Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Touring
Reload this Page >

60/40 weight distribution?

Notices
Touring Have a dream to ride a bike across your state, across the country, or around the world? Self-contained or fully supported? Trade ideas, adventures, and more in our bicycle touring forum.

60/40 weight distribution?

Old 04-30-22, 01:07 AM
  #26  
gna
Count Orlok Member
 
gna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,821

Bikes: Raleigh Sports, Raleigh Twenty, Raleigh Wyoming, Raleigh DL1, Schwinn Winter Bike

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked 176 Times in 97 Posts
REI's 60/40 recommendation of weight in the panniers is based on the idea that your tent and sleeping back will be strapped to the rear rack, so the weight should be evenly distributed. Just try to get it about even front to back and side to side.
I found steering took some getting used to with weight up front.
gna is offline  
Old 05-05-22, 02:56 PM
  #27  
Pratt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked 488 Times in 291 Posts
Is that 60:40 for the load, or 60:40 for the load and rider?
Since the rider's weight is mostly on the rear, it would seem that almost the whole load would have to be on the front.
Pratt is offline  
Old 05-06-22, 05:09 AM
  #28  
staehpj1
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by Pratt
Is that 60:40 for the load, or 60:40 for the load and rider?
Since the rider's weight is mostly on the rear, it would seem that almost the whole load would have to be on the front.
The 60:40 number is for the load in references I have seen, but it is a pretty arbitrary thing based on certain assumptions that may or may not apply. I think of it as one of those rules of thumb that are nice to shoot for with the typical load on the typical bike.

Depending on the weight of the load and the weight of the rider, the effect of that distribution can be pretty insignificant. With a heavy rider and a very light load, where the load goes has very little impact while with a light rider and a heavy load the opposite is true. Also I'd argue that the real purpose of the statement isn't so much to reach a particular distribution as it is to get some of the load off of the back.

Personally I'd suggest just putting as much of the smaller denser stuff in the front and bigger less dense stuff in the back as is practical when using 4 panniers. Putting all of the load on the front is fine unless you are carrying a lot. So going front panniers only is okay if you can. Doing that with a bit of gear (often the tent) on top of the rear rack works well.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 05-06-22, 05:22 AM
  #29  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
What Staeh wrote is pretty much how I've both taken it and practiced.
A good example of variables is my rider weight-being a lightweight at 135, and often riding dropbars, my percentage of body weight on rear wheel is a huge difference to someone with a more upright riding position and who weighs 200.

But then I've also toured with MTB bars and rear panniers only and it worked ok handling wise, but that's bike specific also.
djb is offline  
Old 05-06-22, 04:19 PM
  #30  
Pratt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 410 Post(s)
Liked 488 Times in 291 Posts
My packing system is more by accessibility and when I'll use stuff. If I think I'll need it on the road, it goes on the left, quick access in front, and slower in the rear. Tent and Sbag are on the rear rack. In camp stuff like the stove is on the right.
Pratt is offline  
Old 05-06-22, 08:23 PM
  #31  
greatbasin
Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times in 65 Posts
I'm new to touring and haven't tried all the various options for packing. I toured once with under 30 pounds on the bike and the balance point was about 6 inches in front of the seatpost. It seemed to work good enough, but with just a little weight in the handlebar bag, the fork was prone to flop to one side or the other hard. I wouldn't say it affected steering or handling, but when stopped, I couldn't take my hands of the bars without balancing the bike carefully.

I'm working on assembling a different touring outfit now. I wouldn't say that I'm trying to solve a particular problem. Rather I am just trying to do it better than I did last time. There are a number of criteria for "better." If I were to limit my criteria to a technical analysis of bike handling and steering, I would only gain a little bit of those things while missing other opportunities like style and aesthetic.

For the sake of steering and handling, the best result is achieved with lowering the center of gravity and mass-centralization (moving as much mass as close to the CG as possible). The shortcoming of 4-pannier systems is that while they can achieve a good center-of-gravity longitudinally, and with low-riders, they can also achieve a low center-of-gravity, they don't centralize the mass and they often hang mass out beyond the axles. A triangular frame bag that allows load to be hung down just above the bottom-bracket works great. Nevertheless, a lot of touring loads are bulky and low density. So while it's not a good place for a sleeping bag, it's ideal for tools, parts, water and other dense items.

