Thorn Cycles Forum
Technical => Luggage => Topic started by: Moronic on January 02, 2022, 02:32:27 pm
-
Carradice makes a bunch of bags in various sizes that hang from a bicycle saddle. The company makes two bags that sit on top of a rear rack. Not many other companies make rack bags at all. Topeak used to make one that slid into a channel on a bespoke Topeak rack, and there was a period when I dreamed of one day fitting both to my bike. I never got there, in part because I had a rack already.
In the Topeak example we probably have the reason why rack bags are scarce: the platforms offered by rear racks differ, and a commercially successful bag would need to fit most of them. The challenge of designing an effective harness that can be constructed for a dollar at a factory in China has outmatched most who have thought about it and could initiate production.
The Canadian company Arkel rates an honourable mention here for its Tailrider (https://www.arkel-od.com/tailrider-bicycle-rack-bag/), which I rejected partly because I adjudged it too small and partly because it was not clear that it would attach securely to the rack I have now, a Tubus Vega. My other complaint about the Arkel is that it weighs only 149g less than the 800g Ortlieb Trunk Bag that I was to settle on, which looked to have much more capacity. Spoiler: likely it doesn't.
So I purchased a Trunk Bag RC, the suffix indicating a roll-type closure. Here is Ortlieb's web page for the bag: https://www.ortlieb.com/en_us/trunk-bag-rc+F8422#
And here is the bag half full and mounted on my bike:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KQ6zLJq/0/87880f6d/L/i-KQ6zLJq-L.jpg)
More to come/
-
Interesting set of questions & observations, Moronic - thanks.
I've never been quite sure what problem a trunk bag was s'posed to solve. I did have one made by Voyageur, which had pockets on three sides, a foil-lined main compartment (to carry a lunch?), and a zippered/expandable top pocket with laces and a drawstring atop that. Velcro strips at the four corners held in place. Tare weight was very modest, around 300 gms as I recall.
Quite a useful-looking item, but I only ever used it once on a tour. it was way more than I needed for a day ride, and with the bike in touring mode, it got in the way of the seat bag that holds my tools.
Issue remains, how to use the top of the rear rack? The solution I've found for past several years is to stash my tent on top of it -- see photo below. On a rare couple of tours where we stayed in hard accommodation, the rear rack carried only the Arkel Dry-lites you see, and a mesh bag with rain gear sat on top.
Some people can stash their tent into a pannier, but the length of my tent's pole segments (18") make it better suited to the rear rack. My tent is quite light, between 37 & 47 oz depending on the trim.
A couple of questions, then -- sorry if I missed this info from your tour report:
> What did you stuff into the Trunk Bag that couldn't go elsewhere, e.g. into panniers?
> And, did you find the weight of bag + contents, mounted higher up on the bike, affected its handling at all?
Cheers, John
-
A useful subject. There's a rack top bag in the future of a quite a few cyclists who're thinking of converting their bikes to electrical assistance. Over a certain size, battery assemblies just won't fit the front triangle (desirable for better distribution of the weight), and must be fitted on the rack top. You could use the rail the battery mounts to, which also guides the electrical connection, but a bag covering the battery makes the whole bike less of a thief-magnet.
-
As with my review of the Thorn Mercury (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14275.0), I am assembling this review of the Trunk Bag because information was scarcer than I'd have liked while I was shopping and I reached a position where I could supply some for others. My key unanswered questions were:
A. Given that Ortlieb specifies that the rack rails this bag mounts to must be parallel, will it nevertheless fit a rack with rails not parallel such as my Tubus Vega and other Tubus rear racks?
B. Is a fitted bag secure, stable, and easily removed?
C. Is the bag helpful as a hold-all for bits and pieces on day rides, or is it ridiculously oversized for that (and perhaps intended mainly for use as a grocery container)?
Before I get to the answers, it might be helpful to explain why I wanted such a bag in the first place. Sometimes I rely too much on logic, and forget that the premises of an argument are as relevant as its validity, for the real-world value of its conclusion. I reasoned that I would be leaving my Vega in place between tours and hence would have it on day rides. Given that I would be carrying that platform, surely anything I wanted to take with me would be located most securely on that very platform. In other words, why hang a bag precariously from the handlebars or the saddle when it could go on a rack.
The premise I had overlooked adressed the matter of stability. It turns out there is available a reasoned response to the rhetorical question immediately above. And that would point out that it is easier to stabilise a big bag that hangs from two hooks than to stabilise a big bag that sits on a narrow platform.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MH6DqB6/0/39f79dab/M/i-MH6DqB6-M.jpg)
And that's likely another reason why rack bags designs are few.
Nonetheless I didn't need a big bag. Or did I? Certainly I didn't want a tiny bag either. In winter I might want it to hold a pullover and a rain jacket, and some food and a lock and some tools. I also had it in mind that I might head off cycling with a good friend from time to time with the intention of picnicking lavishly somewhere pleasant, and that a decent sized rack bag might replace the small backpack that had carried our provisions on past such occasions.
With this sort of consideration in mind I took a punt on the Trunk Bag, having ascertained in a bricks and mortar bicycle store that it might fit a Vega rack. (Yes, I purchsed the bag from that store.)
Key answers:
A. Yes. The Ortlieb Trunk Bag mounts well to a Tubus Vega. It would mount even better to a rack with parallel rails, but the ingenious mounting mechanism can handle some misalignment.
Here is the mechanism:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-3Vt6Kvw/0/1aba000c/XL/i-3Vt6Kvw-XL.jpg)
The active bits are the four feet with their spring-loaded cams. The two cams on each side rotate together when you draw down the relevant handle. Here is a closer look at one of the cams:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LqM3rGK/0/7fb3adc0/XL/i-LqM3rGK-XL.jpg)
Effective operation of the cams relies on accurate adjustment of the feet, which can be slid laterally to accommodate wider or narrower racks. The cams seem principally to operate against one another across the rack; however they also catch the tube and wedge it against the base. The main issue raised by non parallel rails is the possibility of the mount sliding towards the narrower end of the rack and hence losing the cross-tension. In practice a cross member on the Vega limits movement if you set up the bag to mount adjacent to it.
B. Again, and emphatically, YES. I filled the bag to the brim with four kilos worth of essentials on my recent tour of South Gippsland, where it was tested by an incident that I described here (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14459.msg108200#msg108200). In short, the bike with tyres overinflated for the conditions bounced so violently and persistently on a corrugated gravel road that both front panniers were dislodged partially from their racks.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-B2SKJcn/0/4a80e08a/L/i-B2SKJcn-L.jpg)
In contrast, the heavily loaded Trunk Bag showed no effect whatsoever.
