Cycling UK Forum

Whilst researching the bikes that early rough stuff riders used I came across an interesting article in the Cyclist, as I see much to observe and learn from it the last picture was particularly interesting. One feature of the bike shown was a (seemingly) long rear rack - quite a lot of luggage top loaded onto it - and I wondered if such things were are available now and if so what’s available at a moderate cost. Does anyone know?

https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/stuf ... fellowship

Edit. The current rack has a load length of 11 & 3/4” (say 30 cm) 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 (5 cm) longer - even more could be useful - and sitting slightly further back would be good, three stays per side would be nice too.

Edit. Thread tittle amended.
Edit. Metric dimensions added.

Edit. As a visual guide. To get the longer load deck the rack would appear to be squared or oblong, so the load bed would be the same or longer than the leg height (my rack’s leg height is 13&3/8” or 34 cm from mounting hole to top of load deck).

You have PM .

Picking up Tantanab's (he won't mind, we are both Trike riders)
Comment, I have seen a couple of machines with integral racks over the years. And one had a fixed seatpin too .

Looks like a custom rack to me, possibly brazed to the frame. Ian Hibell had a frame built with an integrated rack back in the 1970s. I think that was made by Aros.

Thanks for the link, an interesting read and fantastic photos.
If I'm looking at the right photo, last one against a gate, I'm not sure the rack top is particularly long, the bag at the back seems to be hanging off it. What might make it look longer is the squareness of the side struts, though there's a few like that including one from Tortec.

There was an earlier discussion about long rear racks here:

viewtopic.php?t=123835

Worth reading Reohn2’s input in that other thread, which I completely concur with: unless the bike has very long chain stays, pushing weight out backwards is a recipe for very poor handling at the front.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 12:45pm Worth reading Reohn2’s input in that other thread, which I completely concur with: unless the bike has very long chain stays, pushing weight out backwards is a recipe for very poor handling at the front.

Keeping the weight within the wheelbase is a good idea but sometimes compromises are necessary, I have a bodged arrangement at the moment that does put my load further back and it hasn’t been an issue - I’d just like a structurally better arrangement. The other thread is quite interesting and gave one lead to follow up. Before starting this thread I did try the search function but had no joy with it.

PH wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 12:28pm Thanks for the link, an interesting read and fantastic photos.
If I'm looking at the right photo, last one against a gate, I'm not sure the rack top is particularly long, the bag at the back seems to be hanging off it. What might make it look longer is the squareness of the side struts, though there's a few like that including one from Tortec.

Yes, the picture might be slightly deceptive and the last bag is only partially supported. However, it gives the impression of additional length (extra long) and shows that a lot might be carried without panniers. I’ve seen a more over-length rack on RSF photos before but could not recall where. Anyway, I’m not looking for massive but rather am looking for just a few more inches of supported loading deck.

Others have noted heel strike problems, I’ve had that too on a few racks and it makes using panniers difficult. However that’s a diversion, in the particular case in mind top loading is important to me.

I think it’s a bit more subtle than “within the wheelbase”, because of the way that moments of force operate around the back axle, which acts as a pivot point.

Most bikes when loaded-up don’t have a very great proportion of the load at the back within the wheelbase, even ‘heavy tourers’, but long chain stays have two beneficial effects:

- they put the weight of the rider further from the pivot point, applying a greater moment of force, so it is genuinely possible to hang more weight, and/or at greater distance, on the other side of that pivot without beginning to cause wheel unloading at the front; and,

- they allow some (usually by no means all) of the load on the back to come inside the wheelbase, and the rest to be not greatly beyond the back axle pivot point, this last being important from the ‘moment’ viewpoint.

Nearholmer wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 3:38pm I think it’s a bit more subtle than “within the wheelbase”, because of the way that moments of force operate around the back axle, which acts as a pivot point.

Most bikes when loaded-up don’t have a very great proportion of the load at the back within the wheelbase, even ‘heavy tourers’, but long chain stays have two beneficial effects:

- they put the weight of the rider further from the pivot point, applying a greater moment of force, so it is genuinely possible to hang more weight, and/or at greater distance, on the other side of that pivot without beginning to cause wheel unloading at the front; and,

- they allow some (usually by no means all) of the load on the back to come inside the wheelbase, and the rest to be not greatly beyond the back axle pivot point, this last being important from the ‘moment’ viewpoint.

I think that I see what you’re saying and mainly agree.

My chain stays are not short, though I think that I’d be pleased if they were longer.

The pivot point is where the wheel touches the road - not so good when you’re going up a steep hill ‘cause (unless I’m mistaken) the moment caused by the overhung carried load increases.

In theory theory and practise should be the same, in practise they often aren’t. I haven’t had an issue … I’m just needing a better structural support for the load.

Anyone got any suggestions for a rack please.

I don't think the rack at the end of the link is unusually long. It has the appearance of being long because as I see it, the supporting leg from the drop out meets the rack top nearer the middle of the rack. Comparing the rack to a modern pannier rack with 2 supporting legs each side, a modern rack would have the rear legs meeting the rack nearer the rear of the top platform, the modern platform it self being being comparable in geometry to the rack in the picture.

As to "long" racks. The racks that come on Pashley Prontos "Post Office bikes" are quite long, not sure about easy fitting to a normal bike or pannier comparability, not to mention 700c wheels. Probably problematic to get one on its own. Also the Pronto design has recently changed to 24" wheel front and rear, which has altered the rack design from the original Post Office design.
If you want your rack further back (as distinct from longer), Tubus make some sturdy mounting brackets that move the drop out mounts (a little) further back: -
https://www.tubus.com/en/products/acces ... ension-set

The bracket for mounting via the QR skewer may give a bit more rearward positioning: -
https://www.tubus.com/en/products/acces ... e-mounting
https://www.tubus.com/fileadmin/user_up ... on_1.1.pdf

I think the Thorn racks have a quite long platform (but have not checked): -
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/carriers-ra ... owdercoat/

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

Although the length of the top platform is available for most racks, two racks of the same length and installed with the racks horizontal might differ in how far back they were over the rear wheel. Tubus and its sister company Racktime provide the relevant measurements in the technical drawings on their websites, but most other brands do not, so it is difficult to compare racks from different manufacturers without having both in your hands.

With regard to the Thorn racks, they are longer than most at 380mm, but they are relatively low (350mm from lower mounting bolt to rack top), and so might not fit a 700C/27" wheel bike with mudguards, depending on the tyre size, mudguard clearance and height of the bottom eyelet relative to the axle. If the Thorn rack would fit, then they appear at times to have seconds which are heavily discounted:

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/rear-rack/? ... rand=thorn

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

If the objective is to carry stuff on top further back from the saddle, why not just extend any rack? The shape won't make a difference, it's still attached to the frame in the same place. How you extend would depend on how much and the load, I've had various baskets bolted to the top of cheap aluminium racks without problem, 100 - 150mm overhang and loads up to 15kg.
Or this SOMA rack is set well back, it's a thing of beauty. it's also £140!


https://southerndistributors.co.uk/prod ... rear-rack/

Carlton green wrote: ↑30 Aug 2023, 2:42pmI’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?