# Stability



## silva (31 Aug 2019)

My current bicycle frames geometry is in some way different from my previous.
When I first tried it, barebone (the bike not me), after acquirement, it felt very "nervous", it was hard to ride straight / control it. To the point that it felt unsafe.
I first thought the tire (27.5", 62-584) pressure was at 2.5 bar too low (it was, for my weight) but an increase to 3 bar and beyond didn't make it better.
I spend a week riding it like that, and the last day felt as uncomfortable as the first.
Then, I started to fit the bike to my needs, first double bags hanging over the rear rack. Again a week later, a basket on top of the rear rack. Shortly after, I had no free space avail in the bags, and I put about 3 kilo luggage in the basket.
Big surprise: the "nervous" feeling was all of sudden completely gone from that very moment (leaving a market).
Flashforward 2 years to present day, couple days I discovered several bolts of the rear rack being loosened / lost. I had to completely dismount my luggage gear in order to reach some bolt locations. In meantime, before putting it all back, I made a ride, didn't think of it, but it reminded me: that "nervous" bike response was back in all its glory.
And gain gone after refitting.

Clearly, the bikes geometry must have a flaw somewhere. But it's hard to pinpoint.
Since filled bags under the rear rack didn't make a difference, but filled basket above does, it seems like vertical weight center related.
Ex a boat with a high sitting weight center, rolls easier, and is more stable with a lower weight center. But this bikes case is the opposite.
I always have a couple backpacks, a couple waterproof bags and an aluminium mountain trek frame mounted above my rear rack, so this is an everyday solution to the problem.
But what can be wrong with the geometry to cause this?


----------



## DaveReading (31 Aug 2019)

Maybe not geometry but tighter/looser headset bearings ?


----------



## Sharky (31 Aug 2019)

Can you go to your local bike shop, pretending to buy a bike and take a test ride? Could be that you are so used to having a loaded bike, that makes a light bike very sensitive.


----------



## Cycleops (31 Aug 2019)

A pic of the offending bike would be useful plus your height.


----------



## silva (31 Aug 2019)

DaveReading said:


> Maybe not geometry but tighter/looser headset bearings ?


But then the hard control should be regardless luggage on top of the rear rack, no?


Sharky said:


> Can you go to your local bike shop, pretending to buy a bike and take a test ride? Could be that you are so used to having a loaded bike, that makes a light bike very sensitive.


I still possess my 2 previously used bikes, and when I ride those loaded or unloaded, I don't feel a control responsivity difference, it's just easier to achieve speed that's all.


Cycleops said:


> A pic of the offending bike would be useful plus your height.


It's the bike in my signature pic, I'm 1.93m.
The bike is a "travel bike", a brand named "santos", a model named "travelmaster3+".

A difference between older and new bike is a much bigger tire width, which I inititially also suspected as a cause for that harder controlling, until I put some luggage ON TOP of the rack, and it was gone just like that.
It really feels unsafe without that weight there, and I have then a hard time evading the crap that government here littered the roads with. That first time I stopped several times to check what was wrong with the bike, even thought a wheel nut had loosened.
I found the solution, but I'd like to know the specific cause.

What Sharky said (used to have a loaded bike) is what I also saw as most plausible answer, a weight high mounted on the bike gives more inertia when pushing it left/right, it like "dampens" the effects of pushing. But a previously used bike without any luggage on top, does not give that feeling. And in the past, with those older bicycles, I didn't have that standard outfit on top of the rack, I just had that double bag, just only rarely something mounted there.

To add another difference between previous bikes (4) and current bike: the frame size of the current is bigger. Which was a major reason to buy another bike - tired of knees hitting handlebars, feet hitting front wheels fender when turning, heels hitting bags and the makeshift solutions that posed other problems on themselves. Also, the height of the current bikes horizontal frame tube is quite high - it's harder to get leg over it, which is to take into account when you have a heavily loaded bike that you have to hold up when putting leg over. The size of the frame could have been chosen bigger if that tube had been designed somewhat lower.


----------



## Cycleops (31 Aug 2019)

From what I can see of your bike there is no reason for it to be at all unstable. Looks like a long wheelbase and slack frame angles so there's nothing in its geometry that would would make it inherently unstable. So it must be something else like @DaveReading suggested. A short stem might adding to the feeling. 
Hold on the front brake and push the bars back and forth. Any looseness?


----------



## Shadow121 (31 Aug 2019)

The bike is designed to carry a load, take that load off and it
will be twitchy if it is designed to be light handling with the load on, which it is.
Also, a load or some of that load hung below the axle will cancel
out the bikes ability to remain easy to handle, twitch will return.

You have the sweet spot, problem solved.


