Load carrying devices.

[!Jones]

In your opinion, what are the best rigs for carrying significant loads
by pedal power? By "load", I mean a shopping cart with a week's
supply of groceries or similar... too much for a pannier.

Here are a couple that I like:

The B.O.B. trailer. http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php
I own one of these and it pretty well lives up to its claims. I have
hauled up to 60 lb in it. (It's rated to 80.) I find that it tracks
very well... we use it with a tandem and it tracks better than the
bike does! It's easy to attach and drop. Downside: it's difficult to
back with a load and it's a tricky balancing act getting the load into
the trailer. Once you're loaded and pointed in the right direction,
it's great.


The triciclo de carga built in Mexico. Mine is like this one:
http://seguro.coppel.com/coppel/info_muebles.php?codigo=516783 ;
however, different manufacturers have different configurations. These
are *dangerously* unstable at high speed and have ugly turning
charaisterics when pedaled. That said, they are a very good platform
when you need to carry loads beyond the BOB's capacity. If you're
straight and level and on a good surface, they can be pedaled
effectively in a low gear. If that's not so, then get off and push
it... it pushes easily and is quite stable for that operation. I
regularly carry two carts of groceries and 15 gallons of drinking
water home from the store... two miles... through the snow... uphill
both ways...

Others?

Jones

[limeylew@gmail.com]

On Jun 7, 12:50*pm, !Jones <h...@there.org> wrote:
> In your opinion, what are the best rigs for carrying significant loads
> by pedal power? *By "load", I mean a shopping cart with a week's
> supply of groceries or similar... too much for a pannier.
>
> Here are a couple that I like:
>
> The B.O.B. trailer.http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php
> I own one of these and it pretty well lives up to its claims. *I have
> hauled up to 60 lb in it. *(It's rated to 80.) *I find that it tracks
> very well... we use it with a tandem and it tracks better than the
> bike does! *It's easy to attach and drop. *Downside: it's difficult to
> back with a load and it's a tricky balancing act getting the load into
> the trailer. *Once you're loaded and pointed in the right direction,
> it's great.
>
> The triciclo de carga built in Mexico. *Mine is like this one:http://seguro.coppel.com/coppel/info_muebles.php?codigo=516783;
> however, different manufacturers have different configurations. *These
> are *dangerously* unstable at high speed and have ugly turning
> charaisterics when pedaled. *That said, they are a very good platform
> when you need to carry loads beyond the BOB's capacity. *If you're
> straight and level and on a good surface, they can be pedaled
> effectively in a low gear. *If that's not so, then get off and push
> it... it pushes easily and is quite stable for that operation. *I
> regularly carry two carts of groceries and 15 gallons of drinking
> water home from the store... two miles... through the snow... uphill
> both ways...
>
> Others?
>
> Jones

You might find some helpful ideas here:-

http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=261

Hope this helps.

Lewis.

*****

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per !Jones:
>rigs for carrying significant loads

Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

I tried Googling, but no luck.

All I found was http://tinyurl.com/3gros2
--
PeteCresswell

[c]

It depends of load type:

http://www.bikesatwork.com/
http://www.bakfiets.nl/
http://www.christianiabikes.com/
http://www.workcycles.com/workbike/
http://nihola.info/
http://www.worksman.com/
http://www.xtracycle.com/

etc., etc.






!Jones wrote:
> In your opinion, what are the best rigs for carrying significant loads
> by pedal power? By "load", I mean a shopping cart with a week's
> supply of groceries or similar... too much for a pannier.
>
> Here are a couple that I like:
>
> The B.O.B. trailer. http://www.bobgear.com/trailers/index.php
> I own one of these and it pretty well lives up to its claims. I have
> hauled up to 60 lb in it. (It's rated to 80.) I find that it tracks
> very well... we use it with a tandem and it tracks better than the
> bike does! It's easy to attach and drop. Downside: it's difficult to
> back with a load and it's a tricky balancing act getting the load into
> the trailer. Once you're loaded and pointed in the right direction,
> it's great.
>
>
> The triciclo de carga built in Mexico. Mine is like this one:
> http://seguro.coppel.com/coppel/info_muebles.php?codigo=516783 ;
> however, different manufacturers have different configurations. These
> are *dangerously* unstable at high speed and have ugly turning
> charaisterics when pedaled. That said, they are a very good platform
> when you need to carry loads beyond the BOB's capacity. If you're
> straight and level and on a good surface, they can be pedaled
> effectively in a low gear. If that's not so, then get off and push
> it... it pushes easily and is quite stable for that operation. I
> regularly carry two carts of groceries and 15 gallons of drinking
> water home from the store... two miles... through the snow... uphill
> both ways...
>
> Others?
>
> Jones
>

