looking for ski/bike roof rack help

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Monique Y. Herm, Mar 13, 2004.

  1. Well, I just enacted Penny's very good advice and actually
    went to a dealer (in this case, REI) and got some advice.

    Here's what he told me to get, assuming I already have the
    ski rack and two steelheads:

    low rider towers ($125/4) 48" bars ($47/2)

    If I buy it by April 11, I can get the low riders for $100
    (member's coupon).

    He suggested sliding the factory racks to a different
    position rather than removing them, saying that you never
    know when extra lashing space will come in handy. He also
    said that 48" is just long enough for what I want -- if I
    want to add a bike, though, I'd have to go to 58". Like
    Shawn C, he strongly recommended that I stick with 48"
    unless I really know that I need the extra. And he claims
    that I shouldn't have a problem with ski binding depth
    with these.

    Seems like Shawn had all the facts on this one =)

    Now I just have to acquire the money somehow ...

    --
    monique
     


  2. Chris

    Chris Guest

    "Monique Y. Herman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 2004-03-14, Chris penned:
    > > If you're stuck on the Steelhead, get it, but I have to
    > > vouch for the Raptor. Fits every downtube ever, and you
    > > can leave the front wheel on...better for interior
    > > cleanliness, and I just have a thing about fork mounts
    > > (even though riding forces are the same on dropouts, I
    > > just don't like it).
    >
    > Doesn't fit Eric's Y-frame =/ Also, I'm wondering about
    > how much climbing I'd have to do to lock that thing
    > properly.

    Welp, a Y-frame would do it. The lock is in the big red knob
    that closes the downtube clamp...not that hard to reach, I
    would think. On my '03 Outback the lock is about 6' 6'' off
    the ground. No big deal for me, but if you are of the petite
    variety I see where you were going with the doubt.

    > One of the nice things about the Steelhead is that we
    > already have two on Eric's car; we could save money by
    > just moving them over.

    Then by all means, save your money.

    >
    > Your suggestion prompted me to poke through the Yakima
    > offerings. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is
    > between the Viper and the Steelhead.

    Think of the Viper as the "Steelhead Extreme." Bigger tires
    and disc brakes were in mind when it was designed; they
    claim there isn't a bike around that can't lock down on the
    Viper. Some stuff had problems on the Steelhead clearing
    disc calipers and such.

    >
    > > And, Penny was right: head to a store and look through
    > > the Yakima fit guide, or, even better, talk to an
    > > experienced salesdude/dudette. They always offer some
    > > advice/experience/clearance-priced alternatives that
    > > make things work out real smooth.
    >
    > Yeah; I just need a find a place I can trust first =)

    I think there's an EMS in Boulder...check it out. I've
    worked for EMS before, and while management and corporate
    types are total asswipes, I've found all the sales staff to
    be pretty cool. Much cooler when I was a part of it,
    naturally, but still. Nice and smart folks.

    > Stickers?

    A must. My last ride was covered in outdoor stickers (only
    surviving photo at http://www.pbase.com/image/13007144) and,
    while I'd like to continue to fly the flag on a new car, I
    also want to keep it clean and nice, so I only stuck a few
    on the Raptor rail...IMBA, Park Tools, Manitou, Sixsixone,
    RaceFace, RaceFace, and RaceFace.

    > I'm not sure what you mean by the interior of the WRX
    > feeling "immature"; can you give me some examples? Maybe
    > it's just because my previous cars were a Probe and then
    > a Celica convertible. I traded in the fully-optioned
    > convertible, so I guess I should be missing something,
    > but I'm not. I have tons of headroom and visibility. The
    > audio controls are pretty easy. The only thing I'm hating
    > is the cupholders -- there's one that gets in the way of
    > the stereo and is completely ineffective at keeping my
    > mochas from spilling all over when driving over a speed
    > bump; the other one is right where my elbow needs to be
    > when I shift.
    >

    The WRXs I drove felt too plasticy and had that fake
    aluminum stuff going on. By contrast, the Outbacks are
    plasticy with a fake leather/fake wood thing going on. It
    felt more adult - elegant even - to me, and it was nice to
    have a grown-up car for once (coming off a decidedly junky
    1-2-3 combination of GT Mustang, Dodge Caravan, and Ford
    Bronco II). I felt like the WRX was a college-kid kind of
    car and the Outback was an adult car. Even though I AM a
    college kid, I went for fake elegance.

    > Insurance was higher for me, but not ungodly. I also have
    > the advantage of the drop you get at 25, and I expect my
    > insurance to go down a bit more once I'm married at the
    > end of the month.
    >

    Lucky you. Us single 23 y.o. men get ravaged to the
    tune of about 2K a year on WRX insurance...and I have a
    clean record.