----------



## silva (31 Aug 2019)

Shadow121 said:


> The bike is designed to carry a load, take that load off and it
> will be twitchy if it is designed to be light handling with the load on, which it is.
> Also, a load or some of that load hung below the axle will cancel
> out the bikes ability to remain easy to handle, twitch will return.
> ...


My previous bikes were not designed to carry a load (no travel bikes, just common hybrids costing a quarter of the price) and there I didn't have any control difference load or no load on top of the rack.


----------



## Shadow121 (31 Aug 2019)

silva said:


> My previous bikes were not designed to carry a load (no travel bikes, just common hybrids costing a quarter of the price) and there I didn't have any control difference load or no load on top of the rack.


That would be right, they were not designed like your travel bike, and would
not react the same, they would get no twitcher. If you design something
for a specific job, then it will often need to be used in a certain way, like
you found with your traveling bike.

Put a level load of whatever in a car trailer, you won’t have a problem,
remove the back half of the load, this shifts much more weight to the drawbar,
and causes the car to become very twitchy, same with putting weight below the
axle on a bike designed to be stable with weight above the axle, above the axle is the only
way to get more on your bike, that’s where the available space is, is it too much to understand
that given this a designer would design the bike to handle better in this configuration, now imagine
if the designer did not optimize for this high up load, well you would be fighting your bike
big time when loaded up in the vertical plain.

When you turn the front wheel loaded you are not fighting your bike, what else would you expect.


----------



## Tigerbiten (1 Sep 2019)

If it was a new bike then I'd say a twitchy and almost unrideable bike which should be stable maybe a sign that the forks could be fitted backwards.
This shortens the wheelbase and changes the bikes trail causing it to be much more twitchy.
But you're had it two years and would have seen if this was the case.

I do know about some touring bikes which do handle better when fully loaded vs unloaded.

Also you do have to relearn how to ride with a twitchy bike if you've never ridden one.
The trouble is you get into a negative feedback loop where because because everything reacts/happens faster than you expect you feel unsafe and tense up. The more you tense up then the more you fight your own muscle and the slower you can react. The slower you react the more unsafe you feel which causes you to tense up more ...........
That effect is also very common when learning to ride trikes and recumbent bikes when things happen which you don't expect.

Luck .........


----------



## silva (1 Sep 2019)

Shadow121 said:


> That would be right, they were not designed like your travel bike, and would
> not react the same, they would get no twitcher. If you design something
> for a specific job, then it will often need to be used in a certain way, like
> you found with your traveling bike.
> ...


I define a good design as one that does a good trade-off between benefits and drawbacks.
Having to put some kilo's on top of a rear rack in order to ride safely, I don't exactly consider that a good design.
Since I got the bike, I discovered (the hard way) quite some flaws in the entirety of the design.
Which have had small upto big consequences.
Some examples:
- the rear tire clearance is over 20 mm but there's no room for an 48T chainring without having to shift the rear hubs flanges 5 mm offcenter (causing need to adjust the wheels spokes to correct the tires line), and on top of that 5 mm spacers, a total of 1 cm. Sacrifying a mere 5 mm tire clearance would allow to fit nearly any common chainring size.

- the rear rack, nicked "XXL" supported my double bags even less than on my older bike, causing same problems - they touch the tire and get damaged, can't place them far enough away from my heels, rear light sits in a pothole, and so on.
when asking why named "XXL" if it's that small the answer was that the XXL referred to the strength not the size...
I ended up having to attach dedicated triangle shaped frames to make the rack longer / hold the bags away from the wheel, and also had to move the rear light too, mounted on a equally makeshift solution.
And even now, 2 years post purchase, I keep discovering the hard way design flaws: that rear rack is attached to the seat tube along two arms mounted to the rack side along two teflon nuts (adjustable distance), with the nuts on the INSIDE facing eachother, impossible to reach without having to completely disattach the entire rack but then you don't know the position to fix them, apparently a problem that the assembler stuck into too, since the inability to adjust and tension together, prevented a tight fix, resulting in loose bolts, that ended up somewhere on the roads I've passed, being the reason for my attention and subsequent discovery.
Last week I spent after work an entire evening upto 12 o'clock night, to disassemble my rear rack extensions in order to find out why the arms to the seat tube hung loose, I replaced the nuts with butterfly ones (no other solution since no room for a tool, even not for one click/step of a precision ratchet and even not with a long extender from the other side) and locked them with silicone. I replaced the two hexagon head bolts (one lost) with new ones, and since the blocks that lock them behind the L profile of the rack turnt out to be aluminium (travelrack XXL is advertised as steel for strength - but apparently not entirely...) I also chosed non stainless, to prevent galvanic corrosion, and sticked some water protection around them

- rear light has no switch, meaning that when I park it at a shop it draws attention to my bike for like 10 minutes without any benefit, probably just to save the cost of a switch despite the small thing costing 50 bucks.

