Tourist in MSN

I decided to put the triangle on my bike for my Florida tour in 2017, got the triangle in 2012. And have used it for subsequent tours after 2017 even though they had nothing to do with ACA. On my Canada tour (photo below) for a while when I was low on groceries my rack top bag did not have enough stuff in it to display the triangle very well, so I put it on my left pannier. It might be my imagination, but I was thinking that the cars that were passing me gave me an extra foot or two when the triangle was on the left side. So, now I always put it on the left instead of centered on the bike.



The photo above on a really gray day make that triangle look REALLY visible.

But, if I was in the UK, it would be on the right side.

To make a long story short, I have a set of Carradry panniers too. Decided to try them on the tour the photo above is from. That is why you see photos here with two different sets of panniers. And I just realized that in my three photos with the triangle here, you have seen all three of my touring bikes.

Duragrouch

Tourist, nice info. I really could not see the logic of a narrow top platform on rear rack, I have a trunk bag. But now I see that on a long tour, it may be better to bring the panniers closer and use a big top bag like you have. I think my rack lower tiers are just high enough for the panniers to support a big bag, but have most of the weight on the rack, and not pushing down on the panniers.

Gosh, touring with a trailer and LWB 'bent was so much easier in loading, but that was a bear just transporting in a car, and that's with a folding-frame recumbent; Via air or even train, that would be near impossible. And can't even wheel or carry up stairs. And hill-climbing was terrible.

robow

For those that like a rear rack with a very large top platform, look at the Jandd Expedition Rear rack, that thing is a beast and well made, that is if you can still find one.

Duragrouch

I vaguely recall that, but also, their expedition panniers, they were huge, I think long fore/aft, and ballistic nylon I think, heavy even empty, 5 lbs seems to stick in my brain, not sure. Touring with a trailer was a pain in some ways, so I had bought a longer recumbent frame, thinking to sit forwardmost and then use the extra length to carry two panniers per side or expedition panniers and two top bags. But I never followed through with the plan.

The rear rack on my folder needed super extra long stays, Jandd had some. Of late, there is another rack maker that offers same for similar price.

Rick

Jandd Mountain Expedition Panniers and if I read it correctly 163 ltr a pair.

Tourist in MSN

Wow. That is huge.

The few times that I actually weighed my full panniers on a trip, the weight was roughly one third to one half of a kg per liter of volume, including the empty weight of the panniers. If the panniers were full of water, that would be one kg per liter without the weight of empty panniers, so my gear was roughly one third to one half of the weight of water for its volume. In this case I am considering the empty weight of the pannier to be round off error for my rule of thumb for weights.

If those Jandd panniers were loaded with stuff that was one third of a kg per liter, that is roughly 55 kg for the pair of rear panniers, which would exceed almost every rack out there for capacity. The Thorn Expedition rack is rated at 60kg, but only if you use M6 bolts instead of M5. That is the only rack I know that has a rating high enough for that kind of load. Exception, there are some Axiom racks that are rated way too high, I do not trust their ratings.

My Ortlieb Backrollers are 40 liter for the pair in rear. Ortlieb makes some extra wide ones, I do not recall exact number but I think it is in the range of 70 liters for the pair?

I wanted some larger rear panniers for a specific trip. The Carradry were advertised as 58 liter at that time. I bought a pair and was disappointed, I guessed they actually were about 50 or 52 liter for the pair. The trip did not happen, so in the end I should not have bought them. But since I had them, I did try them on my 2019 tour, they worked well. Later Carradry changed the rating from 58 to a more accurate 48 liter but they never explained why they made the volume change when the pannier dimensions did not change.

Carradice Super C rear panniers are rated at 54 liters for the pair.

Machka for her round the world tour with Rowan used some really big rear panniers, I am guessing 60 liter or so. I think Altura was the brand they used.

cyccommute 

There’s something hinky there. Jandd say the panniers are 16”x14.5”x6”. That’s 1504 cubic inches per side or 3008 cu in total. Or for the rest of the world, 62 liters. The Ortlieb Back-Roller is 40L. The panniers have a telescoping arrangement that adds 10” to the height for an additional 2080 cubic inches (total) or an additional 34L. That makes for 96L. That’s expanded. They are 50L shy of 112 L in the collapsed form and 67L shy in the expanded 163L form. Those pockets don’t seem that big. That’s almost another full set of panniers short of the volume of the claimed expanded size. Somethin’ ain’t right.

