ike learnt from FDR, after all. In some ways
> Ike was more FDR than FDR. Highly-militarily-
> backgrounded-one-term-prez's, 'n all.
??? F.D. Roosevelt was Secretary of the Navy but never served in the
military. He was elected to four terms, but died in office; 'Ike'
Eisenhwer was elected to, and served, two terms
> They're the
> doves. The civvy suits are the hawks. In the
> meantime you're stuck with Herbie Hoover all over
> again. I feel for you.
Let's not insult Hoover by equating him with G W BU**SH**.
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:08:35
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In article <46bfe43d$0$16392$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <TpidndruUpSZeCLbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>>> Incidentally -- Zoot extolls the various virtues of the
>>>> XtraCycle.
>>> that chick rocks! talking the talk means nothing - it's walking the
>>> walk that matters. and she's right there.
>>
>> Well, ermmm ...
>> Zoot's a guy, like you 'n me....
>
> And all this time I thought Zoot was a dinosaur!
If you want dinosaurs, all you've gotta do is look
closer to ...
Nuhh.
Never mind.
I hope you Americans get something like FDR back.
(along with Eleanor.) Heh -- the 2nd (3rd? 4th?
5th?) Coming :-)
Hey, Ike learnt from FDR, after all. In some ways
Ike was more FDR than FDR. Highly-militarily-
backgrounded-one-term-prez's, 'n all. They're the
doves. The civvy suits are the hawks. In the
meantime you're stuck with Herbie Hoover all over
again. I feel for you.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 22:33:40
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In article <TpidndruUpSZeCLbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > writes:
>>
>> Incidentally -- Zoot extolls the various virtues of the
>> XtraCycle.
>
> that chick rocks! talking the talk means nothing - it's walking the
> walk that matters. and she's right there.
Well, ermmm ...
Zoot's a guy, like you 'n me.
And a nice guy, to boot.
I like to think I am too, and on the
side of my fellow riders.
But all that's neither here nor there.
The main thing is: while some people let their bikes
make them do work, it's only fair that other people
make their bikes (like the Uuba Mondo) work for them.
As I'm writing this, I'm groovin' to Chris Squire's
"Fish Out Of Water" (Silently Falling), and indulging
in some stuff that a guy at work gave me.
Gawd, I love people, and I love life!!
It makes my heart feel full. Heh :)
Many blessing upon yez.
Maybe check out the Perseid meteor shower.
Throw-on Syd Barrett's Astronomie Dominie
on the music machine.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 00:47:01
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <TpidndruUpSZeCLbnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>>> Incidentally -- Zoot extolls the various virtues of the
>>> XtraCycle.
>> that chick rocks! talking the talk means nothing - it's walking the
>> walk that matters. and she's right there.
>
> Well, ermmm ...
> Zoot's a guy, like you 'n me....
And all this time I thought Zoot was a dinosaur!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 21:36:58
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In article <6KmdnWvsz6eA6SPbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > writes:
>> Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
>>
>> To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
>>
>> Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
>> inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
>
>
> yes, except that with tandems, stiffness is a known issue and addressed
> as well as possible given the constraints. with this frame design,
> there's more latitude to address the problem, so to ignore it is just
> stupid.
Looking at the side-view pix of the Yuba Mondo,
it appears to me that the problem /has/ been addressed,
similarly to the way the problem has been addressed in
tandems. The Yuba Mondo is certainly not just a mixte
with a too-long rear triangle. Again, note that extra
seatpost, a la tandem.
But that's only looking at pix, and not subjecting the
vehicle to the real world.
As far as "triangulation" goes, to me that's just a
Pythagorean surveyor's technique for measuring distances.
Engineeringly, I figure using three (or maybe more) points
to secure a structure against itself is more a matter of
cantilevering. But I'm not an engineer. I'm just a
sometimes smartass.
Again I ask: how important is lateral stiffness in a
cargo bike? I have no ulterior motives in this question;
I'm earnestly interested and curious. It seems to me a
cargo bike should have some measured degree of flexibility.
I don't mean to argue with you. I'd just like to gain
some understanding via discussion and subsequent
thinking-about, and I appreciate your (or anybody else's)
inputs.
I'm also biased -- I do like the /idea/ of purpose-built
cargo bikes. I must continue to bear my own bias in mind
so as to discuss this matter intelligently. Maybe these
longtail bikes are total crap. Maybe we should carry on
with our Pletscher racks & Wald baskets and Serratus
panniers, and give-up any hope for anything better.
Incidentally -- Zoot extolls the various virtues of the
XtraCycle. But we have yet to hear any first-hand reviews
about the Yuba Mondo, or other stock, purpose-built longtails.
sincere cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 21:58:43
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <6KmdnWvsz6eA6SPbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>
>>> Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
>>>
>>> To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
>>>
>>> Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
>>> inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
>>
>> yes, except that with tandems, stiffness is a known issue and addressed
>> as well as possible given the constraints. with this frame design,
>> there's more latitude to address the problem, so to ignore it is just
>> stupid.
>
> Looking at the side-view pix of the Yuba Mondo,
> it appears to me that the problem /has/ been addressed,
not adequately imo. the main lateral loading is via the flex induced at
the bb, and this has none. yes, it has some through the quasi "mixte"
seat stays, but i have trouble believing that'll be adequate once you
get the vehicle out of the parking lot.
> similarly to the way the problem has been addressed in
> tandems. The Yuba Mondo is certainly not just a mixte
> with a too-long rear triangle. Again, note that extra
> seatpost, a la tandem.
>
> But that's only looking at pix, and not subjecting the
> vehicle to the real world.
>
> As far as "triangulation" goes, to me that's just a
> Pythagorean surveyor's technique for measuring distances.
> Engineeringly, I figure using three (or maybe more) points
> to secure a structure against itself is more a matter of
> cantilevering. But I'm not an engineer. I'm just a
> sometimes smartass.
"triangulation" can also be used as a term to describe bracing.
>
> Again I ask: how important is lateral stiffness in a
> cargo bike? I have no ulterior motives in this question;
> I'm earnestly interested and curious. It seems to me a
> cargo bike should have some measured degree of flexibility.
>
> I don't mean to argue with you. I'd just like to gain
> some understanding via discussion and subsequent
> thinking-about, and I appreciate your (or anybody else's)
> inputs.
>
> I'm also biased -- I do like the /idea/ of purpose-built
> cargo bikes.
me too. provided they're adequately designed.
> I must continue to bear my own bias in mind
> so as to discuss this matter intelligently. Maybe these
> longtail bikes are total crap. Maybe we should carry on
> with our Pletscher racks & Wald baskets and Serratus
> panniers, and give-up any hope for anything better.
>
> Incidentally -- Zoot extolls the various virtues of the
> XtraCycle.
that chick rocks! talking the talk means nothing - it's walking the
walk that matters. and she's right there.
> But we have yet to hear any first-hand reviews
> about the Yuba Mondo, or other stock, purpose-built longtails.
>
>
> sincere cheers,
> Tom
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 14:09:58
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:58:43 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>> Looking at the side-view pix of the Yuba Mondo,
>> it appears to me that the problem /has/ been addressed,
>
>not adequately imo. the main lateral loading is via the flex induced at
>the bb, and this has none. yes, it has some through the quasi "mixte"
>seat stays, but i have trouble believing that'll be adequate once you
>get the vehicle out of the parking lot.
Having owned an Xtracycle for a year during which I rode it as my
daily mount for five months, both light and laden, perhaps too much
is being made of "lateral stiffness".
Sure it flexes and that is perhaps just the nature of the beast. That
and a few other handling issues presents a short learning curve.
The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
That these longtail bikes are beginning to be introduced now
indicates that the market is ready for them. They're attractive to
people contemplating going car-free or reducing their number of
automobile trips. There's bound to be some sorting out of design
issues with the bikes. It's disappointing that Kona didn't include
mounting for side-loaders. I think motorising them will become a
popular modification.
. . . that and a keg carrying sidecar.