- took a month riding to discover bottom bracket axle wiggling causing chainring to scratch the frame, reason turning out as the mount requiring Loctite to not dismount itself (which is a sign of a bad... design).

- they choosed stainless steel bolts (304 grade) to mount in aluminium, causing galvanic corrosion, after having to re-tension the bikes stand numerous times, I decided to unmount to see what was going on: full with white aluminium powder - I needed to replace the ss bolts with not stainless steel bolts to avoid further damage to stand and frame thread.

- the horizontal tube sits way too high, apparently they received enough complaints to design a new frame with a lower one.

- the brake fluid line between handlebar and rear brake cilinders was mounted under that high horizontal tube, requiring a sharp turn under the handlebars, causing it to break and leak. I had to let it change to the tube towards bottom-bracket then back up - since then no problem anymore (I also mounted a protective tube through which the fluid line was directed that entire path)

- even the pedals had a flaw: to give grip, they drilled holes and screwed protruding headless bolts (so inside the threaded cilinder, with an allen hexagon insert), allowing to adjust. But the hexagons sit on the wrong side and get worn off by the shoes, preventing any adjustment, resulting in shoe soles ruined.

And this was just a part of the troubles, I didn't mention the most important (for me) drivetrain related ones.
So, when I'm asking here with this topic about that instability with an empty rear rack, I do have some reasons to suspect a design flaw, see it would just be a next in the list.
And why? Well, to solve them ofcourse.
See above... ALL solved. To hunt a solution, one has to hunt the problem cause first.

SO, you say here that the instability without a mass on the rear rack may be an intentionally accepted trade-off in the design. Can you be more specific, what parts of the frame, their dimensions (length ex) are determinating this?
If the frames sizes were equal then I could make some measurements on my previous bikes and compare these with measurements on this bike.
But I don't even know what frame parts get longer with bigger frames.

.


----------



## silva (1 Sep 2019)

Tigerbiten said:


> If it was a new bike then I'd say a twitchy and almost unrideable bike which should be stable maybe a sign that the forks could be fitted backwards.
> This shortens the wheelbase and changes the bikes trail causing it to be much more twitchy.
> But you're had it two years and would have seen if this was the case.


Okay but the bikes trail doesn't change by laying a bag potatoes on the rear rack eh  ?



Tigerbiten said:


> I do know about some touring bikes which do handle better when fully loaded vs unloaded.
> 
> Also you do have to relearn how to ride with a twitchy bike if you've never ridden one.
> The trouble is you get into a negative feedback loop where because because everything reacts/happens faster than you expect you feel unsafe and tense up. The more you tense up then the more you fight your own muscle and the slower you can react. The slower you react the more unsafe you feel which causes you to tense up more ...........
> ...


I rather prefer to solve causes than trying to live with consequences.
Also, in this case the consequence comes without and goes with a bag potatoes, and last time I checked I didn't see a switch on a muscle for it. 
Fact is that the design of my other older now first spare bicycle must have been a better trade off, since I did the same things with it as with the current newer one, for years and twitchy behaviour ment a broken rack, spoke, brake or stick between the spokes slamming the fork, not a chosed design.
Luck.... is for sheep that hope. 
The world isn't built by hoping ppl.
There, some psycho talk on sunday.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Sep 2019)

If the bike doesn't work for you, then sell it on. It's no good whinging on here it won't change anything.


----------



## Shadow121 (1 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> I define a good design as one that does a good trade-off between benefits and drawbacks.
> Having to put some kilo's on top of a rear rack in order to ride safely, I don't exactly consider that a good design.
> Since I got the bike, I discovered (the hard way) quite some flaws in the entirety of the design.
> Which have had small upto big consequences.
> ...


I agree about getting a good balance, not every designer will design a bike to cope
well with the kilos piled high on the back, but you can load higher if the need arises and still manage the bike.
As being more specific, no, it is what it is, If I wanted to compare the bike with another based on measurements,
I would need a dam good reason, there’s also too many variables regarding load dispersion and rider position
and ability for a normal person to invest in trying to paint a crystal clear picture.


----------



## Tigerbiten (1 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> Okay but the bikes trail doesn't change by laying a bag potatoes on the rear rack eh  ?


But it does change the bikes moment of inertia.

It's like trying to balance a pencil on your hand.
It's difficult with a plain pencil because it moves fast and twitchy and once started over it's hard to correct.
Now attach a weight to the top of the pencil and it become easy because it's feels a lot more stable.

That what has happened on the bike.
The sack of potatoes acts in part as a mass damper and has slowed any fast side to side oscillations into a range you find easy to control.
The higher the weight is sited on the bike then the more the moment of inertia changes and the more you feel the effect.
That's why it works well on top of the rack and not so much in side panniers.

How twitchy a bike is an interaction between it wheelbase, headset angle, trail and even the bottom bracket height.
As you've two bikes, one stable and one twitchy, then measure all the distances and angles on both.
The draw a scale diagram of both from the same starting point and you'll easily see how and where they differ.


