Cycling UK Forum

GideonReade wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 11:30am

CJ wrote: ↑4 Jan 2023, 5:48pm Frankly I'm not impressed. You don't need to be an engineer to know that the best way to support a load is to stand it on something. That's why conventional rear carriers have legs, bolted to the rear frame ends.

It's not a unique approach. Is this any better? It's probably cheaper...
https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/touring-b ... 266bcc0aa0

It looks a little better - the mounting bolts are further back, so the LEVERage of the cantiLEVER is reduced.

But still flawed compared to a simple prop. <insert facepalm emoji>

As a partial outsider to this, IMO it would be sensible to draw some sort of distinction, if only a broad and fuzzy one, between “heavy” and “light” tourers, not so much around the weight of the bike as around the nature of the tours.

The breed that seems to be withering towards “custom only” is the “heavy”, fit to carry all the gear needed to go unsupported for weeks, months or years at a time, while bikes that are good for “light”, shorter duration, and minimalist gubbins, are thriving, with multiple different labels applied.

My reading is that this is to do with the time that people have to devote to the pursuit, as much as anything else.

Multi-week/months/years tourists have always been a bit rare, but it seems to me that the two-week bike camping holiday with significant other, being “the annual holiday”, and enjoyed by a wide cross-section of people in an age of cheap and simple pleasures, is the niche that’s taken the big drop. Meanwhile shorter bursts of camping/bike packing and credit card touring, up to and including those heavily supported holidays with mild cycling and posh hotels, are doing OK, increasing over very recent years perhaps. So, the evolution of lifestyles has affected the evolution of bikes.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 11:43am So, the evolution of lifestyles has affected the evolution of bikes.

Which would be both expected and fitting.

Having said that, there still seem to be plenty of people doing months-long trips across South America, Africa or wherever, and the bikes to suit them: mostly mtb-variations but also some in a more classic Anglo-Franco touring vein, with drop bars, eg Surly Trucker.

GideonReade wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 11:30amIt's not a unique approach. Is this any better? It's probably cheaper...
https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/touring-b ... 266bcc0aa0

To save you following that link and for reference here's a picture:

Much better than Trek's effort. Pros:

• The lowermost fixing is not very far in front of the C-of-G, so the bending moment doesn't add too much to the normal force of gravity.
• The fixings are oriented in approximately the same direction as the forces upon them, minimising shear loads, which are what tend to loosen bolted joints, so the screws won't be as prone to loosening as the fixings of conventional racks and it doesn't matter that they're only M5.
• The topmost and lowermost fixings are much further apart than the Trek carrier, with further reduces the additional forces upon them due to bending.
• The carrier accepts readily available panniers and top-bags.
• European Standard combined rear reflector-lights can also be fitted

However there are still several cons:

• The lower fixing could do with being lower. I suspect that the length of straight strut extending beyond it may, as a result, be likely to bend at this fixing point.
• The lower fixing point could also do with being welded to its reinforcing collars not only at the sides, but all round like the top one, as this would better reinforce the carrier tube at this point, compensating for the weakness introduced by drilling for the attachment screw. (Presumably that is why the top attachment is welded all round.)
• The middle fixing point adds nothing - except a little weight and assembly time.
• The additional framing for lower pannier attachment - although liked by some and possibly useful with a rear childseat - is also excess weight unwanted by most users. For it has been shown that lower attachment of rear panniers does not, in most cases, make the bike more stable. On the other hand it reduces heel clearance, so the panniers have to be located further aft, where they're more liable to have a 'tail wags the dog' effect.
• Last but not least: this bike's non-standard attachments (and lack of standard ones) makes the carrier hard to replace in countries with few Decathlon stores, and the bicycle prone to obsolescence, should Decathlon cease to offer this model.

Edit: I just noticed it does have standard seatstay upper attachments. So if you consider the M5 mudguard eyes suitable for a carrier, you can discount that last disadvantage.

Yes, it's odd that it's got that sort of triple parallel bit (for...?), but they didn't triangulate the mount points, it does look like that lower tube will bend to touch the frame. My vision of panniers on that puts all the weight on that single rear mount, and at right angles to the tube...its weakest load direction, surely?

As well as CJ's point about stability, those low mount rails may seriously impede attempts to mount taller panniers. When I put my (2015) Carradices on a low rail rack, the RHS touched the derailleur, and prevented use of top gear. And with the low rail sticking out, the top rail can't be used for (my?) panniers.

I think the intended benefit of additional rail designs is that they make it possible to attach and remove panniers while something bulky is still on the rack top; perhaps a tent or rack pack, for instance. Great for train touring, where you'll have to remove panniers but might be able to leave whatever's on the top. If some manufacturers are making it so they only work with their own panniers, that scuppers the flexibility (of use, not wobbliness!) and is at the same time unsurprising. That said, I got rid of my two-rail rack a few years ago because I decided the slight gain in convenience was outdone by the loss in practicality.

I had a two rail rack. Very useful as said above. However I found it quite high and needed to be removed when boxing the bike. Now with simple Tubus that fits.

Reading the last few pages, I wonder if the consideration should be:

Are Touring Bikes Getting Too Complicated?

simonhill wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42pm Reading the last few pages, I wonder if the consideration should be:

Are Touring Bikes Getting Too Complicated?

Care to suggest a timescale?

GideonReade wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 8:22pm

simonhill wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42pm Reading the last few pages, I wonder if the consideration should be:

Are Touring Bikes Getting Too Complicated?

Care to suggest a timescale?

mattheus wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 9:06am

GideonReade wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 8:22pm

simonhill wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 7:42pm Reading the last few pages, I wonder if the consideration should be:

Are Touring Bikes Getting Too Complicated?

Care to suggest a timescale?

It's been incremental. It would be invidious to suggest an actual date.

Waiting for my breakfast in a pub at the moment, I may reply more fully later.

In the meantime my LHT keeps on trucking.

simonhill wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 10:43am

mattheus wrote: ↑10 Jan 2023, 9:06am

GideonReade wrote: ↑9 Jan 2023, 8:22pm
Care to suggest a timescale?

It's been incremental. It would be invidious to suggest an actual date.

We didn't ride over the Tourmalet on fixed with rod-brakes for this!!!

Well, obviously if you're trucking to a pub, you won't need a tent, sleeping bag, stove, etc.

Bon appetit!