And yet, the bag is easier to mount and remove than are Ortlieb's easy-off panniers. To fit the Trunk Bag, you simply align the mount with the rack on one side while tilting the bag, hold down the lever on the oher side, un-tilt the bag so that it rests on the rack, and release the lever. Done. Nothing else required, except perhaps to reassure yourself by attempting to remove it without deploying one of the levers. When you want to remove it, that's even simpler: pull down a lever, tilt the rack, and it's off.
Some careful setting up is required to achieve this security: you need to space the mounts the optimum distance apart, using an allen key to unlock the adjustment. There is a bit of trial and error involved but it's not difficult. Ortlieb recommends the allen bolts be checked frequently but I haven't bothered.
C. Again Yes. At 800g it is the same weight as a Carradice Nelson saddlebag but at 12 litres holds three litres less. A better analogue for volume might be the Carradice Pendle (https://carradice.co.uk/shop/saddlebags/originals-pendle-saddlebag/), which is 170g lighter and holds a litre less. The Arkel Tailrider referenced and linked in my opening post is specified at the same volume and weight as the Pendle. The Trunk Bag is arguably more streamlined than the Pendle, and simpler to mount than the Tailrider. It could carry enough for the aforementioned picnic, and has no trouble swallowing a pullover and jacket. Here it is with just a (grey) synthetic pullover and a few other bits:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KCdPM3R/0/3c4ed25c/M/i-KCdPM3R-M.jpg)
And yet whether or not I have a lot in it in it, it doesn't much get in the way.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tvckmJ8/0/870f0d2a/L/i-tvckmJ8-L.jpg)
Nevertheless, the Trunk Bag has its shortcomings.
Perhaps the most salient is its hard plastic internal lower surface, which means that when you don't have much in there the hard contents will rattle. I've been known to carry soft wraps just to prevent this. I imagine the Carradice and Arkel alternatives are much quieter.
Second, on a single rail rack like the Vega, you can't use it in combination with Ortlieb panniers. That's because the clever mount dominates the rail. Traditional saddlebags don't display this incompatibility. (You can use it with panniers on a dual-rail rack such as the Tubus Logo (https://www.tubus.com/en/products/rear-carriers/tubus-product/logo-classic).) Edit: No, it won't fit with Ortlieb Back Rollers even on the Logo.
And third, the Trunk Bag is neither compressible nor expandable, notwithstanding its roll-top closure. Ortlieb roll-top panniers can be rolled more or less, and how much you roll them makes a significant difference to the volume of the bag. The same is nominally true of the Trunk Bag, but whereas the panniers can be secured at any available volume the Trunk Bag's closing system is much more limited - as you may be able to see from this dodgy photo the closing flap has a very narrow range of engagement with the velcro strips that secure it:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-CkcwPrP/0/a6c5ee29/L/i-CkcwPrP-L.jpg)
And hence if you attempt to overstuff the bag you soon find that the velcro simply won't engage. The 12 litre capacity - nominally about the same as an Ortlieb Sport Roller pannier - therefore represents a hard limit, and you can't squeeze in that extra stubby of beer even for a short run from the pub to your campsite.
So, given its shortcomings, am I satisfied with the Trunk Bag?
Kind of. The left side of my brain still points out proudly that it uses the rack, and that it demounts in seconds, and that it must catch a little less wind than a similar sized saddlebag. However, the right side observes that a saddlebag in a similar size would have been lighter and quieter and more adaptable, and that its not using the rack would be a problem with no real world consequences.
Finally, John, to answer your questions:
> On tour, nothing went into the Trunk Bag that could not have gone into the panniers. However, the Trunk Bag is more easily dismounted than the panniers, and I had thought I might use it as a rear-mount handlebar bag, placing in it things that I might want to take into a cafe with me. In hindsight, not the smartest idea.
> The bike seemed to handle very well with 4kg in the Trunk Bag, but it may well have handled even better with the same weight carried lower in panniers.
So there - everything you always wanted to know about the Ortlieb Trunk Bag RC but were afraid to ask. I cannot imagine that any of you has an interest in learning yet more, but if I am wrong and you have a question then fire away. ;D
-
A rack bag will hold a similar amount to a medium-sized pannier so, if the required baggage on a trip can be put in a rack bag then I think that's preferable to the lop-sided loading of one pannier. In addition, with a rack bag on the centreline of the bike there should be less aerodynamic drag. I've never felt that the height of the bag above ground level is an issue. It's a lot lighter than the rider, most of whom is even higher off the ground.
I've got both the Carradice Super-C and Carradura rack bags which have each clocked up significant miles. Both are held in place by straps which can accommodate a range of rack widths and are moderately easy to fit or remove. The Super-C uses more robust and rain-resistant material and, for me (31" leg length), the main drawback was squeezing the front end of the bag under the rear of the saddle. That won't be an issue for someone with longer legs. I used it on my supported LEJOG where there was usually room to spare expect for my rain jacket which, on days when it might be needed, was strapped on top with some bungee cords. It was easy to take the bag off the bike in the evenings to carry to my room. The Carradura bag is slightly wedge-shaped so fits better under the saddle and there are two options for the height. However, the maximum capacity of the main compartment is less than the Super-C bag but the Carradura bag has two mini flop-down panniers.
After doing the LEJOG I decided it was time to try some weight reduction and dispensed with the rack and rack bag and fitted the Carradice Lightweight Audax bag supported by the Carradice Bagman. This configuration appeared to have less aerodynamic drag than the rack as the bike appeared to go slightly faster and I used that baggage option on a group ride last October. Both saddlebags and rack bags have the problem of trying to find something small which has migrated to the bottom. I'm currently using a Carradice Maxi saddlepack with the intention of adding more capacity when needed using (i) a top tube bag, (ii) this small frame bag https://www.wiggle.co.uk/evoc-multiframe-pack-medium?sku=103071669 (which fits neatly at the front end of the triangle), (iii) a bag which hangs under the handlebars and (iv) a caddy in one of the bottle cages. I've yet to see how this pans out in reality but having several bags facilitates segregation of what's being carried. (This last paragraph is drifting off the main topic but can also apply if needing a bit more capacity than is offered by a rack bag).
PS: This http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12905.0 is also relevant.
-
Nice review Moronic, well thought through, i only stopped by to look at the photos and ended up reading it all, even though I have no interest in the product. It's a shame the bag monopolises the rack, the result IMO is too much product for the capacity.
I have two sizes of Carradice saddlebag, shared between three bikes with bagman supports, also a smaller Ortlieb saddlebag for the other bikes. I didn't so much choose the Carradice, it's more that that's what touring cycles had and although I've moved on from many of the other standards, the saddlebags have stayed.