----------



## Shadow121 (1 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> Okay but the bikes trail doesn't change by laying a bag potatoes on the rear rack eh  ?
> 
> 
> I rather prefer to solve causes than trying to live with consequences.
> ...


Am afraid you will have to live with the consequences you are experiencing
or design / solve yourself a bike, and when your done you will still have to live
with the consequences only this time you will be completely responsible for them.


----------



## silva (1 Sep 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> If the bike doesn't work for you, then sell it on. It's no good whinging on here it won't change anything.


So far every bike I've got had problems, the last one about the worst, and these experiences brought me to fixed gear, to be able to DIY. On which basis then should I expect yet another bike to be a different story? It will be just another story, with same and new problems, and a repeat of all the work. Do you see any benefit in that? I don't.

I made the bike work for me, I found causes and solutions for the problems, and this topic is just that.
First causes have to be identified, then solutions have to be found, that's what I do and when I'm "whinging" it's to make clear exactly that, in cases this point is still not recognized.
To give another example (so blame me for "whinging"): at some point in the production stage of the bike, the dealer sent me an email that the bike was about ready, only that the chainline wasn't 100% straight but that they found a solution for that.
A year later, with the strongest and most wear reducing chain available (basically a 1/8" chain with 3/16" plates) mounted, that chains parts hung tilted nearly 45% in opposite directions. The dealer showed a baffled face and said he had never seen that before and that he had no idea how it came.
I decided to post the problem on a forum. The first answer I got was that the chainline must be quite wrong, and I was given instructions/tricks how to measure it (a direct measurement is not possible). I found the chainline as 5 mm wrong, and also that the rear hubs spokes flanges center was that amount offcenter, so that the spokes should be tensioned so that the rim/tire remained in the line of the front tire.
I mailed that forums topic to the dealer. He answered he "had followed my measurements and that they were correct", and by doing that directly contradicting his year-earlier claim that he had found a solution to achieve a 100% straight chainline.
Clearly his highest priority was selling a bike, if that bike would be what the customer wanted was lower priority and he lied to achieve the sale.

So the Nth problem now is that instability. It's not a big problem since I usually have some kilo's on top of the rack, but knowledge is where solutions start and hence my attempt here to pinpoint a precise reason for this rather serious handling difference dependent on load location.

My bike is parked outside now. Just arrive d back. If I now take off the basket with the standard luggage and the added today, and do a ride, the bike will act alike a horse that wants to throw off its rider. That MUST have a specific cause and that MUST be certain distances/ratios in the frame geometry. But which ones?
Maybe I should think "loud" here, as to give an idea of what kinda answer I'm hunting.
Imagine the rear rack was constructed so that its top would be 50 cm higher. Which effect would that have on the handling response? Or 50 cm lower? 
Or some approach like this: I put 1 kg on the rack and to a test ride. Then 2 kg. Then 3 kg. And so on. To discover what weight change causes which effect on the bikes response. A precise weight could give a clue in a weight balancing problem.

My frame size is 65 cm







"ZITBUIS LENGTE" is 650 mm 
"OVERSTAP HOOGTE" is 896 mm
"BOVENBUIS LENGTE" is 620 mm
"BALHOOFD HOOGTE" is 960 mm
"BALHOOFD-DROPOUT" is 662 mm.

And so on...


----------



## silva (1 Sep 2019)

Tigerbiten said:


> But it does change the bikes moment of inertia.
> 
> It's like trying to balance a pencil on your hand.
> It's difficult with a plain pencil because it moves fast and twitchy and once started over it's hard to correct.
> ...


Ok, that's an idea, as soon as I have the chance I'll measure my previous bike, the data for the current I've found on the web.
The end goal is to determine what can be done to make the bike respond the same with a mass of zero on the rack.


----------



## fossyant (1 Sep 2019)

Have you thought you just might not be used to a lighter handling bike. Or are too used to a laden bike ?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (1 Sep 2019)

You are a tall rider on a big frame. You will have a high centre of gravity. With long limbs you can shift that centre of gravity (COG)) quite a lot. The bike is light in comparison and has no damping. So these shifts in weight can make it seem unstable. I wonder if the weights you add to your bike are acting like dampers, lowering the overall COG, giving the bike inertia and less affected by your weight shifts.

A recumbent of course would massively lower your centre of gravity and bring it somewhere in a line close with the wheels. Have you tried a recumbent as your solution rather than repeated mistakes with diamond frames?


----------



## snorri (1 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> - rear light has no switch, meaning that when I park it at a shop it draws attention to my bike for like 10 minutes without any benefit, probably just to save the cost of a switch despite the small thing costing 50 bucks..


