Thorn Cycles Forum
Technical => Luggage => Topic started by: dick220369 on May 03, 2015, 05:52:52 am
-
Hi,
I just recently bought a new Sherpa which I love. However, I am having an issue with pannier bag/heel clearance. I have some large Altura Orkney 56 litre bags which I have had to attach as far back on the rack as possible so that my heels don't clip them as I cycle. I also bought some 40 litre panniers, thinking that size was the issue, but the same thing happens with the new bags. Has anyone else experienced this? I just find it strange as it never happened on my old bike.
Thanks,
Richard :)
-
Hi Richard!
Heel-pannier interference can be caused by many things...placement of the dropout eyelets, rearward offset of the rack and its crossbars, but mostly as a result of chainstay length, crank length, and of course...foot length and their placement on the pedals, and even pedaling style (heel up, down, or level). On the panniers themselves, shape can make a big difference, as can the placement and adjustment of the mounting hardware.
I had no problems fitting and clearing my 40liter Ortlieb BackPacker panniers on my Sherpa, but it was a Mk2 560S, a bit larger than yours and with longer chainstays. The MegaBrochure lists a Sherpa Mk3 in size 500L as having 438mm chainstays. My Mk2 560S had chainstays 445mm long, so a 7mm difference. This is what you would also get if you went up a frame size. Would that 7mm make a difference in clearance for you?
There's a number of remedies that can be tried if adjustments allow: Placing the bags rearward and higher can help, as can tilting them if the mounting hardware will do this. On one of my randonneur bikes, I needed a Tubus Logo Evo with its secondary, extended mounting rail to get the panniers back far enough to clear my heels. On the other randonneur bike with 429mm chainstays, the rear panniers mount on lowrider frames attached to the rear rack. If I hold my foot horizontal when pedaling, my heels strike the panniers as well as the lowriders. However, with my high-cadence style, I lift my heel just in time to avoid a heel strike in practice. A lot of my clearance depends on saddle height. If mine were lower, my heels would be also. Fortunately it all came out right for me on that bike, but have you checked if your saddle height is correct for you?
56 liter bags are pretty large, so I would expect to have more clearance issues with them, but the 40 liter panniers should be much easier to fit. Since they also have clearance issues, I think the solution may be to move the bags rearward if you keep this frame size.
Richard, is your foot placement on the pedals any different with this bike? Are your crankarms the same length as your past bike? Are you using different shoes?
Best,
Dan.
-
Hi Dan,
I'm using same shoes/pedals and I cycle on the balls of my feet. The cranks are shorter than those of my old bike but my old rack is on longer rail so it is sitting further back on the bike. That bike also has longer chainstays because it is a 54 cm frame. Do you know if Thorn can provide longer rails for their rear carrier?
Thanks,
Richard.
-
Do you know if Thorn can provide longer rails for their rear carrier?
Richard, Thorn (via their sister company, SJS Cycles) can supply longer tangs for connecting the front of the rack to the chainstay bosses, but the lower mount of the rack is fixed, so much be mounted directly to the dropout without aid of a setback plate, as is possible on some Tubus racks.
As it is, the Thorn rack-top rails are extended so the taillight can be exposed beyond most touring loads to aid in rear and side visibility. This generally allows for some rearward movement of the panniers beyond "normal" racks.
Please, could you post some photos of your mounted bags, taken vertically so we can see where the hooks rest in relation to the rack's crossbars? I think would help to see how the bags are placed.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Dan is there extension steel clips that's bolted to rear brazeon's allowing the rack to be moved back a couple inches.
-
an is there extension steel clips that's bolted to rear brazeon's allowing the rack to be moved back a couple inches.
Yep, Anto...sure is for Tubus racks that have places for two bolts. They can then secure to the rack and then under the hub q/r nut or the dropout bosses.
In the past, I've made some myself for bikes with really short chainstays, but I don't know of any that will work readily with a Thorn rack and still maintain adequate rigidity with a load. I keep thinking the extended length of the Thorn Expedition rear rack will surely work for Richard, but I'd like to see how his bag hooks fit before I can go further with suggestions.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Oh right i thought they worked with any rack ::) live and learn.
anto
-
Anto,
It is possible to do the reverse and make/attach a bracket to two of the dropout eyelets and then cantilever a rack mount off that, but it is not as rigid as a direct mount and can put the weight too far back to be ideal.
Best,
Dan.
-
i suppose that's the good thing about ortlieb panniers loads of room to manover.
-
i suppose that's the good thing about ortlieb panniers loads of room to manover.
...and -- on their QL-2 mounting system -- the mounting rails and bags can be tilted to pick up that bit of extra heel clearance. Plus, there's a lot of mounting slots to engage the hooks to get everything spot-on. Not a perfect system, but very convenient for fitting purposes.