One thing your review didn't mention was the ability to attach stuff to the outside, I presume this isn't an option? I dislike keeping a rain jacket in a bag with anything else (That's not to say I never do it, I just avoid when possible) It doesn't make sense to keep it in a bag, which you then have to open when it's raining, then put a damp jacket back into when it stops! Mine is usually, strapped on top of a Carradice, or in a stuff sack strapped to the rack when using the Ortlieb.
-
...
I've never been quite sure what problem a trunk bag was s'posed to solve. ...
...
I mostly use them for riding around near home, but only when I do not plan to lock up the bike somewhere where theft could be an issue. I do not mind it being bigger than a small saddle bag, I can put a jacket or lunch or both in it.
One of mine has been used regularly as a gym bag on a rack that I could attach to a seatpost with a clamp. That one, when I got to the gym I left it attached to the rack and unclipped the rack from the seatpost so I could take the rack and bag inside.
But on tour, I use something bigger, usually a 20 to 30 liter drybag.
I have a large rather odd looking Racktime bag that has a hard shell shape, picked it up at a swap meet from a former Racktime dealer. Not sure if it was a prototype or what, but it is rather large so I can shove a lot in it. And it has a quick release attachment to Racktime racks, which I have a couple.
-
It's a shame the bag monopolises the rack, the result IMO is too much product for the capacity.
That could be about right.
The other side of it might be my misapprehending of the rack I have. It's very narrow, and might be seen more accurately as a pannier hanger, much as the Duo is. With that top available for supporting a cylindrical load between the pannier tops, either as John Saxby demonstrates above or in a transverse arrangement as Ortlieb suggests for its rack bags.
So in saying to myself that my day ride luggage should be on he rack, I am missing the point. After all, if I leave the Tubus Duo bolted to the front fork, I accept that it won't contribute unless I mount panniers to it.
I didn't so much choose the Carradice, it's more that that's what touring cycles had and although I've moved on from many of the other standards, the saddlebags have stayed.
And maybe because they're a good idea that has stood the test of time.
One thing your review didn't mention was the ability to attach stuff to the outside, I presume this isn't an option? I dislike keeping a rain jacket in a bag with anything else (That's not to say I never do it, I just avoid when possible) It doesn't make sense to keep it in a bag, which you then have to open when it's raining, then put a damp jacket back into when it stops! Mine is usually, strapped on top of a Carradice, or in a stuff sack strapped to the rack when using the Ortlieb.
Yeah good point, and no there is no option to add anything to the exterior of the Trunk Bag. Again, unlike the front and rear roll-type panniers.
The special thing about he Trunk Bag is its ease of attachment, and then as JohnR observes it is neater than running a single pannier. On balance I'm pretty happy with it, but it doesn't have the versatility that made Ortlieb the market leader.
I'll also add that it comes with a shoulder strap that clips on at each end.
-
...The other side of it might be my misapprehending of the rack I have. It's very narrow, and might be seen more accurately as a pannier hanger, much as the Duo is.
I'm running a Tubus Logo Evo on one of my randonneuur bikes...a use where I also prefer my expanding rack pack/trunk.
I fitted a sheet of Dupont Zytel resin using nylon P-clamps (cable ties would also do) and this gave a solid untapered platform for the rack trunk atop the fairly narrow, tapered rack top. My trunk attaches with velcro straps threaded through the platform at each corner.
It has worked well for me over a number of years now. Though I rarely use the rack trunk with rear panniers, the secondary/lower pannier rail on the Logo Evo nicely carries both at once without mutual interference.
I recently modified a Logo Evo for a friend who wanted a similar setup to mine at lower weight. I used a holesaw to lighten the nylon rack platform and attached it with cable ties. I left the upper portion of the lower tubular rack rail in place and used a cutoff wheel to remove the lower run of that secondary rail. A little paint and nylon hole plugs and it looked factory fresh. He uses fairly narrow, lightweight panniers with his rack trunk, so they remain stable on the remaining rack struts with no heel strike. I recycled part of the lower rail to make a lateral brace fitted with a threaded boss above the rear mudguard blade for direct attachment so the upper 'guard struts were unnecessary. The slight weight reduction over the original rack would not have been worth it to me but was important to him, so....
Tubus' steel racks are easy to modify if you are skilled at brazing and have an oxy-acetylene torch and hobbyist framebuilding supplies as I do. I've removed supplemental struts and added integrated light mounts, bottle/cargo cage bosses and tie-down loops/lash points for bikepacking friends before repainting. Mods void the factory warranty but there have been no problems to date and the hacks added a lot of utility for their users. So long as one uses appropriate gauges of chromoly steel, it is also easy to make very strong racks from scratch to suit nearly any application or bag. The ones I made for my custom full-suspension Folder are strong enough to support my 78kg body weight when I stand on them. I usually go for stock Tubus racks myself because they are a readymade and durable solution at a fairly reasonable price given the materials and construction methods.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks, Moronic, for starting this thread, and ditto to all for the informed commentary. "All you ever need to know about Trunk Bags, and then some" -- this thread is a good example of why the Thorn Cycles Forum is a good example.
Take a collective bow, gentlemen (he said, with a self-congratulatory ;) )
-
I use a Tubus Logo for touring with my Nomad or Sherpa. Top platform is so narrow that when I get home from a trip, the Logo comes off and a different rack with a wider platform top goes on the bike. That said, I really like the Tubus Logo as a very solid pannier hanging rack for loaded touring.
Before I bought my Logo, ... (wow, that was 9 years ago, where has the time gone?) ... I used a Surly rear rack for touring. Now I only use that Surly rack for around home use on my Nomad. Has a really wide platform for a rack top bag. I have a vintage Cannondale rack top bag that matches the Surly width.
My Lynskey, I use a Nitto rack around home. Looks light, but it is steel so quite heavy and is rated for light duty weights. No separate rails for panniers. I got the used Nitto rack for pennies on the dollar at a swap meet. That platform is not as wide as the Surly but is much wider than the other racks I own. I use a Racktime Addit rack on that bike for touring with panniers. Racktime platform is 120mm wide, the Nitto platform is 128mm wide, both measured from outer to outer width with my caliper.
-
Possibly the Trunk Bag would work quite well for certain touring loads on a Logo rack. Two Back Rollers and a Trunk Bag would give me 52 litres, or about the same as two rear panniers and one front. Between the extra weight of the Logo over the Vega and the 800g weight of the Trunk Bag I'd pay one kilo for the extra space, and I'd save the weight of the Duo front racks and two Sport Rollers, about 2.5kg all up. So if you only needed the space of three panniers, you'd be 1.5kg to the good.