This is a totally unjustified complaint, many people including myself would consider this to be an extra they happily pay extra for. A light that stays on for a period, either at traffic lights or when coming to a stop at night is a safety feature as it helps other road users to see and avoid you. Not having a switch improves reliability of your lighting system for no extra charge, and has nothing to do with cost savings. Besides, why did you not ask the supplier to adapt the lighting system to suit your requirements before placing your order if unhappy with the basic provision?
I don't think you mention front luggage, could it be the load needs to be better balanced between front and rear?
Here's a video of a Santos Traveller 3+ road test, the reviewer gives it his seal of approval making it difficult to understand your catalogue of complaints regarding frame design.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcDnWHhrupI


----------



## fossyant (1 Sep 2019)

It does worry me that you've had issues with every bike. You may have a balance issue, and loading up the bike will make it more cumbersome.

I've never had a bike that had bad stability, even a Raleigh Chopper that's known to be poor handling.


----------



## Tigerbiten (1 Sep 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> You are a tall rider on a big frame. You will have a high centre of gravity. With long limbs you can shift that centre of gravity (COG)) quite a lot. The bike is light in comparison and has no damping. So these shifts in weight can make it seem unstable. I wonder if the weights you add to your bike are acting like dampers, lowering the overall COG, giving the bike inertia and less affected by your weight shifts.
> 
> A recumbent of course would massively lower your centre of gravity and bring it somewhere in a line close with the wheels. Have you tried a recumbent as your solution rather than repeated mistakes with diamond frames?


You have that the wrong way around.
Adding weight to the rack moves the CoG up.

A basic rule of thumb or recumbents is the lower the seat is and/or the more reclined you are, the harder it is to balance because it gets more twitchy.
Which is why it's best to start with a recumbent with a fairly relaxed upright position and only go more extreme once you get used to it.

I hate to say that most of the distances ....
"ZITBUIS LENGTE" is 650 mm 
"OVERSTAP HOOGTE" is 896 mm
"BOVENBUIS LENGTE" is 620 mm
"BALHOOFD HOOGTE" is 960 mm
"BALHOOFD-DROPOUT" is 662 mm.
.... Have no real relevance to how the bike handles, just the size of the bike.
The ones you need are the headset angle, trail and wheelbase.
Here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry is a good article on how changing these can alter the handling of a bike.
Hope that helps ..........


----------



## silva (2 Sep 2019)

fossyant said:


> Have you thought you just might not be used to a lighter handling bike. Or are too used to a laden bike ?


The bikes response difference based on a presence or nonpresence of a few kilo's on the rear rack is just way too big to consider normal. I have had 30 kilo on the rear rack, about 10 times as much, and I hardly notice the response difference with that few kilo. So more is no problem, less is a problem.
It's like a few kilo's more brings some balancing above or under a treshold. Or in other words, the weight distribution of the design was chosen close to some margin value.
Remember, when I ride an older bike, without anything on its rack, I don't notice any response difference, only that accelerating goes faster.


----------



## silva (2 Sep 2019)

snorri said:


> This is a totally unjustified complaint, many people including myself would consider this to be an extra they happily pay extra for. A light that stays on for a period, either at traffic lights or when coming to a stop at night is a safety feature as it helps other road users to see and avoid you. Not having a switch improves reliability of your lighting system for no extra charge, and has nothing to do with cost savings. Besides, why did you not ask the supplier to adapt the lighting system to suit your requirements before placing your order if unhappy with the basic provision?
> I don't think you mention front luggage, could it be the load needs to be better balanced between front and rear?
> Here's a video of a Santos Traveller 3+ road test, the reviewer gives it his seal of approval making it difficult to understand your catalogue of complaints regarding frame design.
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcDnWHhrupI



Since you name what I experience as a pain an "extra", we clearly have different opinions.
I cannot agree with yours, you may have missed some points.
- I don't want my bicycle drawing attention from thieves due to a rear light that I cannot switch off. 
- I have had rear lights with a switch for a couple decades in situation home work shop, never had malfunctioning switches, also because I always took precautions "in case", alike taping off the circumference and protecting the button / switch against water. Little effort, in case.
- I want to have the CHOICE, and that is what a switch provides. No problem with the light staying on when I stop for a traffic light or so, IF I have selected that. But I ALSO want to be able to select OFF. 
- the rear lights parking light is an electrical load stored in a capacitor. Imagine in winter, dark. Possible snow. I have to stop for some reason. To walk with bike at hand, I don't need light. But if I want to see something for which it is not clear enough, that electrical load is available. IF it wasn't wasted for nothing. Without a switch, it is.
- The supplier never told me that the rear light had no switch. I discovered it after delivery. The supplier also didn't tell me that he had mounted a 3/32" chainring (Surly stainless steel) instead of the asked for 1/8" drivetrain. I discovered it after a month, when the thing got worn down to sharkfins while on my previous bike the 1/8" chainring of alu 7075T6 lasted a year and half (and more if I had continued). There were quite some things untold to me. After over a year I discovered the reason for my very weird chain wear (it hung tilted under 45 degree angles). The chainline was 5mm out. The supplier had said that it was "100%" straight. But wait, I started to "whine" again here, so please forget it. Friendly wave. 
- True, I should have some luggage on the front (I should try a bag in front of the handlebar but there is little room due to shape of the handlebars. And the brake fluid lines sit in the way. But the reason for front luggage is just to prevent the bike from tilting over to the back when alot weight, not to improve its response when steering. Can't even imagine how that would have any effect - it doesn't now (earlier this year I tried a bag at the front but I experienced it as a hassle and it limited my view on the road (sometimes I don't step off the bike when having to wait, I keep the bike in balance, standing)
Also, remember, it's not a front/back load difference that causes that hard handling, but a drop under a certain weight on top of the rear rack. I can put whatever in the bags hanging under the rear rack, and whatever in a bag on my back / backpack, and whatever along the horizontal tube (in my avatar pic you can see a steel U profile/rail mounted along the horizontal tube, its length was from front handlebar till a meter after the rear light.

The bike IS stable, just like my previous bike, only that there is one exception: not any kilo on the rear rack and I ride like a drunk - really, I am unable to stay 10 meter on the white lines drawn near the edge of the roads. And near or in cities, with lotsa height differences and crap in the way, it's just scary. I have to slowdown just for this.
As soon as I find the time and I figure out how to put some luggage in the front side of the bike, that doesn't hinder me one way or another (1 idea is in the triangle of the frame close to the handlebar), I will put the highest weight/smallest stuff (spare chain, chain tool, water) there, that will surely help to avoid tilting over.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Sep 2019)

Tigerbiten said:


> You have that the wrong way around.
> Adding weight to the rack moves the CoG up.



Only if the COG is below the level of the rack. I'm referring to the COG of the bike / rider combo and would expect (for diamond frame) the COG to be above the height of the rack in such a case. I'm not referring to the COG of the bike alone.


----------



## fossyant (2 Sep 2019)

My fixed gear was hard work when I started loading it up with stuff for the commute. Didn't notice it after a while, but oh my, did the fixed and the two other road bikes feel very different, ie. fidgety. I was used to a laden bike.

You might be too used to a loaded up bike.


----------



## Tigerbiten (2 Sep 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Only if the COG is below the level of the rack. I'm referring to the COG of the bike / rider combo and would expect the COG to be above the height of the rack in such a case. I'm not referring to the COG of the bike alone.


On a trike the combined trike-rider is important simply because you need to lean to the inside on a corner to keep that wheel on the ground.
On a bike, unless you're doing the likes of extreme MTB stunts, then the bike and rider move as one so I think the combined CoG is largely irrelevant. You don't normally move off the saddle and shift to the inside like you do when cornering fast on a motorbike.
But the bike's CoG and where the mass is situated alters the bikes moment of inertia.
Any increase the moment of inertia slows the bike natural twitchiness down and makes it feel more stable.


----------



## Shadow121 (2 Sep 2019)

To the OP, while it is nice to understand why and how things work,
given you bike is fine with a load in the right place, I would just enjoy 
the bike.
When I was young I had the most expensive racing bike in the shop,
don’t even remember the make, and it was the most difficult bike to
ride, If you coughed you would change direction, the one I have now cost 200.00
second hand, it’s a treat in comparison, and super comfortable.
I have had goes on other bikes, expensive and not so, and everY one of them
rode differently, that’s just how things are, and why people who know will
always advise you to try before you buy, it’s the only way you can be certain
whether any bike is the bike for you.

Regarding your current situation, try a shorter or longer stem,
even try a fork that would leave the bike more similar to a bike
you have that does not have the issues you currently have.
Fork trail and stem length can play a huge part in how a bike behaves,
I once put an 80mm stem with 3 degrees more rise on an old bike instead of its 90mm stem,
everyone told me it would be even more twitchy, but I did it, the bike was
completely different, and to everyone’s surprise the twitchyness was gone,
the bike was twitchy because of me, it wasn’t turning in unless I gave it a quick pull
and I was overdoing it, the shorter stem did it for me.


----------



## Shadow121 (2 Sep 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> You are a tall rider on a big frame. You will have a high centre of gravity. With long limbs you can shift that centre of gravity (COG)) quite a lot. The bike is light in comparison and has no damping. So these shifts in weight can make it seem unstable. I wonder if the weights you add to your bike are acting like dampers, lowering the overall COG, giving the bike inertia and less affected by your weight shifts.
> 
> A recumbent of course would massively lower your centre of gravity and bring it somewhere in a line close with the wheels. Have you tried a recumbent as your solution rather than repeated mistakes with diamond frames?