    > > If you end up using the factory crossbars and need the
    > > plastic adaptors that allow Yakima stuff to mount
    > > (MightyMounts, I believe) I think I have like 5 or 6
    > > floating around. Let me know, I'll send 'em to you.
    >
    > Well, thank you very much! I'll have to figure it out. I'm
    > definitely not buying anything till I see where the county
    > taxes and the honeymoon expenses leave me.
    >

    If you need to buy, check the online clearing houses
    (Campmor, Sierra Trading Post, RackAttack, online bike
    shops) for crazy sale prices, then go to EMS or REI and have
    them match it. And, if you find you do need some 24H
    MightyMounts, I might (no guarantees) have a half-dozen
    lying around my house.

    Chris
     
  3. Penny S

    Penny S Guest

    Monique Y. Herman ran this through spell check:
    > > Insurance was higher for me, but not ungodly. I also
    > > have the
    > advantage of the drop you get at 25, and I expect my
    > insurance to go down a bit more once I'm married at the
    > end of the month.
    >

    dunno if the law has changed any, but during the years we
    lived in CO the requirement to declare legal "common law
    marriage" was 30 days. So we registered as common law with
    our car insurance and saw our rates drop substantially as
    live-togethers.

    Penny
     
  4. On 2004-03-15, S o r n i penned:
    > Monique Y. Herman wrote:
    >
    >> I just filled up. It was like $1.88 for premium gas. If
    >> I'd gone for the regular gas it would've been more like
    >> $1.60, I think.
    >
    > On behalf of Southern Californians, BITE US! (San Diego is
    > over $2.10 for Regular.)
    >
    > Bill "of course, it IS sunny and 63 out" S.

    You say that as though that's *not* the case here!

    Actually, I'm curious now ...

    Okay, today it's only 50. But this weekend will be in the
    high 60s, with 71 on Sunday and Monday =)

    I was gonna go skiing, but that sure sounds like biking
    weather to me.

    --
    monique
     
  5. On 2004-03-14, Penny S penned:
    >
    > Now, If I know I'm going to need to lock them, or I'm
    > driving more thant 10 miles, I deal with the roof rack.

    We tend to head straight to a restaurant after most rides,
    so having something that locks securely is pretty important.
    Boulder has some ridiculously shameless bike thieves. In
    fact, we almost always eat at a place where we can keep the
    bikes in view.

    > Another advantage of a rear rack is that you can pull
    > into the garage without worrying about tearing the rack
    > off the car.

    This is true -- and it's much less likely that you'll
    accidentally bounce a fork into the roof as I managed to do
    to Eric's car yesterday. Oops?

    I've adopted my aunt's practice of taking the door opener
    off of the visor when we have bikes on top of the car --
    looking for the door opener acts as a nice reminder that you
    can't just drive in.

    --
    monique
     
  6. On 2004-03-15, Penny S penned:
    > Monique Y. Herman ran this through spell check:
    >> > Insurance was higher for me, but not ungodly. I also
    >> > have the
    >> advantage of the drop you get at 25, and I expect my
    >> insurance to go down a bit more once I'm married at the
    >> end of the month.
    >>
    >
    > dunno if the law has changed any, but during the years we
    > lived in CO the requirement to declare legal "common law
    > marriage" was 30 days. So we registered as common law with
    > our car insurance and saw our rates drop substantially as
    > live-togethers.
    >

    I'm not sure. Eric has a thing about not wanting to call
    ourselves "married" until he consider us really married, or
    something. So I hadn't really thought about it.

    --
    monique
     
  7. On 2004-03-15, Chris penned:
    >
    > "Monique Y. Herman" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> Doesn't fit Eric's Y-frame =/ Also, I'm wondering about
    >> how much climbing I'd have to do to lock that thing
    >> properly.
    >
    > Welp, a Y-frame would do it. The lock is in the big red
    > knob that closes the downtube clamp...not that hard to
    > reach, I would think. On my '03 Outback the lock is
    > about 6' 6'' off the ground. No big deal for me, but if
    > you are of the petite variety I see where you were going
    > with the doubt.

    I'm 5'5. I already find reaching up to get the bike off the
    intrepid with a steelhead to be an adventure.

    > Think of the Viper as the "Steelhead Extreme." Bigger
    > tires and disc brakes were in mind when it was designed;
    > they claim there isn't a bike around that can't lock down
    > on the Viper. Some stuff had problems on the Steelhead
    > clearing disc calipers and such.

