Backpack or pannier

On 4/11/2014 1:29 PM, Duane wrote:

Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel
base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you
want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The
Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.

You would not run out and buy a short wheelbase road bike for commuting
or touring. A lot of people try to re-purpose an old road bike into a
commute bike or errand bike because they prefer the road bike wheels,
bars, etc..

Unless you're carrying heavy loads for long distances it's fine to hang
some panniers on a rack. A rack with a long enough platform to ensure
sufficient heel clearance is essential, especially for those with larger
feet. We're only talking a few inches difference between a rack that
works and a rack that doesn't.

It doesn't cost much for the manufacturer to include the mounts for
racks and fenders. I haven't bought a new road bike recently, but in
searching for one for my son I was pleased that as I narrowed the choice
down based on size, frame geometry, material, price, braze-ons/mounts,
rims, gearing, shifter types, etc., the two acceptable models both could
have racks if ever needed.

sms wrote:
On 4/11/2014 1:29 PM, Duane wrote:

Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel
base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you
want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The
Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.

You would not run out and buy a short wheelbase road bike for commuting
or touring. A lot of people try to re-purpose an old road bike into a
commute bike or errand bike because they prefer the road bike wheels, bars, etc..

Unless you're carrying heavy loads for long distances it's fine to hang
some panniers on a rack. A rack with a long enough platform to ensure
sufficient heel clearance is essential, especially for those with larger
feet. We're only talking a few inches difference between a rack that
works and a rack that doesn't.

It doesn't cost much for the manufacturer to include the mounts for racks
and fenders. I haven't bought a new road bike recently, but in searching
for one for my son I was pleased that as I narrowed the choice down based
on size, frame geometry, material, price, braze-ons/mounts, rims,
gearing, shifter types, etc., the two acceptable models both could have
racks if ever needed.

Yes like I said you can find a bike to use for both. Roubaix works for a
road bike and panniers fit fine.
--
duane

On Friday, April 11, 2014 4:11:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2014 5:28 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



The only way I can see to enjoy riding with a rear rack on a short wheelbase bike

is to mount very small panniers or a larger trunk bag. People with short

wheelbase

bikes often use backpacks rather than try to kludge something that is

not going

to be very enjoyable to use anyway.Just like you wouldn't enter a

Clydesdale or

Percheron or Shire horse in a race geared to thorougbred horses it's not

gret

to try to convert a racing geometry bike to long didtance loaded touring.



Again, if I had to tour with a short wheelbase bike, I'd go with front

panniers, plus maybe a saddlebag.



Front panniers put the load on the stronger and more lightly loaded

wheel, can give an aerodynamic advantage (mostly from shielding the

rotating feet from the wind, I think) and slow the steering a bit, which

can be beneficial if you're trying to ride relaxed on a tight bike.



I've used that packing scheme (plus a handlebar bag) on some "credit

card" tours, although that was on my touring bike, not a short wheelbase

bike. The scheme works very well, in my experience.

I wonder how front bags would affect a bike with a steep front end (typical of short wheelbase bikes). I assume it would just make it sluggish rather than making it more twitchy. I never tried front bags on my racing bike because a rear rack worked and was convenient (plenty of room on the Cannondale drop-outs to drill and tap an eyelet). Kludging a front rack was far more difficult and would have required clamps.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:43:07 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 4/11/2014 1:29 PM, Duane wrote:



Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel

base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you

want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The

Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.



You would not run out and buy a short wheelbase road bike for commuting

or touring. A lot of people try to re-purpose an old road bike into a

commute bike or errand bike because they prefer the road bike wheels,

bars, etc..



Unless you're carrying heavy loads for long distances it's fine to hang

some panniers on a rack. A rack with a long enough platform to ensure

sufficient heel clearance is essential, especially for those with larger

feet. We're only talking a few inches difference between a rack that

works and a rack that doesn't.