Cycle touring was popular in Britain in the 1930's and based on some photographs and illustrations, it seems to have been popular to put everything in a big hold-all (duffle bag) behind the saddle. After the war, the French were promoting the low-rider panniers for better bike handling. In the Cycle Touring Commission's Gazette, Raymond Migeon wrote, "Why do you use those frightful leather saddlebags which are balanced so ungracefully behind the saddle, and which, because of the weight of the cotnents and their high position, raise the cenre of gravity too much, thus appreciably increasing the danger of accident on fast downhill runs?" "Why -- and this is what hurts me most of all in your manner of equipping your bicycles -- why have you not looked into the reasons that led us to banish for ever those queer stuck-on packets and bundles when we adopted front and rear carriers and bags for the transport of our cycle luggage? In their gaily coloured bags, firmly attached to the carriers by a couple "Sandows" (rubber elastic cords), our luggage is part of the machine and doesn't sway about; it is fixed near the wheel hubs (whether front or rear) and so the centre of gravity is considerably lowered. We can thus ride at all speeds without any handicap due to the weight carried."

That's all very well and undoubtedly why low-riders remain popular today. But saddlebags remain popular too especially the stinger bike-packing style because they don't require cumbersome rear racks, they don't demand extended chainstays to prevent heel-strike, they work with rear suspensions, and they have good ground clearance on trails.

Let's also not forget that the French evidently made randonneuring popular and that besides the eminently practical porteur rack that is the most suitable for wide loads, the decalleur-mounted randonneur bag also forsakes a lower center of gravity for convenient access to items while riding.

The history of cycle touring is informative, but we ought to consider what cycle touring meant at various times. As near as I can tell, popular British cycle touring in the 30's was casual and very civilized. The impression I've received is that they enjoyed cycling around the country side, stopping at places for tea, and staying at what we'd call a bed and breakfast. If there were any expeditionary tours, that still wasn't what was popular. Most tourists needn't carry much more than a change of clothes, their shaving kit and some money. Nowadays we call this "credit card touring."

Evidently, not all British cycle "touring" was placid. The "clubs" were the center of more spirited and competitive riding outside professional racing. These riders were doubtfully interested in things like camping. They were covering longer distances as quickly as they could with as little weight as possible. Similarly, what seems to have been popular with the French is what I would characterize as randonneuring. Since "touring" isn't well-defined, I won't make any claims about whether this is or isn't.

It doesn't seem like long-distance, transcontinental cycle trekking became popular as a recreational endeavor until the 1970's. I'm not saying nobody did it, just that it wasn't casually attempted by many until that decade. By then it would seem that four low-rider panniers, and a rando bag all made out of nylon or polyester with zippers were popular and that a lot of the bikes were still primarily road-bike derived with a few concessions to "touring."
greatbasin is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 01:12 AM
  #32  
greatbasin
Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times in 65 Posts
Continuing where I left off before, I've been considering different outfits in terms of things like fore and aft weight distribution, mass-centralization, but also style, aesthetic, and fitness for purpose - both riding and carrying the cargo for touring.

I found on the Rene Herse (revival) website the advise to pack everything into the biggest front low-riders that Berthoud produces (and which the Herse site sells).


"Pro Tip: We use the largest GB 372 and usually carry our entire load on a front low-rider for the best handling and performance."

The Berthoud panniers look like outstanding quality. I was seriously contemplating adapting some Billingham bags for biking, but the Berthoud provides more or less the same style.


Billingham:

A considerable drawback of these bags is their expense. They can be around $200 for a small bag and over $400 for a larger one or a pair of medium panniers. Berthoud's website has better deals on them than Herse, and as for Billingham, they can be had on Amazon or from B&H.

Let's put this drawback in perspective. To outfit a bike with 5 Berthoud bags, it might cost as much or more than another bicycle. Would you rather have some fancy bags, or another bicycle? Some of us might have enough bikes already, but some of us don't.

Ortlieb are more affordable and every bit as practical. I have a couple of back rollers here and while they no doubt work, they're tasteless pvc-coated nylon bags. They also have a Cordura option that they admit fades rapidly to a dull, worn look.

O

Ortlieb -- if you like a PVC-wrapped look and also drink from plastic nipples.