--
zk
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:18:15
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:58:43 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Looking at the side-view pix of the Yuba Mondo,
>>> it appears to me that the problem /has/ been addressed,
>> not adequately imo. the main lateral loading is via the flex induced at
>> the bb, and this has none. yes, it has some through the quasi "mixte"
>> seat stays, but i have trouble believing that'll be adequate once you
>> get the vehicle out of the parking lot.
>
> Having owned an Xtracycle for a year during which I rode it as my
> daily mount for five months, both light and laden, perhaps too much
> is being made of "lateral stiffness".
>
> Sure it flexes and that is perhaps just the nature of the beast. That
> and a few other handling issues presents a short learning curve.
>
> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
but the xtracycle is one of the better designs - it's the others
previously cited that i believe will be much more problem.
>
> That these longtail bikes are beginning to be introduced now
> indicates that the market is ready for them. They're attractive to
> people contemplating going car-free or reducing their number of
> automobile trips. There's bound to be some sorting out of design
> issues with the bikes. It's disappointing that Kona didn't include
> mounting for side-loaders. I think motorising them will become a
> popular modification.
> . . . that and a keg carrying sidecar.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:37:40
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:18:15 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>> Sure it flexes and that is perhaps just the nature of the beast. That
>> and a few other handling issues presents a short learning curve.
>>
>> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
>> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
>
>but the xtracycle is one of the better designs - it's the others
>previously cited that i believe will be much more problem.
My friends at Momentum Magazine are getting a Big Dummy and a Ute
later this year. They're planning to do road-tests and a panel
review. I've volunteered to help with that project.
--
zk
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:18:47
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:18:15 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Sure it flexes and that is perhaps just the nature of the beast. That
>>> and a few other handling issues presents a short learning curve.
>>>
>>> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
>>> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
>> but the xtracycle is one of the better designs - it's the others
>> previously cited that i believe will be much more problem.
>
> My friends at Momentum Magazine are getting a Big Dummy and a Ute
> later this year. They're planning to do road-tests and a panel
> review. I've volunteered to help with that project.
excellent - looking forward to your report!
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:08:05
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
>>> Looking at the side-view pix of the Yuba Mondo,
>>> it appears to me that the problem /has/ been addressed,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> not adequately imo. the main lateral loading is via the flex induced at
>> the bb, and this has none. yes, it has some through the quasi "mixte"
>> seat stays, but i have trouble believing that'll be adequate once you
>> get the vehicle out of the parking lot.
Zoot Katz wrote:
> Having owned an Xtracycle for a year during which I rode it as my
> daily mount for five months, both light and laden, perhaps too much
> is being made of "lateral stiffness".
>
> Sure it flexes and that is perhaps just the nature of the beast. That
> and a few other handling issues presents a short learning curve.
>
> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
>
> That these longtail bikes are beginning to be introduced now
> indicates that the market is ready for them. They're attractive to
> people contemplating going car-free or reducing their number of
> automobile trips. There's bound to be some sorting out of design
> issues with the bikes. It's disappointing that Kona didn't include
> mounting for side-loaders. I think motorising them will become a
> popular modification.
> . . . that and a keg carrying sidecar.
Been done, and nicely, by Phil Van Valkenberg, famous for his "Queen of
Sheba" bike/sidecar/keg often seen leading The Fat Tire Tour of (where
else??) Milkaukee!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:41:27
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:08:05 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
/
>> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
>> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
>>
>> That these longtail bikes are beginning to be introduced now
>> indicates that the market is ready for them. They're attractive to
>> people contemplating going car-free or reducing their number of
>> automobile trips. There's bound to be some sorting out of design
>> issues with the bikes. It's disappointing that Kona didn't include
>> mounting for side-loaders. I think motorising them will become a
>> popular modification.
>> . . . that and a keg carrying sidecar.
>
>Been done, and nicely, by Phil Van Valkenberg, famous for his "Queen of
>Sheba" bike/sidecar/keg often seen leading The Fat Tire Tour of (where
>else??) Milkaukee!
And no doubt popular
I'd think a tripod is probably best for handling a sloshing load.
Chariot makes a bolt on sidecar for carrying kids that isn't even
rated for a quarter-keg. I've carried more beer than that (in cans)
on the Xtracycle. Despite the weight I never got dropped.
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 20:29:18
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 9, 11:51 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Serafin wrote:
>
> >> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
> >> completely wasted.
>
> >Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
> >still expensive. Is it the only CroMo bike sold under the Trek brand?
>
> >For touring, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or even the Fuji
> >Touring/Windsor Tour is a better choice. The REI Randonee is also a good
> >choice, and it goes on sale quite often, and the rack is very good.
>
> Racks are passe.
>
> Longtails are the super haulers of the future.
>
> The Xtracycle's ability to carry loads and passengers seems to have
> spawned a new breed of bike. They're probably improvements over the
> attached FreeRadical which is still just about the ultimate rack.
>
> In addition to the custom Fraser, there are some more production
> longtail bikes lined up for 2008 besides the Yuba and Surly.
>
> Kona has its new Ute and I read Giant is also releasing one in N.A.
> There could well be a few more at Interbike.
>
> Surly Big Dummy: <http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/FM3066>
> Kona Ute: <http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/kona_ute_white.jpg>
> Yuba Mondo: <http://yubaride.com/>
> Fraser Cycles Frontier: <http://www.frasercycles.com/bike.shtml>
> Xtracycle: <http://www.xtracycle.com/>
> --
> zk
Zoot - I stole your list (and credited you) for a posting on
CrazyGuyOnABike.com, the touring website. Thanks for digging those out
- I only new of 3 of them.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 20:17:51
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In article <6KmdnWTsz6f96SPbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> Just how important is lateral stiffness anyway?
>
> shimmy.
I doubt laden cargo bikes of any sort very often attain
speeds at which shimmy/oscillation becomes an issue.
And if it did, the rider would compensate by simply
slowing down. After all, these longtails are not
go-fast bikes for white-knuckle'd descents. Neither
are they for storming up the upgrades and tearing the
hearts out of the competition.
Pickup trucks aren't mid-engine hottie sports cars, either.
They just unassumingly do their respective jobs.
I think we should consider that these bikes are
built to meet a different set of criteria than
your typical sporty bike.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 20:53:58
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:17:51 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom
Keats) wrote:
>
>>> Just how important is lateral stiffness anyway?
>>
>> shimmy.
>
>I doubt laden cargo bikes of any sort very often attain
>speeds at which shimmy/oscillation becomes an issue.
>And if it did, the rider would compensate by simply
>slowing down. After all, these longtails are not
>go-fast bikes for white-knuckle'd descents.
The long wheelbase and semi-faired rear wheel on the Xtracycle makes
for fast descents especially if I get my butt onto the deck and out
of the air stream.
Descending the Knight St. Bridge with one bag of mortar was a white
knuckle event at any reasonable speed above jogging.
I now look for 2-for-1 sales on kitty litter just because it's easier
to carry twice as much when it's in two bags.
Like with any loaded rack, you can get weird handling depending on
how the load itself is positioned and secured.
>Neither
>are they for storming up the upgrades and tearing the
>hearts out of the competition.
Did you not see Message-ID:
<6p8j83dk1ajj9thn6bd423j41e8votdtfo@4ax.com >
. . . wherein boinger dude asked if Das Mule is motorised?
--
zk
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 20:30:54
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <6KmdnWTsz6f96SPbnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>>> Just how important is lateral stiffness anyway?
>> shimmy.
>
> I doubt laden cargo bikes of any sort very often attain
> speeds at which shimmy/oscillation becomes an issue.
> And if it did, the rider would compensate by simply
> slowing down. After all, these longtails are not
> go-fast bikes for white-knuckle'd descents. Neither
> are they for storming up the upgrades and tearing the
> hearts out of the competition.
>
> Pickup trucks aren't mid-engine hottie sports cars, either.
> They just unassumingly do their respective jobs.
>
> I think we should consider that these bikes are
> built to meet a different set of criteria than
> your typical sporty bike.