It doesn't cost much for the manufacturer to include the mounts for

racks and fenders. I haven't bought a new road bike recently, but in

searching for one for my son I was pleased that as I narrowed the choice

down based on size, frame geometry, material, price, braze-ons/mounts,

rims, gearing, shifter types, etc., the two acceptable models both could

have racks if ever needed.

Actually, a lot of people do commute on short wheelbase bies aka racing bikes. Many of those people use their commute to do intervals and/or sprint training.

Sometimes it doesn't take much rearward movement to upset the handling of a bicycle. I had a bicycle that was nearly unmanageable at 30kph until the entire rear rack was rotated forward about 1 inch. The rack leg ws in theexact same position but the deck and panniers were nw 1ich closer to the rider.. It felt like a totally different bike and it handled really well at all speeds.

Also, not much sense in adding mounts for fenders on a racing bike that has no clearance for fenders anyway. Diffeent horses designed for different courses and/or uses

Cheers

On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:26:12 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 4:11:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/11/2014 5:28 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:







The only way I can see to enjoy riding with a rear rack on a short wheelbase bike



is to mount very small panniers or a larger trunk bag. People with short



wheelbase



bikes often use backpacks rather than try to kludge something that is



not going



to be very enjoyable to use anyway.Just like you wouldn't enter a



Clydesdale or



Percheron or Shire horse in a race geared to thorougbred horses it's not



gret



to try to convert a racing geometry bike to long didtance loaded touring.







Again, if I had to tour with a short wheelbase bike, I'd go with front



panniers, plus maybe a saddlebag.







Front panniers put the load on the stronger and more lightly loaded



wheel, can give an aerodynamic advantage (mostly from shielding the



rotating feet from the wind, I think) and slow the steering a bit, which



can be beneficial if you're trying to ride relaxed on a tight bike.







I've used that packing scheme (plus a handlebar bag) on some "credit



card" tours, although that was on my touring bike, not a short wheelbase



bike. The scheme works very well, in my experience.



I wonder how front bags would affect a bike with a steep front end (typical of short wheelbase bikes). I assume it would just make it sluggish rather than making it more twitchy. I never tried front bags on my racing bike because a rear rack worked and was convenient (plenty of room on the Cannondale drop-outs to drill and tap an eyelet). Kludging a front rack was far more difficult and would have required clamps.



-- Jay Beattie.

Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.

Also, using a front rack means you have to use two bags and have nearly equal weight in both so as not to have to constantly hold the bike on course. And you can probably forget about any no hands riding if you're on a quiet stretch of road where you might be tempted to ride no hands for a spell.

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:43:07 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 4/11/2014 1:29 PM, Duane wrote:



Agreed. But what is the point of buying a road bike with a short wheel

base and trying to turn it into a touring bike? Don't get it. If you

want a bike to use as both, there are plenty of options. The

Specialized Roubaix that I've mentioned for one.



You would not run out and buy a short wheelbase road bike for commuting

or touring. A lot of people try to re-purpose an old road bike into a

commute bike or errand bike because they prefer the road bike wheels,

bars, etc..



Unless you're carrying heavy loads for long distances it's fine to hang

some panniers on a rack. A rack with a long enough platform to ensure

sufficient heel clearance is essential, especially for those with larger

feet. We're only talking a few inches difference between a rack that

works and a rack that doesn't.



It doesn't cost much for the manufacturer to include the mounts for

racks and fenders. I haven't bought a new road bike recently, but in

searching for one for my son I was pleased that as I narrowed the choice

down based on size, frame geometry, material, price, braze-ons/mounts,

rims, gearing, shifter types, etc., the two acceptable models both could

have racks if ever needed.

Actually, a lot of people do commute on short wheelbase bies aka racing
bikes. Many of those people use their commute to do intervals and/or sprint training.


Absolutely. And I'm not the only one. Lots of bike of all stripes. Even
saw a couple bents today.

