Cycling UK Forum

This is a beam rack that will attach to a seatpost. However, at the bottom of each of the pannier supporting/out-of-the-wheels bars, there's a small c-shaped bit. What do those attach to? Should the rack be fitted so that the c-shaped bit just sits on the bolt on the axel? Or: what is their purpose if not that?

If so, how effective would those be in holding weight? As I'd imagine that a simple beam rack will be quite limited in the amount of weight it could hold.

Those shaped bits stuck on the bottom, are for the bottom loops to go on to hold the panniers so they don't flap in and out.
The beam unit is quite strong, but is the only support. They are weight limited and aren't as strong as traditional racks.

Mick F wrote:Those shaped bits stuck on the bottom, are for the bottom loops to go on to hold the panniers so they don't flap in and out.
The beam unit is quite strong, but is the only support. They are weight limited and aren't as strong as traditional racks.

Thanks. They still look like a good option for a bike with no simple way of attaching a carrier.

There are things like these:



but they look a bit Mickey Mouse to me. Particularly since I only know of cheap sources of these, e.g. £10 or so on ebay. I'd be concerned that a cheap one would come loose regularly or otherwise be poor quality.

SJS Cycles have a selection that includes racks from Topeak, Rixen & Caul, Pletscher, etc.

Thule make https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/carriers-ra ... r-rack-xt/ which they give with weight capacities of 22 lbs front/25 lbs rear.

So, it probably won't hold all the stuff for a camping tour, but can certainly carry enough for many uses.

Does sjs still use 'lbs'?

Hi,
Oh............someone's telling their age

Or...or they work for a company / lived in a country which uses imperial measures

I have a mountain bike with no mount points, and use the snappily-named Axiom Journey Uni Fit Mark 3.

It attaches to the rear skewer and seatstays. It looks pretty neat and I think it supports up to 50kg. The price seems to have gone up 25% since I bought mine, though.

http://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-ac ... nnier-rack

The photo on the Halfords site has an ugly silver bit to attach the top of the rack, but this can be replaced with the black rods that are laying by the side of the rack.

The only difficulty I had was in attaching it to the rear skewer. There wasn't much left protruding for the nut to clamp onto. After a while the end of the "shoe" that the skewer goes through started to bend in to the dropout gap, the skewer was bent quite badly! I spent ages trying to find a solution. I wrote to the manufacturer asking for help as I assumed that lots of people would have the same problem, but they said they weren't aware of any issues or solutions.

Eventually I found one shop (SJS Cycles) that sells 145mm OLN skewers for tandems, which are the perfect length (10mm longer than my standard rear MTB skewer), and I got a 10mm diameter washer to put between the dropout and the shoe to stop it bending in.

I've had it a few years now, and never had any more problems with it. I'm really happy with it (in the end). Here's a pic on my bike:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtfjn6g7igkjc ... k.jpg?dl=0

Cyril Haearn wrote:Does sjs still use 'lbs'?

I looked it up on Thule's website & couldn't be bothered to find the SI rating or convert it.

esuhl wrote:...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtfjn6g7igkjc ... k.jpg?dl=0

uhm... additional weight that sits well behind the rear wheel axle, IMO needs attention when loading

Such an arrangement must be pretty handy for wheelies.

Gattonero wrote:

esuhl wrote:...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtfjn6g7igkjc ... k.jpg?dl=0

uhm... additional weight that sits well behind the rear wheel axle, IMO needs attention when loading

What do you mean by "needs attention when loading"?

alexnharvey wrote:Such an arrangement must be pretty handy for wheelies.

I haven't noticed much difference -- not that I do many wheelies.

esuhl wrote:

Gattonero wrote:

esuhl wrote:...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtfjn6g7igkjc ... k.jpg?dl=0

uhm... additional weight that sits well behind the rear wheel axle, IMO needs attention when loading

What do you mean by "needs attention when loading"?

I mean that on such bike you're already a bit upright, thus having more weight on the rear wheel. If you add some baggage and this has it's center of gravity staying behind the rear wheel axle it's even more detrimental. I.e. you may get high-speed wobble, or at best you give lots of stress to the rear wheel which in turn means more wear on the hub and fatigue to the spokes, and so on.

Long story short, on such arrangement I'd carry only bulky but light stuff.

Gattonero wrote:

esuhl wrote:

Gattonero wrote:
uhm... additional weight that sits well behind the rear wheel axle, IMO needs attention when loading

What do you mean by "needs attention when loading"?

I mean that on such bike you're already a bit upright, thus having more weight on the rear wheel. If you add some baggage and this has it's center of gravity staying behind the rear wheel axle it's even more detrimental. I.e. you may get high-speed wobble, or at best you give lots of stress to the rear wheel which in turn means more wear on the hub and fatigue to the spokes, and so on.

Long story short, on such arrangement I'd carry only bulky but light stuff.

Ohhh, right -- thanks for the explanation.

I do worry a bit about the stress on the rear hub (and spokes and wheel), but it seems okay (touch wood). I just relubed the bearings after having it 7 years, and everything seemed fine.

The only heavy load I carry is the shopping (if I get lots of beer bottles, fizzy drinks, spuds, anvils, etc.), but that's less than a mile's journey and I take it pretty easy.

Interesting what you say about stability, though. If the shopping is particularly heavy, the wobble (even at low speeds) is quite something. I have to keep it to 8 mph to stay in control! I didn't realise that would be due to the weight being behind the rear wheel...

For overnight trips, where I'm packing clothes and toiletries, handling is fine.

spuds and anvils, the diet of champions....

cheers

Vorpal wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:Does sjs still use 'lbs'?

I looked it up on Thule's website & couldn't be bothered to find the SI rating or convert it.

I must be old, I can do it in my head
22 lbs = 10 kg