Again though it seems a saddlebag would be more versatile. And would work with the lighter Vega rack. Edit: And the speculation above is redundant, as the Trunk Bag is not compatible with Ortlieb Back Rollers, and likely other Ortlieb panniers, even on a Logo.
-
First two photos are my Sherpa with the Logo rack on my Florida trip in Feb 2017, used Backrollers and a separate drybag that I could strap on top. The Backrollers were higher than the Logo platform, so the drybag sat between the Backrollers just fine.
I like a drybag for that amount of stuff, as I often have my food in the drybag on top and the volume of that varies greatly during a trip, it is easy to compress the dry bag as I eat more of the food. At the end of the trip the dry bag was empty and shoved into a pannier. At that time the only thing on top of the rear rack was a tent pole bag.
If I anticipate needing more volume than a drybag, then I use the Ortlieb Rack Pack that is 31 liters, third photo, and in that photo there is a blue drybag between the Rack Pack and seatpost holding overflow food I could not fit in the Ortlieb. This photo is on my Nomad, also with the Logo rack. In this photo there is a small triangular pack in front of the seatpost above the top tube that holds two spare tubes, patch kit and multi-tool.
I have also used some Carradry panniers instead of the Ortliebs, but that is a different topic.
I just find a rack top pack like the Ortlieb or the others that I use to be best for around town riding, not for a tour.
-
I think trunk bags work best with racks designed for them.
When I was running old 16 inch Moultons these had wide platform racks front and rear and I used purpose made trunk bags nearly all the time on these bikes, either just the rear or both rear and front depending on volume needed.
Later on I had a Moulton TSR, and I again bought the specific Moulton rear trunk bag for this model of bike. But the TSR was designed to have a frame-fixed low-loader rack for normal front panniers, so that's what I had on the front when I needed the volume. For a (relatively) lightweight bike I felt the load was very stable, the frame fixed front rack meant that the entire load was suspended and that there was very little effect on handling. But total volume possible was less than on a full-size tourer. The photo is of the TSR with (empty) front and rear luggage
IMO trunk bags work better on small wheel bikes, as the platform rack is set lower. On a full size bike, if a trunk bag is the main luggage and it is filled with heavy stuff it raises the centre of gravity of the bike, which I don't like.
My own first choice for day rides is a saddlebag, which saves the weight of a rack. This puts the luggage even higher, but also closer to the main lump of weight on a bike (the rider). But I often use 1 (or 2) panniers on the rear rack on bikes that do have racks as it is less hassle than swapping a saddlebag from one bike to another.
For touring, my usual choice is the "normal" sized Ortlieb Bikepacker Plus rear panniers with drawcord and strap closure (40 litres, plus the optional rear pockets), with the smaller but similar Sportpacker Plus panniers (30 litres) on the front. If I need more space I can add the Ortleib roll-top Rack Pack (31 litres - the same one as Mickeg ?) bungeed to the top of the rear rack. Whether or not I also have the Rack Pack, the tent usually goes on the top of the rear rack, partly because the poles are a bit long to fit inside a pannier but mainly because it sometimes gets packed wet.
I also have the option of the really big Ortleib Back Roller Pro Plus (70 litres) that I use for shopping and for other local errands when I need to carry a lot, but so far I have resisted using them for touring as I reckon they would encourage me to take too much stuff.
-
Lots of interesting stuff and it demonstrates how much a compromise it all is, swings and roundabouts.
Although a Carradice style saddlebag doesn't use the top of a rack, it does restrict it, I can't get anything bigger than a set of tent poles under it and that's on a large frame with a good bit of exposed seatpost. It brings me to the point that luggage is best looked at as a system rather than the components. When you so so, the rack matching the bags is an important consideration. Though I like Dan's creativity, a different rack might not have needed it. OTOH we work with what we have, I've ended up with two titanium racks, I didn't plan it and one of them has ironically ended up on my heaviest bike, even if my luggage changes I can't see me swapping racks in this lifetime.
Going off thread, I've been looking at the Ortlieb Fork Pack Plus as a way of adding 11 ltrs capacity to the front of my Surly without using a rack, frustrating to find that despite having 18 mounting points (Yes seriously 9 per leg) none of them are suitable!
-
...
Going off thread, I've been looking at the Ortlieb Fork Pack Plus as a way of adding 11 ltrs capacity to the front of my Surly without using a rack, frustrating to find that despite having 18 mounting points (Yes seriously 9 per leg) none of them are suitable!
Thanks for mentioning that, I was unaware of it.
Looks like it should mount on any fork that uses the same three mounting bolts as a Salsa Anything Cage.
My bike touring trips are usually longer and I need the volume of my panniers. Thus, I have not yet seen a reason to try one of the options other than conventional front rack and panniers.
But, I could see at some time wanting to forgo that and instead use some smaller dry bags on either the Salsa cage or the Blackburn Outpost cage. The Blackburn takes two bolts spaced the same as a water bottle cage instead of the three that Salsa uses. And there are now lots of other brands in that field too.
Looks like the Ortlieb system is a well thought out design that accomplishes essentially the same as one of those cages and a drybag.
I did buy a couple of the Blackburn cages, I think I could mount them on a Nomad Mk II fork easily enough, upper bolt in the upper rack mounting point on the fork blade and a P clip on the lower mounting point on the cage to hold the orientation of the cage in the right place with the P clip wrapped around the fork blade. Have not tried it yet, but I have accumulated the hardware to do that.
***
Also off topic, the tent I currently use for bike touring is a trekking pole style tent. Instead of using trekking poles, I cut some poles that I can fold up short enough to fit in my front pannier, thus I no longer have to have my tent poles on top of the rear rack.
But, if your tent uses flexible poles and almost all tents do now, having poles custom cut to be smaller could be rather expensive. The poles I use are not supposed to flex, so it was quite easy to do that at minimal cost.
-
...
Going off thread, I've been looking at the Ortlieb Fork Pack Plus as a way of adding 11 ltrs capacity to the front of my Surly without using a rack, frustrating to find that despite having 18 mounting points (Yes seriously 9 per leg) none of them are suitable!
Thanks for mentioning that, I was unaware of it.
Looks like it should mount on any fork that uses the same three mounting bolts as a Salsa Anything Cage.
Yes, the Surly has two sets of three at the right spacing on each leg, but neither of them are parallel to the wheel. That wouldn't matter on a cylindrical bag/container but would with the flat, rigid backed Ortliebs. I might end up with cage and bags, or if it gets too much trouble get a front rack, I'm looking for something easy to completely remove when not in use. I'm in no hurry, any possible use is months away.