If a bag is carefully packed with a suitably-shaped load, it might look like the Masi at the top of this post. On the other hand, some loads just aren't the right shape for the bag. Look at this outfit from the Herse site:



The bag is slouching toward the front and is bulging out so that it is mishapen, and then the long gray bag (tent poles perhaps) is stuck across the top. If the load I was carrying flattered the Berthoud bags perfectly, they might be worth their price for the good looks, but if I were carrying a couple of basketballs and some cricket bats, the look of the bags would be ruined by the odd shaped loads and my money poorly spent.

The shape of loads ought to be given careful consideration. Some items are hard and can't be made to conform. I have an MSR Reactor stove kit that is a fairly large diameter cylinder and it will bulge any bag carried on the side of the bike. It's better carried on the top. Soft items are best carried in compression stuff sacks to minimize their bulk, but the sacks, which are usually cylindrical, can also bulge a bag considerably unless they're small. To keep panniers trim, a number of smaller compression sacks are better than fewer big ones.

Here is a Berthoud with handsome panniers:


Note that the panniers aren't bulging or misshapen. That means odd-shaped, long, and large diameter items must be excluded and the panniers packed lightly. Also consider that the rear panniers here are slender and even then they are mounted fairly high to avoid the heels despite this being a touring-specific frame with long chainstays. It simply isn't practical to put much of the rear pannier in front of the rear axle or very low because of heel strike. This is no doubt why this Berthoud and the Herse imitators give preference to front-borne panniers. Most non-adherents will load a bike like the one featuring Ortlieb above -- with the rear panniers well behind the rear axle and a huge load blobbed above them.

Consider in contrast to the Berthoud with black bags above, a bike with the traditional hold-all behind the saddle places the rear-mounted load slightly higher but more forward in that gap behind the seatpost and well-ahead of the rear axle.
greatbasin is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 01:30 AM
  #33  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
Originally Posted by greatbasin
... It seemed to work good enough, but with just a little weight in the handlebar bag, the fork was prone to flop to one side or the other hard. I wouldn't say it affected steering or handling, but when stopped, I couldn't take my hands of the bars without balancing the bike carefully.
...
That is normal. And it is more pronounced if you have a high trail bike.

You can minimize it if you have the handlebar bag as close to the steering axis as possible. I use a second stem or similar bracket holder on several of my bikes to lower the handlebar bag and get it closer to the steering axis.

More detail on how I set that up is at:
https://www.bikeforums.net/21946274-post4.html
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 02:09 AM
  #34  
greatbasin
Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times in 65 Posts
I didn't intend this to be a comprehensive guide to panniers. I did not even mention other luxury fashion bags like the latest from Brooks, vinyl-clad alternatives to Ortlieb from Vaude or MS-X, more colorful nylon bags from Arkel and MEC, classics from Carradice, or any of the countless ways to hang sacks, bags, and buckets for next to nothing. In all, these are different variants of style, design, and materials, but they all fit one of the ways I discussed with respect to weight and bulk distribution -- which is what this thread is about. Migeon thought the French had everything figured out in 1948, but we continue to see every variant of load placement imaginable and while we might presume that some cyclists have things figured out better than others, it's doubtful that there is one formula to prescribe the ideal packaging for every load and situation.

In outfitting my latest bike, I'm desiring to load the front, but am mindful of the need to keep any front panniers slim enough they don't strike the downtube when turning. Moving a load up to a porteur rack, rando bag, the trunk position or a saddlebag is going to increase the bike's roll rate. Low-riders in the rear need to be located far enough aft of the rear axle that they move the center of gravity considerably rearward. It's also noteworthy that for smaller, lighter loads, it can be simpler, more cost-effective, and will weigh less overall if fewer racks and bags are used. Suppose I put Nitto Campee racks front and rear and fitted six or seven different bags in nearly every conceivable position so that the weight and bulk could be distributed as ideally as possible. I might have added 10 pounds of racks and bags and if my load is only 30 pounds, that's neither efficient or cost-effective.
greatbasin is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 02:23 AM
  #35  
greatbasin
Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times in 65 Posts
That's a cool setup with the second stem. I'm actually considering abandoning the bar bag altogether. I've used it for the things I want quick access to: my camera, film, hat, glasses case, lights, gloves, and to hold the map on top. I determined that I wear my glasses all day, a helmet rather than my hat, I can leave the lights on the bike, I wear the gloves or put them in my helmet when I'm off the bike, and I don't really need to look at the map so often. I really only need my camera to be accessible and that weighs enough that the bar bag without a rack underneath it was marginal.