Duragrouch

Wow, they're even heavier empty than I remember, which I also remember as ballistic nylon (my memory could be wrong, this was mid-'90s) which I think is heavier and globally stronger but not as abrasion resistant as cordura which has a tighter weave.

Those definitely would not fit all behind the axle on my 20" wheeler, so big heelstrike issues, plus the loaded weight alone might be a challenge.

Those would be b!tchin panniers on the back of my LWB recumbent.

RCMoeur 

They're not light, but they are stiff and strong. And great for heel clearance on short-chainstay frames. We have them on the tandem, and I will neither confirm nor deny I may have hoarded some from bike swaps and past Jandd sales.

My go-to panniers are Jandd Commuters, which fit OK on most racks but very well on the Expedition rack.

dminden

My bike is a Gunnar Fastlane.

dminden

Thanks for the article. I did a all front-loaded tour of Colorado through 3 9000 foot passes. Heavily loaded handlebar bag may have been the reason I was exhausted managing the steering. Front rack was Tubus Tara, handlebar rig was Arkle Large.

dminden

Do you have a pic?

Tourist in MSN

I wish you would have said this in the first post. A google search for images shows me several photos that show the mounting points up pretty high compared to the more conventional frame designs of years ago. For example:
https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/gunna...ane-disc-30200

Photo below is my Lynskey Backroad, also with the mounting points up high, this is a few days after I built it up, I have a Racktime Addit rack on it. I mounted my fenders on the lower mounting points, rack on the upper mounting points. Note how high up the rack is on that bike>



The Tubus Logo EVO has similar dimensions to the Racktime rack.

Photo below, after I drilled new holes in the rack to be able to mount it lower and in this photo I mounted both rack and rear fender on that lower mounting point with the same bolt.



That is a much better height. My point is that the Logo EVO would not allow you to drill new mounting holes in the rack. The plain (non-EVO) Logo, I do not know about. And I am most certain it would void any warranty if that is a concern to you.

Photo below shows my mounting in more detail, the fenders are mounted on the insides, rack on the outside on the same bolts.



The bolts are up high far enough that the chain will not get near the fender mount or bolt, which would be a concern with lower mounting points.

I think the Logo is a great rack, but, some of the newer bikes with high mounting points complicate things.

dminden

I see the dimensional concerns, good explanation and pics. I'll start looking at measurements and structures for racks!

Duragrouch

Very nice setup. Looks like you're rockin' half-step-plus-granny, I like seeing old-school, and 5-arm spiders.

Regarding your rack lower mounts, the loaded rack is exerting a couple hundred times the force of the fender stays; By having the rack further outboard, this subjects the bolts to way more bending load, rather than closer to pure shear, if the rack was inboard against the frame and the fender stay outboard (if possible). On such small diameter bolts, that distance makes a difference in fatigue life. Consider.

Duragrouch

Yeah, having a lot of "steered mass" is tiring, worse if not centered on the steering axis, and if high mounted, even worse, as greater felt loads when rocking the bike laterally while climbing standing. On a lot of folding bikes now, there is a "front block", a block with threaded holes, welded to the front of the head tube, and a bracket attaches there to hold loads; On the one hand, I like that those loads are not steered mass, makes the steering a whole lot lighter, and mounted low (just over the 20" wheels), so less rocking inertia; On the other hand, I don't like cantilevered loads that far out from a small bolt span, especially on an aluminum frame. Early Moulton "shoppers" (non-space-frame) had a monobeam front frame, and the front rack cross-bolted to the frame just behind the head tube, at the vertical center of the frame tube (on the neutral axis in bending), so ideal for stresses, while still having the load be non-steered, a smart design, but Alex Moulton was known for that.

Tourist in MSN

Look again, the rack is outside the frame mounting point, the fender is inside it. It helps to look at both right and left sides of the bike when you think about it.

Duragrouch

OOOHHH, OK, that's great. I thought you had the fender stay between the rack and the bike frame. Got it, thanks.