>
>
> cheers,
> Tom
>
shimmy may be most commonly encountered at higher speed, but a bike
prone to it can have shimmy occur at really very low speeds. my della
santa with a ritchie ocr rear wheel and one of the older reynolds
[carbon comp?] forks on it would shimmy at about 5mph if you took your
hands off the bars. unreal. i've encountered a low speed shimmy while
ascending on a touring bike one time too. it's just a question of
harmonics. zoot mentions reactive loads - they make a big difference too.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 18:42:22
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 11, 5:06 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 10:42 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> John Serafin wrote:
> >>> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
> >>> completely wasted.
> >> Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
> >> still expensive.
>
> > "they've wrecked it"? How so?
>
> 1. The steering tube is too short for riders that will use the bicycle
> for touring.
That's a potentially serious issue. I haven't seen a 'newer'
production Trek 520 in person. Perhapsa a 520 owner or a Trek dealer
can comment (?).
> For loaded touring, most people prefer the bars at seat
> level or above.
Careful with those broad generalizations. I know several people,
myself included, who like the bar *slightly* below seat level on their
tourers. But, yes, the rider should have the option.
>Yes, you can fix that with an extender, but that's
> funky. Look at the Surly LHT. They still use a threadless headset, but
> the handlebars are high enough, and can be lowered if desired. Even the
> $600 Windsor Tourist from bikesdirect doesn't have this issue, though
> they've stuck with a threaded headset, so it's a lot easier.
>
> 2. Tires. You want 700 x 35 for touring. Yes, it's not a big deal to
> change the tires, but they should have included 700 x 35 tires. But
> since they're not really marketing to people that will use it for true
> touring, the 700 x 32 makes more sense.
You're nit picking here. Really.
>
> 3. Gearing. For fully loaded touring, in hilly terrain, the gearing is
> too high. Surly got it right with their 48-36-26 front gearing, versus
> Trek's 52/42/30. Actually in some countries, the 520 does have lower
> gearing.
That is an issue, but mostly because the 30t inner is too damn big.
Easily fixed, though.
>
> The rack is a minor issue, they probably decided to throw a $2 rack on
> there for people that just want something for a racktop bag. It's easily
> changed. OTOH, the competition, such as the REI Randonee, includes an
> excellent rack, and the Windsor Tourist even has a decent rack.
I agree the Novara Randonee is a better overall choice. Cheaper, too!
>
> Not everyone wants to spend $1200 on a bicycle then immediately start
> changing components and accessories.
>
> I guess the Trek 520 is what used to be called "Sport Touring" rather
> than a true touring bicycle like the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or the old
> Miyata 1000 or old Specialized Expedition.
C'mon now, the 520 geometry says "this is a touring bike". "Sport
Tourers" are a different breed; shorter chainstays, shorter front
center, different frame angles, etc.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 18:27:13
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In article <j3msb3lfrnq4cj8p4q5gdq71c4aq1f5jfq@4ax.com >,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > writes:
>
> Jim Beam made the valid point about the wheel base not fitting on
> normal bus bike-racks or possibly being too long for other forms of
> public transport.
I think that was actually "Rick" -- a couple of posts
up-thread from here.
Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 18:10:31
From: peter
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 15, 9:32 am, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:16:43 -0700, peter <prath...@comcast.net>
> wrote, in part:
> />> You can carry the bike with its load still attached.
>
> >You must be stronger than I am. If the load is sufficient to warrant
> >use of a trailer then I generally can't lift it easily by itself, much
> >less with a long bike attached.
>
> Xtracycle have a "gravity advantage juju" located low at the bike's
> new center of balance. The front of the bike acts as a lever for
> balancing the load. I guess what I can lift with my legs is my limit.
Yes, but adding the bike weight to that of the load doesn't make
things easier. Loads that I can easily lift I would usually carry in
regular panniers or on a rear rack, so when I switch to a trailer it's
generally for something pretty heavy.
>
> It works great with the normal loads I carry on the Xtracycle. It's
> really just an impressive stunt that comes in handy when parking.
> Surface camber and slope is critical when using a side stand.
>
> >> It can be adapted to carry longer items than most trailers handle.
>
> >I tow my 18' boat just fine using a trailer. How long a load fits on
> >the XtraCycle?
>
> The same trailer you use for hauling your kids, dogs and groceries?
Same wheels and axle anyway. The rest of the trailer isn't needed to
tow the boat (but can be stowed inside if I have it along anyway).
>
> I've seen long trailers special built for various purposes. A boat
> hull, I'm guessing you talking about a kayak or canoe, basically only
> need wheels attached amidships and a tongue attached at the bow. Your
> boat can be any length.
Yes, mine is a two-person kayak. I don't even need any trailer tongue
- just lash the bow directly to the rails under the bike saddle.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:59:38
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:10:31 -0700, peter <prathman@comcast.net >
wrote:
>>
>> Xtracycle have a "gravity advantage juju" located low at the bike's
>> new center of balance. The front of the bike acts as a lever for
>> balancing the load. I guess what I can lift with my legs is my limit.
>
>Yes, but adding the bike weight to that of the load doesn't make
>things easier.
Sure it does. You can grab the whole thing, bike and all, with one
hand and stand up. That hand is your fulcrum. Lever the load level
with your other hand. Turn 180 degrees. That's simpler than turning
around with a trailer attached to the bike and it blows minds because
it appears effortless.
Off-bike handling is one of the things I'm going to investigate with
the ready-rolled longtails. Believe me when I say it's easier to
carry an Xtracycle than it is to carry a tandem.
>Loads that I can easily lift I would usually carry in
>regular panniers or on a rear rack, so when I switch to a trailer it's
>generally for something pretty heavy.
A bundle of fiberglass insulation is pretty light and won't fit on a
regular luggage rack or into panniers.
The Xtracycle behaves better than a bike with a regular rack when
there's a table saw strapped on there.
Sure you could haul that stuff with a trailer but it still isn't as
sexy as a longtail bike.
--
zk
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:48:36
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:27:13 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom
Keats) wrote:
>In article <j3msb3lfrnq4cj8p4q5gdq71c4aq1f5jfq@4ax.com>,
> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> writes:
>>
>> Jim Beam made the valid point about the wheel base not fitting on
>> normal bus bike-racks or possibly being too long for other forms of
>> public transport.
>
>I think that was actually "Rick" -- a couple of posts
>up-thread from here.
>
>Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
You're right. My bad.
Apologies extended.
>
>To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
Technically, bikes exceeding 185cm (73") overall length are
prohibited on SkyTrain. Das Mule hits seven feet on the nose.
Donald's barbecue bike and Douglas's monster chopper are ten feet.
We've discovered that city buses won't take tall-bkes even if the
wheelbase is normal. Everything else about the bike is too weird.
>
>Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
>inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
I found 130 pounds of live weight easier to carry on the Xtracycle
than third as much dead weight on top of the deck. Some of the
passenger's weight is below the deck supported by the foot rests.
The twitchiest load so far has been about 65 pounds of silk in
five-foot wide rolls without a stiff core. They were hanging off the
back of the deck and threw and extra hook into the normal S curve you
can get with heavy loads.
Two 45# bags of mortar mix were easier to carry than just one because
the load was balanced low on the bike. One bag on the top is slightly
better than one bag on one side and light bulbs on the other.
Carrying the heavier passenger was easier in terms of handling though
slower going up hills.
--
zk
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:56:06
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:27:13 -0700, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom
> Keats) wrote:
>
>> In article <j3msb3lfrnq4cj8p4q5gdq71c4aq1f5jfq@4ax.com>,
>> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> writes:
>>> Jim Beam made the valid point about the wheel base not fitting on
>>> normal bus bike-racks or possibly being too long for other forms of
>>> public transport.
>> I think that was actually "Rick" -- a couple of posts
>> up-thread from here.
>>
>> Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
>
> You're right. My bad.
> Apologies extended.
>> To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
>
> Technically, bikes exceeding 185cm (73") overall length are
> prohibited on SkyTrain. Das Mule hits seven feet on the nose.
> Donald's barbecue bike and Douglas's monster chopper are ten feet.
>
> We've discovered that city buses won't take tall-bkes even if the
> wheelbase is normal. Everything else about the bike is too weird.
>> Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
>> inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
>
> I found 130 pounds of live weight easier to carry on the Xtracycle
> than third as much dead weight on top of the deck. Some of the
> passenger's weight is below the deck supported by the foot rests.
>
> The twitchiest load so far has been about 65 pounds of silk in
> five-foot wide rolls without a stiff core. They were hanging off the
> back of the deck and threw and extra hook into the normal S curve you
> can get with heavy loads.
>
> Two 45# bags of mortar mix were easier to carry
right on!
> than just one because
> the load was balanced low on the bike. One bag on the top is slightly
> better than one bag on one side and light bulbs on the other.
>
> Carrying the heavier passenger was easier in terms of handling though
> slower going up hills.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:44:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <j3msb3lfrnq4cj8p4q5gdq71c4aq1f5jfq@4ax.com>,
> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> writes:
>> Jim Beam made the valid point about the wheel base not fitting on
>> normal bus bike-racks or possibly being too long for other forms of
>> public transport.
>
> I think that was actually "Rick" -- a couple of posts
> up-thread from here.
>
> Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
>
> To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
>
> Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
> inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
yes, except that with tandems, stiffness is a known issue and addressed
as well as possible given the constraints. with this frame design,
there's more latitude to address the problem, so to ignore it is just
stupid.
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 15:15:49
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In article <dsKdnTRmhKs7bibbnZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > writes:
>> In addition to the custom Fraser, there are some more production
>> longtail bikes lined up for 2008 besides the Yuba and Surly.
>>
>> Kona has its new Ute and I read Giant is also releasing one in N.A.
>> There could well be a few more at Interbike.
>>
>> Surly Big Dummy: <http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/FM3066>
>
> eh? lateral stiffness? does anybody ever get taught about
> triangulation at engineering school any more?
>
>> Kona Ute: <http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/kona_ute_white.jpg>
>
> ok.
>
>> Yuba Mondo: <http://yubaride.com/>
>
> nope. see surly.
Well, it appears (in the pictures) to have something
like an extra seatpost effectively shortening the
Yuba's mixte-ish version of the rear triangle. And
perhaps the side platforms tend to reinforce against
any lateral flex as well?
I've hauled fairly heavy loads on a conventional
mixte (rear rack,) and though the bike underwent
some fishtail-y whippiness, nothing worse than a
funny feeling happened. Maybe I've just been lucky.
Just how important is lateral stiffness anyway?
I'm reminded of the parable of the stiff oak and
the flexible reed in the windstorm; also of the
impressive flex in B-52 wings. If there are accounts
to be told of longtail bikes under load snapping like
twigs, I'm all ears.
I wouldn't discount this config until subjecting it
to the proof-of-the-pudding test. If I had the
wherewithal, I'd do it myself Unless of course I
get sidetracked with the wherewithal, and blow it
on something else.
At any rate, these longtail bikes have been successful
enough up to this point, to make it as far as they have
to market. Surely that says something, if not good, at
least not bad, about them.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:45:52
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <dsKdnTRmhKs7bibbnZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> writes:
>
>>> In addition to the custom Fraser, there are some more production
>>> longtail bikes lined up for 2008 besides the Yuba and Surly.
>>>
>>> Kona has its new Ute and I read Giant is also releasing one in N.A.
>>> There could well be a few more at Interbike.
>>>
>>> Surly Big Dummy: <http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/FM3066>
>> eh? lateral stiffness? does anybody ever get taught about
>> triangulation at engineering school any more?
>>
>>> Kona Ute: <http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/kona_ute_white.jpg>
>> ok.
>>
>>> Yuba Mondo: <http://yubaride.com/>
>> nope. see surly.
>
> Well, it appears (in the pictures) to have something
> like an extra seatpost effectively shortening the
> Yuba's mixte-ish version of the rear triangle. And
> perhaps the side platforms tend to reinforce against
> any lateral flex as well?
not if they're not anchored [preferably triangulated] to the frame
laterally.
>
> I've hauled fairly heavy loads on a conventional
> mixte (rear rack,) and though the bike underwent
> some fishtail-y whippiness, nothing worse than a
> funny feeling happened. Maybe I've just been lucky.
>
> Just how important is lateral stiffness anyway?
shimmy.
> I'm reminded of the parable of the stiff oak and
> the flexible reed in the windstorm; also of the
> impressive flex in B-52 wings. If there are accounts
> to be told of longtail bikes under load snapping like
> twigs, I'm all ears.
>
> I wouldn't discount this config until subjecting it
> to the proof-of-the-pudding test. If I had the
> wherewithal, I'd do it myself Unless of course I
> get sidetracked with the wherewithal, and blow it
> on something else.
>
> At any rate, these longtail bikes have been successful
> enough up to this point, to make it as far as they have
> to market. Surely that says something, if not good, at
> least not bad, about them.
xtracycle appears to be a good compromise. and kona seem to understand
the triangulation fundamentals right out of the chute.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 20:05:11
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:45:52 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>> At any rate, these longtail bikes have been successful
>> enough up to this point, to make it as far as they have
>> to market. Surely that says something, if not good, at
>> least not bad, about them.
>
>xtracycle appears to be a good compromise. and kona seem to understand
>the triangulation fundamentals right out of the chute.
Kona's designers noticed the meme and talked with local owners of
Xtracycles. It's a bicycle company that seems to have its ear to the
ground when it comes to what's happening on the street.
(witness their selling a "beater" bike, with fenders, or a
triangulated "chopper" right off the hook next to their sport bikes)
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 14:34:48
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 11, 4:29 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Rick wrote:
> > Sheesh, folks who have axes to grind, and not enough thought process
> > to figure out all the angles, perhaps should go back to the whetstone
> > for a bit.
>
> I'm sure that all those posts about the Xtracycle were tongue-in-cheek.
> Some people feel compelled to respond to every post, whether or not they
> have anything useful to add to the discussion!
Oooops! There goes another exploding Irony Meter! ;-)
|
| |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 11:17:17
From: daveornee
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
SMS Wrote:
> I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/".
> This site looks at long rear luggage racks that provide sufficien
> heel
> clearance for use with large panniers, for persons with big feet.
>
> This quest started when I purchased an Arkel Bug pannier/backpack and
> found that my current rack (Blackburn Expedition) was too short, an
> my
> foot would hit the bag with every pedal revolution.
>
> I've also included information and photos of how to shift the rack
> position back a couple of inches, and how to mount racks on bicycles
> where the seat stay braze-ons are too far back to use the bracket
> that
> are included with the rack.
>
> If anyone knows of any racks I've missed on the site, please let m
> know.
>
> Steve
> "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/"
Tubus Cargo and some of the fittings available from Tubus.
I agree about the Trek rack as being a sad attempt, but it must b
cheap and meets some need.
Trek 520s are out there in large numbers being used by many cros
country touring riders, but most have discovered that the rack i
inadequate for that application. Many have also changed out the saddl
and some have changed to a lower geared crank for mountain passes.
I did my first cross country tour with an all steel rack built fo
handling my newspaper canvas bags. I did most of the 32,00 mile tou
using those very same bags, tent, sleeping bage, stove, clothes, food
water. Since then I have had many better equipped bicycles, gear
route details, etc., but my first tour on an old Schwinn 10 speed wit
a 12 pound steel rack was my most enjoyable.... I just didn't know an
better
--
daveornee
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 22:04:14
From: Rick
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 9, 9:51 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Serafin wrote:
>
> >> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
> >> completely wasted.
>
> >Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
> >still expensive. Is it the only CroMo bike sold under the Trek brand?
>
> >For touring, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or even the Fuji
> >Touring/Windsor Tour is a better choice. The REI Randonee is also a good
> >choice, and it goes on sale quite often, and the rack is very good.
>
> Racks are passe.
>
> Longtails are the super haulers of the future.
>
> The Xtracycle's ability to carry loads and passengers seems to have
> spawned a new breed of bike. They're probably improvements over the
> attached FreeRadical which is still just about the ultimate rack.
>
> In addition to the custom Fraser, there are some more production
> longtail bikes lined up for 2008 besides the Yuba and Surly.
