Long rear rack availability?

[axel_knutt]

Thule & Basil make rear rack add-ons. The Thule one sort of adds a rack behind & above the standard one, so that you can carry panniers behind their child seat, but without the child seat, it has the effect of a bigger rack.

https://www.thule.com/en-ca/child-bike- ... _-12020405

The Basil one is a little simpler and lower, but the same principle.
https://www.basil.com/en/lugage-carrier ... black.html

That would be Basil as in Fawlty would it?

I wouldn't give much for the chances of either of them surviving for long with all the weight cantilevered off the back and no struts to brace them.

[Carlton green]

Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Yes it is, thank you for posting it. The definition on the original is limited (blurs for me on magnification) but IMHO there’s a lot to see in that photo - along the lines of this is how it used to be done and it worked for them … could work for me and ‘you’ too.

I’m not looking for massive but rather am looking for just a few more inches of supported loading deck.

Could you extend the top platform of an existing rack? Bolt/clamp a piece of metal plate or even metal "straps" or pipes/tubes, and brace to the rack stays if required?

Indeed that is possible but (rather than load sharing) one ends up balancing all of the load on the rack on the furthest back supports; in practise I’m getting away with something like that at the moment but it’s pushing my luck and I’d like something that’s better - if that’s reasonably easy to do.

My thanks to everyone for their thoughts.

At the moment I’m considering a Blackburn EX-1 rack from Amazon (good price but I don’t like the company). Their legacy expedition rack is a bit shorter than ideal but longer than I have, sits further back than what I have and is likely stronger than what I have. IIRC and can locate it then I’ve a knock off copy of the EX-1 in my store somewhere (lifted off of a scraped bike). Not ideal but at least some alternative plans.

[Bmblbzzz]

Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Yes it is, thank you for posting it. The definition on the original is limited (blurs for me on magnification) but IMHO there’s a lot to see in that photo - along the lines of this is how it used to be done and it worked for them … could work for me and ‘you’ too.

Things that strike me on that photo, besides the rack:
The wide front mudflap.
No rear mudflap.
The front-rear luggage distribution.
The saddle angle.
The lack of socks.
The beret.
The locked gate.

[Carlton green]

Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Yes it is, thank you for posting it. The definition on the original is limited (blurs for me on magnification) but IMHO there’s a lot to see in that photo - along the lines of this is how it used to be done and it worked for them … could work for me and ‘you’ too.

Things that strike me on that photo, besides the rack:
The wide front mudflap.
No rear mudflap.
The front-rear luggage distribution.
The saddle angle.
The lack of socks.
The beret.
The locked gate.

We’ll all see different things, on the other thread (viewtopic.php?t=136311&start=120) I noted:
# a smallish one piece front chain-set, with cotter pins, likely about 44T ‘cause that’s the smallest vintage ones that I ever see on-line.
# pedals with toe-clips
# small arm derailleur gears.
# top loaded racks front and back, the back being very heavily loaded and clearly longer than is now usual - no panniers.
# alloy rims, probably wide ones ‘cause they don’t buckle as easily and give a better ride on rough ground, they look like Weinmann rims to me.
# large flange hubs, looks like forty spoke rear wheel and likely thirty two at the front - as was customary at that time.
# bottle dynamo light running off of the front wheel’s LHS.
# side-pull brakes.
# mudguards with wide front flap.

I suppose that observations should really be added to the other thread rather than this one, please do if you have time .

[cycle tramp]

Is this the photo, and rack, referred to in the OP?

Yes it is, thank you for posting it.

The lack of socks.

Oh Good God, No!!!! Not only an affront to the marvellous textile companies everywhere, but also against common decency!
Supposing young women were to catch sight of his ankles and by doing so have the flames of their animal desire and wontoness stoked by the sight?
Terrible things, that's what! - the rider may be caught in a dreadful relationship based upon nothing other than sheer carnal satisfaction with one or possibly many young maidens driven wild by the excitement of seeing his naked ankles..

..let us take this time to imagine this young man caught in the desires of maidens and perhaps older women in the throws of debased carnal activities, only because the rider had mis-placed his socks.. he may have never completed his cycle journey...

Oh, the shame of it...

..okay, that's enough imagining now....

[Barrowman]

I suspect the gent in the photo with the beret and no socks has a saddlebag pulled right up against the seatpost, a sleeping bag behind it and a rucksack behind that. It is probably hanging off the back of the rack but high enough up to clear the mudguard. His rack is designed for panniers, hence the square wire that's visible on the rack. I wouldn't fancy the saddle angle combined with all that weight at the back, I fear it would be a bit of a handful, particularly climbing.
A couple of (now departed) died in the wool tourists I used to ride with (never had a car) used to have a rucksack behind the saddlebag in preference to panniers and a rucksack on the bars .