-
A 65km out and back last weekend along my favourite cycle trail led me to reappreciate the Trunk Bag, plus brought the opportunity to grab another pic of the bike with bag.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-B2SDbZ6/0/5365b159/L/i-B2SDbZ6-L.jpg)
I've also recognised belatedly that a similar sized saddle bag would benefit from a decaleur, which would increase the weight of, say, a Carradice Pendle to match this Ortlieb product.
It also occurs to me that the 800g Trunk Bag must weigh little more than, say, an Ortlieb Ultimate Six handlebar bag and mount, while offering 40 per cent more capacity and better streamlining. Plus it has no effect on steering.
And if you carry the easily attached and very light shoulder strap, you can bring the Trunk Bag very comfortably into cafes et cetera. It removes as easily as a handlebar bag also, and more easily than a saddle bag.
Add all that up, and for day trips it is arguably rather superior to either, assuming you'll have a suitable rear rack attached in any case.
It is well named as a Trunk Bag, as it gives the bike a storage space analogous to the trunk - or boot, as we call it over here - of an automotive sedan. Usually it's not full, but nor does it get much in the way and there's a fair bit of space if you need it.
Its principle shortcoming arises from its very ability to avoid intruding. You forget it is there, which implies you wouldn't notice if suddenly it wasn't there. The risk of loss en-route is low, given that as I have said the mounting seems extremely secure. It's just that the consequence of such a loss would be high, if you treated it like a handlebar bag and put your phone and wallet in there. Resist that temptation and this is a very good product.
-
Your pic reminds me of another bag feature not yet discussed - Lean protection, when I lean my bike on something, I try and use the bag as the point of contact, partly because the softer surface makes a slip less likely, it's also easier to clean if what it's leant against is dirty, and I'd rather scratch/scuff a bag than the frame or saddle. Panniers are the easiest, the Carradice traverse saddlebags are also OK, my Ortlieb saddlebag offers nothing and hinders leaning the saddle. Of course if it's something you're likely to take off after you've lent it somewhere it's irrelevant...
You forget it is there, which implies you wouldn't notice if suddenly it wasn't there.
You'd think that wasn't possible with a bar bag, but it is :-[ I've done 20 miles with mine left behind in a cafe... and several in the group had similar stories which made me feel slightly less of a muppet.
EDIT - Spelling :-[
-
...
I've also recognised belatedly that a similar sized saddle bag would benefit from a decaleur, which would increase the weight of, say, a Carradice Pendle to match this Ortlieb product.
...
I think of the Pendle as a rear saddle bag. And I think of a decaleur as a mount for a handlebar bag up front. Thus, I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Most of my bikes had racks on them, until Covid. During the pandemic I have been using my bikes a lot less for shopping, as my shopping was more likely to be infrequent trips where I purchased more during hours when the stores were less crowded. Thus, I was driving a vehicle to the stores for more shopping trips and rarely using my bike for shopping. Less shopping by bike, meant less pannier usage. And, since I was using the racks less, I removed the racks from a couple of my bikes and started to use my Pendle more. I had bought the Pendle almost a decade ago but the vast majority of the usage it has seen has only been during the past two years.
I did not like the way my legs hit the bag when I pedaled, thus I added a stem to my seat post (with appropriate shim) and a short horizontal cylindrical piece of wood, sprayed black to hold my Pendle back further.
My Pendle is usually less than half full, but it is a convenient place to put a layer of clothing, extra water, perhaps some food, etc. I also use a handlebar bag.
I have nothing against a rack top bag like your Ortlieb, I have used rack top bags for lots of things for several decades and continue to use them on bikes with racks on them. But, I have started to use a saddle bag on bikes if I will not be using panniers on that bike. Last week for a couple days it warmed up to near freezing and the wind was light, so I took advantage of the good weather for an exercise ride on my Nomad Mk II, the rack top bag had a couple layers of spare clothing in it. Marathon Winter tires, 50mm wide worked well.
-
I did not like the way my legs hit the bag when I pedaled, thus I added a stem to my seat post (with appropriate shim) and a short horizontal cylindrical piece of wood, sprayed black to hold my Pendle back further.
I dislike this as well, so don't use the saddlebag without Carradice Bagman, maybe this is the sort of thing Moronic meant by decaleur.
OT - I've been told the translation of "decaleur" is something like "move out of the way"
-
... don't use the saddlebag without Carradice Bagman, maybe this is the sort of thing Moronic meant by decaleur.
OT - I've been told the translation of "decaleur" is something like "move out of the way"
I am in USA and occasionally I find that british english and american english do not mean the same thing. The only company that I know that uses the word "decaleur" in their product line is this company in USA, here is an example.
https://velo-orange.com/collections/racks/products/rando-front-rack-with-integrated-decaleur-cantilever
But I have never seen them use the word decaleur for the rear.
Carradice makes a bracket that a bag can hang from that is supported by the loops on a B17 and possibly on other Brooks saddles.
https://carradice.co.uk/shop/accessories/saddle-bag-rack/
That is the closest thing I can think of as a decaleur for the rear, but Carradice does not refer to it as such.
My road bike does not have saddle loops on the saddle, it is a Brooks Pro saddle. I made up a support by bending an aluminum rod to support the bag, photos attached.
I am aware that you can buy little loops that clamp onto the saddle rods, I have some, but I found they slip. Or at least the ones I bought in the 1980s for that purpose slip.
-
I did not like the way my legs hit the bag when I pedaled, thus I added a stem to my seat post (with appropriate shim) and a short horizontal cylindrical piece of wood, sprayed black to hold my Pendle back further.
I thought I was quite good at improvisation but hadn't thought of that solution for the problem of supporting a saddlebag. I've used the Carradice Bagman but have the problem that my Carradice Lightweight Audax bag is very floppy and sags to each side of the Bagman and I need to improvise a lightweight platform.
I've also got both the Carradice Super-C and Carradura rack bags but these result in the added weight of providing a rack. I had reckoned that an in-line bag should result in the least wind drag but the bike felt a bit faster when I changed to a saddlebag.
-
...I've used the Carradice Bagman but have the problem that my Carradice Lightweight Audax bag is very floppy and sags to each side of the Bagman and I need to improvise a lightweight platform.
...
I initially used a piece of cardboard inside my Pendle, and I also have a Nelson Long Flap, used it for that too. But it worked well enough I decided to make something more permanent, so I used Coroplast.
I bent it into a U shape, it is in the front, bottom and back. I tried to figure out exactly where I wanted the creases and put those creases in first. It Just sits in there loosely, not physically attached to the bag. It does give the bag much better shape instead of sagging like a wet sack.