I would agree, more weight is dampening the bikes response to the riders input and keeping it online,
take away just enough weight and the bike becomes twitchy. That’s why they put ballast into empty ships.


----------



## roadrash (2 Sep 2019)

with regards to the lighting..... why did you buy something you did not want.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (3 Sep 2019)

I'm finding the whole thread somewhat bizarre, TBH. I have several long wheelbase frames of non-racing geometry and none of them are in any way twitchy or unstable, although each does feel slightly different.


----------



## silva (4 Sep 2019)

The first kilo's put on top of the rear rack make a big difference


fossyant said:


> My fixed gear was hard work when I started loading it up with stuff for the commute. Didn't notice it after a while, but oh my, did the fixed and the two other road bikes feel very different, ie. fidgety. I was used to a laden bike.
> 
> You might be too used to a loaded up bike.


Yes but as said - on my previous fixed gear I don't feel instability without a load on its rack, and if any, certainly by far not the difference that the new bike exhibits.
Basically I have 3 bikes with a similar transport-stuff setup. Big double bags, steel framed basket on top of rear rack, rear rack extended. One (newest) I use daily, the second is ready as spare and maintained, last summer I even made some improvements on it. The third is okay but "in mothballs", and not immediately usable.

There must be a specific reason, which is what I'm trying to find out.


Shadow121 said:


> To the OP, while it is nice to understand why and how things work,
> given you bike is fine with a load in the right place, I would just enjoy
> the bike.
> When I was young I had the most expensive racing bike in the shop,
> ...


I understand and appreciate your point of view, also thanks for the example case, but occasionally it happens that I need a clear rack, and the bike then suddenly starts to become much harder to control, so badly that I have to slowdown in order to feel safe enough. Recently the rear rack had some lose and lost bolts so that I had to take off everything for a while, and I was hard-reminded of it the next ride. It's remarkable how different it becomes.


----------



## silva (4 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> with regards to the lighting..... why did you buy something you did not want.


I didn't buy a rear light, I bought a bike and the rear light was a part chosen by the bikes producer.


----------



## roadrash (4 Sep 2019)

ahh , so if you didn't buy it, are you saying they included it free of charge


----------



## fossyant (4 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> ahh , so if you didn't buy it, are you saying they included it free of charge



 I have a feeling everything is someone else's issue.


----------



## silva (6 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> ahh , so if you didn't buy it, are you saying they included it free of charge


No its price was included in the basis price of the bicycle, an item chosen by the producer so I didn't "choose" the rear light, just like I didn't choose the spokes brand/model, the rims, the handlebar, the saddle, the inner tires, the brand/model brakes, the front light, the dynamo hub, maybe this list helps you to the point I made.


----------



## silva (6 Sep 2019)

fossyant said:


> I have a feeling everything is someone else's issue.


Well, since alot choices of the producer and dealer turnt out to be crap, and since I searched and found better, some of that "everything" ceased to be an issue. Not exactly a "feeling" either, the bicycle sold and delivered "as is", needed new chainring, new chain, new axle, new bottom bracket, after a few months. The replacements held out over a year, that chain I found and mounted myself, held out 18 months, most of that time with a 5 mm off chainline, which I also solved myself, along disc mount - dedicated spacers. Time to distance as 50-60 km/day. 
This stability issue, is 1 problem not solved. Mostly because it's not a big one, only that it surprises when circumstances bring it back on.
So, what else can I conclude, than the phrase "do it yourself - do it good", instead of relying on dealers?


----------



## Shadow121 (6 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> Well, since alot choices of the producer and dealer turnt out to be crap, and since I searched and found better, some of that "everything" ceased to be an issue. Not exactly a "feeling" either, the bicycle sold and delivered "as is", needed new chainring, new chain, new axle, new bottom bracket, after a few months. The replacements held out over a year, that chain I found and mounted myself, held out 18 months, most of that time with a 5 mm off chainline, which I also solved myself, along disc mount - dedicated spacers. Time to distance as 50-60 km/day.
> This stability issue, is 1 problem not solved. Mostly because it's not a big one, only that it surprises when circumstances bring it back on.
> So, what else can I conclude, than the phrase "do it yourself - do it good", instead of relying on dealers?


That sounds terrible for a new bike to be out of line like that, and all the other
problems that resulted from it, I would have sent or taken it back and looked for a refund.

You do get an odd product that comes out wrong, I used to work in manufacturing steel
products, and if anyone got a bad product, there would be question regarding it
being changed for new, or a refund, you really should have sent it back.

To get a bike out of line from new is really bad, because the frames are assembled in
a jig to hold them exactly in place, so something obviously went badly wrong in
the making of your bike, and it should have been sorted.


