Audax Luggage was: Re: DNF rate

[quixoticgeek]

So the frame mount option on the website is for fixing to traditional pannier rack mounts on the frame?

Yes, they are small stubs that screw into a standard rack mount. And then the quick release bracket attaches to them.

J

[ravenbait]

Here are the stubs on the end of the thru axle. For frame mounting, that end stub comes on an M5 bolt for screwing into the normal rack mounts.



Sam

[P.P.]

Mine look like this btw:

Please forgive me if im being a bit slow here, but whats the advantage of this set up over a normal set of panniers?

Surely you've just moved the baggage weight higher up making the bike less stable? It doesnt look any more aero with the side baggage pods than normal panniers either, so I can't see much advantage there?

The only advantage I can see is on a short frame where you may have issues with your heels catching a normal set of panniers or possibly if your off road where the extra height clearance comes in to play?

[quixoticgeek]

Please forgive me if im being a bit slow here, but whats the advantage of this set up over a normal set of panniers?

Flexibility. I can remove or install this as a single unit in a matter of seconds. This was very useful after I aborted the TCR. I ended up in Austria. One day I took the tailfin off, removed some stuff from the front bag, and took the bike up on the cable car to the top of the mountain and rode down. Then that even, just refitted it, just a few seconds to do. Not possible with a rack.

Surely you've just moved the baggage weight higher up making the bike less stable? It doesnt look any more aero with the side baggage pods than normal panniers either, so I can't see much advantage there?

The side luggage bits are as a result of needing extra space for a specific trip. Taking panniers I would have taken even more stuff. Most of the time the cargo cages are empty. The bottle cages are very useful in summer.

The only advantage I can see is on a short frame where you may have issues with your heels catching a normal set of panniers or possibly if your off road where the extra height clearance comes in to play?

I ride a size S frame. So yes, the size issue is a significant one too.

It's why I stopped using the traditional bike packing saddle bag. Not enough space between the saddle and handlebars.

At first I was sceptical about the tailfin, but when I did bike check and volunteered at the start of a RATN, lots of riders had them, I got a chance to play with them, see how they work. They are great for women with smaller frames.

J

[P.P.]

Thanks for the comprehensive and informative response there, a bit of first hand knowledge goes a long way.

I can certainly see the advantage in certain situations, but likewise I'm not sure that it's a setup that would work for me.

I guess there's no "one size fits all" solution, and as riders we all have different requirements and thus tend to find a solution that works for us.

[Kim]

I must confess to thinking it would look like a good 'before' photo for an Ortlieb advert 


And it does neatly illustrate that luggage choices are often contextual.  At the other end of the spectrum I've done enough rides with a pair of 3/4 empty panniers, because they were full when I cycled to the campsite I started the ride from.  Looks like a daft luggage choice, but makes sense in context.

[Paul H]

The only advantage I can see is on a short frame where you may have issues with your heels catching a normal set of panniers or possibly if your off road where the extra height clearance comes in to play?

I ride a size S frame. So yes, the size issue is a significant one too.
J

What difference does frame size make to heel clearance? 

[P.P.]

The only advantage I can see is on a short frame where you may have issues with your heels catching a normal set of panniers or possibly if your off road where the extra height clearance comes in to play?

I ride a size S frame. So yes, the size issue is a significant one too.
J

What difference does frame size make to heel clearance?

I dont know, but when I was looking for the advantages of the pictured system I guessed that a smaller frame would result in less clearance between the crank / your heels and front of your panniers as the rack would in theory sit further forward.

Thinking about it a bit more though that's probably rubbish as I guess the rear triangle and thus the rack mounts must be in roughly the same place no matter what size the frame is to fit the rear wheel in so the rack should be in the same position relative to the cranks no matter what.

With my big clown feet and long cranks I have to make sure the panniers are as far back as possible or my heels catch them when they're fully stuffed with treasure, I guess though that a smaller rider will probably use shorter cranks and have smaller feet, so it's possibly less of a problem?

[ElyDave]

Here's my recent set-up for the KAW tour about three weeks ago.  Bike is a Fairlight Faran size 54T. I mount it on the studs into the rack mounts, and have sets of the mounts on my Airnimal and my recumbent as well. 

This was my first use of the Tailfin rack-pack, panniers are Ortlieb Gravel bags and fork cages are Planet X, I also have an unused bar bag.  Issues were angle of the dangle on the panniers - dictated by the leg angle on the rack (I'm using the longer version of the top stay), fork bags need a good amount of stuffing in them to keep their shape and connection to the cages on the rougher stuff.  Next time out I think a low rider rack on front for the panniers and cages on the back might be better.