    Ah. That's kind of what I thought, but I wasn't 100% sure.

    Well, they sound neat and all, but I doubt we'll need 'em
    any time soon.

    >> Yeah; I just need a find a place I can trust first =)
    >
    > I think there's an EMS in Boulder...check it out. I've
    > worked for EMS before, and while management and corporate
    > types are total asswipes, I've found all the sales staff
    > to be pretty cool. Much cooler when I was a part of it,
    > naturally, but still. Nice and smart folks.

    That's where I got my waterproof ski shell. I also found the
    salespeople to be very nice and helpful. But I didn't find
    their prices to be much different from REI's, and REI gives
    me money back at the end of the year ...

    >> Stickers?
    >
    > A must. My last ride was covered in outdoor stickers (only
    > surviving photo at http://www.pbase.com/image/13007144)
    > and, while I'd like to continue to fly the flag on a new
    > car, I also want to keep it clean and nice, so I only
    > stuck a few on the Raptor rail...IMBA, Park Tools,
    > Manitou, Sixsixone, RaceFace, RaceFace, and RaceFace.

    Ahhh. Cool.

    > The WRXs I drove felt too plasticy and had that fake
    > aluminum stuff going on. By contrast, the Outbacks are
    > plasticy with a fake leather/fake wood thing going on. It
    > felt more adult - elegant even - to me, and it was nice to
    > have a grown-up car for once (coming off a decidedly junky
    > 1-2-3 combination of GT Mustang, Dodge Caravan, and Ford
    > Bronco II). I felt like the WRX was a college-kid kind of
    > car and the Outback was an adult car. Even though I AM a
    > college kid, I went for fake elegance.

    The fake leather/wood thing irritates me. All a matter of
    taste, I suppose.

    Cars are definitely a way of defining the image you'd like
    to have. I wanted the sporty, younger, outdoorsy image.
    Sounds like you wanted the mature, got-it-together,
    responsible, outdoorsy image =)

    > Lucky you. Us single 23 y.o. men get ravaged to the
    > tune of about 2K a year on WRX insurance...and I have a
    > clean record.

    Looks like it'll be about $1400 a year for me. I didn't
    think my record was clean, but a phone call to the insurance
    co. shows that they think it is. So it must be =)

    > If you need to buy, check the online clearing houses
    > (Campmor, Sierra Trading Post, RackAttack, online bike
    > shops) for crazy sale prices, then go to EMS or REI and
    > have them match it. And, if you find you do need some 24H
    > MightyMounts, I might (no guarantees) have a half-dozen
    > lying around my house.

    I've never tried such a scheme, but I guess it
    probably works.

    Thanks for the offer, but at first blush it looks like I
    won't need them.

    --
    monique
     
  8. On 2004-03-15, Doki penned:
    >> I don't need to be *anywhere* near this car's top speed.
    >
    > I'd certainly enjoy going places at the car's top speed,
    > even if I didn't need to ;). They do 150 or so don't they?

    I suppose they probably do. I don't need my insurance to go
    up, and I don't need to lose my license, so I'm sure I'll
    never find out first hand.

    > I'm paying something like $1 a litre, 4.4 litres to an
    > imperial gallon. I think US gallons are different. It
    > won't make much difference if you're driving around town,
    > but if you're driving at 60mph upwards it'll hit it a lot
    > more. Not got any figures but I imagine you'd be able to
    > look them up if you're bothered.

    The only time I'm usually driving at high speeds, I'm
    driving in the mountains -- and being able to coast downhill
    does amazing things for one's mpg, even after the uphills
    are taken into account =)

    --
    monique
     
  9. S O R N I

    S O R N I Guest

    Monique Y. Herman wrote:
    > On 2004-03-15, S o r n i penned:

    >> Bill "of course, it IS sunny and 63 out" S.
    >
    > You say that as though that's *not* the case here!

    I'd refer you to your "first ride of the year" thread, but
    that would be rather low :)

    Bill "no such thing as riding season in San Diego" S.
     
  10. On 2004-03-15, S o r n i penned:
    > Monique Y. Herman wrote:
    >> On 2004-03-15, S o r n i penned:
    >
    >>> Bill "of course, it IS sunny and 63 out" S.
    >>
    >> You say that as though that's *not* the case here!
    >
    > I'd refer you to your "first ride of the year" thread, but
    > that would be rather low :)

    Heh.

    > Bill "no such thing as riding season in San Diego" S.