[Tim McNamara]

http://www.kogswell.com/

Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 kg on
the rack.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:22:19 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech
"limeylew@gmail.com" <limeylew@gmail.com> wrote:

>You might find some helpful ideas here:-
>
>http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=261
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Lewis.

Yes, I follow that one regularly.

Thus far, in the US, anyway, we have tended to think of bicycle
equipment as sporting goods. Bicycle racing is OK, I suppose;
however, there are few useful innovations that follow from it... I
can't think of any offhand, anyway. I applaud fitness riding;
however, the people I know who ride in such groups will drive to the
meeting point... kind of defeating the idea, IMHO.

I suspect that as the economy continues to sour, people will tend to
come back to the utility of the bicycle as basic transportation... I
predict that the $4,000 bicycle will become extinct along with the
Hummer. We will need good fenders, chain guards, and luggage carrying
capacity. We also need well designed bicycle clothing that we can
wear in public and keep a straight face, as well as dual-purpose shoes
in which one can pedal effectively *and* walk. If I'm running
errands, I really don't want to have to change my shoes at every
destination.

Our bicycle techies should quit thinking about how to build them
faster where cost is not a criterion and start thinking about basic
utility. A high-tech, CF racing bicycle is useless if I have to carry
a laptop and a projector to a meeting and I really can't hobble in
looking like a candy cane in spandex. It's time to look over the next
horizon.

Jones

[TBerk]

On Jun 8, 9:19 am, !Jones <h...@there.org> wrote:
<snip>
> Our bicycle techies should quit thinking about how to build them
> faster where cost is not a criterion and start thinking about basic
> utility. A high-tech, CF racing bicycle is useless if I have to carry
> a laptop and a projector to a meeting and I really can't hobble in
> looking like a candy cane in spandex. It's time to look over the next
> horizon.
>
> Jones

Me To!, (despite it being bad form)


TBerk
..

[Eric Vey]

!Jones wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:22:19 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech
> "limeylew@gmail.com" <limeylew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You might find some helpful ideas here:-
>>
>> http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=261
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Lewis.
>
> Yes, I follow that one regularly.

That's where you will get the best info. I realize that all the Xtra
people hang out there, but if you ignore them, you will get other views.
Sorry.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:

>Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
>called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
>worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
GM built it in the '70s, right?

My tricycle is ridable on a smooth road *if* you don't hang a sharp
turn. When I bought it in Monterrey, NL, I asked the mechanic how it
turned... he shrugged and said (translating from Spanish): "If you
value your face as much as I value your face, then you may do as you
please." Therein, I found great wisdom!

Jones

[Gary Young]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Per !Jones:
>>rigs for carrying significant loads
>
> Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they called
> something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually worked, as long
> as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.
>
> I tried Googling, but no luck.
>
> All I found was http://tinyurl.com/3gros2

Do you mean the xtracycle?:

http://www.xtracycle.com/

[anth]

On Sun, 2008-06-08 at 15:22 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
> called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
> worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

Xtracyle, alternate names for this sort of thing are longtail and Sport
Utility Bike.

http://xtracycle.com/

The Yuba Mundo is a complete bike which I think is compatible with
Xtracycle accessories (not certain of this though).

http://yubaride.com/

The Surly Big Dummy frame + fork definitely takes Xtracycle accessories.

http://www.surlybikes.com/bigdummy.html

The Kona Ute is a similar concept but incompatible.

http://www.konaworld.com/08_ute_w.htm

[Tom Kunich]

"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
news:gcdo44hharb0m5rvv576muasnst86k7020@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
>>called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
>>worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.
>
> Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
> GM built it in the '70s, right?

No, it was built by AMC sometimes known as Nash.

