Load carrying devices.

In your opinion, what are the best rigs for carrying significant loads
by pedal power? By "load", I mean a shopping cart with a week's
supply of groceries or similar... too much for a pannier.

Here are a couple that I like:

The B.O.B. trailer. http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php
I own one of these and it pretty well lives up to its claims. I have
hauled up to 60 lb in it. (It's rated to 80.) I find that it tracks
very well... we use it with a tandem and it tracks better than the
bike does! It's easy to attach and drop. Downside: it's difficult to
back with a load and it's a tricky balancing act getting the load into
the trailer. Once you're loaded and pointed in the right direction,
it's great.


The triciclo de carga built in Mexico. Mine is like this one:
http://seguro.coppel.com/coppel/info...?codigo=516783 ;
however, different manufacturers have different configurations. These
are *dangerously* unstable at high speed and have ugly turning
charaisterics when pedaled. That said, they are a very good platform
when you need to carry loads beyond the BOB's capacity. If you're
straight and level and on a good surface, they can be pedaled
effectively in a low gear. If that's not so, then get off and push
it... it pushes easily and is quite stable for that operation. I
regularly carry two carts of groceries and 15 gallons of drinking
water home from the store... two miles... through the snow... uphill
both ways...

Others?

Jones

On Jun 7, 12:50*pm, !Jones wrote:
In your opinion, what are the best rigs for carrying significant loads
by pedal power? *By "load", I mean a shopping cart with a week's
supply of groceries or similar... too much for a pannier.

Here are a couple that I like:

The B.O.B. trailer.http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php
I own one of these and it pretty well lives up to its claims. *I have
hauled up to 60 lb in it. *(It's rated to 80.) *I find that it tracks
very well... we use it with a tandem and it tracks better than the
bike does! *It's easy to attach and drop. *Downside: it's difficult to
back with a load and it's a tricky balancing act getting the load into
the trailer. *Once you're loaded and pointed in the right direction,
it's great.

The triciclo de carga built in Mexico. *Mine is like this one:http://seguro.coppel.com/coppel/info...codigo=516783;
however, different manufacturers have different configurations. *These
are *dangerously* unstable at high speed and have ugly turning
charaisterics when pedaled. *That said, they are a very good platform
when you need to carry loads beyond the BOB's capacity. *If you're
straight and level and on a good surface, they can be pedaled
effectively in a low gear. *If that's not so, then get off and push
it... it pushes easily and is quite stable for that operation. *I
regularly carry two carts of groceries and 15 gallons of drinking
water home from the store... two miles... through the snow... uphill
both ways...

Others?

Jones

You might find some helpful ideas he-

http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=261

Hope this helps.

Lewis.

*****

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:22:19 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech
" wrote:

You might find some helpful ideas he-

http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=261

Hope this helps.

Lewis.

Yes, I follow that one regularly.

Thus far, in the US, anyway, we have tended to think of bicycle
equipment as sporting goods. Bicycle racing is OK, I suppose;
however, there are few useful innovations that follow from it... I
can't think of any offhand, anyway. I applaud fitness riding;
however, the people I know who ride in such groups will drive to the
meeting point... kind of defeating the idea, IMHO.

I suspect that as the economy continues to sour, people will tend to
come back to the utility of the bicycle as basic transportation... I
predict that the $4,000 bicycle will become extinct along with the
Hummer. We will need good fenders, chain guards, and luggage carrying
capacity. We also need well designed bicycle clothing that we can
wear in public and keep a straight face, as well as dual-purpose shoes
in which one can pedal effectively *and* walk. If I'm running
errands, I really don't want to have to change my shoes at every
destination.

Our bicycle techies should quit thinking about how to build them
faster where cost is not a criterion and start thinking about basic
utility. A high-tech, CF racing bicycle is useless if I have to carry
a laptop and a projector to a meeting and I really can't hobble in
looking like a candy cane in spandex. It's time to look over the next
horizon.

Jones

On Jun 8, 9:19 am, !Jones wrote:
snip
Our bicycle techies should quit thinking about how to build them
faster where cost is not a criterion and start thinking about basic
utility. A high-tech, CF racing bicycle is useless if I have to carry
a laptop and a projector to a meeting and I really can't hobble in
looking like a candy cane in spandex. It's time to look over the next
horizon.

Jones

Me To!, (despite it being bad form)


TBerk
..

Per !Jones:
rigs for carrying significant loads

Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

I tried Googling, but no luck.

All I found was http://tinyurl.com/3gros2
--
PeteCresswell

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
GM built it in the '70s, right?

My tricycle is ridable on a smooth road *if* you don't hang a sharp
turn. When I bought it in Monterrey, NL, I asked the mechanic how it
turned... he shrugged and said (translating from Spanish): "If you
value your face as much as I value your face, then you may do as you
please." Therein, I found great wisdom!

Jones

"!Jones" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
GM built it in the '70s, right?

No, it was built by AMC sometimes known as Nash.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

!Jones wrote:
Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
GM built it in the '70s, right?

My tricycle is ridable on a smooth road *if* you don't hang a sharp
turn. When I bought it in Monterrey, NL, I asked the mechanic how it
turned... he shrugged and said (translating from Spanish): "If you
value your face as much as I value your face, then you may do as you
please." Therein, I found great wisdom!

Matador was Rambler-AMC
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"A Muzi" wrote in message
...

Matador was Rambler-AMC

Hey Andy, I suppose it takes a couple of old car buffs such as we are to
remember such things that have nil importance.

"A Muzi" wrote
Matador was Rambler-AMC

Tom Kunich wrote:
Hey Andy, I suppose it takes a couple of old car buffs such as we are to
remember such things that have nil importance.

I used to have a small AMC right-side-drive ex-US Mail truck for the
bike shop. Yoshi Konno saw it, noted the AMC logo, and said dreamily,
"ahh.. Nash..."

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **