Camilo

My reply above might be taken as being opposed to the 1.25 option. Based on prior experience with a 1.25" rack, I don't believe there's any stability issue. I do not have any knowledge about the 1.25 options the OP was talking about and if the 2" version actually provides features that the 1.25" model does not.

I was just trying to make the point that having a 1.25" receiver on a vehicle should not be considered a barrier to getting a 2" rack. If the OP's 2" option has features that the 1.25 does not, go with the 2". The adapters - especially with an anti-rattle clamp - are as stable and quiet as if they weren't there. I did acknowledge that the adapter does extend the receiver therefore increasing torque of the load and that needs to be taken into consideration. This needs to be considered for heavy loads like the tongue weight of a trailer, or a receiver hitch cargo carrier. But not for a bike rack (IMHO). Maybe not if the user had two heavy e-bikes? But for normal road or mountain bikes, I don't think weight is an issue.

Anyway, I had several personal reasons to get the 2", not in order, but it wasn't based on stability, per se. My rack is a Yakima. I like to have the option of using it on my 2" receiver (truck) and the possibility of adding 2 more bikes (total 4) which the 2" Yakima has an option for, but not the 1.25 (which I wouldn't do if it was on the 2" adapter car). Second, the 2" was available locally where the 1.25 would have required shipping expense - not insignificant where I live. Finally, I already had a 2" adapter in place for a small utility trailer I tow regularly. Factors which likely don't apply very often to others!

My previous Yakima receiver rack was 1.25 and 2" compatible. The shaft was 1.25, but it came with a very simple 2" adapter that was attached to the shaft with an allen bolt, didn't require the receiver itself to have an adapter. I wonder why this isn't routine?