[A Muzi]

> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>> Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
>> called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
>> worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

!Jones wrote:
> Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
> GM built it in the '70s, right?
>
> My tricycle is ridable on a smooth road *if* you don't hang a sharp
> turn. When I bought it in Monterrey, NL, I asked the mechanic how it
> turned... he shrugged and said (translating from Spanish): "If you
> value your face as much as I value your face, then you may do as you
> please." Therein, I found great wisdom!

Matador was Rambler-AMC
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:48:11 -0500, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech
>"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>>Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
>>called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
>>worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.

XtraCycle
>
>Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
>GM built it in the '70s, right?
>

Actually it was AMC
>My tricycle is ridable on a smooth road *if* you don't hang a sharp
>turn. When I bought it in Monterrey, NL, I asked the mechanic how it
>turned... he shrugged and said (translating from Spanish): "If you
>value your face as much as I value your face, then you may do as you
>please." Therein, I found great wisdom!
>
>Jones

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:59:00 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
>news:gcdo44hharb0m5rvv576muasnst86k7020@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech
>> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they
>>>called something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually
>>>worked, as long as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.
>>
>> Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
>> GM built it in the '70s, right?
>
>No, it was built by AMC sometimes known as Nash.

And Hudson
Also , later, known as Rambler.
And Jeep - and for a while also Renault.

And AM General - the Hummer people was also part of the AMC group for
a while - along with Kelvinator
>

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[!Jones]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:59:00 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>> Talk about a poor choice of name! Remember the car named "Matador"?
>> GM built it in the '70s, right?
>
>No, it was built by AMC sometimes known as Nash.

Right you are! The name translates to "killer", BTW. Obviously,
someone didn't think that it mattered.

Jones

[Tom Kunich]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:8101f$484c3bf2$12370@news.teranews.com...
>
> Matador was Rambler-AMC

Hey Andy, I suppose it takes a couple of old car buffs such as we are to
remember such things that have nil importance.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:08:41 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>Matador was Rambler-AMC

I stand corrected.

[A Muzi]

> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>> Matador was Rambler-AMC

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Hey Andy, I suppose it takes a couple of old car buffs such as we are to
> remember such things that have nil importance.

I used to have a small AMC right-side-drive ex-US Mail truck for the
bike shop. Yoshi Konno saw it, noted the AMC logo, and said dreamily,
"ahh.. Nash..."

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

I first saw this when Jobst Brandt posted it:

http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/

[Twitchell]

In article <P9OdnSaz3PtH3tHVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@giganews.com>, Gary Young says...
>
>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:22:12 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
>> Per !Jones:
>>>rigs for carrying significant loads
>>
>> Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they called
>> something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually worked, as long
>> as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.
>>
>> I tried Googling, but no luck.
>>
>> All I found was http://tinyurl.com/3gros2
>
>Do you mean the xtracycle?:
>
>http://www.xtracycle.com/

Amazingly enough, the bike is called "Marin Novato 2007 S.U.B."

http://www.xtracycle.com/2006-marin-novato-p-70.html

This is made by Marin Bike which is located in my small town of Novato! Marin
Bike is also the manufacturer of my "junker" bike from 1994.

twitch

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Gary Young:
>> Somebody was making an entire bolt-on extended rear triangle they called
>> something like "Bike SUV" - that looked like it actually worked, as long
>> as there was a relatively smooth riding surface.
>>
>> I tried Googling, but no luck.
>>
>> All I found was http://tinyurl.com/3gros2
>
>Do you mean the xtracycle?:
>
>http://www.xtracycle.com/

That's the one!
--
PeteCresswell

[!Jones]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:49:07 +0200, in rec.bicycles.tech c
<notvalid@b.fr> wrote:

>It depends of load type:

Absolutely! I looked at your first URL when I considered my BOB.
Have you actually used any of those? I find that the field is long on
claims that don't pan out.

My issue with the 2-wheel trailers is that I think they'd tend to tip
where a 1-wheel rig tracks better... assuming you can balance it.
There is a point where you (at least *I*) can't.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:04:51 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Eric Vey
<junker@ericvey.com> wrote:

>!Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:22:19 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech
>> "limeylew@gmail.com" <limeylew@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You might find some helpful ideas here:-
>>>
>>> http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=261
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Lewis.
>>
>> Yes, I follow that one regularly.
>
>That's where you will get the best info. I realize that all the Xtra
>people hang out there, but if you ignore them, you will get other views.
>Sorry.

