ciderguy

It seems that there are many bicycles with eyelets for fenders & rear racks that are in the ASTM Intended Use Category 1 Suitable for Road Riding Only. ASTM 1 says that such bicycles should not be ridden with racks and panniers and that light-weight seat bags are the only acceptable way to mount cargo on such bikes.

What gives? Why produce a bike with mounts for a rack and then say it isn't intended for a rack?

What are the actual standards anyway? I don't feel like paying ASTM money just to read over these documents. Should someone be worried about riding an ASTM 1 bicycle with a rack & panniers when the frame seems designed for such use?

fietsbob

Whats ASTM? send Pictures of what you are talking about ..

GamblerGORD53

Prolly the same Nannie Ninnies saying you wil DIE if the standover is less than an inch.

JonathanGennick 

ASTM is a standards organization. They promulgate standards for how bicycles and parts are constructed, so that they don't fall apart when you ride them.

ASTM International - Site Search

Cross Creek

American Society for Testing and Materials

fietsbob

Why does that have you getting your Knickers in a Knot Over an engineering standard?

JonathanGennick 

Actually, the current name is simply ASTM International. They no longer expand the abbreviation.

fietsbob

Overthink this much while doing your Real Job?

if you were a Mechanical engineer you probably have reference books on your shelves.

what is Your intended use of a Bicycle?

CliffordK

The dropout eyelets can also be used to mount fenders. Less likely the upper eyelets are used for fenders though.

The judgement on whether a frame will take a rack probably should be done on a case-by-case basis.

I could imagine testing and standards for racks. For example, a bike should be able to handle fine with standing hill climbs and 30 MPH descents with a 30 pound single sided load or a 50 pound distributed load. And, have reasonable fatigue resistance for longevity.,

I'm not, however, convinced that all racks are created equally either.

I've been riding a road bike with a rear rack and no eyelets for decades... and the rack, the bike, as well as myself have all survived the ordeal.

JonathanGennick 

Standards companies charge for their work because that his how they stay in business and fund continued development of the various standards that they sell.

No one really expects the average person to buy these documents. The target market will be the bike brands like Trek and Giant and so forth. Lawyers might by them in support of litigation. Journalists might by them for research. And I'm sure the occasional enthusiast buys a copy now and then.

The standards themselves have no legal force, but I did read just now that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) participates in the creation of the ASTM standards involving bicycles. I suppose it is possible that a law or a CPSC rule could incorporate a standard by reference.

There's value in the standards. Imagine you wanted to create a new brand around bicycle forks. You had better have some design standards in place. Paying the ASTM for theirs is a lot less expensive than doing research from first-principles and developing your own standards from scratch. And if you did develop from scratch, you'd want to check against work from ASTM and other standards bodies to help ensure that you have not overlooked anything.

If you built and sold a fork and were involved in a lawsuit, and you could be shown to have completely ignored the available standards, then that probably would go against you in a jury trial. So there's an element here of covering one's backside, but one can also benefit from the work of others who have gone before.

I can't shed any light on your frame and what it's capable of, because you haven't told us what it is. You would probably do better in asking the brand -- Giant, Trek, etc. -- about what their frame is capable of.

CliffordK

I'm not sure about bicycles, but there are many places where the laws are written to require the use of the "standards".

For example, building or remodelling your personal house, you may be required to follow standards that are in a commercially sold codebook.

avidone1

Dear road bike Nazi,
How about this.........There are enough potential customers who may have occasion to mount racks on a drop bar bike to justify the manufacturer drilling a couple of holes.
I know this is purist heresy and we should all shun the devil worshiping brands who dare defile the holiest of bicycles, but hey, as a stockholder is say "drill baby drill"

Drew Eckhardt 

YES. I should be able to ride a sporty bike to work without lugging laptop/work clothes/rain clothes on my back or kludging something with P-clamps and hose clamps. That sort of setup is ideal for longer commutes and recreational rides in the afternoon both solo and with co-workers (I've worked two places with 20-30 mile group rides).

Nearly all the sportiest street legal cars (does the BAC mono have a trunk?) come with luggage space, often enough for things like golf clubs and bicycles (which may require folding the rear seat down).

By default road bicycles should be the same and not require adjustments like this:


Bottom eyelets in the drop-outs could actually save a few grams.

dedhed

Bicycle Safety and Bicycle Standards

ciderguy

GT's manual is available on-line and provides a good example. https://www.gtbicycles.com/media/uplo...nersManual.pdf

ASTM 1 Is considered "High-Performance Road"
It states that:
"Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specificperformance. You must understand that (1) these types of bikesare intended to give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist aperformance advantage over a relatively short product life, (2) a lessaggressive rider will enjoy longer frame life, (3) you are choosinglight weight (shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longerframe life, (4) you are choosing light weight over more dent resistantor rugged frames that weigh more. All frames that are very lightneed frequent inspection for cracks that would indicate that the frameis worn out from fatigue. These frames are likely to be damagedor broken in a crash. They are not designed to take abuse or be arugged workhorse."

And that they are "not intended" for "touring with racks or panniers".

ASTM 2 Bikes can be used for touring.