[freiston]

If we're talking about the same photo - he has got socks on but they're not regulation white (look a bit oily too). I can't identify the hat as a beret.

[Carlton green]

The first photo in this article has a particularly long rack in it, if anyone can lift the image and drop it into this thread then please do:
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/blas ... fellowship

The last photo looks like the same bike, but the rack in it is not quite as long.

The front rack looks porter style, but that’s a diversion.

[freiston]

The first photo in this article has a particularly long rack in it, if anyone can lift the image and drop it into this thread then please do:
https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/blas ... fellowship

The last photo looks like the same bike, but the rack in it is not quite as long.

The front rack looks porter style, but that’s a diversion.

Happy to oblige:

. . . and a "heavy crop":

P.S. That looks to me like it could be an extension.

[Vorpal]

I wouldn't give much for the chances of either of them surviving for long with all the weight cantilevered off the back and no struts to brace them.

The Basil one doesn't look like much, and I don't know that I'd want a camping load hung on it.

The Thule one, on the other hand, I have seen installed & it looks pretty hefty. They don't give a max weight, but state it should be installed on a rear carrier with a capacity of at least 35 kg.

You'd obviously have to be careful about putting too much load too high on it, for sway & bike balance. But I'd be happy to use it for the sorts of loads I typically carry.

[Carlton green]

. . . and a "heavy crop":

Screenshot from 2023-09-01 06-22-07.png

P.S. That looks to me like it could be an extension.

Thanks very much. Yes, I’m suspecting that it was an extension too; we’ll probably never know what was actually fitted.

I see that there are bracing struts going to the back of the rack and think that that’s good practice - if perhaps not absolutely necessary for carrying a sleeping bag or other light item(s) on a rack extension.

Whatever, extensions are an option but I’d rather just have an off the shelf rack that happens to be relatively long.

[PH]

Whatever, extensions are an option but I’d rather just have an off the shelf rack that happens to be relatively long.

before you go too far down this road, I'd suggest you extend the current rack and try it. Might be fine, but I can't help feeling there'll be good reason most racks are the length they are.

[Carlton green]

Whatever, extensions are an option but I’d rather just have an off the shelf rack that happens to be relatively long.

before you go too far down this road, I'd suggest you extend the current rack and try it. Might be fine, but I can't help feeling there'll be good reason most racks are the length they are.

Racks are the length that they are for practical reasons, I’m just looking to push the envelope a bit - things rack the Thorn Expedition rack * exist but they’re jolly expensive. Does anyone know what the various lengths of racks actually are?

As in an earlier post (extract below) I’m not looking for anything massive, just a few extra inches will make the difference I’m looking for.

The current rack has a load length of 11 & 3/4” and the middle of that load deck sits above the bolts that clamp it to the frame, the rack has twin stays at each side. A couple inches longer - even more could be useful - and sitting slightly further back would be good, three stays per side would be nice too.

* https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/carriers-ra ... owdercoat/

[freiston]

<snip>Does anyone know what the various lengths of racks actually are?<snip>

I just measured my three - a Topeak Super Tourist (the old style as per the link) from backstop to end of platform - 31.5 cm, a RackTime Add-it, 32 cm from backstop to useable end of rail (though their technical drawing gives a less generous 300mm - maybe I'm being less strict about the bends), and a Tern Cargo rack - this is not a cargo bike rack but a basic rack for a 20" folder of the Dahon/Tern ilk (mine's fitted to a Tern Link C7). This one surprised me. It has no backstop but a flat platform rounded at the ends. From end to end of the platform: 43cm.

Going back to the photo of the extra long carrier on the RSF bike, there's another photo of the same bike which I've cropped - I think I mistook a background feature or a strap in the previous picture for a really long stay but I can see an extra "parallel" stay in this picture:

[Bmblbzzz]

If we're talking about the same photo - he has got socks on but they're not regulation white (look a bit oily too). I can't identify the hat as a beret.

Screenshot from 2023-08-31 21-43-49.png

You're right, he has. On a smaller image, the colour of the socks combined with their being in the shadow, meant I didn't see them. It's their fault, for not being hi-viz.

Cycle Tramp, sorry if this pours cold water on your imagination, but you can still dream about the length of his rack!