"Sorry"? I honestly cannot imagine why. Methinks that it's
appropriate to this forum also.

Jones

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per !Jones:
>Right you are! The name translates to "killer", BTW. Obviously,
>someone didn't think that it mattered.

Reminds me of the motorcycle BridgeStone brought out in the late
sixties: the logo on the gas tank was "BS".
--
PeteCresswell

[Jenny Brien]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:19:30 +0100, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:49:07 +0200, in rec.bicycles.tech c
> <notvalid@b.fr> wrote:
>
>> It depends of load type:
>
> Absolutely! I looked at your first URL when I considered my BOB.
> Have you actually used any of those? I find that the field is long on
> claims that don't pan out.
>
> My issue with the 2-wheel trailers is that I think they'd tend to tip
> where a 1-wheel rig tracks better... assuming you can balance it.
> There is a point where you (at least *I*) can't.
>
I've had an Xtracycle for about a month now built on an old touring bike,
and I'm loving it. It's an extension that adds 15" to the wheelbase and
about 10 lbs in weight, so it's slower than the unconverted bike, but not
by as much as I feared - it's a lot less cumbersome than riding the
equivalent tandem solo. The longer wheelbase makes for steadier handling
and a smoother ride, as well as better braking, so it suits me well as an
only bike.

I use it to carry up to six big bags of groceries home over seven hilly
miles. It's rated for up to 200 lbs of cargo (with a 150 lb pilot). The
big advantage for me over a trailer is that it is simply *there* all the
time, so I can pick stuff up even when I wasn't planning to.

[Rob Lindauer]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per !Jones:
>> Right you are! The name translates to "killer", BTW. Obviously,
>> someone didn't think that it mattered.
>
> Reminds me of the motorcycle BridgeStone brought out in the late
> sixties: the logo on the gas tank was "BS".

....Or the Chevy Nova ("no va" = "doesn't go," or so I'm told)

--
Rob Lindauer - Please change "att" to "sbc" for my real email address

[A Muzi]

>> Per !Jones:
>>> Right you are! The name translates to "killer", BTW. Obviously,
>>> someone didn't think that it mattered.

> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Reminds me of the motorcycle BridgeStone brought out in the late
>> sixties: the logo on the gas tank was "BS".

Rob Lindauer wrote:
> ...Or the Chevy Nova ("no va" = "doesn't go," or so I'm told)

My 1965 Nova 283 V8 goes. But it is a cute pun.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[!Jones]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:37:19 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Rob Lindauer
<rlindx@attglobal.net> wrote:

>...Or the Chevy Nova ("no va" = "doesn't go," or so I'm told)

PeMex's (national petrol in Mexico) brand name was "Nova" for years.
Then no-lead came out and that was "Nova Extra"... go figure.

Jones

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Rob Lindauer:
>...Or the Chevy Nova ("no va" = "doesn't go," or so I'm told)

Or Ford's "Thunderbird".

Supposedly Canadian dialect for toilet.

Maybe somebody from Canada can shed some light...
--
PeteCresswell

[!Jones]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:23:47 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech "Jenny Brien"
<jennifer@figuk.plus.com> wrote:

>I've had an Xtracycle for about a month now built on an old touring bike,
>and I'm loving it. It's an extension that adds 15" to the wheelbase and
>about 10 lbs in weight, so it's slower than the unconverted bike, but not
>by as much as I feared - it's a lot less cumbersome than riding the
>equivalent tandem solo. The longer wheelbase makes for steadier handling
>and a smoother ride, as well as better braking, so it suits me well as an
>only bike.
>
>I use it to carry up to six big bags of groceries home over seven hilly
>miles. It's rated for up to 200 lbs of cargo (with a 150 lb pilot). The
>big advantage for me over a trailer is that it is simply *there* all the
>time, so I can pick stuff up even when I wasn't planning to.