>
> Kona has its new Ute and I read Giant is also releasing one in N.A.
> There could well be a few more at Interbike.
>
> Surly Big Dummy: <http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/FM3066>
> Kona Ute: <http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/kona_ute_white.jpg>
> Yuba Mondo: <http://yubaride.com/>
> Fraser Cycles Frontier: <http://www.frasercycles.com/bike.shtml>
> Xtracycle: <http://www.xtracycle.com/>
> --
> zk
Sheesh, folks who have axes to grind, and not enough thought process
to figure out all the angles, perhaps should go back to the whetstone
for a bit.
Beside the dearth of engineering to make these beasts stiff enough,
esp. laterally, the other big issue is that they are too long for many
modes of public transit. Hit a train system that is crowded and has
a length limit, you will be pedaling, not riding the train. Me, with
my rear rack, will wave to you from the train as we pass you by.
Basic message: these are a niche product. Once they are properly
engineered they will have a place. But rear racks will still be much,
much more prevalent.
- rick
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 14:29:54
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Rick wrote:
> Sheesh, folks who have axes to grind, and not enough thought process
> to figure out all the angles, perhaps should go back to the whetstone
> for a bit.
I'm sure that all those posts about the Xtracycle were tongue-in-cheek.
Some people feel compelled to respond to every post, whether or not they
have anything useful to add to the discussion!
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:16:43
From: peter
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 14, 6:37 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:13:18 -0700, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> What do you see as the advantage of the Xtracycle-type designs vs.
> >> using a regular bike and attaching a trailer when needed for
> >> especially heavy loads? Except for the added drag when climbing I
> >> hardly notice the trailer even when carrying pretty heavy loads. And
> >> it's nice to be able to detach the trailer in a few seconds and then
> >> have a normal bike that's compatible with regular bike racks, mass
> >> transit, etc.
>
> >Let me count the ways:
>
> >It handles better
Really? My bike with trailer handles the same as it does without the
trailer - just slower on the uphills. OTOH, my tandem handles like a
truck even if it doesn't have a load, and adding one does *not* make
the handling improve.
> >No pushme-pullyou effect
Hardly noticeable - and certainly far less objectionable than the side-
to-side force from having lots of weight loaded behind me on an
abnormally long bike.
> >Easier to carry passengers
I've had three in the trailer and it seemed pretty easy. Any more and
weight issues become a problem anyway on uphill stretches.
> >Less drag (extra trailer wheels add drag)
Rather minimal. OTOH, I have no extra weight or drag or inconvenience
on all the trips where the trailer isn't needed.
> >It's narrower, no hitting bollards or curbs
Haven't had a problem. But I have encountered trail entrances with a
deliberate twist that made it very difficult to get through with
anything longer than a regular bike. On a tour with our loaded tandem
we had to dismount a few times and unload all the bags so we could
lift the bike up and around the trail entrance barriers intended to
keep out motorized conveyances.
> >No worries about having to lock up two things
The bike and trailer are easy to lock up. The worry was about how to
lock up the stuff being carried.
>
> No need to carry two sizes of spare inner tubes.
No need in any event. 700c tubes fit just fine in smaller tires.
> Only one trip up or down stairs instead of two.
I'd rather have two easy trips than one difficult one. Negotiating
narrow stairways with a tandem was very difficult with two people -
I'd hate to have to do it with a similar length bike by myself.
> It fits through doorways and is easier to manage in an elevator.
Many of the BART elevators are just the right length for one regular
bicycle and the trailer fits nicely alongside. A longer bike won't
fit (nor is it allowed by BART rules). My trailer fits easily through
doorways.
> You can carry the bike with its load still attached.
You must be stronger than I am. If the load is sufficient to warrant
use of a trailer then I generally can't lift it easily by itself, much
less with a long bike attached.
> It can be adapted to carry longer items than most trailers handle.
I tow my 18' boat just fine using a trailer. How long a load fits on
the XtraCycle?
> It's way sexier than a trailer.
> And you can still haul a trailer with it if you need to.
I suppose I could do that too, but have never seen the need. I did
once see a tandem bike pulling a tandem tag-along with their two older
kids and that in turn was towing a trailer with the two younger kids.
Made for quite a train.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 11:28:32
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
peter wrote:
> Really? My bike with trailer handles the same as it does without the
> trailer - just slower on the uphills. OTOH, my tandem handles like a
> truck even if it doesn't have a load, and adding one does *not* make
> the handling improve.
There's a good article comparing trailers versus Xtracycles over at
"http://www.angusadventures.com/trailers.html", near the bottom
"Trailers Vs Xtracycle".
Of course the best solution is to have both, as each has its advantages.
While the Xtracycle isn't as good as a trailer for hauling cargo, you
can't carry adult passengers in a trailer.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 20:36:20
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:28:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:
>
>There's a good article comparing trailers versus Xtracycles over at
>"http://www.angusadventures.com/trailers.html", near the bottom
>"Trailers Vs Xtracycle".
Just below the little blurb that reads:
Warning: Do not attempt to descend steep hills with a heavily loaded
trailer. Learn the limitations on hills with safe run offs.
All laden bicycles require extra braking distance on hills. At least
a loaded longtail isn't going to push your rear wheel out from under
you under hard braking on slick roads. Unladen, it's easier than with
a regular bike to break the rear wheel free under those conditions.
His only gripe with the Xtracycle is that he assumes it's your only
bike and is difficult to convert back and forth.
He does mention its greatest asset which is having your "trailer",
without its inconveniences, with you at all times.
--
zk
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 08:10:19
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> All laden bicycles require extra braking distance on hills. At least
> a loaded longtail isn't going to push your rear wheel out from under
> you under hard braking on slick roads. Unladen, it's easier than with
> a regular bike to break the rear wheel free under those conditions.
I've logged a lot of miles (mostly off-road) with trailer-bike and
trailer (Bob), and have been impressed at how easy it is to jackknife,
especially in low traction situations. You can compensate to a degree by
using a lot more rear brake but it's still a real hazard, especially to
the unwary.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:32:30
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:16:43 -0700, peter <prathman@comcast.net >
wrote, in part:
/
>> You can carry the bike with its load still attached.
>
>You must be stronger than I am. If the load is sufficient to warrant
>use of a trailer then I generally can't lift it easily by itself, much
>less with a long bike attached.
>
Xtracycle have a "gravity advantage juju" located low at the bike's
new center of balance. The front of the bike acts as a lever for
balancing the load. I guess what I can lift with my legs is my limit.
It works great with the normal loads I carry on the Xtracycle. It's
really just an impressive stunt that comes in handy when parking.
Surface camber and slope is critical when using a side stand.
>> It can be adapted to carry longer items than most trailers handle.
>
>I tow my 18' boat just fine using a trailer. How long a load fits on
>the XtraCycle?
The same trailer you use for hauling your kids, dogs and groceries?
I've seen long trailers special built for various purposes. A boat
hull, I'm guessing you talking about a kayak or canoe, basically only
need wheels attached amidships and a tongue attached at the bow. Your
boat can be any length.
I've not done it but with the Wide Loaders and stand-offs, eight or
ten foot lumber should be easy. If there was a lot of it, it would
probably have to be equally distributed on both sides of the bike.
Trailers, baby seats and regular luggage racks are in no danger of
disappearing. They work for their designed purpose. Xtracycles and
longtails are here and work for many of those same purposes.
After getting used to its versatility it's hard to imagine life
without my Xtracycle.
--
zk
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:02:25
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
peter wrote:
> Really? My bike with trailer handles the same as it does without the
> trailer - just slower on the uphills. OTOH, my tandem handles like a
> truck even if it doesn't have a load, and adding one does *not* make
> the handling improve.
In terms of handling, you're much better off with a trailer than an
Xtracycle. The trailer doesn't really affect handling at all, aa long as
it's mounted down near the rear chainstays. You're better off carrying
the load lower as well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:38:56
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In rec.bicycles.misc SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> peter wrote:
>
>> Really? My bike with trailer handles the same as it does without the
>> trailer - just slower on the uphills. OTOH, my tandem handles like a
>> truck even if it doesn't have a load, and adding one does *not* make
>> the handling improve.