    I've seen plenty of evidence that one can ride in all
    seasons around here -- at least, I see lots of roadies. But
    when snow's piled high in the mountains, I'd rather be
    skiing. Just call me "a person who rides mountain bikes,
    rather than a Real Mountainbiker (TM)."

    I'm sure you're right, though -- you probably have much
    more consistent and reliable riding weather. I've never
    been to California; it's on my list of things to do at some
    point in my life.

    --
    monique
     
  11. On 2004-03-15, Doki penned:
    >
    >
    > P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
    >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:27:40 -0000, "Doki"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Why not just take the wheels off and chuck the bikes in
    >>> the boot (trunk)? Bike racks do very bad things to your
    >>> cars aerodynamics,
    >>
    >> That is really dependent upon the aerodynamics of the
    >> vehicle.
    >>
    >> Roof racks don't have to have that great an impact, let
    >> alone do "very bad things" to a vehicle's aerodynamics.
    >
    > The racks themselves aren't so bad. But they'll get a lot
    > worse with a couple of bikes strapped to them :).

    Well, I wasn't planning on keeping the bikes on my car 24/7!

    --
    monique
     
  12. Shawn Curry

    Shawn Curry Guest

    Monique Y. Herman wrote:

    > Well, I just enacted Penny's very good advice and actually
    > went to a dealer (in this case, REI) and got some advice.
    >
    > Here's what he told me to get, assuming I already have the
    > ski rack and two steelheads:
    >
    > low rider towers ($125/4) 48" bars ($47/2)
    >
    > If I buy it by April 11, I can get the low riders for $100
    > (member's coupon).
    >
    > He suggested sliding the factory racks to a different
    > position rather than removing them, saying that you never
    > know when extra lashing space will come in handy. He also
    > said that 48" is just long enough for what I want -- if I
    > want to add a bike, though, I'd have to go to 58". Like
    > Shawn C, he strongly recommended that I stick with 48"
    > unless I really know that I need the extra. And he claims
    > that I shouldn't have a problem with ski binding depth
    > with these.
    >
    > Seems like Shawn had all the facts on this one =)

    Awe shucks, twernt nuthin' I used to sell Yak & have a 'Roo
    too.

    > Now I just have to acquire the money somehow ...

    Sorry dear, can't help ya there. Spent your REI rebate yet?
     
  13. Shawn Curry

    Shawn Curry Guest

    Monique Y. Herman wrote:

    > On 2004-03-15, Doki penned:
    >
    >>
    >>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:27:40 -0000, "Doki"
    >>><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Why not just take the wheels off and chuck the bikes in
    >>>>the boot (trunk)? Bike racks do very bad things to your
    >>>>cars aerodynamics,
    >>>
    >>>That is really dependent upon the aerodynamics of the
    >>>vehicle.
    >>>
    >>>Roof racks don't have to have that great an impact, let
    >>>alone do "very bad things" to a vehicle's aerodynamics.
    >>
    >>The racks themselves aren't so bad. But they'll get a lot
    >>worse with a couple of bikes strapped to them :).
    >
    >
    > Well, I wasn't planning on keeping the bikes on my
    > car 24/7!
    >
    Yeah, give her a break. She lives in Longmont, not
    Boulder ;-)
     
  14. On 2004-03-15, Shawn Curry penned:
    >
    >> Now I just have to acquire the money somehow ...
    >
    > Sorry dear, can't help ya there. Spent your REI
    > rebate yet?

    Nope. That's definitely in the plan; just trying to decide
    if saving $25 on the lowriders with the member's coupon is
    enough of an incentive to spend a few hundred total right
    now. An anticipated bonus turned out to be a lot smaller
    than expected, and we are definitely going to be plunking
    down a lot of money between the wedding and the honeymoon.
    (We went simple, but there are still 13 mouths to feed
    across a long weekend.)

    --
    monique
     
  15. > >> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:27:40 -0000, "Doki" <[email protected]>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Why not just take the wheels off and chuck the bikes
    > >>> in the boot (trunk)? Bike racks do very bad things to
    > >>> your cars aerodynamics,
    > >>
    > >> That is really dependent upon the aerodynamics of the
    > >> vehicle.
    > >>
    > >> Roof racks don't have to have that great an impact, let
    > >> alone do "very bad things" to a vehicle's aerodynamics.
    > >
    > > The racks themselves aren't so bad. But they'll get a
    > > lot worse with a couple of bikes strapped to them :).

    Of course they'll get worse.

    But that doesn't mean they have to do "very bad things" to a
    vehicle's aerodynamics.
     