[alfapete]

Here's my recent set-up for the KAW tour about three weeks ago.  Bike is a Fairlight Faran size 54T. I mount it on the studs into the rack mounts, and have sets of the mounts on my Airnimal and my recumbent as well. 

I'm a novice to touring with a load but my initial set up looked a bit like yours. Riding it was fine but when I'm off the bike it seemed extremely tail heavy, almost to the point of doing a wheelie when left on a slope. I've slightly addressed that with a small barbag (knowingly discarded/donated by a tired LEL rider at Barney) - how convenient is that? Never tried one before but I absolutely love having everything in sight and readily accessible, and almost empty pockets. Not sure whether it's heavy enough to balance the bike yet, though.

[ravenbait]

I dont know, but when I was looking for the advantages of the pictured system I guessed that a smaller frame would result in less clearance between the crank / your heels and front of your panniers as the rack would in theory sit further forward.

Thinking about it a bit more though that's probably rubbish as I guess the rear triangle and thus the rack mounts must be in roughly the same place no matter what size the frame is to fit the rear wheel in so the rack should be in the same position relative to the cranks no matter what.

With my big clown feet and long cranks I have to make sure the panniers are as far back as possible or my heels catch them when they're fully stuffed with treasure, I guess though that a smaller rider will probably use shorter cranks and have smaller feet, so it's possibly less of a problem?

I ride 172.5mm cranks. TBH, crank length is whatever comes on the bike -- I have different crank lengths on different bikes, because they only vary by a couple of mm either way, and frankly my shoes are not tight enough for my feet to be in constant relative position, so I don't think it matters that much. I do have trouble with the heel clearance with panniers on some bikes, especially my On One Pompino (medium). The rear triangle much accommodate the rear wheel, but I suspect the seat tube angle variation may affect things.

I initially set Hamish (the PX) up with a Tortec ultralight and a Carradice rackpack, and it just didn't work. There's not enough space between the saddle and the rack for the rackpack to be far enough forward, so the velcro straps were tightened at an angle, and  the pack dangled precariously off the end of the rack, obscuring the tail light. Panniers would have been fine, I'm sure, with some finagling, but I don't want to ride with panniers all the time.

I've ridden fully loaded on my Orbit, and I also found that putting all the stuff for a 2 week camping trip in the rear panniers unbalanced the bike significantly. That's why I used to ride with kit in low rider front panniers to put more of the weight on the front and stabilise the steering. The PX doesn't have rack mounts on the front -- apparently the Selcof gravel forks are compatible, but would change the geometry of the bike -- so I have no intention of using it for the kind of kitchen-sink touring that I used to do. I'm refurbing my Orbit for that.

And possibly embracing a more lightweight approach!

This system really comes into its own for bikepacking/saddlebag rigs where there isn't enough of a seatpost-rear wheel gap to fit in a saddlepack (my Pompino has eaten a Carradice saddlebag, which is why there's a rack on him now), bikes that don't have frame mounts for even a lightweight rack, and for people who want to be able to remove their luggage carrying system easily (or use it on more than one bike without a lot of faff). If what you want is a fixed way to carry enough stuff for camping to be a home away from home for weeks on end, and you're not that fussed about weight anyway, you're probably looking at front and rear rack and panniers. And probably not a PX Hurricane.

Sam

[Paul H]

Thinking about it a bit more though that's probably rubbish as I guess the rear triangle and thus the rack mounts must be in roughly the same place no matter what size the frame is to fit the rear wheel in so the rack should be in the same position relative to the cranks no matter what.

This guess is about right, unless the manufacturer has used smaller wheels on the smaller frames, chainstay lengths remain fairly consistent.  Whatever anyone's criteria for not using panniers, frame size isn't usually one.
As ravenbait points out, some frames just don't have the space, that's the design rather than the frame size, I've had bike I can't use panniers with and I'm usually on the largest size.

[mzjo]

Thinking about it a bit more though that's probably rubbish as I guess the rear triangle and thus the rack mounts must be in roughly the same place no matter what size the frame is to fit the rear wheel in so the rack should be in the same position relative to the cranks no matter what.

This guess is about right, unless the manufacturer has used smaller wheels on the smaller frames, chainstay lengths remain fairly consistent.  Whatever anyone's criteria for not using panniers, frame size isn't usually one.
As ravenbait points out, some frames just don't have the space, that's the design rather than the frame size, I've had bike I can't use panniers with and I'm usually on the largest size.

