Ruggedising an old road type bike for rough stuff riding

[Nearholmer]

use Ortliebs, and they've never given me problems. Lightly loaded small ones

I find that too. I use the Ortlieb small ones, the gravel version because they come with an extra securing prong, and between those and a drybag on a small pizza rack at the front for bedding, Im good to go camping. None of that setup gets overly snagged on things, and it’s all very secure on bumpy bits. I carry another small dry-bag which I can strap
on top of the rack “just in case”, and that tends to get used for my jacket when I don’t need to wear it, or for shopping if I need to pick up anything along the way.

The only issue I have now is that my favourite two bikes aren’t quite low-enough geared (24”) when carrying camping gear in hilly places, so I’m trying to wear the chainrings out as fast as I can so that I’ve got an excuse to buy a chainset with small ones! (Not really; Im assembling a bike with mostly secondhand bits but will have the Spa 40/24 crankset, which will take me down to 19”)

[Carlton green]

As the OP I think that I could be forgiven for thinking that the thread has drifted away from what was originally intended, and that it is getting into the range of purpose built off road bikes that are rather different from old type road bikes pressed into off of tarmac use. On the other hand members are sharing sort of overlapping experiences so something good is coming out of the thread drift. When I look back at pictures of early rough stuff riders I’m puzzled as to how their bikes survived the use that they were pressed into, perhaps repair work was not uncommon and just an accepted result of hard use.

On luggage I observe that panniers are likely to catch obstacles and that historically (according to the photos I’ve seen) the tops of racks held what luggage that was taken. That high up loading is likely not as stable as lower height loading, but maybe none catching was more important. As a personal preference I like lightly loaded traditional front racks (small throw over panniers and / or top loading) and handlebar bags.

[jimlews]

Well, I have a couple of 'mundane' bikes from the 70's & 80's

1/ Viscount 'Tony Doyle' model. This is a "gaspipe" racer. To prepare (rather than ruggedise) it for roughstuff, I equipped it with a reasonable low gear - 14-28 six speed and Sugino PX triple 26/40/48. I continue to use this bike on and off road for bivving excursions using a camper long flap and an old wire puzzle HB bag. 27x1.25 tyres roll nicely over rough ground. Bike has "boy racer" geometry; proving that you don't need expensive high tech kit to go off road. In fact, I've found that this machine is nicer off road than the '90s mountain bikes I've tried.

2/'81 Dawes Galexy. 27" tyres. Comments as above except that I've fitted the TA Pro-Vis C/S with a 20/36/44 C/Ws

I am confident that I can propel either of the bikes at speed over rough tracks without damaging them - because I've developed a riding style that can accommodate such use. Largely as per 531 colin's advice upthread.

[Nearholmer]

I think maybe the reason the thread isn’t narrowly focused (you may or may not want it to be, of course) is that the terms “old”, “road type”, “ruggedising”, and “rough stuff” are more than a bit elastic round the edges.

As regards luggage, I think the point that both pjc and I were trying to get across is that this “panniers get snagged on things” meme seems to be rooted in a picture of panniers as huge, voluminous things, which they don’t have to be. “Front panniers used at the back” isnt a new idea.

Quite why people favoured big transverse Carradice-style bags over small panniers of similar capacity in the old days, I don’t know. Was it simply that transverse saddle bags were standard kit for commuting and day rides, so big versions naturally emerged for camping? Were small panniers hard to come by, or dreadfully expensive? Has anyone been at this for long enough to remember?

[Cadence]

Back in the 60's transverse saddle bags were common. I and most of my schoolmates used one with a quick release bracket to carry school books. There were many bikes in the bike rack at school and I don't remember any having a pannier rack. Maybe they were a bit "specialised" and thus expensive. Availability was also down to what your local LBS had in stock. Anything more bulky was usually carried in a basic army-surplus rucksack. That said, none of us went long distance touring, either tarmac or rough stuff.
These days I use front panniers on a rear rack for day rides. They keep the centre of gravity low, are small enough not to get snagged on bushes, gateways etc. and can carry more than a saddlebag.

[slowster]

Regarding saddlebags vs. panniers, I find a saddlebag better for convenient access to the contents, much less prone to 'getting in the way' that panniers occasionally do, and better for handling and manoeuvrability. A lower centre of gravity is not necessarily better with an inverse pendulum - see Geoff Apps' comments about leverage and centre of gravity - https://crosscountrycycle.wordpress.com ... /leverage/.

[Nearholmer]

This is truly fascinating!

https://ctccambridge.org.uk/ctccambridgein1930s

You can see all sorts of luggage here, some of it I suspect improvised, and you get the impression that people suffered a lot of punctures!

[jimlews]

"Nearholmer" wrote.
Quite why people favoured big transverse Carradice-style bags over small panniers of similar capacity in the old days, I don’t know. Was it simply that transverse saddle bags were standard kit for commuting and day rides, so big versions naturally emerged for camping? Were small panniers hard to come by, or dreadfully expensive? Has anyone been at this for long enough to remember?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the truth is probably that some did and some didn't. But if one could only afford one cycle bag in the austere cash strapped 50s,60s & 70s, a "large transverse saddlebag" was probably as close to a 'do it all' item of luggage as one could get. Also, a pair of panniers of whatever size would necessitate the additional purchase of a carrier rack and more expense.

The following is from Tim Hughes ADVENTURE CYCLING 1978 edition
"Large pannier bags may be necessary when you are camping but are otherwise in my opinion best avoided. They have to be well back on the carrier to avoid fouling the heels and so are outside the wheel-base of the machine, making handling unpredictable. They keep weight down, but get a certain amount of spray and mud from the wheels.
Smaller panniers are made for use with a front pannier, the Carradice version (in black duck)being a very handy 8&1/4
X 8&1/4 each: total capacity is 630 cubic inches. These complement a rear saddlebag very well..."