There's a chance I'll go to a porteur rack and pack even more in front of the headtube, but if I don't do that, I might put everything in panniers or a bag hung from the saddle.
greatbasin is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 05:45 AM
  #36  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
Wow great basin, that's a lot of typing.
You've certainly got a plethora of options, may you choose the right ones for you and enjoy how your bike both rides and looks.
djb is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 07:41 AM
  #37  
staehpj1
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by greatbasin
Here is a Berthoud with handsome panniers:

It is indeed a handsome setup. I can see why folks would be attracted to it. Your pictures and comments on the Giles Berthoud panniers made me curious about what they weigh. It took a little searching to find a reference to their weight, but I found a listing for it on the Rene Herse page. I wasn't sure from the listing whether the listed weight was for the pair or each. They are either lighter than I'd have guessed or heavier than I'd have guessed. Anyone know for sure if the weight is per pair or each?
  • GB 1500 (small): 25 liter/pair, 21 x 35 cm (8.5″ x 14″). Single leather strap. Spacing between rack attachment straps: 16 cm. Weight: 1380 g.
  • GB 367 (medium): 33 liter/pair, 31 x 35 cm (12″ x 14″), tapered for heel clearance. Double leather strap. Spacing between rack attachment straps: 18 cm. Weight: 1750 g.
  • GB 372 (large): 39 liter/pair, 35 x 35 cm (14″ x 14″), square shape – ideal for carrying on the front. Double leather strap. Outside pockets. Spacing between rack attachment straps: 18 cm. Weight: 2150 g.
I am too weight obsessed when it comes to gear to go that route either way. I have considered a Carradice seat bag though. I am pretty sure that the pictured setup (racks and bags) weighs more empty than some of mine did fully loaded and ready to roll out for camping and cooking on a multi week or multi month trip. The setup is beautiful though and I do see why folks go that route for some styles of touring.

Last edited by staehpj1; 05-07-22 at 07:58 AM.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 07:56 AM
  #38  
djb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal Canada
Posts: 13,192
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2732 Post(s)
Liked 955 Times in 785 Posts
Aesthetics aside (totally personal) don't get too obsessed about pannier shape, unless commuting with little stuff, I've always found that our stuff invariably fills the space evenly ish, or at least with careful placement.
but then to be honest, a slight mishape doesn't bother me like it does you.
djb is offline  
Old 05-07-22, 08:18 AM
  #39  
staehpj1
Senior Member
 
staehpj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 11,837
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 744 Times in 554 Posts
Originally Posted by djb
Aesthetics aside (totally personal) don't get too obsessed about pannier shape, unless commuting with little stuff, I've always found that our stuff invariably fills the space evenly ish, or at least with careful placement.
but then to be honest, a slight mishape doesn't bother me like it does you.
Yeah a bit of bulging of the load wouldn't bother me either. That said IME, most stuff I have carried packs pretty easily, compactly, and neatly. One exception could be a large sleeping bag that didn't stuff well, but it could be left unnstuffed and stuffed directly into a pannier. I never actually toured with a bag that big, but I did backpack and canoe camp with one many decades ago. The bag I use these days pack quite small and suffices for any weather I want to tour in. Group gear may be another thing that might be an issue, Large pots, big tents, and so on. Tents are something that when I used them never went in the pannier though. They always go on top of the rack. So about the only thing I might ever carry that might bulge would be a great big pot, but I have never carried cook gear for more than 3 and the pot we used wasn't big enough to be an issue.
staehpj1 is offline  
Old 05-08-22, 09:04 AM
  #40  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
A few years ago and earlier, there was a lot of discussion on the role of fork rake (or offset) and trail and how that determined if a frame was better with a front load or rear load.

I touched on that topic in post number 5 above, when I stated:
...
Fore and aft weight distribution, different bikes are designed differently, the fork trail is part of that. I have no expertise on this, but it is my understanding that high trail bikes are better with more weight on back, where low trail bikes are good with more weight up front. Generally bikes built up to be touring bikes have high trail, thus theoretically should favor more weight on back. ....