>
> In terms of handling, you're much better off with a trailer than an
> Xtracycle. The trailer doesn't really affect handling at all, aa long as
> it's mounted down near the rear chainstays. You're better off carrying
> the load lower as well.
Have you used an Xtracycle? Because that's not my experience. In a
heavily loaded trailer (I'm thinking of a Burly D'Lite), it affects the
handling much more than the Xtracycle. Keep in mind, usually the load
is fairly low on the Xtracycle for cargo. People tend to balance
themselves, so they are easier to handle (per pound) than 'dead' cargo.
Also, braking is safer with the Xtracycle. I've gone down because I
braked on a slightly damp street, because the trailer pushed my rear
wheel out from under me.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
A novice was trying to fix a broken lisp machine by turning the power off
and on. Knight, seeing what the student was doing spoke sternly, "You cannot
fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no understanding of what is going
wrong." Knight turned the machine off and on. The machine worked.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:32:35
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:02:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:
>peter wrote:
>
>> Really? My bike with trailer handles the same as it does without the
>> trailer - just slower on the uphills. OTOH, my tandem handles like a
>> truck even if it doesn't have a load, and adding one does *not* make
>> the handling improve.
>
>In terms of handling, you're much better off with a trailer than an
>Xtracycle.
And you've exactly how much experience riding an Xtracycle?
--
zk
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:48:30
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
peter <prathman@comcast.net > writes:
> Many of the BART elevators are just the right length for one regular
> bicycle and the trailer fits nicely alongside. A longer bike won't
> fit (nor is it allowed by BART rules).
>
BZZZT, There are no longer any rules about the maximum size bike
allowed on BART. Tandems and Xtracycles are allowed.
Other places may have such rules, of course.
73, doug
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 08:46:41
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> peter <prathman@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Many of the BART elevators are just the right length for one regular
>> bicycle and the trailer fits nicely alongside. A longer bike won't
>> fit (nor is it allowed by BART rules).
>>
>
> BZZZT, There are no longer any rules about the maximum size bike
> allowed on BART. Tandems and Xtracycles are allowed.
>
> Other places may have such rules, of course.
>
> 73, doug
Wasn't Peter referring to the elevators, not the actual train?
Neither trailers or xtracycles could be taken on CalTrain.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 12:51:38
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > writes:
> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> > peter <prathman@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> Many of the BART elevators are just the right length for one regular
> >> bicycle and the trailer fits nicely alongside. A longer bike won't
> >> fit (nor is it allowed by BART rules).
> >>
> > BZZZT, There are no longer any rules about the maximum size bike
> > allowed on BART. Tandems and Xtracycles are allowed.
> > Other places may have such rules, of course.
> > 73, doug
>
> Wasn't Peter referring to the elevators, not the actual train?
There are no rules applicable. Physically, some of the BART elevators
are tight for a standard 'cycle. And taking a trailer with even a small bike
(Bike Friday) into them can be an interesting excercise in packing.
>
> Neither trailers or xtracycles could be taken on CalTrain.
Nor can tandems, according to the rules.
OTOH, if you have a Bike Friday/BicycleR trailer/travel case, the
trailer can easily be converted to a standard suitcase, which is
allowed. And it can be used with 'cycles other than the BF.
But he said "BART". Caltrain falls under my "Other places..." caveat
(unfortunately).
73, doug
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 17:49:41
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:29:54 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:
>
>I'm sure that all those posts about the Xtracycle were tongue-in-cheek.
>Some people feel compelled to respond to every post, whether or not they
>have anything useful to add to the discussion!
Well now there's a useless contribution if there ever was one.
I usually find a file sufficient for putting an edge on an axe unless
I'm splitting hairs.
My post was to interject that there are other ways to carry loads
than conventional attached racks or cumbersome trailers.
Jim Beam made the valid point about the wheel base not fitting on
normal bus bike-racks or possibly being too long for other forms of
public transport. I concur that typical luggage racks will never be
entirely supplanted.
Sure I'm touting the Xtracycle and its derivatives merely because it
seems to be a configuration that works and is far more versatile than
normal racks.
For triangulation, there's not that many racks in current use
exhibiting much of it either.
As far as your rack site goes, like your light site, it will be more
useful when valid contributions actually influence its content.
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 12:27:45
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46bbcbaf$0$27223$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/". This
> site looks at long rear luggage racks that provide sufficient heel
> clearance for use with large panniers, for persons with big feet.
In your discussion of racks, you've missed off triangulation - where the
stays come into the rack at slightly different angles. Makes for a less
floppy rack.
BTW I'm fairly tall (6'2") and my "compact" frame works very well. Which
sort of puts your comment that they only work for short people in
perspective.
cheers,
clive
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 08:52:26
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Clive George wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46bbcbaf$0$27223$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/".
>> This site looks at long rear luggage racks that provide sufficient
>> heel clearance for use with large panniers, for persons with big feet.
>
> In your discussion of racks, you've missed off triangulation - where the
> stays come into the rack at slightly different angles. Makes for a less
> floppy rack.
Thanks, that's a very good point. I'll add it to the site.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 04:00:46
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 10, 3:18 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Apparently that's the case if you want to use Ortlieb panniers; I'll take
> > your word for it. But it's certainly capable enough for others. We sell a
> > fair number of 520s, and they get used pretty heavily. It's a bike that
> > almost never comes back with problems. Very conservative design, downright
> > boringly so. For excitement they change the color to a different shade of
> > green from time to time (although the current one is actually black I
> > think... how rad!).
>
> I counted six obvious issues with the 520 rack.
>
> First of all, touring racks should have three struts for sufficient
> stiffness and strength for fully loaded touring.
>
> Second, the rear strut should be a "dogleg" strut because this keeps
> panniers from hitting the wheel when they are mounted toward the rear.
> Blackburn realized this with their Expedition EX-2 rack, which updated
> their popular EX-1 which lacked the dogleg.
>
> Third, the struts should meet very close to the threaded mounting hole
> by the rear axle.
>
> Fourth, double tubing should not be used at any point along the side
> rails, as many pannier mounting systems won't work with double tubing
> (i.e. the Arkel mount). At a minimum, the double tubing should not be
> near the back of the rack.
>
> Fifth, there should not be a load stop at the front of the rack (though
> Trek is hardly alone in this).
>
> Sixth, if positioning panniers toward the rear, there is no place to
> attach the bottom hook of the pannier's shock cord without bringing it
> down at at about a 40 degree angle, which tends to lift the front hook
> up off the rack.
>
> On the plus side, It does appear to be a rather long rack. It's also
> probably very light.
>
> I think Trek realizes that the 520 is not really a touring bicycle, and
> that no one is going to pile a tent, sleeping bag, and heavy panniers
> onto that rack.
Do you mean that Trek probably knows that the 520 is rarely *used* as
a true loaded touring bike? That's about the customers, not the bike.
There's no real reason that a 520 is not suitable for use as a touring
bike.
>
> Since Trek listens to you, maybe you can encourage them to switch to a
> better rack on the 520.
IMO, the best decision would be to leave the rack off the factory
build and let the shop help the buyer chose a rack suitable for their
intended use.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 14:38:55
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> IMO, the best decision would be to leave the rack off the factory
> build and let the shop help the buyer chose a rack suitable for their
> intended use.
Perhaps, but this is kind of a pain, since most shops don't stock
appropriate racks, yours included. REI includes a good rack on the
Randonee, even though they don't sell the rack in the store. Also, it
costs the manufacturer a lot less for the accessories than it does the
end user--a rack similar to one that an end users pays $80 for at retail
would cost a bicycle manufacturer like Trek only a few bucks.
I think that sometimes it's assumed that every buyer is prepared to
start ordering accessories from around the country as soon as they get
their new bicycle. That may apply to many of the people that post on
Usenet, but a lot of buyers just want to buy something that's just complete.
