Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Camping It Up => Topic started by: ElyDave on 19 July, 2022, 05:03:30 pm
-
When touring by bike - better off to have more load at the front, or at the back?
i.e. panniers on a low rider rack and cargo cages plus carradice rack pack at the rear, or cargo cages and panniers the other way round?
-
When touring by bike - better off to have more load at the front, or at the back?
i.e. panniers on a low rider rack and cargo cages plus carradice rack pack at the rear, or cargo cages and panniers the other way round?
Good question. I've always thought you should have load distributed front and back with more on the rear. But then you see American tourers with most of the weight on the front, sometime using low riders, sometimes not. Confusing.
-
More on the back would be my choice but I guess it does depend on the bike, maybe the terrain and quite probably also the rider. Generally the effects become less as you gain speed, so experiment and if you do crash, it won't hurt much! Probably.
-
More on the front makes it easier to ride out of the saddle, can reduce twitchiness and minimises the load on the weaker rear wheel. If the geometry is optimised for front loading, the bike usually steers better loaded than unloaded.
More on the back is traditional and has less adverse effect on steering at low speed while sitting in the saddle. Get out of the saddle and everything goes to hell though.
-
Put the luggage in a trailer and tow it. Easier to pack when wet and you can keep a wet tent as aired as possible till you have a opportunity to dry it properly 😉
-
This discussion reminds me of the time on my 1999 eclipse tour. I had not learned the importance of front panniers. Everything was loaded on the back. 2 huge panniers and a heavily laden top box.
After stopping on a hill, I found that I couldn't restart. In a low gear any pressure on the pedals simply rotated the bike and me around the rear wheel.
-
More on the front makes it easier to ride out of the saddle, can reduce twitchiness and minimises the load on the weaker rear wheel. If the geometry is optimised for front loading, the bike usually steers better loaded than unloaded.
More on the back is traditional and has less adverse effect on steering at low speed while sitting in the saddle. Get out of the saddle and everything goes to hell though.
Fairlight Faran, I think optimised for front loading
-
Fairlight Faran, I think optimised for front loading
As in low trail? That might be a useful bit of detail to include in the OP as it changes everything.
-
I always understood that rather more weight on the back was preferred. Think I read 55%/45% as a suggestion somewhere.
But that's for general riding. For touring, there's also the question of loading low or high. The bike ought to be more stable with weight as low as possible whereas, walking, you often try to get it high (because you're leaning forward and then it goes straight down your spine, whereas weight loaded low is behind you and tries to tip you backwards).
-
Fairlight Faran, I think optimised for front loading
As in low trail? That might be a useful bit of detail to include in the OP as it changes everything.
On the Faran 2.0 we use ‘low-mid trail’ to provide better handling with a front
load and also fast ‘road-like’ handling when using no load and large tyres (e.g.
road plus - 650 x 47 or 700 x 38-45). Trail with a 650x47mm tyre is 45-48mm
depending on the frame size. So by reducing the trail the stability is reduced,
but then a front load is added to give a desired stability, or rather that it is ‘not
too stable’ with a front load and still stable enough when unloaded.
-
I think it's one of those suck-it-and-see things. It will depend on the geometry of the bike, the weight and height of the rider, and what sort of riding (and indeed wheeling) you're doing.
I reckon that putting at least some weight on the front is generally a good idea, but if that means loading the steering (which it does on most diamond-framed bikes) the effect on handling may be undesirable. Similarly, it depends on what practical options you have for attaching luggage - low-rider panniers are great until there's overgrown singletrack, strapping your sleeping bag to your handlebars might interfere with lights, and so on.
(I assume in this context 'cargo cages' are those giant bottle-cage-style bikepacking mounts.)
Trailers are an underrated option if you're never going anywhere near a train or similar, and there aren't suspension implications.
-
Fairlight Faran, I think optimised for front loading
As in low trail? That might be a useful bit of detail to include in the OP as it changes everything.
