Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Specifically for cycle touring subjects & questions
Post Reply
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 8443
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by Sweep »

Anyone got any views on their respective merits for fully loaded (and the way I pack it is VERY fully loaded) touring?

I do actually have a Cosmo on a bike but haven't actually used it for fully loaded touring and the bike isn't living with me so my experience of it in use is limited.

I also have another cheaper rack from another company that has the similar feature of lower rails for the panniers.

I had thought that the main advantage of this was that it made getting at stuff easier but with my vastly improved packing and bungeeing technique this isn't as important to me these days as I can get a ton of bags off the top and put back on very quickly.

The lower rail also supposedly aids stability but I don't know how significant this is.

Views?

What has occured to me more recently after reading some blurb on the Rose Bikes web site is that the lower rails put the tops of your panniers closer to the level of the loading platform. How much of an advantage is this? Am wondering aloud if reduced pressure on the "sticking up" panniers might avoid a recent repeated issue I had with a pair of Ortlieb bikepackers managing to detach themselves.

I think the Cosmo has a narrower top platform but maybe this isn't so relevant for supporting your rack-top junk because your panniers will be helping to take the load? Views on this?

Sorry to be a bore but as I said I don't have the Cosmo equipped bike with me to compare and contrast and am about to buy another Tubis rack for another bike.

By the by, I gather that the Cosmo comes in a single model which will supposedly fit both 700C and 26 inch wheeled bikes.

Oh and it's stainless steel. Relevant?

edited:

pics here as a memory jig for folks.

Cosmo:

https://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/tub ... aid:193899

Cargo:

https://www.rosebikes.co.uk/article/tub ... aid:555526
Last edited by Sweep on 1 Dec 2017, 11:39am, edited 1 time in total.
Sweep
pwa
Posts: 17367
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by pwa »

I've not used a Cosmo, but my Cargo works well. Very rigid and solid, and I'm not sure I'd really want the panniers any closer to the ground. Stability is good already.

I only bungee a tent on the top of the rack, and it takes only a minute or so to get it securely fixed. I don't see any problems that require the extra metal of a Cosmo.
pwa
Posts: 17367
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by pwa »

Stainless (as used by Tubus) is nice to look at, but I suspect it is not quite as strong as chromo. I'd use either.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by PH »

Another advantage of the Cosmo is the rear light is tucked away under the platform, rather than sticking out. But for me being stainless is the big one, mine is around 10 years old on bike that gets used most days, nearly always with at least one pannier, and still looks pretty much like new. My other Tubus (Vega) is black cromo, is half the age and doesn't get used half as much, yet already looks tatty, though it's still perfectly functional.
pwa
Posts: 17367
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by pwa »

PH wrote:Another advantage of the Cosmo is the rear light is tucked away under the platform, rather than sticking out. But for me being stainless is the big one, mine is around 10 years old on bike that gets used most days, nearly always with at least one pannier, and still looks pretty much like new. My other Tubus (Vega) is black cromo, is half the age and doesn't get used half as much, yet already looks tatty, though it's still perfectly functional.


I agree on the looks, but the chromo does not rust through. It just gets a bit scruffy.
gloomyandy
Posts: 1140
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 10:46pm

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by gloomyandy »

I have a Logo which has the low pannier rails. I don't normally carry anything on the top of the rack other than my tent poles which are bungied in place, but when touring I will sometimes stock up with food and when doing that I find that the niche created by the top of the rack plus the tops of my panniers works very well for carrying extra bags, or sometimes a bladder full of water for when wild camping.
geocycle
Posts: 2177
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by geocycle »

PH wrote:Another advantage of the Cosmo is the rear light is tucked away under the platform, rather than sticking out. But for me being stainless is the big one, mine is around 10 years old on bike that gets used most days, nearly always with at least one pannier, and still looks pretty much like new. My other Tubus (Vega) is black cromo, is half the age and doesn't get used half as much, yet already looks tatty, though it's still perfectly functional.


+1 to that. I have had two cargos rust badly, one even ended up with a hole in the tube through a combination of the pannier rubbing and rust. I don't camp anymore so I use a stainless steel fly which is brilliant for credit card trips and commuting.
User avatar
nick12
Posts: 274
Joined: 26 Sep 2017, 9:10pm
Location: Skipton

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by nick12 »

Cosmo looks and sounds the better option a few extra grams and £s but if your carrying kilos thats nothing. Im sure it will make it more stable been lower down and any extra weight ontop is mainly taken on the top rack rather than on the pannier bags and their attachments. Got to be a good thing. Tubus seem to be the rack of choice for expedition cyclists tryed and tested. Not cheap though.
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 8443
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by Sweep »

Quick point in case it is relevant.

The new rack will be on a 26 inch wheel bike, not 700C.

Don't know if that changes views on the panniers being slung lower.
Sweep
User avatar
nick12
Posts: 274
Joined: 26 Sep 2017, 9:10pm
Location: Skipton

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by nick12 »

I have low riders on the front and find them stable. So i presume but maybe wrong that the same would apply to the rear rack. It looks like you have the option of low or high on the cosmos from the picture. My wheels are 26" too.
User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 6044
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by foxyrider »

Keeping loaded weight low adds stability to any vehicle.

I use a now teenage Logo and an almost teen Carry Ti - the low mounting means my back rollers sit below the top of the rack - if I Wanted to load the top it would be easier and less fussy to do.

SS sounds good, it certainly looks nice. OTOH it is heavier and Tubus quote a lower weight loading (or did when last I looked). Not sure i'd cough up the premium just for the looks.
Convention? what's that then?
Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by Psamathe »

I've not used a Cosmo but I like my Cargo.

Make sure if you need the Classic or Evo. From memory they have a different axel width.

Also, despite having 700 wheels I found the larger versions put much too big a gap between the top of the wheel and the bottom of the rack platform. I ended up using the 26" version on my 700 (incl mudguards) and the clearance is ideal, though my lack of experience means I have no idea if this is the bike or the rack or both. Tubus provide drawings with detailed measurements so easy to check.

Ian
User avatar
Sweep
Posts: 8443
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 4:57pm
Location: London

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by Sweep »

Ah, psa

Another point.

Habe never been able to get my head round the classic and evo versions of the same rack.

Seem to recall that the tubus website strongly implied that the evo was an improved design.

Stronger at the bottom mount?

If so, why not discontinue the classic.

Spa cycles offer both versions but i didn't find their web site any more helpful.
Sweep
User avatar
andrew_s
Posts: 5795
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 9:29pm
Location: Gloucestershire

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by andrew_s »

Psamathe wrote:I ended up using the 26" version on my 700 (incl mudguards) and the clearance is ideal, though my lack of experience means I have no idea if this is the bike or the rack or both.

The height of the lower rack mount varies quite a bit, from on the rear of the dropout level with the wheel axle, to maybe 15 cm higher than the wheel axles (on chainstay above the disc mounts).
If a rack's called a 700c rack, it has to be tall enough to fit 700c bikes with large tyres and low mounts.
If you've got high mounts and average to small tyres, that gap can be large. I ended up getting a 24" wheel rack (Racktime, which is aluminium Tubus) for my Singular Peregrine, which had high mounts.
pwa
Posts: 17367
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Tubus Cosmo v Tubus Cargo rear racks

Post by pwa »

SJS has measurements for Tubus racks. You can, for instance, see the difference in height between a Cargo for 26" and one for 28".
Post Reply