It's not about the bike, it's about the size of your shoes (and feet as well, but shoe heel design is a big factor). I have been known to have heel strike on rear mechs and SA hub cables). Half a century ago I used to have problems getting an Ever Ready Night Rider in exactly the right place on the stays. Panniers have always been out of the question for me. Size 47 Shimano sandals! (these days but even the shoes that preceded them posed problems)

[Paul H]

some frames just don't have the space, that's the design rather than the frame size, I've had bike I can't use panniers with and I'm usually on the largest size.

It's not about the bike, it's about the size of your shoes (and feet as well, but shoe heel design is a big factor). I have been known to have heel strike on rear mechs and SA hub cables). Half a century ago I used to have problems getting an Ever Ready Night Rider in exactly the right place on the stays. Panniers have always been out of the question for me. Size 47 Shimano sandals! (these days but even the shoes that preceded them posed problems)

It's about lots of things, including the bike - Chainstay length, crank length, shoe size and design, foot position on pedals, rack design, pannier size and design...  What it isn't about is the frame size for that model of bike.
My three bikes have chainstay lengths of 410, 440 and 480mm, my cranks are all 175's, shoe size 48, the same luggage isn't going to work on all, but they have all toured with panniers.

[quixoticgeek]

This guess is about right, unless the manufacturer has used smaller wheels on the smaller frames, chainstay lengths remain fairly consistent.  Whatever anyone's criteria for not using panniers, frame size isn't usually one.
As ravenbait points out, some frames just don't have the space, that's the design rather than the frame size, I've had bike I can't use panniers with and I'm usually on the largest size.

Canyon switch to 650b wheels for bikes in xxs and smaller. At least on some of the women's bikes.

J

[Paul H]

This guess is about right, unless the manufacturer has used smaller wheels on the smaller frames, chainstay lengths remain fairly consistent.  Whatever anyone's criteria for not using panniers, frame size isn't usually one.
As ravenbait points out, some frames just don't have the space, that's the design rather than the frame size, I've had bike I can't use panniers with and I'm usually on the largest size.

Canyon switch to 650b wheels for bikes in xxs and smaller. At least on some of the women's bikes.

J

Yes there's several that do, the original Surly LHT only offered 26" in the smaller sizes and a choice of 26" or 700c in the larger. I don't know about the current model.  But that's usually for reasons at the other end, to achieve short top tubes without toe overlap. All those LHT's have the same chanstay length, I don't know anything about Canyon.
Your bike has the same chainstay length and therefore the same heel clearance in your size as it would in mine.  Whatever your reasons for deciding not to use panniers, they'd be just as valid on any size of that bike.

[Wycombewheeler]

This guess is about right, unless the manufacturer has used smaller wheels on the smaller frames, chainstay lengths remain fairly consistent.  Whatever anyone's criteria for not using panniers, frame size isn't usually one.
As ravenbait points out, some frames just don't have the space, that's the design rather than the frame size, I've had bike I can't use panniers with and I'm usually on the largest size.

Canyon switch to 650b wheels for bikes in xxs and smaller. At least on some of the women's bikes.

J

Yes there's several that do, the original Surly LHT only offered 26" in the smaller sizes and a choice of 26" or 700c in the larger. I don't know about the current model.  But that's usually for reasons at the other end, to achieve short top tubes without toe overlap. All those LHT's have the same chanstay length, I don't know anything about Canyon.
Your bike has the same chainstay length and therefore the same heel clearance in your size as it would in mine.  Whatever your reasons for deciding not to use panniers, they'd be just as valid on any size of that bike.

That makes sense, because on all my bikes there is very little clearance between the seat tube and the wheel, so if the smaller size frame had shorter stays there would be interference. Checking the geometry chart for canyon endurace  though the chainstays are 10mm shorter at xxs and xxxs (wheelbase changes by 87mm between xxxs and xxl so 10mm on the chainstay is quite minor)

[L CC]

An alternative to Tailfin, if the objective is something easily attached and removed, is the newish Ortlieb Quick.  No carbon version, but the aluminium one is a comparable weight at a fraction of the price. 
https://www.ortlieb.com/en_us/quick-rack+F78104

I bought one of these- I can't bring myself to spend Tailfin money. A kind of anti-Apple stance: I don't doubt it's fantastic, but it's still bloody expensive.