  16. Dave W

    Dave W Guest

    "S o r n i" <[email protected]> had this to say
    news:[email protected]

    > Monique Y. Herman wrote:
    >
    >> I just filled up. It was like $1.88 for premium gas. If
    >> I'd gone for the regular gas it would've been more like
    >> $1.60, I think.
    >
    > On behalf of Southern Californians, BITE US! (San Diego is
    > over $2.10 for Regular.)
    >
    > Bill "of course, it IS sunny and 63 out" S.
    >
    >
    >

    Then you'll love this. Ours is averaging 1.54-1.69 per
    gallon :)
     
  17. On 2004-03-16, Doki penned:
    >
    > What I've read suggests fuel consumption can rise by 20 or
    > 30% with bikes strapped to the roof of your car. Obviously
    > there'll be more impact here where everyone drives at 70
    > much of time, whilst in America the limit on motorway /
    > dual carriageway equivalent roads is 55mph. I'm not
    > suggesting that they'll generate a load of lift, but that
    > they'll increase drag.

    Don't confuse speed limits with the speed that most people
    actually drive.

    Anyway, driving around 80mph from Colorado to Utah with an
    *empty* bike rack gave us a change of about 2-3mpg. So maybe
    10%. That car has a "fairing" to reduce noise -- may also
    help mileage? Dunno.

    I'm keeping track of my fuel efficiency already, so when I
    do get the rack, I'll be able to see the impact directly.

    --
    monique
     
  18. Penny S

    Penny S Guest

    Doki ran this through spell check:
    > p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:27:40 -0000, "Doki"
    >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Why not just take the wheels off and chuck the bikes
    >>>>>> in the boot (trunk)? Bike racks do very bad things to
    >>>>>> your cars aerodynamics,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is really dependent upon the aerodynamics of the
    >>>>> vehicle.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Roof racks don't have to have that great an impact,
    >>>>> let alone do "very bad things" to a vehicle's
    >>>>> aerodynamics.
    >>>>
    >>>> The racks themselves aren't so bad. But they'll get a
    >>>> lot worse with a couple of bikes strapped to them :).
    >>
    >> Of course they'll get worse.
    >>
    >> But that doesn't mean they have to do "very bad things"
    >> to a vehicle's aerodynamics.
    >
    > What I've read suggests fuel consumption can rise by 20 or
    > 30% with bikes strapped to the roof of your car. Obviously
    > there'll be more impact here where everyone drives at 70
    > much of time, whilst in America the limit on motorway /
    > dual carriageway equivalent roads is 55mph. I'm not
    > suggesting that they'll generate a load of lift, but that
    > they'll increase drag.

    heh, heh, I don't think the "limit' means a whole lot to
    some of us. Anyway, I think you'd better post some
    aerodymic/drag FACTS pretty soon.

    Penny
     
  19. "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
    > >>>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:27:40 -0000, "Doki"
    > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> Why not just take the wheels off and chuck the bikes
    > >>>>> in the boot (trunk)? Bike racks do very bad things
    > >>>>> to your cars aerodynamics,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> That is really dependent upon the aerodynamics of the
    > >>>> vehicle.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Roof racks don't have to have that great an impact,
    > >>>> let alone do "very bad things" to a vehicle's
    > >>>> aerodynamics.
    > >>>
    > >>> The racks themselves aren't so bad. But they'll get a
    > >>> lot worse with a couple of bikes strapped to them :).
    > >
    > > Of course they'll get worse.
    > >
    > > But that doesn't mean they have to do "very bad things"
    > > to a vehicle's aerodynamics.
    >
    > What I've read suggests fuel consumption can rise by 20 or
    > 30% with bikes strapped to the roof of your car. Obviously
    > there'll be more impact here where everyone drives at 70
    > much of time, whilst in America the limit on motorway /
    > dual carriageway equivalent roads is 55mph. I'm not
    > suggesting that they'll generate a load of lift, but that
    > they'll increase drag.

    ROTFLMAO!

    You really think that because some roads are signed at 55
    people only drive 55 in the US? BTW, Many roads in the US
    are signed at 70+ mph.

    My comments relate to driving at high speeds where the
    additional wind resistance doesn't make that great a
    difference, for some vehicles, based upon my experience.

    "very bad things" in your context is very relative, since I
    now understand that you're not talking about impacts upon
    vehicle dynamics.
     
  20. Shaun Rimmer

    Shaun Rimmer Guest

    "Corvus Corvax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > And so on. They quickly decided I was nice enough, but
    > obviously mildly retarded.

    So, they were wrong with the 'mildly' bit then.

    Shaun aRe ',;~}~
     
Loading...
Loading...