Carry Freedom trailers - rolling resistance

[Milfred Cubicle]

Has anybody got experience of using both the 16 and 20 inch wheel models? Is there a noticeable difference in rolling resistance?

[joegallus]

Hi there

I have the 20'' version and find it rolls along great. The only time I notice the trailer is going up hills. On the flat, I often find I am looking behind to check it is still there! I do think I could manage with the smaller version tho'. I just use it for cycle touring and I think the 16'' would be fine for that. But I guess the 20'' gives me more options in the long run. Either way it was a good buy (and you gets lots of room from passing cars).
best wishes
Joe

[joegallus]

PS you can also use it as a table when out camping, but don't try to sit on it and drink whisky as I did - that required more sustained balance than I could muster.

[Mick F]

I've not tried a Y Large so cannot comment. Mine is the Y Small.

As for rolling resistance, I concur with Joe, I have to look round to see if it's still there too! When empty, it's completely un-noticeable, when loaded, you only notice it when pulling away or going up a hill. Flat and at constant speed, it is completely forgettable.

Don't forget to vary the tyre pressures for the load weight. Softer for lighter and harder heavier.

I doubt the Y Large could be less noticeable than the Y Small.

[Milfred Cubicle]

Thanks for the input folks-really useful.

The reason I ask is because I'm planning a tour, two tandems and camping kit, so I need a load lugger. I like the idea of 20 in. wheels because of tyre choice and less rolling resistance. However, I also like the compact track of the smaller model.
It would appear that both models have 'wasted' space, both in front and behind the wheels and across the width of the bed. My idea would be to make a bolt on load bed which utilises this space. On the small it would add capacity without widening. On the large it really would be big enough to take the kitchen sink! What do you think? Is the distance between the edge of the bed to the inner spokes as large as it appears?
Thanks.

[DaveP]

On my 'Small, there is a 2" gap between the edge of the original load bed and the wheel - on each side, that is.
Wasted space? Debatable IMO. I think its a suitable clearance if you are going to be carrying stuff in bags - you really dont want your kit meeting the spokes. Tears all round! I wouldn't have any hesitation in reducing that clearance to say half an inch if I was going to fit a rigid load box and, of course, if the box is taller than the wheels then awkward items can be allowed to overhang - a little.
You can extend the load bed forward by say 5" or thereabouts. Its a judgement call again. I'm sure you'll leave enough clearance for turning - make sure to leave enough clearance for tilting, as when rolling your "rig" off a kerb. I also extended mine backwards to support a large drybag that carried two weeks clothes for me and the wife in France last year, but dont over do it - I would say its safer to have a (slightly) nose heavy trailer than a nose light one.
We found that with the trailer and two panniers we could take enough stuff that we couldnt always get the tandem up hills.You're more likely to reach your weight limit than your bulk limit

I found tandem and trailer a real buzz to handle. My mate watched our progress and decided that it was too unwieldy for his taste. We both have Class i licences - Takes all sorts!

[Milfred Cubicle]

Hi
Thanks for the information, exactly what I needed. I suspected the gap was significant. As you say, the gap will be there to keep bags out of the spokes. I'm going to make either an extended bed, or more likely, a fibreglass 'bathtub'.
It's nice to hear from somebody with real experience of using the y-frame with a tandem. I suspect that if I were to go for the large it would carry more weight than we could pull. At least with the small I'd be more likely to use it with a solo.
Thanks.

[[XAP]Bob]

My trailer (not a CF) is 20" wheels, and I'd always stick to those - but that's because I already have three of them on the trike already - so it reduces the number of spares needed...

I think the bearings will have more influence on resistance, the size will influence the comfort of the load...

[danfoto]

As long as the tyres are correctly inflated, the rolling resistance of our CF "large" really is insignificant. It's noticeably less than our Der Roland. Both trailers have 20" wheels, and given the state of our roads nowadays, I wouldn't be happy with smaller ones.

Incidentally, if I were in your shoes, I'd certainly modify the QD axles of the CF so as to make them non-QD - unless of course you have a pressing need to retain their QD-ness.

[Milfred Cubicle]

Thanks everyone.
It looks like the y-large is the one. I've read some reports that off road, two wheeled trailers can be a nightmare, to dangerous degrees. That rules out the small y-frame, as I'd thought of mountain touring with it.
At least with the large I get a wide choice of tyres, better 'potholeability' and huge capacity if I need it. I'd rather have an under loaded large than an overloaded small. The trade off is less ability to fit through doors and traffic. If this was a massive worry I wouldn't be riding a tandem!
I was thinking of making one too. Now I have all that creative energy buzzing around. Y-frame trailer tent perhaps...?

[ericonabike]

We use a Carry Freedom City with a tandem and it's a joy! The bearings are butter-smooth and despite carrying enough kit to stock a clothes warehouse the weight is literally only noticeable uphill. At which point I call it resistance training...