Pannier weight distribution

[in4]

I’m currently on a short shake-down tour; couple of overnighters. Instead of my Super Cs I’m using a pair of Altura Orkney on my rear rack. The Alturas are a little smaller than the Super Cs but I’ve managed to get everything I usually carry in them. A smaller, summer sleeping bag is the biggest kit change item.

As my load is concentrated into smaller panniers the weight is more centred  around the rear hub and sits a little higher on a horizontal plane; they don’t protrude too much over the rack either.

Riding seems slightly easier and the Nomad perhaps more responsive.

Of course some/much of this may be just my imagination but I’d be interested to hear any other views and experiences re pannier placement.
TIA
 

[Danneaux]

This thread and post may again prove helpful, Ian...

https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14949.0
https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14949.msg112655#msg112655

Best, Dan.

[Danneaux]

As a sidebar, bicycles with low-trail geometry (typified by traditional French randonneur bikes) tend to handle and track better with more weight carried on the front than rear. Conversely, bikes with higher-trail geometry (i.e. most touring bikes including Thorns) do better with more weight on the rear.

I've found I prefer riding loaded touring bikes with weight distributed fore AND aft rather than at one extreme or the other. The handling simply feels more balanced to me in most cases and I try to match my roughly 60/40 R/F unladen weight distribution so the bike's handling feels much the same loaded as not. This typically means my larger bags attach to the rear rack, though for overnighters and tours where I'm near resupply, I will sometimes travel with four smaller "front" bags front and rear and simply carry less in my HB bag and atop my rear rack. My "ultralight" camping setup packs everything I need into a Carradice Camper Longflap saddlebag for the lightest setup of all my configurations. With the exception of the Camper Longflap, I tend to carry heavy items as low as possible in my panniers, as I've found that has the least adverse effect on handling. I haven't tried a current bikepacking setup where proportioning of the load is a bit different. Also, panniers do weigh something and some weigh a lot! This is where a bikepacking setup with largely frameless, lighter bags has an advantage in overall weight savings. Bikepacking bags are also carried higher and closer to the bike centerline so are less likely to snag on brush. Each setup has advantages and disadvantages.

Modern MTBs and a number of bikepacking gravel bikes (Salsa in particular) tend toward the extremes of high-trail geometry according to their published figures.

Bikes with neutral trail gometry (around 57-58mm of trail) do well with balanced loads.

For more on how geometry affects handling and load carrying, see...
https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4245.msg19567#msg19567

More with regard to geometry "and" weight distribution here...
https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12602.msg94949#msg94949

(Now retired) Thorn designer Andy Blance's Nomad Mk2 load and packing recommendations here...
https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4515.msg22025#msg22025
There are some diagrams attached to that last post. Unfortunately, the thumbnails were corrupted in a past corrupted Forum upgrade, but remain available to download and view on your own device if you click on them. Very handy indeed to visualize Andy's recommendations.

Don't forget, rider positioning also affects weight distribution to some degree, whether unladen or loaded.

Best, Dan.

[Andyb1]

Great post above - just a detail that is maybe so obvious it can get overlooked.  A pannier that can move around can really hurt the handling, wherever it is fitted.    Try cycling a with a half full 5 litre water container and the mass of the liquid sloshing around has a great effect on how the bike feels.   I sometimes see people cycle with panniers that pulse L-R as they ride along.   Tightly mounted panniers with everything held together inside are best.

[in4]

Great replies and insights. Many thanks. Referencing Dan’s sidebar points: I’d agree re 60/40 combination. Works well for me too.
I’ve removed my front racks atm and even though the weight reduction is quite small the steering feels much lighter. Quite a surprise.
I’ll have a deep-dive of the shared links asap so apologies offered if I’m pondering out loud before reading them.

[mickeg]

I usually use Ortlieb Frontrollers and Backrollers, but also have a set of Carradry.

I tried to set up my Nomad Mk II for a trip on rough terrain.  Put a suspension fork on it, which meant no front rack.  I do not have a Thorn rear rack, I use a Tubus Logo EVO.  But the Carradry panniers did not work with the Logo, so for this trip I used a Racktime Addit rack.  Both the Logo and the Addit have lower rails that i use for panniers, thus my center of gravity of the load would be several inches lower than if I had a Thorn rack.

First attached photo is my Nomad set up that way with the Carradry rear panniers.  The paper bag on the rack top is over a 10 pound (~5kg) brick that I used to simulate weight for food, the paper to prevent chaffing.  I do not know how much weight I had in the panniers, that was nine years ago.  But it was all the camping gear I anticipated needing for several days of remote area camping, but without food so the brick simulated that weight.

I did not like the handling with that much weight in back.  But, to make a really long story quite short, we did not do that trip, so it did not matter.  The only thing I did with the bike setup that way with panniers was the test ride.  Instead we car camped and did day trips on the mountain bike trail with unladen bikes.

Since then, I have bought a Cane Creek Thudbuster seat post, so if I want to do some more off road riding, I am better equipped now.

I have also fabricated some different lower hooks for the rear Carradry so that they work with my Logo EVO rack.

Regarding trail and fork rake, several years ago I asked Thorn if they could tell me the head tube angle, fork rake, I wanted to compare it to some of my other bikes.  They responded with hostility.  Told me I was asking for proprietary trade secrets.  Considering that other companies are happy to share that info, I found that rather absurd that they would not share it and their subtle accusation that I was trying to obtain trade secrets.  The simple fact is that if I worked for a bike company, I would have had the tools necessary to measure that info off of my Nomad with precision.  Bottom line - I can't say if the Nomad Mk II is considered high or low trail for comparing to Dan's description of handling because Thorn refused to tell me the numbers.

I can say my Nomad Mk II handled a LOT of weight on my Iceland trip, second attached photo, I think I had about 2.5 weeks of food on the bike at the time of the photo.  Handled great with weight spread all around.  My front rack mounts the panniers about 3 to 4 inches (75 to 100mm) higher than the Thorn rack does, it is an Axiom rack.  The blue drybag behind the seatpost is the excess food that I could not put in the other bags.

[in4]

Many thanks 'mickeg' Really interesting and useful to read of and see your rear rack solutions.
Whilst avoiding heel strike is a necessity I'm mulling over any other considerations/options that might be worth exploring. E.G. How low or high does the pannier sit on the rear rack? How far back does it sit? Where does it sit in relation to the rohloff hub? I guess if you have small/er feet and are not so tall you could position the pannier so as the rear hub was almost near a vertical centre line on the pannier? Whether that would matter at all I dont know. I guess a good bit of trial error would be useful.

Your second photo in Iceland is great to see. Your MK2 is fully loaded and that looks like a great place to store extra food. I was pretty impressed how well my MK2 carried quite a load on my last big tour down through Spain and Portugal.
Thanks again.

Photo 1 in Eire
Photo 2 in Lagos, Portugal

[mickeg]

...
Whilst avoiding heel strike is a necessity I'm mulling over any other considerations/options that might be worth exploring. E.G. How low or high does the pannier sit on the rear rack? How far back does it sit? Where does it sit in relation to the rohloff hub? ...

First photo shows my Nomad Mk II better for location of rear panniers relative to the hub.

Second photo shows the upper pannier hooks and how high they are relative to the top of tire using the Tubus Logo EVO.

Keep in mind that Thorn is unusual in that they varied the chainstay length for different sizes, most bike manufacturers use one chainstay length for all sizes within a model.  Mine is a Nomad Mk II 590M with 466mm chainstays.  And of course with the eccentric, there is some slop in that number.  Some sizes has larger and some smaller chainstay lengths.  But I suspect that larger people have longer feet with the converse also true.  I wear bike shoes in the size 44 to 45 range.

The Carradry panniers are taller than the Ortlieb.  The result is that the Carradry panniers hang lower. 

I eventually fabricated my own lower hooks for the Carradry panniers to play well with the Tubus Logo EVO.  Third photo.  Unfortunately that does not show the upper hooks, but it is the same Logo EVO, so the pannier hooks are the same height compared to top of tire as the Ortlieb.

Fourth photo, the Carradry on the Nomad Mk II from a different angle.  I think the bottom of the Carradry is a few cm lower at the bottom of pannier.  (Front panniers are not Carradry, but that is not the topic here.)

But I can't say how much higher the panniers would be on the Thorn rack.

I adjust my panniers to give me adequate heel clearance, but no extra.  I have three touring bikes so each time I do a tour, I have to adjust my panniers fore or aft if it was on a different bike.  My Thorn Sherpa and my Lynskey Backroad have different chainstay lengths than my Nomad Mk II. 

I originally bought the Carradry rear panniers for the trip that did not happen where I would only use rear panniers, wanted bigger ones.  At that time Carradry advertised them at 58 liter, my Ortliebs are 40.  I was bummed when I received the Carradry as they clearly were not 58 liter, I estimated closer to 50 liter.  Later Carradry (and SJS) changed that volume claim to 48 liters.  At 48 they are still greater volume than the Ortlieb, but I am in USA, it would have been really hard to return the Carradry for that incorrect size claim with international shipping.  So I kept the Carradry, and have used them on one trip.