Let's see... that's one of these things:

http://www.xtracycle.com/hitchless-trailers-kits-c-4.html

Hummm... interesting contraption. And your logic makes sense. I
chose BOB because I could drop it quickly; however, I have needed it
and not had it. Lately, I just leave it on. The only issue there is
backing it, which is a PITA. On the tandem, it's easier: "Honey,
would you mind swinging the trailer for me? ... Thank you!"

How much trouble is it to convert? I suspect that one wouldn't do it
casually... brakes gotta move, etc. What's the down side of it?
(Everything has one.)

Jones

[Jenny Brien]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:32:37 +0100, !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:


> Let's see... that's one of these things:
>
> http://www.xtracycle.com/hitchless-trailers-kits-c-4.html
>
> Hummm... interesting contraption. And your logic makes sense. I
> chose BOB because I could drop it quickly; however, I have needed it
> and not had it. Lately, I just leave it on. The only issue there is
> backing it, which is a PITA. On the tandem, it's easier: "Honey,
> would you mind swinging the trailer for me? ... Thank you!"

I'd hate having a BOB bob-bobbing behind a solo all the time. :)
>
> How much trouble is it to convert? I suspect that one wouldn't do it
> casually... brakes gotta move, etc. What's the down side of it?
> (Everything has one.)
>
The conversion took me half an hour or so. It's just a case of bolting it
to the dropouts and chainstays, lengthening the chain and fitting longer
brake and gear cables. All parts are supplied and the instructions are
pretty good. I had to fit a Vee brake - there isn't a suitable cable stop
for cantilevers. There is a mount for an ISO 160mm disc caliper, but it's
set for a 203mm rotor, so that's another part that would need to be
changed. The ideal base is a hardtail steel hybrid/mountain bike, 6-8
sprockets, 128-135 OLD.

Downsides?

It's semi-permanent, so it doesn't make sense with a light, sporty bike,
or one with rear suspension. I wouldn't recommend a tandem either.
The 700c model is the same as the 26" apart from the brake mounts, and
won't take a tyre fatter than about 35mm.
The Freeloaders are wonderfully expandable, but leave their contents open
to view. Waterproof bags are a must! Loading is easy so long ar you load
the kickstand side first (but a centre stand would be nice).

That's about it. Tns thing is so simple that it seems expensive even
though it is very well made. It took me nearly a year to decide it
wouldn't be worth my while to get someone to weld up a clone. I'm glad I
did!

[!Jones]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:40:14 +0100, in rec.bicycles.tech "Jenny Brien"
<jennifer@figuk.plus.com> wrote:

>I'd hate having a BOB bob-bobbing behind a solo all the time. :)

The handling of the BOB is the main reason I like that configuration;
empty or under a pannier weight load, you don't notice it at all...
until you try to swing it into a parked position. That last *is* a
consideration when you think of how often you do that. Once you're
under way, it's the greatest device since the bread slicer.

On your contraption, I think I'd see the stand(s) on the outboard side
of the "pannier" floor. Of course, it probably doesn't lock in the
down position; wasn't that why we invented gravity? Also, the stand
would be in two pieces with obvious issues there.

I see they have an integrated frame. I have long thought that pannier
racks should be designed into the frame of the bike instead of being
bolted on later. The racers wouldn't buy them, but the commuter needs
a luggage rack.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>http://www.kogswell.com/
>
>Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100 kg on
>the rack.

Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide
rack... what am I missing?

Jones

[Tim McNamara]

In article <b8ev44lg6la4e02q5v6hhqqcvoefhfv1o1@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.kogswell.com/
> >
> >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100
> >kg on the rack.
>
> Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide
> rack... what am I missing?

Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There
are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or
50 mm trail.

[Tom Kunich]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-CE71DF.17095611062008@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <b8ev44lg6la4e02q5v6hhqqcvoefhfv1o1@4ax.com>,
> !Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.kogswell.com/
>> >
>> >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to 100
>> >kg on the rack.
>>
>> Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the wide
>> rack... what am I missing?
>
> Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There
> are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or
> 50 mm trail.

But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate to
long in the first place?

The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when you
turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the fork trying
to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those bikes and I never
once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure that they must have had a
much higher than normal crash frequency.

That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything.

[!Jones]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:09:56 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail. There
>are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in 30, 40 or
>50 mm trail.

