Bike Rack for Trek ALR4 Disc (women's)

On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

If you want to hammer a nail you don't use a rake. Maybe that is something that an idiot like you can understand. You do not force a rack upon a bike specifically designed not to have one.

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 3:11:35 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
SconnieRoadie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 11:43:52 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 8:24:38 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2020 at 5:53:44 AM UTC-7, SconnieRoadie wrote:
Hi,

Trek in their infinite wisdom chose not to put attachment points on my
GF's bike, which also has 12mm thru axles and disc brakes. In
searching for an axle mount rear rack, I find nothing. Not that the
brackets to attach with an 9mm QR can't be easily cootered out to fit,
but I would like a no-cooter solution, i.e., 12mm thru axle mount rear rack.

There is a beam style that has padded metal clamps to attach to the
seat stays that would work but that is like $90 and the axle mount ones are like $35.

Little help here?

TIA

Sconnie

Which ALR4? I assume its the Emonda ALR4 since the Checkpoint has a
rack eyelet. Right? If so, that's basically a race bike not built for
racks, so any rack will be a kludge or a post/beam rack. I'm not aware
of any rear eyelet axle add-on.
The stays could not be strong enough to support one of the clamp-on
racks and a axle mount is a very bad idea.

Huh, then why are these axle mount racks selling so well? There are tons
of them out there.

You have nothing to add. Go away.

Sconnie


A friend uses a rack that clamps on the seat post as Mr Muzi suggested. It
seems to work well. I’m thinking of something similar since my commute
became a bit longer and I now have a laptop in my backpack.

Be careful. A rack with a load on it completely changes the balance of a bike like an Emonda ALR.

On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/23/2020 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city
bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be
anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between
sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding.
If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry
loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a
gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc.,
etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's
obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a
time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of
stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack
attachement would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then
there's the similar performance boost by using a delicate
carbon fiber seatpost that can't support a seatpost rack.
You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge you to a
quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there,
even with through axles.

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of
versatility a selling point. And the customers who say "This
will be my only bike, but I'll never ever want to carry
anything with it."



Frank there are good reasons that Pagani doesn't ship his
car with a bike roof rack.

If you bought a Pagani and then complained there was no way
to carry bikes on it that's your problem not his.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Lou

Lou

On 7/23/2020 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of
versatility a selling point. And the customers who say "This
will be my only bike, but I'll never ever want to carry
anything with it."



Frank there are good reasons that Pagani doesn't ship his car with a
bike roof rack.

If you bought a Pagani and then complained there was no way to carry
bikes on it that's your problem not his.

Of course, I wouldn't buy a Pagani under any circumstances, even at one
thousandth it's current price. Cars like that are marketed at those with
super-active fantasy lives, or with a pathetic need to show off, plus
not much sense.

But to compare a couple slightly more practical cars: One person I know
asked for help strapping a typical folding bike rack onto the rear of
her Nissan Leaf electric car. She needed to carry a couple kids bikes
from time to time. But Nissan apparently told a team of engineers to be
sure no bike rack could ever fit that car. (Well, perhaps a hitch
mounted rack, if you paid to install a hitch receiver, which she didn't
want to do.)

By contrast, our Mazda 3 has hidden hard mounts in the roof, four 6mm
female threads that allowed me to easily re-use a roof rack I already
owned. And of course, I can strap a typical rear rack in place.

ISTM that the sort of person who would buy a plug-in electric car is
precisely the sort of person who would ride a bike. So what benefit came
from omitting the hard mounts for a bike rack? Or designing a rear hatch
and rear "spoiler" that precluded use of a strap-on rack?

Answer: Precisely the same benefit that comes from omitting a few female
threaded holes for mounting a rack on a bike. None at all.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 8:42:11 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

Franky-boy depicted himself as a mechanical engineer and yet he doesn't know that the Emonda ALR and especially the women's version has a short wheelbase and it doesn't take much weight behind the seat tube to greatly change the balance of the bike. Apparently he has never noticed that touring bikes had a long wheelbase so that racks have a great deal less effect on the handling of the bike. But I suppose that's a real mechanical engineer for you.. I've been apparently under the impression that all of the mechanical engineers I worked with on one of the really successful projects were more than smart enough to understand things like that. I suppose it takes a college teacher to be that stupid.

On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 11:41:22 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 12:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/23/2020 10:42 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of
versatility a selling point. And the customers who say "This
will be my only bike, but I'll never ever want to carry
anything with it."



Frank there are good reasons that Pagani doesn't ship his car with a
bike roof rack.

If you bought a Pagani and then complained there was no way to carry
bikes on it that's your problem not his.