Originally Posted by greatbasin
...
In outfitting my latest bike, I'm desiring to load the front, ....
You might want to research fork trail a bit more and see what the experts on this say, I am no expert on this subject.

You want to make sure that your bike is matched to the way you load it.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 05-08-22, 09:10 AM
  #41  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
Originally Posted by staehpj1
... the Giles Berthoud panniers made me curious about what they weigh. ....
Just for comparison, I said this on a different thread a few days ago:
My Tubus front and rear racks, pair of Front Rollers, pair of Back Rollers, and 31 liter Rack Pack weight 6 kg, empty weight.

That was for the Tubus Logo EVO rear, front would be the same for the Tara or the (discontinued) Tubus Ergo racks. The front and rear panniers are about 12 years old and the standard model, not the lighter City version.
Tourist in MSN is offline  
Old 05-09-22, 02:12 AM
  #42  
greatbasin
Full Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
That is normal. And it is more pronounced if you have a high trail bike.

You can minimize it if you have the handlebar bag as close to the steering axis as possible. I use a second stem or similar bracket holder on several of my bikes to lower the handlebar bag and get it closer to the steering axis.

More detail on how I set that up is at:
https://www.bikeforums.net/21946274-post4.html
Originally Posted by Tourist in MSN
A few years ago and earlier, there was a lot of discussion on the role of fork rake (or offset) and trail and how that determined if a frame was better with a front load or rear load.

I touched on that topic in post number 5 above, when I stated:
...
Fore and aft weight distribution, different bikes are designed differently, the fork trail is part of that. I have no expertise on this, but it is my understanding that high trail bikes are better with more weight on back, where low trail bikes are good with more weight up front. Generally bikes built up to be touring bikes have high trail, thus theoretically should favor more weight on back. ....




You might want to research fork trail a bit more and see what the experts on this say, I am no expert on this subject.

You want to make sure that your bike is matched to the way you load it.

Right. I understand this is referred to as "wheel flop." Your point is well taken. I'm working on outfitting a more traditional "touring" bike (than that Bianchi road bike). As one might expect, the "touring" bike has more trail. The headtube angle is 1 degree less -- nothing extremely slack. But the fork offset (rake) is 5mm more -- that's where most of the additional trail comes in. Lastly, the tire is larger diameter -- this also increases trail but the difference in diameter is small. The Bianchi has a trail of 57mm and 16mm of flop (how much the front hub drops as the wheel is turned to the side. The "touring" bike has 61mm of trail and 18mm of flop. Thus I could expect that loading the front of this bike would result in slightly more pronounced flop than the Bianchi. The difference in "flop factor" is minimal. But if I increased the weight on the front, the flop would be significantly more pronounced due to that, and the slack "touring" geometry would not be helping here, it would actually be making things slightly worse. So it would seem that weight distribution will have a meaningful effect on the steering and handling characteristics -- as a result of these factors, primarily at low speeds. At higher speeds, there are counter-acting effects, but for touring I tend to favor the low-speed qualities.

For reference, the Surly Trucker has an even slacker head tube angle of 71 deg. (in most frame sizes), but only 45mm of fork offset, thereby giving it a little more trail than any of my bicycles -- 60-something mm, perhaps closer to 70mm with the largest tires. It's safe to say not only from the specs, but from an abundance of field experience that it will take a load on the back.

The Rene Herse whose maker suggests loading everything in front says this about their bike's geometry: "These bikes are designed with a low-trail front-end geometry for a bent-elbows riding position with a light touch on the handlebars. If you tend to grip the handlebars firmly, these bikes will feel 'nervous,' as they react even to small handlebar inputs."
greatbasin is offline  
Old 05-09-22, 06:26 AM
  #43  
Tourist in MSN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 11,112

Bikes: 1961 Ideor, 1966 Perfekt 3 Speed AB Hub, 1994 Bridgestone MB-6, 2006 Airnimal Joey, 2009 Thorn Sherpa, 2013 Thorn Nomad MkII, 2015 VO Pass Hunter, 2017 Lynskey Backroad, 2017 Raleigh Gran Prix, 1980s Bianchi Mixte on a trainer. Others are now gone.

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3426 Post(s)
Liked 1,441 Times in 1,122 Posts
Sounds like you did your research.
Tourist in MSN is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.