Best,
Dan.
-
Some racks have lower mounting rails that are farther back. I do not know if the Tubus Logo EVO on my Sherpa puts the load further back than the Thorn rack, but it might. I do not have a Thorn rack. You can see from the photo that you can put the pannier really far back. There is a little bump on the rail at the back that allows you to put one pannier hook all the way back on that rail.
-
Hi All,
Thanks for your replies/suggestions/advice. I am just going to make do with sitting the panniers further back on the rack. It's not as though they are as far back to the point that they are almost hanging off the rack. I don't think it is going to be an issue other than obscuring the cat's eye rear light's side visibility. It also forces me to carry less than I need - I am now using 40 litre panniers instead of the 56's. I've always found that the more room I have the more stuff I take - half of which I probably don't need. I am planning to get a handlebar bag soon anyway which I'll use for my tools, lock, telephone, wallet, etc. Can anyone suggest a strong handlebar bag that won't sag overtime? I don't know if handlebar bags do this because I've never had one. I know that rack top bags do so I am just assuming that handlebar bags will probably do the same.
Richard :)
-
I use a Carradice Super-C handlebar bag. It doesn't seem destined for any kind of sagging!
-
yes ortlieb or carradice both 100% waterproof i think carradice just beats ortlieb on the COOL look tho 8).
-
My Louis Garneau handlebar bags sag badly. When I got home from the trip where I took the photo, I used some aluminum strapping to add reinforcement, they are much better now. In the photo you can see the bracket is angled up quite a bit, yet it still sagged way down.
-
The Carradice is a sturdy box made out of some kind of rigid plastic. I'll try to get a good photo to compare with your photo.
-
Here's how the bag is aligned today... this is after about four years of regular use. How will it look in four more years?
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r6/kukulaj/Nomad/IMG_2347_zps7une4ol9.jpg)
-
Hi JimK,
It still looks good after 4 years :)
I was thinking of going for an Ortlieb handlebar bag just because my LBS, 2 doors up from where I live, sells them. I think this is the one:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/ortlieb-ultimate-6-m-classic-bar-bag-7-litre-prod31788/ (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/ortlieb-ultimate-6-m-classic-bar-bag-7-litre-prod31788/)
Don't know how good they are though.
I am also planning on putting rear panniers, 40 litres, on the front. I know some people do this and I will make sure that the weight of them will be well within the limits stated by Thorn.
Thanks,
Richard :)
-
you wont go wrong with ortlieb there the best, bikepacker plus rear are fantastic ultimate 7 barbag is the dogs. ;)
-
I am also planning on putting rear panniers, 40 litres, on the front. I know some people do this and I will make sure that the weight of them will be well within the limits stated by Thorn.
Other things to check when using large panniers on the front are ground clearance (might be an issue with off-road use) and, more important, make sure that no parts of the bags can flop into the wheel. This is a minor nuisance on the rear, I have had it happen with an old Karrimor rack and old, sagging nylon panniers, but it could be dangerous on the front.
Large, heavy panniers on the front combined with small rear panniers used to be a standard French touring configuration when I arrived in France 30 + years ago, but the racks and panniers were specially designed for the purpose. Thorn and other current low-loader racks seem to be designed specifically for front panniers.
My Ortleib Bike Packer Plus rear panniers will fit on my Thorn low-loader front rack, but I haven't yet used them on the front apart from a short test ride to see if it seemed reasonable (I reckon they would be OK). When ordering my Raven Tour I asked SJS cycles about using rear panniers on the front and they advised fairly strongly not to do it, so I got the Sport Packer Plus front panniers instead of a second set of Bike Packer Plus. So with the full set of front and rear panniers I theoretically have about 70 litres capacity instead of about 80 litres with the 2 sets of rear panniers I originally intended to fit.
With the long Thorn rear rack there is plenty of room to stack more stuff above the rear panniers if the need should arise, so the 10 litres lower capacity hasn't yet been a problem for me.
-
Sayeth Richard:
I am also planning on putting rear panniers, 40 litres, on the front. I know some people do this and I will make sure that the weight of them will be well within the limits stated by Thorn.
Replyeth Martin: Other things to check when using large panniers on the front are ground clearance (might be an issue with off-road use) and, more important, make sure that no parts of the bags can flop into the wheel. This is a minor nuisance on the rear, I have had it happen with an old Karrimor rack and old, sagging nylon panniers, but it could be dangerous on the front.
Large, heavy panniers on the front combined with small rear panniers used to be a standard French touring configuration when I arrived in France 30 + years ago, but the racks and panniers were specially designed for the purpose. Thorn and other current low-loader racks seem to be designed specifically for front panniers.