OK. I have ridden bikes with l-o-n-g trail. The Schwinn B6 with a
springer comes to mind... an obscene contraption from a handling point
of view, but it looks cool! And I have an old Littlejohn tandem with
almost no trail... BMX fork. How does that change the load carrying
charaisterics? I think I'd be trying to get the load lower than it is
in the picture... what do they call those bikes with the 20" front and
the low basket? I want to say "Workman", but I may be thinking of the
wrong machine... never ridden one, anyway. Seems like they're long
trail, though.

Jones

[Tim McNamara]

In article <B9KdnZx667_nz83VnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-CE71DF.17095611062008@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <b8ev44lg6la4e02q5v6hhqqcvoefhfv1o1@4ax.com>, !Jones
> > <hi@there.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:56:28 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim
> >> McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.kogswell.com/
> >> >
> >> >Porteur bikes by Singer and Herse were designed to carry up to
> >> >100 kg on the rack.
> >>
> >> Is that the one in the URL? It looks pretty standard save the
> >> wide rack... what am I missing?
> >
> > Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail.
> > There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result
> > in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail.
>
> But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate
> to long in the first place?

Typical road bike trail is about 60 mm. 30 mm is very low trail and is
suitable for heavy loads on the fork.

> The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when
> you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the
> fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those
> bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure
> that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency.
>
> That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything.

Yup. At least in terms of steering geometry. But "getting used to" and
"best for the application" are different things.

[Tom Kunich]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-3DFE49.20374411062008@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <B9KdnZx667_nz83VnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>> news:timmcn-CE71DF.17095611062008@news.iphouse.com...
>> >
>> > Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail.
>> > There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result
>> > in 30, 40 or 50 mm trail.
>>
>> But the real question is why you would change the trail from moderate
>> to long in the first place?
>
> Typical road bike trail is about 60 mm. 30 mm is very low trail and is
> suitable for heavy loads on the fork.

Whoops, I got confused. I guess the trail on my Look is 47 mm and not 27 mm.

>> The geometry on a (unnamed) brand mountain bike was such that when
>> you turned off of dead center you got REVERSE trail which led to the
>> fork trying to fall into a turn. That company sold thousands of those
>> bikes and I never once heard a complaint about it though I'm sure
>> that they must have had a much higher than normal crash frequency.
>>
>> That pretty much proves that you can get used to almost anything.
>
> Yup. At least in terms of steering geometry. But "getting used to" and
> "best for the application" are different things.

Well, I don't believe that the average user would see much difference. As
noted above - if they couldn't complain about REVERSE trail, telling the
difference between some trail and a little more probably would go so far
over their heads that it isn't funny.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <af115497psfo6mol0u8asbp65r7fss3l9v@4ax.com>,
!Jones <hi@there.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:09:56 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >Frame geometry. Bikes like that typically have very low trail.
> >There are three forks available for the Kogswell P/R which result in
> >30, 40 or 50 mm trail.
>
> OK. I have ridden bikes with l-o-n-g trail. The Schwinn B6 with a
> springer comes to mind... an obscene contraption from a handling
> point of view, but it looks cool! And I have an old Littlejohn
> tandem with almost no trail... BMX fork.

I can't tell if you are are talking about fork rake (offset) or trail.

> How does that change the load carrying charaisterics? I think I'd be
> trying to get the load lower than it is in the picture... what do
> they call those bikes with the 20" front and the low basket? I want
> to say "Workman", but I may be thinking of the wrong machine... never
> ridden one, anyway. Seems like they're long trail, though.

You can find good explanations of trail at various places on the web-
Sheldon's site, for example. With less trail, the steering is less
sensitive to weight on the front of the bike. There's less wheel flop,
the front end doesn't rise and fall as much as the bars sweep through
their range from lock to lock, etc.

The P/R was basically copied from Rene Herse and Alex Singer "porteur"
bikes, which were designed for French newspaper carriers hauling up to
100 kg of newspapers from the printer to the kiosks all over Paris.
There was an annual race, too, which began in 1895 and ran until the
1960s:

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/courierracing/journaux.html

Click the links on that page, there are some great photos of these guys
racing around Paris on the bikes with big piles of newspapers on them.
It was a big deal in those days:

http://www.blackbirdsf.org/courierracing/journaux_unk.html