I've only done one ride and managed to bounce it off- but mostly because I hadn't tightened the bolts to the seat post strut enough. Half a job- I left them adjustable and then didn't fix them when I'd determined the correct length. To be honest I'm not that bothered about the quick-ness, the weight of the rack pales into insignificance next to the weight of me.
I've had to order new skewers- the handle fouls the studs. I'm viewing this as 'upgrade' rather than 'compatibility' though, it makes the £70 for the pair more bearable.
The top of the rack is really narrow. I'll report back after I've done more distance with it.

[John Stonebridge]

I ordered a Tailfin aeropack mid-September and it made its first serious day’s cycling on Friday, a one way 200km from Cowdenbeath to Stonehaven on my winter bike (which has traditional QR skewers).  Id normally just use a small bag on a 200 but this was a one way ride where I was changing into civvies for dinner at the end
 
Positives

Weight

Compared with my main alternative on a 200 i.e., Carradice Barley with saddle bag rack, tinternet suggests that its 705g v. 920g.  This isn’t particularly crucial for me mind you but it’s a nice bonus to have an option that’s both lighter and bigger.   

Stability 

Flawless apart from feeling the effects of one very strong side gust though the forecast had 40mph gusts.   Ive used an Ortlieb seat pack on 400km+ audaxes and other multi day rides before now and found it impossible to remove all bag movement on an Ortlieb.     

Capacity 

Given the nature of my ride on Friday I carried a full change of clothes - a pair of lightweight shoes, a base layer, pants, socks, trousers, a down jacket as well as my regular tool kit & bonk rations and there was plenty room.       

Ease of access

I only had to access the contents of the bag a couple of times during my ride.  The side pockets were welcome as it avoided the minor faff of undoing 4 straps to get my drinks tablets.  Once open the entire contents of the bag were visible and accessible.  Much easier to use than an (a) Ortlieb seat pack which has access via the end of the bag and not the side or (b) my carradice which is uber fiddly to put stuff in (I also have a pet peeve about the Carradice side pockets which have to be full to minimise the risk of stuff ratting about / falling out). 

Versatility 

I ordered two axles – one QR and one through bolt and have tested the set-up of the bag on both bikes.  It’s very quick and simple to do this.  For example, Id removed the bag from my winter bike yesterday to clean it and popped it back on this morning for my commute to work and it took under 60 seconds. 
I wonder if Tailfin are missing a trick in not pushing the benefits of this a bit more as it’s a bag that can be used on multiple machines and might help justify the price if its covering N bikes and not just 1. 

Negatives

Price

There’s no getting away from the fact that its very expensive

Faff   

Have to unbuckle four straps each time the bag is accessed could be something of a bind.  I guess that’s why there are side pockets.  I also found the straps slightly counterintuitive to fasten i.e., they appear to work better by tightening almost fully first then connecting rather than a “fasten then tighten” approach that I default to.   

What to do about lights

Id have previously had at least one rear light on a seat stay – this was obscured (not fully, but enough) by the aeropack set up and made the purchase of the Tailfin light bracket pretty much essential.  The bag itself has slots for a rear light similar to an Ortlieb seat pack but I do like to have two independent rear light options.   

Rear tyre punctures

I had none but a rear tyre puncture would mean removing the bag. Its quick to do this but it is the proverbial “one more thing to do”

Nickability

Its transferability is a plus point but if I can remove it quickly so can anybody else.  In fairness there are extra fixing screws that come with the bag to help avoid this but you’d need to decide your approach before setting off. 

Ive not tried to carry the back off the bike but it looks possible to tuck the legs tight under the body of the bag using the straps which might also double as carrying handles.   

--------------

In summary the bags delivers on its main selling points – weight, capacity and stability but like anything has some minor drawbacks.

It looks ideally suited to multi day cycling where carrying a bit more clobber than normal is the order of the day, and where the bike is in a reasonably secure location when you aren’t riding it – so perfect for the likes of LEL, PBP and the like.   

[quixoticgeek]

Faff   

Have to unbuckle four straps each time the bag is accessed could be something of a bind.  I guess that’s why there are side pockets.  I also found the straps slightly counterintuitive to fasten i.e., they appear to work better by tightening almost fully first then connecting rather than a “fasten then tighten” approach that I default to.   

Depending on how you unpack it, it can be that you only need to unbuckle 2 of the straps (one on the back, and the rear most cross strap.

I found the bigger issue with the cross straps was that they wouldn't stay in position when I had the bag full, and they would slip off the front and back. I ended up adding an additional strap between the two cross straps. It makes it a lot easier, and also means you can slip something (i.e. a jacket) under the strap.