I have no idea where to procure Coroplast in the UK, I am in USA and bought a big sheet of it at a building supplies store.
Second photo is my Nelson Longflap, at the time of the photo I just had a sheet of paper cardboard in it in that U shape. The bag sits on the two panniers with no other support from the bottom, but from the photo I can't tell if the bag is also supported by the Tubus Logo rack under it, it might also be sitting on the rack although my recollection was that it was only sitting on the panniers. It might have varied from day to day as I packed the panniers differently each day.
-
...I used Coroplast...
I did on mine too, with success.
I suggest it can be helpful to apply duct tape to the cut edges of the Coroplast and slightly round the corners, as both can be sharp and eventually cause some vibration-induced abrasion of the bag's inner if used extensively on rough roads. :)
George, I have three of the same rack trunks of the same kind shown on your yellow Nomad. I sure like mine and they have become a day-ride standard on my bikes. A Nashbar product from some time ago, as I recall. The wedge-expanding top has come in handy when buying produce at roadside fruit stands. I attach the waistband of my large safety triangle 'round the bag for better nighttime visibility.
Best,
Dan.
-
Yes I may have misused the term decaleur. I meant the Carradice Bagman thingie.
Mickeg, you've got some fab looking bikes in those images. :D
-
What's the issue with a Carradice flopping over the edge? I thought that was the look ;) I don't have any of the larger bags and mine usually have enough in them to keep their shape. More of an issue for me is it sinking into the Bagman, which obscures a light and encroaches on the space underneath, it's easily cured with a couple of wraps of gaffa tape.
-
I have no idea where to procure Coroplast in the UK, I am in USA and bought a big sheet of it at a building supplies store.
Does it look like this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/162688632536?var=461702781589 which claims to be bendable in one direction? If so, what thickness did you use?
-
I have no idea where to procure Coroplast in the UK, I am in USA and bought a big sheet of it at a building supplies store.
Does it look like this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/162688632536?var=461702781589 which claims to be bendable in one direction? If so, what thickness did you use?
It's the stuff they make signs out of, the "For Sale" estate agent type. If you can't find a bit lying around waiting to be re-cycled, try a sign maker, they'll probably have an off-cut big enough.
-
I have no idea where to procure Coroplast in the UK, I am in USA and bought a big sheet of it at a building supplies store.
Does it look like this https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/162688632536?var=461702781589 which claims to be bendable in one direction? If so, what thickness did you use?
I have never measured Coroplast before, I have only seen one version of it. My caliper says it is about 4mm.
But, I would suggest you first try paper cardboard to see how it works. And once you get a cardboard piece that is exactly the right size, you have a pattern that you can use to cut and bend the expensive stuff.
The only reason that I am not still using paper cardboard is I bought a sheet of Corplast for a different project, had left over so used it for my Carradice bags. The paper cardboard worked pretty well. But, I would expect it would work poorly if you had a multi-day rain event and exposed it to rain every day.
It is occasionally used here for political signs, but more often they use something cheaper.
This is what I used:
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Coroplast-48-in-x-96-in-x-0-157-in-White-Corrugated-Plastic-Sheet-CP4896S/205351385
It is easier to bend if you first score it with a dull pizza wheel cutter. It bends easiest in one direction, you will figure it out.
-
...
George, I have three of the same rack trunks of the same kind shown on your yellow Nomad. I sure like mine and they have become a day-ride standard on my bikes. A Nashbar product from some time ago, as I recall. The wedge-expanding top has come in handy when buying produce at roadside fruit stands. I attach the waistband of my large safety triangle 'round the bag for better nighttime visibility.
Best,
Dan.
Mine is a Cannondale.
It has those small side panniers that you can unzip to hang down on the sides. The reflective side piece is held on with velcro, I do not recall exactly why but I think it is related to the pannier part. Mine is so old that it says made in USA, I have no clue how long ago Cannondale offshored all seamstress work to asia, but it was a LONG time ago. I probably bought it at Nashbar.
No wedge on mine, but I have a Louis Gaurneau bag with a wedge so I know what you mean.
Mine has had almost no use. The straps under it to attach to a rack only work well if the rack is the full width of the bag, works poorly if the rack is narrower. And for years I used narrower racks, so over a decade and a half ago that bag went on the shelf in storage. I bought the Surly rack that is on my Nomad about a decade ago. I stopped using it for touring after two tours, instead use a Tubus Logo. But the Nomad Mk II is so heavy, that putting a heavy Surly rack on the bike does not make it much heavier. And, about a year ago I looked at that Cannondale bag and thought to myself, that is probably exactly the width of the Surly rack. So, the Cannondale bag is in use again.
-
I have never measured Coroplast before, I have only seen one version of it. My caliper says it is about 4mm.
But, I would suggest you first try paper cardboard to see how it works. And once you get a cardboard piece that is exactly the right size, you have a pattern that you can use to cut and bend the expensive stuff.
Thank you.
-
An update: I bought a piece of A3 size 4mm Correx https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00LFKM6GA and have just cut it to fit inside the saddlebag. There was a piece left over so there's a double layer on the bottom where it rests on the Bagman. It's impressive material as it weighs almost nothing, is strong in one direction (across the width of the bag) and bendable in the other direction. I'm wondering why I didn't come across this material previously. Only time will tell how durable it is as the saddlebag isn't currently on the bike but I bought black as it's less vulnerable to deterioration caused by ultraviolet radiation.
-
Isn’t this the same stuff that Real Estate For Sale boards are made of?
I’ll wait ‘til after dark and ‘take the dog for a walk’ I might just find one. 😊
-
Isn’t this the same stuff that Real Estate For Sale boards are made of?
I’ll wait ‘til after dark and ‘take the dog for a walk’ I might just find one. 😊
I like the idea of using such materials from JohnR- but the 'recycling' idea of real estate boards or similar really gets me excited! Must remember to wear a balaclava on my next evening walk...
I actually converted an old trailer I used to transport my kids in behind my bike into a shopping schlepper. The trailer didn't have a solid floor, but was a frame with nylon floor to keep the elements out and the kids feet in. After removing the nylon seats the kids would be strapped to, I used some cheap light roofing offcuts I had left over from a gardening cold frame project and velcro to hold them to the frame of the trailer. Now I have a large flat bet for loading heavy shopping that weighs almost nothing but that is strong enough for me to stand on!