My Ortleib Bike Packer Plus rear panniers will fit on my Thorn low-loader front rack, but I haven't yet used them on the front apart from a short test ride to see if it seemed reasonable (I reckon they would be OK). When ordering my Raven Tour I asked SJS cycles about using rear panniers on the front and they advised fairly strongly not to do it
Richard, there's several issues at play here, and I can speak from firsthand experience and expand a bit on Martin's thoughtful answer, having explored the concept personally on my own Thorns (past Sherpa Mk2, present Nomad Mk2) and another Thorn I've toured with extensively (Raven Tour).
I sometimes have to carry a lot of water (26liters+) for desert touring. At one point, I had thought about placing that water in my rear panniers and moving much of my other cargo to the front by using rear panniers on my front Thorn Low-Loader rack. I had successfully used rear panniers on the front of my previous expedition bike for past trips (and used small panniers on the rear). I pondered the question openly on the Forum, and received a reply from Thorn advising against it for clearance and handling reasons and investigated further.
Here is what I found when I investigated further and actually tried in some trials:
1) My old panniers were made in a landscape format no longer widely available, rather than portrait format as with modern bags, so ground clearance with the old bags was less of an issue when they were mounted on lowrider front racks.
2) With the modern rear bags on the front (In this case, Ortlieb BikePackers instead of the usual smaller SportPackers), curb clearance is reduced to the point where the bags can rub a curb if you are near one and tilt a little. Very little. This can snag a bag and potentially cause a fall. Bridge aprons are generally taller than city curbs and could be a real clearance issue. I scraped holes through the bottom of even my smaller Ortlieb SportPacker Plus front bags when a bus trying to avoid an oncoming car forced me against a bridge apron in Croatia.
3) The taller rear bags can extend higher above the rack, which can cause interference with some downtubes when turning at the sharper angles sometimes required at low speeds. This is especially true if the bags are filled to capacity so the upper part is also full.
4) The rear bags are thicker laterally, so they pack wider. When packed, this effectively reduces the lean angle if mounted to lowrider racks up front. The wider load will contact the ground sooner when leaning into a corner. Remember, the load will not only be lower (thanks to the larger bags), but wider (because they are thicker). Both reduce lean angle. This wide-low thing is also an issue if you are going off-road or on narrow, deeply rutted roads, as the front bags can catch the sides of the ruts. In late May approaching Belgrade, the Eurovelo 6 track lead through unmowed dike-tops and I had a real workout riding through the thigh-deep grass with my smaller SportPackers on the front. I'm not sure I could have pushed the bike through if the larger BikePackers had gone first.
5) Thorns are made with relatively high-trail geometry. This geometry tolerates weight at the rear much better than at the front. Low-trail designs (as on the French Constructeur-inspired bikes Martin references) are much happier with a heavy front load, but there are handling and load-carrying compromises with both. And, as he observes, most current front racks are sized toward carrying smaller panniers. For more on frame geometry and handling, see: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4245.0
For these reasons (clearance and handling) I would suggest *not* putting the bulk of your weight up-front on a Thorn touring bike. This load scheme is best tolerated on bikes made with low-trail geometry as can be found on some classic and current dedicated randonneur bikes, where a large handlebar bag sits low above the front tire and may also be paired with some large front panniers and a token rear load at most. Of course, you may well be able to do this within limits on your Thorn, but it will really handle better with more weight on the rear, as can be seen in Thorn's load charts, created by designer Andy Blance and reproduced in one place for comparison in the new Mega Brochure available here: http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/THORN_MEGA_BROCHURE.pdf
Here are some related Forum links you may find helpful:
• This question has been asked before. Here's one thread with specific ground-clearance measurements:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4937.msg25361#msg25361
• More generally addressed:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4937.msg25347#msg25347
• Relevant thread:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4937.0
• Thread devoted to packing of "big" items:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1998.0
• Thorn Designer Andy Blance's own packing schemes and recommendations for carrying weight, and where:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4515.0
• Heavy front loads on a Thorn, steering stabilizers, and wheel flop:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=10025.0
If you can keep the weight within Thorn's recommended limits, then the deciding factor for your using rear panniers on the front will be ground clearance and lean angle. This will vary by pannier brand and model as well as its individual dimensions.
Of course, everyone has their own preferences and way of doing things, and not all gear can be compactly stored. Putting rear bags on the front in this case would work best with light but bulky loads. However, I think if one could get overall volume down to a *maximum* that would fit in 40l rear bags, 30l front bags, a handlebar bag for light but handy items, and a rack-top for a drysack should meet most needs. Handling will always be best if weight is minimized, but weight and bulk are part and parcel of touring. The real question is where and how best to carry it on a given bike considering need, geometry, and conditions.
Hopefully helpful.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks for a great write-up, Dan! I didn't ask the original question, but I certainly enjoyed and was educated by your answer (as usual).
- Dave
-
Thank you kindly, Dave! :)
All the best,
Dan.