What to do about lights

Id have previously had at least one rear light on a seat stay – this was obscured (not fully, but enough) by the aeropack set up and made the purchase of the Tailfin light bracket pretty much essential.  The bag itself has slots for a rear light similar to an Ortlieb seat pack but I do like to have two independent rear light options.   

I had a similar dilemma. I can't use the tailfin provided light bracket (either kind) as I'm using the luggage cage adaptor. I tried using a pair of cat eye omni 3 lights attached to the arch of the tailfin, This worked ok, but they were right in the firing line for crap off the wheels, and also interrupted attaching other things to the arch or underside of the bag. So I moved them to the loops on the back of the bag that are designed for belt clip style attachment. I reinforce the belt clips with some cable ties. I then have the dynamo light on the seat stay, and the battery version of the same light on the other seat stay. There are very few positions someone can be in where the seat stay light is actually obscured, and by having two of them there are even fewer. The two lights on the tailfin bag itself are just belt and braces. I am thinking of swapping the battery light on the seat stay for another dynamo one, and wiring them in parallel. Oh, and there's another light on the seat tube... This means I can have upto 5 rear lights if I need to. I rarely have more than one on tho.

Rear tyre punctures

I had none but a rear tyre puncture would mean removing the bag. Its quick to do this but it is the proverbial “one more thing to do”

What attachment mechanism are you using? Are you using the through axle mount? I have the rack mount posts on mine which means that the axle is free to be an axle and thus I don't have to remove the bag for a rear flat.

Nickability

Its transferability is a plus point but if I can remove it quickly so can anybody else.  In fairness there are extra fixing screws that come with the bag to help avoid this but you’d need to decide your approach before setting off. 

Ive not tried to carry the back off the bike but it looks possible to tuck the legs tight under the body of the bag using the straps which might also double as carrying handles.   

Yep, unhooked from the bike, if you carry it by the strap at the rear just by where it clips in, the legs fold in under the bag, out the way. That's the way I carry it.

--------------

In summary the bags delivers on its main selling points – weight, capacity and stability but like anything has some minor drawbacks.

It looks ideally suited to multi day cycling where carrying a bit more clobber than normal is the order of the day, and where the bike is in a reasonably secure location when you aren’t riding it – so perfect for the likes of LEL, PBP and the like.

Yep, can't disagree with that.

J

[Solocle]

I prefer to travel light...

Full Fat Festive 500 2019


(Not audax) LEJOG 2021 - although supported

[Lightning Phil]

I prefer to travel light...

Full Fat Festive 500 2019


(Not audax) LEJOG 2021 - although supported

You wore the same clothing in the evening as on your bike during your lejog ride?

[John Stonebridge]

Lots of text.....

Hi J - thanks for taking the time to comment.   

Yes Im using the axle mounts (QR for winter bike, through bolt for my best) so in both scenarios would have to remove the rack if I got a rear flat.  Of course with the alternative (that Id forgotten about!) there would be no need.     

Regarding straps, somebody far smarter than me suggested that I fasten them diagonally rather than straight across.  My issue was about getting them very tight rather than them slipping off (but if your bag is *very* full maybe diagonally is out the question anyway).   

This worked well for me with the bag at around 50% capacity but I can see why you added an extra strap - it struck me that two is probably just about enough for a jacket or suchlike but three gives unshakeable certainty.     
 

[Solocle]

I prefer to travel light...

Full Fat Festive 500 2019


(Not audax) LEJOG 2021 - although supported

You wore the same clothing in the evening as on your bike during your lejog ride?

I did say that one was a supported ride - but the first day was aiming for home, so no need for a change of clothes. And then on the first leg north I was on my own, so had some nightwear in a little backpack. So basically Land's End to Leamington Spa before I depended on an support for a change of clothes.

For the audaxes I've done they haven't been long enough to need a change - one was an attempt at 500 km. I'd say that's up to a 500 or 600 km. Any more than that and you're going to want to change.

[quixoticgeek]

I did say that one was a supported ride - but the first day was aiming for home, so no need for a change of clothes. And then on the first leg north I was on my own, so had some nightwear in a little backpack. So basically Land's End to Leamington Spa before I depended on an support for a change of clothes.

For the audaxes I've done they haven't been long enough to need a change - one was an attempt at 500 km. I'd say that's up to a 500 or 600 km. Any more than that and you're going to want to change.

What do you do it if rains? Or is colder than expected? Or you have to fix a mechanical in the middle of nowhere?

What's in the various bags ?

J