-
Interesting thread! My objective was to have one bag to switch between my Mercury (narrow and 'not-parallel' Vega rack) and my Sterling (Blackburn MTN rack). I tried a number of solutions, but panniers, or a single pannier, didn't work on the shortish chainstayed Sterling. Best solution I could manage was an Amazon basics toolbag with an R&K Uniklip fitting to turn it in to a rackbag. The Uniklip is very well made, very expensive, worked well on a 'non-parallel' rack like my Vega, but too much effort required to change sizing between two different racks.
In the end I bought a very affordable Topeak rack for the Sterling, a Topeak adapter for the Vega, and two different sized Topeak bags. This works well for me, in that I can switch bags between bikes in a moment.
Drawbacks are :
that the adapter on the Vega blocks panniers - but I only use panniers for touring once or twice a year, so no big deal to take the adapter off.
that the Topeak rack is aluminium (which seems to be a no-no) - but since the Sterling is only rated for 15kg not a problem to me.
-
I am guessing that what we in USA call Corroplast is called Correx in the UK.
... the Topeak rack is aluminium (which seems to be a no-no) - but since the Sterling is only rated for 15kg not a problem to me.
I would not worry too much about that. Some cheap aluminum racks are bad in part to poor quality welding.
But there are some very good aluminum racks out there too. I have several RackTime racks that are aluminum, that is part of the same company as Tubus, the Tubus racks are steel.
I usually tour with Tubus racks but my light touring bike uses a RackTime on the back. My Nomad Mk II uses an Axiom (aluminum) up front, although I made significant modifications to the Axiom.
-
An ali rack — or at least a properly designed ali rack like the Racktime George also mentioned — has an advantage on a steel bike that a heavy duty steel rack doesn’t have.
My German/Dutch Utopia Kranich came with a Racktime ali rack. At first I viewed it with a jaundiced eye, because it was obviously the weakest link in a three dimensional frame capable of withstanding as much torsional force between the head tube and the mountings for the rear axle locator (two slots per side in which the Rohloff OEM design of machined ali block axle hanger slides for chain adjustment, not an EBB) as a four ton Rolls-Royce. However, after the first time a Range Rover driven by a careless bimbo tangled with my bike, I changed my mind. The Racktime gave up its life — and my bike’s precious, irreplaceable historic paintwork didn’t have scratch on it. I bought another Racktime, which suffered the same fate, and again my steel bike suffered zero stress or even superficial damage though the Racktime was too badly bent to go back on the bike, same as it’s predecessor. They could be straightened, but had obviously been in the wars and I scrapped them as costmetically unsalvageable.
I studied the trashed Racktime carefully. I don’t know if it is careful design or the luck of the draughtsman, or even a desire to bump up profits by skimping on materials (Tubus, as I have explained on this forum before, is cheap about giving the customer fittings and extension mounts for their racks), but if the Racktime had been designed as a crumple zone, it couldn’t have been done better, and the mountings twisted or cracked without moving the admittedly hefty steel they were attached to.
After careful consideration and some correspondence, I replaced the second Racktime with a Tubus stainless steel Cosmo (I bet it is in the main sold to roadies who want to pose as tourers, because there are several plain steel Tubus racks much better suited to serious touring), which is so lightly built I believe it will deform or crack through in a fender bender just like the Racktime. But that hasn’t been put to the test yet. The Tubus Cosmo is a decent rack for utility duties and probably the best zero-maintenance rack available, which was my chief consideration.
Meanwhile, Racktime racks are definitely recommended within their load capacities.
-
I am guessing that what we in USA call Corroplast is called Correx in the UK.
... the Topeak rack is aluminium (which seems to be a no-no) - but since the Sterling is only rated for 15kg not a problem to me.
I would not worry too much about that. Some cheap aluminum racks are bad in part to poor quality welding.
But there are some very good aluminum racks out there too. I have several RackTime racks that are aluminum, that is part of the same company as Tubus, the Tubus racks are steel.
I didn't know RackTime were a Tubus company, are Tor Tec also the same company? They have so many similarities I've long suspected they are.
I don't have any steel racks, four aluminium and two titanium :) The only issue I've had with any of them was the one on my E-bike with the stupid modern design of doing away with the struts and replacing it with a piece of steel under the mudguard, it snapped after four months. ( I'll find a pic in case that description has you scratching your head)
I have had steel racks, it doesn't take much use for them to start rusting and although that's likely to be superficial, it's also too ugly for my bikes. I'm not sure I can tell the difference in use between any of the materials. If there was a structural disadvantage to using aluminium it could easily be engineered out by using larger diameter tubes.
Photo of a daft rack
-
...
I didn't know RackTime were a Tubus company, are Tor Tec also the same company? They have so many similarities I've long suspected they are.
I don't have any steel racks, four aluminium and two titanium :) The only issue I've had with any of them was the one on my E-bike with the stupid modern design of doing away with the struts and replacing it with a piece of steel under the mudguard, it snapped after four months. ( I'll find a pic in case that description has you scratching your head)
I have had steel racks, it doesn't take much use for them to start rusting and although that's likely to be superficial, it's also too ugly for my bikes. I'm not sure I can tell the difference in use between any of the materials. If there was a structural disadvantage to using aluminium it could easily be engineered out by using larger diameter tubes.
...
I have no clue who Tor Tec is.
At the bottom of this page it says:
racktime is a brand of tubus carrier systems GmbH, the worldwide leading company for designing and producing high-quality carrier systems for transporting stuff on your bicycle.
https://www.racktime.com/en/company#c113
My Racktime racks are the Addit model. Mine have stamped into them max of 30 kg, but their advertising now says 25kg. At the bottom of this page it says Tubus.
https://www.racktime.com/fileadmin/user_upload/racktime/downloads/bemassungsskizzen/Addit_2.0_01.pdf
I doubt that I will ever have over 20 kg on my Addit racks, that is on my rando bike and on my titanium touring bike. If I have much weight I instead use one of my Thorn bikes and use the Logo on them.
My Tubus Logo EVO rated for 40 kg.
https://www.tubus.com/fileadmin/user_upload/tubus/downloads/technische-zeichnungen/hinterradtraeger/Logo_Evo_TZ_2.0.pdf
I do not have any issues with steel racks and rust. I only buy black ones, and I keep a bottle of black fingernail polish handy at home, if I get a wear spot down to bare metal I touch it up with the fingernail polish.
I put some plastic hose on the frequent wear spots on the rack so that the racks do not get worn from panniers. See photo.
I only use the Logo for touring. For around home use I use different racks that have a wider platform on top, but for heavy panniers I really like the Logo.
ADDENDUM: I just found that the Tubus Logo has been reduced in max capacity too. When I bought it, it was rated for 40 kg, but now is rated for 26 kg. This makes me wonder if they reduced their capacities for some reason that has nothing to do with the racks themselves, or if they changed the materials or design of them in some way that made the newer ones weaker?
