The rack mounting set-up in the photo you've posted here is suffering more because the rack has been mounted with the rear hole on the lower arm, and the forward hole on the fork, as much as the straight fork issue. If the owner had spaced the rack to clear the QR end and used the forward hole on the rack (and perhaps the rear fork mount as well) to mount it, then the rack would be 1-2cms further back.
Hi Pete!
<nods> Agreed. Rack placement on that white bike is surely not ideal, and it is not due solely to the fork being straight. I've seen the bike in question firsthand, and the placement results from a number of design choices:
• In this case, the fork blade is made with a large lower diameter to better resist the torque forces of the disc brake. If the rack were placed in the conventional position, wide spacers would be needed, requiring longer (weaker) bolts at the lower load-bearing mount.
• The geometry of the bike/fork is such that if the lower rack was moved rearward, too few mounting holes remain on the upper (pannier) mounting rail to allow the bags to sit level.
All these rack-mounting problems could be resolved with wide barrel-shaped lower rack mounting bosses brazed to the rear of the fork blade just above the dropout, the same way Thorn do it. Andy Blance's practical touring experience directly influences his designs and we're the lucky beneficiaries.
The builders of this bike chose to place the Tubus Tara in the forward position to maintain strength at the lower mounting point and to keep the mounting rails level. Unfortunately, this places the rack forward of where it would be with a curved fork *or* on a straight fork with smaller-diameter lower fork blades if standard dropout mounts are used. It also doesn't allow any real fore-aft adjustment in bag position on the mounting rails.
All the best,
Dan.