Of course, I wouldn't buy a Pagani under any circumstances, even at one
thousandth it's current price. Cars like that are marketed at those with
super-active fantasy lives, or with a pathetic need to show off, plus
not much sense.

But to compare a couple slightly more practical cars: One person I know
asked for help strapping a typical folding bike rack onto the rear of
her Nissan Leaf electric car. She needed to carry a couple kids bikes
from time to time. But Nissan apparently told a team of engineers to be
sure no bike rack could ever fit that car. (Well, perhaps a hitch
mounted rack, if you paid to install a hitch receiver, which she didn't
want to do.)

By contrast, our Mazda 3 has hidden hard mounts in the roof, four 6mm
female threads that allowed me to easily re-use a roof rack I already
owned. And of course, I can strap a typical rear rack in place.

ISTM that the sort of person who would buy a plug-in electric car is
precisely the sort of person who would ride a bike. So what benefit came
from omitting the hard mounts for a bike rack? Or designing a rear hatch
and rear "spoiler" that precluded use of a strap-on rack?

Answer: Precisely the same benefit that comes from omitting a few female
threaded holes for mounting a rack on a bike. None at all.

Should we be surprised that Franky-boy missed the entire point? Or was he simply swerving around the point?

On 7/23/2020 1:30 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 5:42:11 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2020 2:58 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 4:17:21 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/22/2020 1:19 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 22.07.2020 um 18:41 schrieb :

If you wanted a city bike why didn't you buy a city bike? Spending
more money on a sport bike doesn't mean it should be anything more
than a sport bike.

Nowadays, there's also Gravel bikes as a cross between sport bikes and
city bikes.

IOW, sport bikes should be used only for sporty riding. If you want to
ride in a city, buy a city bike. If you want to carry loads, buy a
touring bike. If you ever want to ride on gravel, buy a gravel bike. If
you want to ride in comfort, buy a comfort bike... etc., etc. This is
the age of bike specialization!

You say you want versatility? How quaint! That's obviously a thing of
the past. Get with the program and buy several new bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, just think carefully before you buy a bike. Buying a time trial bike is not wise if you want to carry a lot of stuff once in a while.

Right. Because building in a few tapped holes for a rack attachement
would slow a time trial bike SO much! Then there's the similar
performance boost by using a delicate carbon fiber seatpost that can't
support a seatpost rack. You never know when Mr. Froome might challenge
you to a quick sprint, so you need those advantages!

All that is not the question. You should asked why the OP end up with that bike if putting on a rack was a requirement. With the current offerings of bikes you must be really dumb/ignorant/foolish/naive not finding a bike that can't take a rear rack even without an adaptor which is a kludge from the beginning. Today most of the times you end up what is called nowadays with a gravel bike.


If you want a versatile bike buy one, they are out there, even with through axles.


I wonder about the marketing geniuses who make lack of versatility a
selling point. And the customers who say "This will be my only bike, but
I'll never ever want to carry anything with it."

The marketing guy is just doing his job and I don't think he puts 'lack of versatility' in the ad or mention it in the commercial. If plenty versatile bikes are out there who is to blame? And you know what versatility will be mentioned as a selling point for the bikes in question. You just have to pay attention.

Yes, you do nave to pay attention to avoid getting a trendy bike with
hugely limited practicality. Because ability to carry more than a loaf
of bread is now considered somehow detrimental, at least in some market
segments. Just as, recently, ability to install even 28mm tires was
somehow detrimental.

It didn't used to be that way. Plenty of people carried significant
loads on "sport touring" bikes, either commuting to work, getting
groceries or even hauling camping gear. When unladen, those bikes worked
as well as full-on racing bikes by simply changing rear cogs.

No more. Now you've got to realize that "sporty" means "can't carry
anything." If you're a denizen of this discussion group or an avid
reader of other bike information you'll have been warned. But if you're
an average bike customer you can end up stuck.

I guess this is somehow good for the industry. Retailers can say "You
want to do sporty weekend rides AND ride to work? Well, you'll need two
bikes!" But it seems counterproductive for people who actually ride bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/22/2020 6:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I did a credit-card tour on my Cannondale Black Lightning racing bike and used an old Blackburn rack that attached to the brake bridge and dropout eyelets. I drilled and tapped the rear dropouts, which were aluminum plate. I don't think that's an option on the Trek. It looks like there may be an option for attachment at a through axle. https://robertaxleproject.com/cargo-rack-thru-axles/

Good find.

There are a bunch of seatpost clamps that have eyelets for attaching
racks when the manufacturer forgot to put mounts for a rack onto the
seat stays, don't know which clamp, if any, would fit the ALR4.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0014GGN0K
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001V537I0
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0064QGIDC
https://www.molehillbikes.com/product/giant-qr-seatpost-clamp-w-rack-mount-244217-1.htm