-
ADDENDUM: I just found that the Tubus Logo has been reduced in max capacity too. When I bought it, it was rated for 40 kg, but now is rated for 26 kg. This makes me wonder if they reduced their capacities for some reason that has nothing to do with the racks themselves, or if they changed the materials or design of them in some way that made the newer ones weaker?
Tubus do not support the fitting of child seats to their racks and I believe they deliberately downgraded the recommended maximum carrying capacity to 26Kg* to further discourage such practice. As I understand it the construction and materials of Tubus racks remained unchanged and they can safely carry conventional loads in excess of 26Kg..
* ISO 11243:2016 specifies the safety and performance requirements of bicycle racks and requires that racks with a carrying capacity in excess of 27 kg should by definition be approved for the attachment of child seats.
-
ADDENDUM: I just found that the Tubus Logo has been reduced in max capacity too. When I bought it, it was rated for 40 kg, but now is rated for 26 kg. This makes me wonder if they reduced their capacities for some reason that has nothing to do with the racks themselves, or if they changed the materials or design of them in some way that made the newer ones weaker?
Tubus do not support the fitting of child seats to their racks and I believe they deliberately downgraded the recommended maximum carrying capacity to 26Kg* to further discourage such practice. As I understand it the construction and materials of Tubus racks remained unchanged and they can safely carry conventional loads in excess of 26Kg..
* ISO 11243:2016 specifies the safety and performance requirements of bicycle racks and requires that racks with a carrying capacity in excess of 27 kg should by definition be approved for the attachment of child seats.
Thanks for posting, that adds some clarity to the situation.
I was seeing that lots of racks had lower ratings, but found that the Tara rating had not dropped, stayed at 15 kg. So, there was no reason to lower the Tara where there was a reason for the others.
I suspect that the Logo at 26 and Racktime Addit at 25 is their way of saying if you want more capacity, buy that one instead of this one.
-
Back on page 1 I offered this comment about the Ortlieb Trunk Bag under review:
"Second, on a single rail rack like the Vega, you can't use it in combination with Ortlieb panniers. That's because the clever mount dominates the rail. Traditional saddlebags don't display this incompatibility. (You can use it with panniers on a dual-rail rack such as the Tubus Logo.)"
Well I can tell you now that the remark in parentheses is inaccurate. I have purchased a Logo Evo, and it certainly will not mount the Trunk Bag with an early pair of Back Rollers. Yes the top rails are free. No, they are too close to the lower rails, and the Trunk Bag is too wide, to prevent interference. I'll edit p1 accordingly.
I had other reasons for getting the Logo rack, so that's not a major setback.
-
Well I can tell you now that the remark in parentheses is inaccurate. I have purchased a Logo Evo, and it certainly will not mount the Trunk Bag with an early pair of Back Rollers. Yes the top rails are free. No, they are too close to the lower rails, and the Trunk Bag is too wide, to prevent interference. I'll edit p1 accordingly.
That's a shame, will they fit in sequence or not at all?
I toured with someone with panniers and rack bag, though I don't recall the make and model, he had to fit the panniers before the rack bag and then couldn't access them. For touring purposes that's no big deal, many people, including myself, pack in such a way that there's no need to open the panniers except to pack and unpack at the ends of the the day.
-
Back on page 1 I offered this comment about the Ortlieb Trunk Bag under review:
"Second, on a single rail rack like the Vega, you can't use it in combination with Ortlieb panniers. That's because the clever mount dominates the rail. Traditional saddlebags don't display this incompatibility. (You can use it with panniers on a dual-rail rack such as the Tubus Logo.)"
Well I can tell you now that the remark in parentheses is inaccurate. I have purchased a Logo Evo, and it certainly will not mount the Trunk Bag with an early pair of Back Rollers. Yes the top rails are free. No, they are too close to the lower rails, and the Trunk Bag is too wide, to prevent interference. I'll edit p1 accordingly.
I had other reasons for getting the Logo rack, so that's not a major setback.
Photos are of a Logo EVO, Ortlieb Backrollers from about 2010 vintage, and the Ortlieb 31 liter Ortlieb RackPac of similar vintage. The Rackpack is up above the rack, it sits on the Backrollers, not on the rack.
This is the USA website for Ortlieb Rack Pack
https://www.ortlieb.com/usa_en/rack-pack
The Rack Pack has a strap on each side that clips to hold the rolled part down to the rest of the bag. And the Backrollers have a strap that goes over the top of the pannier. You can use the Backroller strap to clip to the Ortlieb top clip on each side to hold the Rack Pack.
First photo from behind. Sometimes I add one more strap around the rack and Rack Pack, did that in the first photo. That helps keep the Rack Pack from sliding around and shifting position.
Third photo, the Rack Pack shifted to the left side away from the camera, it is in part a function of how tight you have the straps.
The Rack Pack is basically a duffle with minimal stiffener. There are stiffeners at the roll top to aid in rolling it, but that is all. I have commented earlier in this thread that I have used initially paper based cardboard and later Coroplast as a stiffener in some of my bags. I did that with the Rack Pack, thus the Rack Pack has a firm cylindrical shape (or maybe flattened cylindrical shape if not stuffed full) instead of a limp pillow case sort of shape.
Since the Rack Pack sits on the panniers and not on the rack, it will not work on a rack without panniers. And it is best if the two panniers are the same height, or equally loaded. And it is pretty obvious that the Rack Pack goes on last and comes off first.
If I did not want to carry that large a volume, I might leave the Rack Pack at home. Ortliebs are expensive, instead of buying a smaller one, I use a non-cycling dry bag on some trips instead. Fourth photo. This obviously was not designed to work with the Ortlieb straps, so this is more complicated to attach and detach. On this trip by the end of the trip when the food was all eaten, I all gear was in the panniers and handlebar bag, no bag on top of the rear rack.
It was not until I looked at the video in the Ortlieb website for writing this post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtxsoOa2h48
that I realized that I was not using as many of the straps as I could, thus the Rack Pack might not shift side to side if you clip all four clips where I was only clipping two buckles. I just learned something.
-
Yes the Rack Pack is an interesting option although I doubt I'd ever need that and front panniers.
Point of using the Trunk Bag was its ability to function as a rear mounted handlebar bag - fill it with all the frequent access stuff and, since it is small and easily removed, carry it into cafes and shops.
One of my fancy ideas that never quite works in practice. In the end I just strapped a camping mattress and groundsheet to the top rails of the logo. Volume similar to the Trunk Bag and saved the 800g weight of the bag.