On the Faran 2.0 we use ‘low-mid trail’ to provide better handling with a front
load and also fast ‘road-like’ handling when using no load and large tyres (e.g.
road plus - 650 x 47 or 700 x 38-45). Trail with a 650x47mm tyre is 45-48mm
depending on the frame size. So by reducing the trail the stability is reduced,
but then a front load is added to give a desired stability, or rather that it is ‘not
too stable’ with a front load and still stable enough when unloaded.
I've just had a look and that's fairly low compared to a traditional touring bike. I've never owned a bike like that, everything I've read would suggest that small and heavy stuff should go on the front and light bulky stuff on the back, but I have no experience of that. I've delegated my previous post, based on bikes I do have experience of, I suspect it was wrong. Along with any other well meaning advise you get which isn't based on experience with a low trail bike.
-
The bike ought to be more stable with weight as low as possible
I think it's more subtle than that. All things being equal, a bike with a higher centre of mass should be more stable when ridden, and a lower centre of mass should be more stable when being pushed. But if you're adding mass to the forks/handlebars, the further from the steering axis it is the more it will affect the handling.
-
And perhaps that's the reason for the fork cage bosses being tilted backwards?
-
The bike ought to be more stable with weight as low as possible
I think it's more subtle than that. All things being equal, a bike with a higher centre of mass should be more stable when ridden, and a lower centre of mass should be more stable when being pushed. But if you're adding mass to the forks/handlebars, the further from the steering axis it is the more it will affect the handling.
Much simple on the Cruzbike, drape the banananana bags over the seat and all the weight dangles nicely underneath you.
-
The bike ought to be more stable with weight as low as possible
I think it's more subtle than that. All things being equal, a bike with a higher centre of mass should be more stable when ridden, and a lower centre of mass should be more stable when being pushed. But if you're adding mass to the forks/handlebars, the further from the steering axis it is the more it will affect the handling.
Much simple on the Cruzbike, drape the banananana bags over the seat and all the weight dangles nicely underneath you.
It's a substantial advantage to a recumbent for loaded touring: Bike+rider are naturally a bit front-heavy, so you can load the rear with impunity, and banananana bags or low-rider panniers allow you to load the middle without affecting the steering.
I think the Azub Six wins the award for well-distributed bonkers amounts of luggage:
(https://azub.eu/wp-content/uploads/et_temp/spezi_2018_azub_six_fully_loaded_009-109493_960x675.jpg)
-
I think it's more subtle than that. All things being equal, a bike with a higher centre of mass should be more stable when ridden, and a lower centre of mass should be more stable when being pushed. But if you're adding mass to the forks/handlebars, the further from the steering axis it is the more it will affect the handling.
Low loading is surely the reason for the positioning of front panniers on a traditional tourer? We used to call them "low riders" - I think that was a Blackburn product name? Now they are universal, except on cheap racks.
-
But if you're adding mass to the forks/handlebars, the further from the steering axis it is the more it will affect the handling.
I'm sure that's always the case, but the extent is effected by where the tyre's contact patch is in relation to that axis.
I said I had no experience with low trail bikes, not strictly true, I have a Brompton. The handling on that is greatly improved by weighting the front.
-
That’s some impressive recumbent loading. I just have seat bag and two front panniers on rear rack for camping. But then my cycling tent is on the small side, more of a hooped bivvy you lie down in.
-
Cycle camping using an upright I found that the bike handled best with smaller, heavy things like tools, cooker, bike locks etc. on the front forks and bulkier, lighter stuff like clothes, sleeping bags, etc. On the rear.
The front loading tended to balance the bike nicely as well as to dampen the steering somewhat making it a much nicer machine to handle over the miles.
-
This was the Cruzbike on tour a couple of years ago. More weight on the back than I'd like as it suffers from traction issues (I'm actually looking to get some 650b wheels built for it to allow me to use bigger, grippier tyres).
(https://i.imgur.com/R7w9tWt.jpg)
-
Is that green Velcro strap your parking brake?
