Load carrying devices.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:32:37 +0100, !Jones wrote:


Let's see... that's one of these things:

http://www.xtracycle.com/hitchless-t...-kits-c-4.html

Hummm... interesting contraption. And your logic makes sense. I
chose BOB because I could drop it quickly; however, I have needed it
and not had it. Lately, I just leave it on. The only issue there is
backing it, which is a PITA. On the tandem, it's easier: "Honey,
would you mind swinging the trailer for me? ... Thank you!"

I'd hate having a BOB bob-bobbing behind a solo all the time.

How much trouble is it to convert? I suspect that one wouldn't do it
casually... brakes gotta move, etc. What's the down side of it?
(Everything has one.)

The conversion took me half an hour or so. It's just a case of bolting it
to the dropouts and chainstays, lengthening the chain and fitting longer
brake and gear cables. All parts are supplied and the instructions are
pretty good. I had to fit a Vee brake - there isn't a suitable cable stop
for cantilevers. There is a mount for an ISO 160mm disc caliper, but it's
set for a 203mm rotor, so that's another part that would need to be
changed. The ideal base is a hardtail steel hybrid/mountain bike, 6-8
sprockets, 128-135 OLD.

Downsides?

It's semi-permanent, so it doesn't make sense with a light, sporty bike,
or one with rear suspension. I wouldn't recommend a tandem either.
The 700c model is the same as the 26" apart from the brake mounts, and
won't take a tyre fatter than about 35mm.
The Freeloaders are wonderfully expandable, but leave their contents open
to view. Waterproof bags are a must! Loading is easy so long ar you load
the kickstand side first (but a centre stand would be nice).

That's about it. Tns thing is so simple that it seems expensive even
though it is very well made. It took me nearly a year to decide it
wouldn't be worth my while to get someone to weld up a clone. I'm glad I
did!

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:40:14 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech "Jenny Brien"
wrote:

I'd hate having a BOB bob-bobbing behind a solo all the time.

The handling of the BOB is the main reason I like that configuration;
empty or under a pannier weight load, you don't notice it at all...
until you try to swing it into a parked position. That last *is* a
consideration when you think of how often you do that. Once you're
under way, it's the greatest device since the bread slicer.

On your contraption, I think I'd see the stand(s) on the outboard side
of the "pannier" floor. Of course, it probably doesn't lock in the
down position; wasn't that why we invented gravity? Also, the stand
would be in two pieces with obvious issues there.

I see they have an integrated frame. I have long thought that pannier
racks should be designed into the frame of the bike instead of being
bolted on later. The racers wouldn't buy them, but the commuter needs
a luggage rack.

Jones

http://www.kogswell.com/

Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 kg on
the rack.

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
wrote:

http://www.kogswell.com/

Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 kg on
the rack.

Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide
rack... what am I missing?

Jones

In article ,
!Jones wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
wrote:

http://www.kogswell.com/

Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100
kg on the rack.

Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide
rack... what am I missing?

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There
are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or
50 mm trail.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article ,
!Jones wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
wrote:

http://www.kogswell.com/

Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100
kg on the rack.

Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide
rack... what am I missing?

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There
are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or
50 mm trail.

But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate to
long in the first place?

The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when you
turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the fork trying
to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those bikes and I never
once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure that they must have had a
much higher than normal crash frequency.

That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything.

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article , !Jones
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim
McNamara wrote:

http://www.kogswell.com/

Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to
100 kg on the rack.

Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the
wide rack... what am I missing?

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail.
There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result
in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail.

But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate
to long in the first place?

Typical road bike trail is about 60 mm. 30 mm is very low trail and is
suitable for heavy loads on the fork.

The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when
you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the
fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those
bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure
that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency.

That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything.

Yup. At least in terms of steering geometry. But "getting used to" and
"best for the application" are different things.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail.
There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result
in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail.

But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate
to long in the first place?

Typical road bike trail is about 60 mm. 30 mm is very low trail and is
suitable for heavy loads on the fork.

Whoops, I got confused. I guess the trail on my Look is 47 mm and not 27 mm.

The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when
you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the
fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those
bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure
that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency.

That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything.

Yup. At least in terms of steering geometry. But "getting used to" and
"best for the application" are different things.

Well, I don't believe that the average user would see much difference. As
noted above - if they couldn't complain about REVERSE trail, telling the
difference between some trail and a little more probably would go so far
over their heads that it isn't funny.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:09:56 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
wrote:

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There
are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or
50 mm trail.

OK. I have ridden bikes with l-o-n-g trail. The Schwinn B6 with a
springer comes to mind... an obscene contraption from a handling point
of view, but it looks cool! And I have an old Littlejohn tandem with
almost no trail... BMX fork. How does that change the load carrying
charaisterics? I think I'd be trying to get the load lower than it is
in the picture... what do they call those bikes with the 20" front and
the low basket? I want to say "Workman", but I may be thinking of the
wrong machine... never ridden one, anyway. Seems like they're long
trail, though.

Jones

In article ,
!Jones wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:09:56 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
wrote:

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail.
There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in
30, 40 or 50 mm trail.

OK. I have ridden bikes with l-o-n-g trail. The Schwinn B6 with a
springer comes to mind... an obscene contraption from a handling
point of view, but it looks cool! And I have an old Littlejohn
tandem with almost no trail... BMX fork.

I can't tell if you are are talking about fork rake (offset) or trail.

How does that change the load carrying charaisterics? I think I'd be
trying to get the load lower than it is in the picture... what do
they call those bikes with the 20" front and the low basket? I want
to say "Workman", but I may be thinking of the wrong machine... never
ridden one, anyway. Seems like they're long trail, though.

You can find good explanations of trail at various places on the web-
Sheldon's site, for example. With less trail, the steering is less
sensitive to weight on the front of the bike. There's less wheel flop,
the front end doesn't rise and fall as much as the bars sweep through
their range from lock to lock, etc.

The P/R was basically copied from Rene Herse and Alex Singer "porteur"
bikes, which were designed for French newspaper carriers hauling up to
100 kg of newspapers from the printer to the kiosks all over Paris.
There was an annual race, too, which began in 1895 and ran until the
1960s:

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/courierracing/journaux.html

Click the links on that page, there are some great photos of these guys
racing around Paris on the bikes with big piles of newspapers on them.
It was a big deal in those days:

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/courierra...rnaux_unk.html