"Right" side of seat stay for Dutch frame lock?

[Andre Jute]

[New thread created to avoid derailing Moronic's review of his Mercury.]

I have several bikes from Continental makers and all of them have the frame lock fitted as standard on the front of the seat stays, so I assume they did that deliberately because they think that's the "right" place.

I can't see their reasons, unless it is a few grammes of weight distribution. With the lock on the rear of the seat stay, the customer needs to bend less far to operate the lock, a consideration for pregnant women and old folk, is less likely to get his hands dirty because the seat stay in conjunction with the coat guards* often fitted to Continental four-seasons commuter bikes keeps most of the dirt lifted by the wheel off the lock. I suppose it is done that way because on the rear of the seat stay, the lock will interfere with rim brakes. Not impressed: the brakes can instead be fitted to the downside because the customer needs to handle them less often than the frame lock. And, anyhow, that class of bike is usually built with disc or roller brakes, as mine are; it's only eccentrics like me who insist (because I found disc and roller brakes too sudden for an easily distracted cyclist) on Magura's rim hydraulics which are service-free for life except for changing the blocks at about 10,000km.

* A transparent plastic half circle filling in the mudguard shape over the wheel on each side from about parallel to the ground at the forward end to about 30 to 45 degrees behind the top of the mudguard; default standard fitting on Dutch city bikes(stadsfietse) and vacation bikes (vakansiefietse = touring bikes, look the same as a Dutch commuter but is much more luxuriously fitted out). Scroll down to the photo of my Gazelle Toulouse at http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGgazelletoulouse.html, and here you can scroll down to the photo of the rear of my overtly more sporting (to a Dutchman!) Benelux-only Trek Smover (electronic automatic gearbox and electronic adaptive suspension), with a coat guard, at http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGsmover.html. Both are vakansiefietse, too expensive to commute on if you have to park your bike at the station or outside the office.

[Danneaux]

When a frame-mounted ring lock is mounted outside the triangle formed by the seat tube/seat stays/chainstays, it is relatively easy for a thief to remove the rear rack, unbolt the lock, rotate the lock rearward with the unfastened rear wheel...and steal the rest of the bike.

This is more difficult and time consuming (though not impossible) to accomplish with the ring lock located inside the rear triangle because it is generally too wide to free from between the chainstays.

A plug-in cable or (preferably) chain makes even this operation more difficult and really needs to be used for full security. I have three for each of my lock brands (AXA and Trelock): a short cable, a long cable and three chains; one short and 8mm in link diameter, the other two are longer and have link diameters of only 6mm. I mix-match as desired for need/weight/space/security.

For those who dearly wish to have their ring locks mounted to the rear of the seatstays, adapters exist that mount to v-brake posts atop the brakes.

Best,

Dan.

[PH]

This is more difficult and time consuming (though not impossible) to accomplish with the ring lock located inside the rear triangle because it is generally too wide to free from between the chainstays.

Have you tried it?  The AXA Defender, which is probably one of the bigger locks, is 145mm at it's widest point. I can't see that being much of an issue to get through 135mm dropouts, most frames will simply spring that much, I doubt you'd even need to do that, it wouldn't take much of an angle till it just came through.
We may be getting carried away, the purpose of these locks is to stop someone jumping on your bike and riding off when you leave it for a moment, even with an added cable or chain they're not highly rated. I wouldn't trust one for the time it takes someone to start removing racks and wheel and even then not be able to ride off.
I have one that isn't fitted, it's the key retention type,  which commits you to always use it or risk someone else locking your bike and taking the key.... don't ask how I know that...

[JohnR]

The attached photo shows why I couldn't put the frame lock inside my Mercury's rear triangle which would be my preferred location if only to get the key on the side where I stand. I admit to not appreciating that the location outside of the triangle makes it much easier to remove the wheel + lock. Now that has been pointed out I think it's time to remove this bit of ballast from the Mercury.

[Andre Jute]

So there is a right way to fit a frame lock, inside the rear triangle, and for good reason. Thank you, gentlemen.

[PH]

So there is a right way to fit a frame lock, inside the rear triangle, and for good reason. Thank you, gentlemen.

Well, Dan has offered a theory, yet the manufactures supply a bracket to fit it to the wrong side. While Tern fit them to the front wheel of their six grand cargo bike and Riese & Muller, fit them to the bolt on rack on bikes costing £8,000+, I've also seen them attached to chainstays.
Make your own mind up.

[PH]

The attached photo shows why I couldn't put the frame lock inside my Mercury's rear triangle

It doesn't have to be up against the frame, if that's where you wanted it, it'd just need a small spacer.

[martinf]

We may be getting carried away, the purpose of these locks is to stop someone jumping on your bike and riding off when you leave it for a moment, even with an added cable or chain they're not highly rated. I wouldn't trust one for the time it takes someone to start removing racks and wheel and even then not be able to ride off.

I have frame locks on 7 of the family bikes. When I can, inside the frame. Due to clearance problems, at least one of the 7 has the lock outside the frame.

Unless you also use a cable, a frame lock won't stop a thief just putting the locked bike in a van, and dealing with the lock later.

But for me the purpose of this kind of lock is as PH says, deterring the opportunistic thief. For utility/touring bikes I reckon the extra weight is well worth the convenience, much easier than even the small cable lock I use for short stops on my Bromptons and lightweight day bikes.

For longer stops I add a U-lock, sometimes a long, fairly thick cable, sometimes a substantial (but easily cut) chain and padlock.

For convenience, all my bike locks use the same key (ABUS YourPlus system), except my little cable lock, which is 1970's vintage.

[GamblerGORD649]

Sorry, but I have to point out that you guys are just plain wrong, the frame lock does ONLY belong on the inside. The theory is, with the lock disengaged from the mount, the wheel still couldn't be pulled away.

What I see in the pic is 2 little easily detached 8 mm nuts holding the lock to the seat stay. Correct??
IF so, after that it's one minute to disengage your $2,000 wheel and destroy the lock when they get home.
I realize these locks are meant only for brief time spans usually. But also they could be used in concert with another lock to a post. Hence, the wheel vulnerability comes into play.
Put the brake cable somewhere else and fix the rack mount properly too. JMHO.

Congrats on the fine Olympics showing by the Brits and Aussies.

[Reply was mis-filed; split and merged to the proper topic and changed title to match -- Dan.]

[GamblerGORD649]

Thanks Dan. I was wondering where this post went.

The only time I've used these was in China and Vietnam, where they were OK to use on a kickstand equipped bike. If you don't forget where the key was put. LOL. And mostly because they were in corrals looked after by attendants. This is getting rarer there in China, as the cheap bikes fade into history books.

My brake line goes like Andre's roller. Way easier. But WTH is with the oddball spokes on an IGH bike??