-
It is indeed, front end tends not to stay still when parked resulting in embarrassing crashing of bike to ground. That strap came from Wilko's I think, intended to keep a coil of hose tidy.
-
It's a long time since I was on the road with a lot of kit.
I mostly did not like bar bags.
Liked low-rider front panniers, mostly with 'important' things, back panniers for bulky stuffs. Usually designated one as (mostly) 'day' and one 'night', with other bulky stuff atop rear rack.
-
I tried the day and night idea with my Gorilla bags last month, identifying them with stickers of relevant musicians* because they're otherwise identical and symmetrical. But it didn't really work as essentially there's less night stuff (that fits in those bags at least). Also, the stickers started peeling off.
*Grace Slick for "Morning maniac music" and Gil Scott-Heron for, well, just because.
-
Bit different for the solo traveller with asymmetrical bags..
-
I think 'wet' and 'dry' is the most important packing distinction for the multi-day tourist. You don't want your electrickery, dead-tree documents or down anything getting wet under any circumstances; you probably want to carry some things which are liquids capable of leaking, and might reasonably want to pack away cooking things, tent or clothing while they're still wet. There's also ostensibly 'dry' stuff you're likely to want to get at while it's pissing down with rain, like bike tools or biscuits.
Once you've got that worked out, weight distribution comes next.
That said, I often find myself re-packing things on a more day/night basis once pitched up, particularly if I'm going for a day ride or worried about keeping beasties out of my stuff. Similarly, if I'm mixing camping with other types of accommodation, a bit of re-packing can be convenient. Gratuitous use of coloured stuff-sacks makes that sort of re-packing quick and easy.
-
Definitely dry bags and ziploc bags inside panniers for important stuff to be kept dry.
I bought a pair of the Ortlieb gravel panniers on spec, to be returned if not suited. I tried one with a similar clothing load as I expect to take on tour I.e. one change of cycling gear, overnight gear, spare t-shirt, jumper and it all went in no proble I then to wash the kit I'm wearing on D1, to be ready for D+2. I also compare it to one side of my bananananana bags and its about the same.
That gives me
2x fork bags for tools and heavy stuff
2 x panniers for clothes and other general living kit, washbag, meds, book etc
Rackbag for food and valuables, routebook, easily removed
handlebar bag for bike top layers, arm waters, wind and waterproofs etc.
Seems like if I cant fit a 5-day b&b touring load into that lot, I'm doing something wrong. Next step, inveterate planner tha I am, is to work through in excruciating detail what goes into each of them
-
You get into a routine of places for everything. In my backpacking days I could tell anyone where in my sack everything was from memory. I didn't need to look where I was reaching into my bag. Right down to how far down the front of left side to reach that x, y or z item. Without thinking or really paying attention things were always packed back into the right places each morning on striking a camp.
Imho this organisation makes everything better on a trip
No missing items, no need to think about packing up just do it, and above all do it efficiently so you can spend more time doing what you enjoy and are there for hiking or chuckle touring.
-
I’ve not spotted any votes for “middle” yet, so here’s one.
I have a frame bag, which gets some mix of water bladder, tools, locks, and first aid kit. Which is, roughly, stuff I want easy access to while riding but not to take into the cafe with me. It also tends to be heavier bits, so gets me out of having weight high and to the side in a pannier.
Apart from that I favour small panniers and a bar bag. A lack of front fork bosses comes into that choice though.
-
You get into a routine of places for everything. In my backpacking days I could tell anyone where in my sack everything was from memory. I didn't need to look where I was reaching into my bag. Right down to how far down the front of left side to reach that x, y or z item. Without thinking or really paying attention things were always packed back into the right places each morning on striking a camp.
Imho this organisation makes everything better on a trip
No missing items, no need to think about packing up just do it, and above all do it efficiently so you can spend more time doing what you enjoy and are there for hiking or chuckle touring.
Absolutely, I was the same when backpacking regularly. My last bike tour was 2019, and using the recumbent, so need to rejog the memory and also work it out for the different luggage, shouldn't take long to think left rear = XXX, right front = YYY