I'm impressed that Performance is actually selling a true commute bike,
which comes with a rack, comes with fenders, and comes with a chain
guard that works with the triple crankset. You can just get on and go,
in normal clothes, without buying and installing extra equipment. Too
bad they didn't put a hub dynamo and lights onto it, but maybe they
figured that most people would prefer safer, battery powered bright lights.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 15:08:39
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
SMS wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> IMO, the best decision would be to leave the rack off the factory
>> build and let the shop help the buyer chose a rack suitable for their
>> intended use.
>
> Perhaps, but this is kind of a pain, since most shops don't stock
> appropriate racks, yours included.
Sorry, I thought I was responding to Mike, not you. I have no idea if
your shop stocks appropriate racks or not.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 03:54:21
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 9, 10:42 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> John Serafin wrote:
> > The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
> > completely wasted.
>
> Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
> still expensive.
"they've wrecked it"? How so?
IMO, it's more expensive than it's competition, but that's true of
every bike bearing the Trek name these days. That price premium
doesn't seem to dampen sales, sice Trek is currently perceived,
rightly or wrongly, as a 'premium' brand.
It would be a sad day were Trek to discontinue the 520.
> Is it the only CroMo bike sold under the Trek brand?
>
> For touring, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or even the Fuji
> Touring/Windsor Tour is a better choice. The REI Randonee is also a good
> choice, and it goes on sale quite often, and the rack is very good.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 15:06:34
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 9, 10:42 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> John Serafin wrote:
>>> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
>>> completely wasted.
>> Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
>> still expensive.
>
> "they've wrecked it"? How so?
1. The steering tube is too short for riders that will use the bicycle
for touring. For loaded touring, most people prefer the bars at seat
level or above. Yes, you can fix that with an extender, but that's
funky. Look at the Surly LHT. They still use a threadless headset, but
the handlebars are high enough, and can be lowered if desired. Even the
$600 Windsor Tourist from bikesdirect doesn't have this issue, though
they've stuck with a threaded headset, so it's a lot easier.
2. Tires. You want 700 x 35 for touring. Yes, it's not a big deal to
change the tires, but they should have included 700 x 35 tires. But
since they're not really marketing to people that will use it for true
touring, the 700 x 32 makes more sense.
3. Gearing. For fully loaded touring, in hilly terrain, the gearing is
too high. Surly got it right with their 48-36-26 front gearing, versus
Trek's 52/42/30. Actually in some countries, the 520 does have lower
gearing.
The rack is a minor issue, they probably decided to throw a $2 rack on
there for people that just want something for a racktop bag. It's easily
changed. OTOH, the competition, such as the REI Randonee, includes an
excellent rack, and the Windsor Tourist even has a decent rack.
Not everyone wants to spend $1200 on a bicycle then immediately start
changing components and accessories.
I guess the Trek 520 is what used to be called "Sport Touring" rather
than a true touring bicycle like the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or the old
Miyata 1000 or old Specialized Expedition.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 04:16:52
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On 2007-08-10, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/".
> This site looks at long rear luggage racks that provide sufficient heel
> clearance for use with large panniers, for persons with big feet.
I noticed your discussion of tail light mounting, where you talk about
using a standard reflector bracket and suggest various lights including
the Cateye LD1000. How were you able to get it to stay in place? I found
that because the light is so heavy I couldn't get it to stop pivoting
downward until I braced it against the underside of the rack. I even
tried gluing the reflector bracket to the rack but it broke loose on
a rough road.
Other than the weight, I've been quite happy with the light.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 00:50:46
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Steve Gravrock wrote:
> On 2007-08-10, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/".
>> This site looks at long rear luggage racks that provide sufficient heel
>> clearance for use with large panniers, for persons with big feet.
>
> I noticed your discussion of tail light mounting, where you talk about
> using a standard reflector bracket and suggest various lights including
> the Cateye LD1000. How were you able to get it to stay in place? I found
> that because the light is so heavy I couldn't get it to stop pivoting
> downward until I braced it against the underside of the rack. I even
> tried gluing the reflector bracket to the rack but it broke loose on
> a rough road.
>
> Other than the weight, I've been quite happy with the light.
On the rack I use it on, the little plastic stud goes into one hole on
the bracket, and the included screw goes through the other hole into the
light. It's very solidly mounted and didn't pivot or rotate. However I
was uneasy about the single screw into the plastic of the light, so I
used some very thin cable ties around the body of the light and the
reflector bracket. These were probably unnecessary, but the light is so
expensive that I didn't want to risk it falling off if I hit a bump.
|
| |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 03:32:09
From: John Serafin
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > writes:
>I've updated my rear rack site at "http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/".
>If anyone knows of any racks I've missed on the site, please let me know.
Well, there's the rack that comes with the Trek 520. I don't know if it
is available separately, but it is worth showing as an example of a rack
to stay away from.
It seems to be designed to be as difficult as possible to use with
Ortlieb panniers. There are all kinds of unnecessary metal and double
tubes such that there is only one fore/aft mount position and even
there, the Ortlieb attachment doesn't quite fit. Quick on/off is
completely defeated.
The reflector mount is far too flimsy to mount a 2 AA VistaLite.
The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
completely wasted.
>Steve
>"http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/"
--
Diesel exhaust stinks.
John P. Serafin
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 05:48:00
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
> Well, there's the rack that comes with the Trek 520. I don't know if it
> is available separately, but it is worth showing as an example of a rack
> to stay away from.
>
> It seems to be designed to be as difficult as possible to use with
> Ortlieb panniers. There are all kinds of unnecessary metal and double
> tubes such that there is only one fore/aft mount position and even
> there, the Ortlieb attachment doesn't quite fit. Quick on/off is
> completely defeated.
It might not work with the Ortlieb, haven't tried it. But we've certainly
used many other panniers on them without issue.
> The reflector mount is far too flimsy to mount a 2 AA VistaLite.
I'll have to look into that some more; haven't had anybody bring it up as an
issue. I know we haven't had any returned with the mount broken though.
> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
> completely wasted.
Apparently that's the case if you want to use Ortlieb panniers; I'll take
your word for it. But it's certainly capable enough for others. We sell a
fair number of 520s, and they get used pretty heavily. It's a bike that
almost never comes back with problems. Very conservative design, downright
boringly so. For excitement they change the color to a different shade of
green from time to time (although the current one is actually black I
think... how rad!).
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 01:18:30
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Apparently that's the case if you want to use Ortlieb panniers; I'll take
> your word for it. But it's certainly capable enough for others. We sell a
> fair number of 520s, and they get used pretty heavily. It's a bike that
> almost never comes back with problems. Very conservative design, downright
> boringly so. For excitement they change the color to a different shade of
> green from time to time (although the current one is actually black I
> think... how rad!).
I counted six obvious issues with the 520 rack.
First of all, touring racks should have three struts for sufficient
stiffness and strength for fully loaded touring.
Second, the rear strut should be a “dogleg” strut because this keeps
panniers from hitting the wheel when they are mounted toward the rear.
Blackburn realized this with their Expedition EX-2 rack, which updated
their popular EX-1 which lacked the dogleg.
Third, the struts should meet very close to the threaded mounting hole
by the rear axle.
Fourth, double tubing should not be used at any point along the side
rails, as many pannier mounting systems won’t work with double tubing
(i.e. the Arkel mount). At a minimum, the double tubing should not be
near the back of the rack.
Fifth, there should not be a load stop at the front of the rack (though
Trek is hardly alone in this).
Sixth, if positioning panniers toward the rear, there is no place to
attach the bottom hook of the pannier's shock cord without bringing it
down at at about a 40 degree angle, which tends to lift the front hook
up off the rack.
On the plus side, It does appear to be a rather long rack. It's also
probably very light.
I think Trek realizes that the 520 is not really a touring bicycle, and
that no one is going to pile a tent, sleeping bag, and heavy panniers
onto that rack.
Since Trek listens to you, maybe you can encourage them to switch to a
better rack on the 520.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 03:12:31
From: Paul Kopit
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
http://www.interlocracing.com/racks.html
Khyber
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 21:11:31
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Paul Kopit wrote:
> http://www.interlocracing.com/racks.html
>
> Khyber
Thanks, I'd never heard of them. I added them to the web site.