Sometimes it doesn't take much rearward movement to upset the handling of
a bicycle. I had a bicycle that was nearly unmanageable at 30kph until
the entire rear rack was rotated forward about 1 inch. The rack leg ws in
theexact same position but the deck and panniers were nw 1ich closer to
the rider. It felt like a totally different bike and it handled really well at all speeds.

Also, not much sense in adding mounts for fenders on a racing bike that
has no clearance for fenders anyway. Diffeent horses designed for
different courses and/or uses


Well if you don't mind a back pack you can certainly commute on a road bike
without racks or fenders. Same horse different course g

Cheers


--
duane

On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:26:12 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:

I wonder how front bags would affect a bike with a steep front end (typical of short wheelbase bikes). I assume it would just make it sluggish rather than making it more twitchy. I never tried front bags on my racing bike because a rear rack worked and was convenient (plenty of room on the Cannondale drop-outs to drill and tap an eyelet). Kludging a front rack was far more difficult and would have required clamps.

Yes, clamps are likely necessary. They were when I adapted my daughter's road
bike for our coast-to-coast tour. I also fitted a rear rack, handlebar bag, wider tires and fenders. All of that required considerable work, but once
that was done, it worked well for her.

- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:12:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.

I've never used them on a racing-geometry bike, but I've certainly never had
any problems with twitchiness or crosswinds on "sport touring" or full-touring
frames.

I don't see a reason that adding mass to the fork would cause the bike to be more twitchy. The polar moment of inertia about the steering axis must obviously increase, so any angular acceleration of the forks & handlebars would
tend to be reduced, not increased. What mechanism would counter that
tendency?

Also, using a front rack means you have to use two bags and have nearly equal weight in both so as not to have to constantly hold the bike on course.. And you can probably forget about any no hands riding if you're on a quiet stretch of road where you might be tempted to ride no hands for a spell.

I think the equal weight thing is overblown. I've done thousands of miles
touring, paying no particular attention to balancing my loads left to right..
I've done thousands of miles of utility riding with similar disinterest in
balancing loads, including riding with only one rear pannier.

Your bike may lean a degree left or right, but it's no big deal, in my experience. Bikes and riders are pretty adaptable. If your experience
differs, I'd be interested in details.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:15:29 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 10:12:06 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



Front low rider bags can make a racig geometry bike very twitchy especially in strong cross winds or gusts. Also, most racing bikes don't have a way to mount low rider racks unleds you use U-clamps and P-clamps. I don't think I'd want either on a racing fork.



I've never used them on a racing-geometry bike, but I've certainly never had

any problems with twitchiness or crosswinds on "sport touring" or full-touring

frames.
Snipped

- Frank Krygowski

Therein lies the difference. Pure racing bikes do handle differently than sport touring or touring bicycles. The lesser amount of fork rake on a pure racing bike can lead to a lot of problems if you hang panniers on a rack on the front. One of your problems might very well be fot striking a pannier in a low speed turn.

There's pretty good reasons why someone commuting on a pure racing bike usually uses a backpack for their gear rather than trying to kludge a rack and pannier(s) to fit where they were never designed to fit.

Cheers

https://www.google.com/#q=BICYCLE+PH...OUNTERSTEERING

loading the fork may reduce the bicycle's raison physics from squashing front tire's contact patch down onto the pave into a friction hold mode not the usual rolling mode as main component in the bike's physical attributes.

with more and more on fork weight, the bike asks tube ridden more and more upright...not falling into turns.

sensation is powering a FWD system with rear wheel as a trailer. Sensation of riding a bicycle is gone.

Brandt and I would go around on this with Brandt taking an antagonistic position for loading the front end increasing total braking stability and control.

I argued a rear weight bias produced directional control that as more important than total short stop performance. Esp on low friction surfaces where total short distance stop wazingonna happen anyway.

If you load left over right then again the contact patch is irregular. Your analysis please....

maybe in high winds ?

idea of a fatter front tire than rear for loose surfaces supports the almost universal low front weight opinion.