[Nearholmer]

But if one could only afford one cycle bag in the austere cash strapped 50s,60s & 70s, a "large transverse saddlebag" was probably as close to a 'do it all' item of luggage as one could get.

I’m a comparative youngster, but yes, in the 70s all I had was a transverse saddlebag that I got from a jumble sale, and a thing made from “webbing” that came from an army surplus shop. “Proper kit” was available (we used to see French and Dutch tourists, some with quite fancy gear), but not anywhere near where I lived, and not at a price I could afford at the time!

[Carlton green]

Well, I have a couple of 'mundane' bikes from the 70's & 80's

Viscount 'Tony Doyle' model. This is a "gaspipe" racer. To prepare (rather than ruggedise) it for roughstuff, I equipped it with a reasonable low gear - 14-28 six speed and Sugino PX triple 26/40/48. I continue to use this bike on and off road for bivving excursions using a camper long flap and an old wire puzzle HB bag. 27x1.25 tyres roll nicely over rough ground. Bike has "boy racer" geometry; proving that you don't need expensive high tech kit to go off road. In fact, I've found that this machine is nicer off road than the '90s mountain bikes I've tried.

The more I read the more I think that I ended up following a well worn path of making stuff work. Getting better at repairing and improving wheels was a big help with reliability. After finding wider inflating (27 x 1&1/4”) tyres and wider rims I got by on surfaces that I had previously needed to either avoided or be quite wary of, for me they (wider inflating tyres and wider rims) made venturing off of tarmac a practical proposition - some caution and care needed but I seemed to get by. The later move to 700 x 35C was a significant additional step forward, without concern on my part they go over rougher surfaces that I’d have more cautiously taken the 27 x 1&1/4’s over.

I am confident that I can propel either of the bikes at speed over rough tracks without damaging them - because I've developed a riding style that can accommodate such use. Largely as per 531 colin's advice upthread.

I’m coming to the conclusion that rider skill accounts for a lot and that mountain bikes just took away much of the skill previously needed to manage obstacles - which is OK and not unwelcome. Old school riders likely had ways to extract the maximum performance from what kit they had.

The following is from Tim Hughes ADVENTURE CYCLING 1978 edition
"Large pannier bags may be necessary when you are camping but are otherwise in my opinion best avoided. They have to be well back on the carrier to avoid fouling the heels and so are outside the wheel-base of the machine, making handling unpredictable. They keep weight down, but get a certain amount of spray and mud from the wheels.
Smaller panniers are made for use with a front pannier, the Carradice version (in black duck)being a very handy 8&1/4
X 8&1/4 each: total capacity is 630 cubic inches. These complement a rear saddlebag very well..."

I claim no particular expertise, but that (^^) sounds about right to me too.

[pjclinch]

I’m coming to the conclusion that rider skill accounts for a lot and that mountain bikes just took away much of the skill previously needed to manage obstacles - which is OK and not unwelcome. Old school riders likely had ways to extract the maximum performance from what kit they had.

Thing is you can take the same old-skool attitude with a more intrinsically rough-capable bike and resolve to do harder stuff on it.

Also the case that a long rough-stuff trip is quite likely to be multi-surface including road sections, and the more rugged the bike is the more you'll be working on those (a lot of the driver for gravel bikes, especially as MTBs become more specialised creatures).

Pete.

[pjclinch]

As regards luggage, I think the point that both pjc and I were trying to get across is that this “panniers get snagged on things” meme seems to be rooted in a picture of panniers as huge, voluminous things, which they don’t have to be. “Front panniers used at the back” isnt a new idea.

Partly that, but even with big ones you have to be doing some pretty claustrophobic single track for even full size panniers to catch much. If you can get the handlebars and rider of a typical bike through a gap it's probably not going to catch the panniers width-wise and if you can get the pedals round they probably have enough ground clearance.

They can be a PITA through things like kissing gates, but worst case is take them off and remount, which with something like Ortlieb's "pick up by the handle to unlock" mounts isn't exactly sky-falling-in stuff.

With heavy panniers (larger tend to be heavier, but you can get proper weight in wee ones too) the rigidity of the mounting rack and it's attachments to the bike can be significant. If I have heavy shopping on the cheap rack on my MTB the handling deteriorates markedly if the rack gets much side-to-side swing, while that's far less of an issue with the meatier Tortec rack on my off-road tourer. This isn't really an issue with saddlebags because you can't get as much weight in them and the seatpost is a pretty rigid bit of pipe!

Pete.

[jimlews]

The only bike I've ever bent doing rough-stuff was a Mountain bike.
I managed to adjust the head angle from 70deg to 75deg in one fell swoop.
Rather stupidly, I was trying to do "mountain bike stuff".

[pjclinch]

The only bike I've ever bent doing rough-stuff was a Mountain bike.
I managed to adjust the head angle from 70deg to 75deg in one fell swoop.
Rather stupidly, I was trying to do "mountain bike stuff".

Interesting the degree to which MTBs have changed though. My first one was a rigid Edinburgh Bike Co-Op one in '97 and the accompanying paperwork pointed out quite clearly it was not designed for serious air time, which these days seems practically a given.

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

The places I've had panniers snag on undergrowth have been on an extremely overgrown ex-railway line and tracks in forests. On the former riding was possible (and yes the front panniers keep brambles off legs – to a limited extent... ) on the latter it was more pushing.