Steve
"http://nordicgroup.us/rearracks/"
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
John Serafin wrote:
> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
> completely wasted.
Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
still expensive. Is it the only CroMo bike sold under the Trek brand?
For touring, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or even the Fuji
Touring/Windsor Tour is a better choice. The REI Randonee is also a good
choice, and it goes on sale quite often, and the rack is very good.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 16:43:40
From: peter
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Aug 13, 5:41 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:08:05 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
> /
>
> >> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
> >> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
>
> >> That these longtail bikes are beginning to be introduced now
> >> indicates that the market is ready for them. They're attractive to
> >> people contemplating going car-free or reducing their number of
> >> automobile trips.
> I'd think a tripod is probably best for handling a sloshing load.
>
> Chariot makes a bolt on sidecar for carrying kids that isn't even
> rated for a quarter-keg. I've carried more beer than that (in cans)
> on the Xtracycle. Despite the weight I never got dropped.
What do you see as the advantage of the Xtracycle-type designs vs.
using a regular bike and attaching a trailer when needed for
especially heavy loads? Except for the added drag when climbing I
hardly notice the trailer even when carrying pretty heavy loads. And
it's nice to be able to detach the trailer in a few seconds and then
have a normal bike that's compatible with regular bike racks, mass
transit, etc.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 17:13:18
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
In rec.bicycles.misc peter <prathman@comcast.net > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 5:41 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:08:05 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>> wrote:
>> /
>>
>> >> The way the bike is loaded affects its handling more than could be
>> >> compensated by any reasonable amount of truss work, IMO.
>>
>> >> That these longtail bikes are beginning to be introduced now
>> >> indicates that the market is ready for them. They're attractive to
>> >> people contemplating going car-free or reducing their number of
>> >> automobile trips.
>> I'd think a tripod is probably best for handling a sloshing load.
>>
>> Chariot makes a bolt on sidecar for carrying kids that isn't even
>> rated for a quarter-keg. I've carried more beer than that (in cans)
>> on the Xtracycle. Despite the weight I never got dropped.
>
> What do you see as the advantage of the Xtracycle-type designs vs.
> using a regular bike and attaching a trailer when needed for
> especially heavy loads? Except for the added drag when climbing I
> hardly notice the trailer even when carrying pretty heavy loads. And
> it's nice to be able to detach the trailer in a few seconds and then
> have a normal bike that's compatible with regular bike racks, mass
> transit, etc.
Let me count the ways:
It handles better
No pushme-pullyou effect
Easier to carry passengers
Less drag (extra trailer wheels add drag)
It's narrower, no hitting bollards or curbs
No worries about having to lock up two things
I'd think of more, but I need to hit the road.
I've never had a problem with bike racks. I admit, I've never tried to
take it on mass transit. Other Xtra riders tell me you can take the
front wheel off and fit in the bus front racks fine.
I used a trailer for a couple years and never really liked it. The
Xtracycle is a lot more fun. It carries quite a lot even when I'm
carrying my daughters.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
One day a student came to Moon and said, "I understand how to make a better
garbage collector. We must keep a reference count of the pointers to each
cons."
Moon patiently told the student the following story -- "One day a student
came to Moon and said, "I understand how to make a better garbage collector..."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:37:15
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:13:18 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu >
wrote:
>> What do you see as the advantage of the Xtracycle-type designs vs.
>> using a regular bike and attaching a trailer when needed for
>> especially heavy loads? Except for the added drag when climbing I
>> hardly notice the trailer even when carrying pretty heavy loads. And
>> it's nice to be able to detach the trailer in a few seconds and then
>> have a normal bike that's compatible with regular bike racks, mass
>> transit, etc.
>
>Let me count the ways:
>
>It handles better
>No pushme-pullyou effect
>Easier to carry passengers
>Less drag (extra trailer wheels add drag)
>It's narrower, no hitting bollards or curbs
>No worries about having to lock up two things
>I'd think of more, but I need to hit the road.
No need to carry two sizes of spare inner tubes.
Only one trip up or down stairs instead of two.
It fits through doorways and is easier to manage in an elevator.
You can carry the bike with its load still attached.
It can be adapted to carry longer items than most trailers handle.
It's way sexier than a trailer.
And you can still haul a trailer with it if you need to.
--
zk
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 21:51:17
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:
>John Serafin wrote:
>
>> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
>> completely wasted.
>
>Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
>still expensive. Is it the only CroMo bike sold under the Trek brand?
>
>For touring, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or even the Fuji
>Touring/Windsor Tour is a better choice. The REI Randonee is also a good
>choice, and it goes on sale quite often, and the rack is very good.
Racks are passe.
Longtails are the super haulers of the future.
The Xtracycle's ability to carry loads and passengers seems to have
spawned a new breed of bike. They're probably improvements over the
attached FreeRadical which is still just about the ultimate rack.
In addition to the custom Fraser, there are some more production
longtail bikes lined up for 2008 besides the Yuba and Surly.
Kona has its new Ute and I read Giant is also releasing one in N.A.
There could well be a few more at Interbike.
Surly Big Dummy: <http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/FM3066 >
Kona Ute: <http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/kona_ute_white.jpg >
Yuba Mondo: <http://yubaride.com/ >
Fraser Cycles Frontier: <http://www.frasercycles.com/bike.shtml >
Xtracycle: <http://www.xtracycle.com/ >
--
zk
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 00:18:20
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> Racks are passe.
>
> Longtails are the super haulers of the future....
For real hauling I would just get a SUV.
<http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/ >
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 15:17:50
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> Racks are passe.
>> Longtails are the super haulers of the future....
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> For real hauling I would just get a SUV.
> <http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/>
Guy says "Whaddya got I can drive the wife around in?"
http://www.yellowjersey.org/organic.html
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 22:23:20
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>>
>> Racks are passe.
>>
>> Longtails are the super haulers of the future....
>
> For real hauling I would just get a SUV.
> <http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/>
>
do you have to lie down for /everything/ tom?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 00:41:36
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
jim beam wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Zoot Katz wrote:
>>>
>>> Racks are passe.
>>>
>>> Longtails are the super haulers of the future....
>>
>> For real hauling I would just get a SUV.
>> <http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/>
>>
>
> do you have to lie down for /everything/ tom?
Yes. ;) I am just a laid back person.
Not having to worry about balance is nice at low speeds and when
stopping, especially with a heavy load. Climbing at anything but a low
speed with a heavy load is not an option for 99% of us (assuming human
only power).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 22:12:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John Serafin wrote:
>>
>>> The amount of the purchase price of a 520 that goes to the rack is
>>> completely wasted.
>> Trek should just drop the 520, they've wrecked it so badly, and it's
>> still expensive. Is it the only CroMo bike sold under the Trek brand?
>>
>> For touring, the Surly Long Haul Trucker, or even the Fuji
>> Touring/Windsor Tour is a better choice. The REI Randonee is also a good
>> choice, and it goes on sale quite often, and the rack is very good.
>
> Racks are passe.
>
> Longtails are the super haulers of the future.
>
> The Xtracycle's ability to carry loads and passengers seems to have
> spawned a new breed of bike. They're probably improvements over the
> attached FreeRadical which is still just about the ultimate rack.
>
> In addition to the custom Fraser, there are some more production
> longtail bikes lined up for 2008 besides the Yuba and Surly.
>
> Kona has its new Ute and I read Giant is also releasing one in N.A.
> There could well be a few more at Interbike.
>
> Surly Big Dummy: <http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/FM3066>
eh? lateral stiffness? does anybody ever get taught about
triangulation at engineering school any more?
> Kona Ute: <http://bikehugger.com/images/blog/kona_ute_white.jpg>
ok.
> Yuba Mondo: <http://yubaride.com/>
nope. see surly.
> Fraser Cycles Frontier: <http://www.frasercycles.com/bike.shtml>
nope. see yuba.
> Xtracycle: <http://www.xtracycle.com/>
at least that's a conversion and the frame is not compromised. probably
the best bet of the lot.
|
|