My current bike is classified as ASTM 1. The authorized GT Dealer sold me a rear rack and panniers as part of my purchase and installed them on the bike. So, now I'm trying to determine if I should return it and purchase an ASTM 2 or higher bike or not.

JonathanGennick 

What's the specific model of bike that we are talking about? What do you plan to carry on that rack and in those panniers? It's difficult to say more without knowing the specifics of the matter.

If your mind would be more at ease on a touring bike, that alone is reason enough to go back and make the return if you are able to do so. Peace of mind is worth that much.

ciderguy

I'm on a 2016 GT Traffic 2.0. It is my only form of transportation other than walking. So, the rear rack carries a moderate amount of groceries, small first-aid kit, tube, mini-pump, multi-tool, and lock, a change of clothing, or anything less than 40lbs total I feel like I need to take with me.

The bike feels solid. I don't really see any reason to return it, except for this ASTM category stuff. Everything else in ASTM Category One are pretty much road bikes with CF forks or full CF frames. My bike is aluminum with a steel fork. When I read the manual, I was surprised to see the Traffic listed in the same category as all of those lightweight racing bikes.

My budget doesn't allow for a "touring" bike. There simply aren't any bikes defined as appropriate for touring avilable new at any LBS that are within my price range. If I return the Traffic, I'm likely going to end up with an inexpensive hardtail 29er with a lockout fork that I'll put road tires, fenders, and a rack on. Or, possibly a comfort / city bike with an integrated rear rack.

JonathanGennick 

You have nothing to worry about. That's just my humble opinion of course, but I wouldn't think twice about putting a rack and so forth onto that bike.

Who knows why it ended up in the category it did, but I really believe you're fine in carrying groceries and the like. I had thought you might be talking about some carbon-fiber wunderbike. Aluminum frame and steel fork? And a bike that's already got fenders on it? And that looks designed for the purpose and has mounts front and back? I really don't believe you should worry at all.

FWIW, most bicycle manuals are generic. Does your manual specifically say that your bike is ASTM 1? Or does it just describe the various categories? Because the manual I dug from my trash just now lists categories like Road, All-terrain, Hybrid, and Comfort. It doesn't slot my frame into any of them. It just describes them and leaves the rest to my imagination.

Technically your bike is probably considered as a "road bike" in the sense of not being designed with mountain-bike trails in mind, but it is clearly designed with rack and pannier and fender mounts. That mount halfway up your fork leg for example, is for a front pannier. It would not be there if GT did not want you to mount a pannier on the fork.

I really do think you can relax and enjoy the bike.

ciderguy

The manual does specifically state that the bike is ASTM 1. Why? Who knows. Perhaps testing for ASTM 2 costs more?

I'll ask GT after they get around to answering my other questions I sent them (serial # not on paperwork & manual says it is required for warranty / little flexible tab things that go on the end of the fenders fell off or weren't present when I picked up the bike). The mostly generic manual is useless. It tells me I'm not supposed to use the bike to do something it is clearly designed to do, but then doesn't tell me how to do things like replace the parts of the disc brakes that wear out.

I don't intend to take the bike on mountain trails. I just needed inexpensive & reliable transportation in my local area. The bike has been flawless at this so far.

I wouldn't have even read the manual, but the LBS paperwork and GT website clearly stated that the "manual must be read before riding the bike." Perhaps they should write a manual that they intend people to read. I'm just going to relax and keep riding it. It has been a joy to ride.

Leebo

It will asplode.

JonathanGennick 

Hey, thanks for posting the photo. Your bike looks nice. The panniers on the back look good.

Those generic manuals are what I sometimes term as "Don't sue me" documents. They exist to cover the brand's backside in case you do something silly with the bike and hurt yourself.

You mentioned the manual not helping you to actually maintain your bike. It's difficult to write manuals to cover the detailed components. I suppose it could be done, but it would raise costs and turns into a big can of worms. So the way it works is that whomever made your disk brakes, for example, will have a manual for those brakes that you can hopefully find online. Likewise there may be instructions for your shifters and other parts that are in various places online. A lot of parts are more or less standardized to the point where bike mechanics "just know" what do with them.

If you do want to learn to work on your bike, these forums are the place to be. Lots of very experienced people are on here. Just post up with a question anytime.

FBOATSB

Nifty bike. Kudos for the kickstand. My unqualified opinion is if the manufacturer makes eyelets then they are intended to be used. I suppose they don't give a maximum weight limit in their manual either.

ciderguy

I had to have the kickstand added. I don't understand a world where a "commuter" bike comes factory equipped with a bell, but no kickstand. I'm about to steal the rubber kickstand bottom off of my previous BSO to put on this kickstand. I liked the way that stand didn't make the annoying metal on pavement sound.

They actually do give weight limits in the manual. It says the rider should weigh no more than 275lbs and "luggage" no more than 10lbs. It also specifies that luggage should be limited to a seat or handlebar bag only.

I'm still waiting for it to explode.

FBOATSB

I wouldn't worry about that generic weight limit, you would start popping spokes way before you could damage a frame. IMHO
32 14 GA s.s. spokes W/ brass nipples per wheel am I right? Ride on