Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update

[SMS]

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/"

 

[John Serafin]

SMS <[email protected]> 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 | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps at pobox com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.

 

[SMS]

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.

 

[Steve Gravrock]

On 2007-08-10, SMS <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
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

 

[jim beam]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> 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.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

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

 

[jim beam]

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?

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

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

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 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

 

[SMS]

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.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Aug 9, 10:42 pm, SMS <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Aug 10, 3:18 am, SMS <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Clive George]

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

 

[SMS]

Clive George wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.

 

[A Muzi]

> 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

 

[Rick]

On Aug 9, 9:51 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:42:58 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> 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

 

[SMS]

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!

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Aug 11, 4:29 pm, SMS <[email protected]> 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! ;-)

 

[SMS]

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.