----------



## roadrash (7 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> No its price was included in the basis price of the bicycle, an item chosen by the producer so I didn't "choose" the rear light, just like I didn't choose the spokes brand/model, the rims, the handlebar, the saddle, the inner tires, the brand/model brakes, the front light, the dynamo hub, maybe this list helps you to the point I made.





nope, it just confuses me more  , I never said you chose them,...I said why did you buy something you didn't want ….even though we all know you chose to buy them , unless you just bought a frame and they gave you all the other components free , which of course didn't happen.


----------



## silva (8 Sep 2019)

Shadow121 said:


> That sounds terrible for a new bike to be out of line like that, and all the other
> problems that resulted from it, I would have sent or taken it back and looked for a refund.
> 
> You do get an odd product that comes out wrong, I used to work in manufacturing steel
> ...


It wasn't frame but chainline out of line.
In the "late production" phase of the bike, the dealer sent a mail that the bike was ready and could be delivered, only that the chainline wasn't "100% straight" but that they wanted to deliver the durable bike I asked for and that they made a last effort and that they've found a solution, and that I needed just a little more patience.
So when the bike then was finally ready, I expected that straight chainline.
After a year mess (wearn/noisy/clicks), and one of the strongest/longest lasting bicycle chains haning tilted 45% I was given a hint on its cause, learnt to measure the chainline and did so, to finally discover the dealers plain lie.
So it wasn't like a bike delivered, problems surfaced shortly later, it was a long process, not really an option to bring it back / ask refund, also considering all the time/work I had put in it afterwards, to make it meet my luggage and usage demands.

After the dealer proposed to put spring washers between the rear cog and its sixbolts flange (ugly solution due to dirt etc able to get inside) I decided to correct the chainline myself, found, ordered and mounted dedicated spacers that fully covered the mount. So, it is now a (one of the many) SOLVED problem(s), and this forums topic is just another attempt to identify a cause, and solve, a specific problem. 

What I'm gonna try is to find/mount some luggage facilities on the front of the bike, not only as a sole attempt to see impact on this particular problem, but mainly to address the current problem of bike tilting backwards when having a couple dozens kilo luggage under and on the rear rack. It's a comical but crap when there is on a location / park place nothing avail to support the bike to prevent that. I have had handlebar bags on my previous bike but these aren't compatible with the current bikes handlebars and the brakes lines sit in the way too. The bike has lowrider frames right and left of the front wheels hub, but since I don't wanna spend the price of dedicated bags I gonna need again to find some makeshift solution. And/or one for a handlebar bag, and maybe a third option: at the front within the frame triangle, some small bag abit like a tennis racket bag.


----------



## silva (8 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> nope, it just confuses me more  , I never said you chose them,...I said why did you buy something you didn't want ….even though we all know you chose to buy them , unless you just bought a frame and they gave you all the other components free , which of course didn't happen.


I bought a frame, with some chosen parts, and the choice of other parts delegated to producer/dealer, relying on their expertise...
Which is again the same that I've said, in other wording, and if it still confuses you it must be a language problem.


----------



## Shadow121 (8 Sep 2019)

If the bike is tipping back, then you need to counter balance this, as you have realized
adding some weight to the front of the bike will help this.

In all honesty if I loaded a bike like you show in your avatar,
I would deserve all the trouble I get, ideally the weight needs to
be distributed between the front and back, with just enough on the front
to keep the steering and handling light and manageable.


----------



## roadrash (8 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> if it still confuses you it must be a language problem




nope no language problem , unless the lights were given to you free then you bought them ...simple as that


----------



## silva (8 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> nope no language problem , unless the lights were given to you free then you bought them ...simple as that


Your problem isn't a language problem so it's your own problem then.
It makes your words:
"I said why did you buy something you didn't want".
... pointless - "you want" implies a choice of me, and there was no choice of me - the producer/dealer chosed.


----------



## fossyant (8 Sep 2019)

OP, do you load your bike as much as in your avatar ? If you do, you really need a cargo bike.

My best man toured the world on a Thorn MTB, but had panniers front and rear to keep the weight balanced.


----------



## Tigerbiten (8 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> Your problem isn't a language problem so it's your own problem then.
> It makes your words:
> "I said why did you buy something you didn't want".
> ... pointless - "you want" implies a choice of me, and there was no choice of me - the producer/dealer chosed.


But your choice is do you accept what the dealer had picked or not.
If you don't like what is normally picked for the bike as standard, then you haggle until you get something that is acceptable to you and is doable for the dealer.
If the dealer truly wants the sale there's probably always a little leeway about what's fitted.
The downside is you may well need to pay a little extra for the non-standard parts.
If you cannot come to an agreement about parts/cost then you can always go somewhere else.
Even if you don't alter anything, if you haggle a little you may get a discount ......... 

That why my recumbent trike has very very non-standard gears.
I knew I wanted a much bigger range to my gears than normally offered.
So I sat down with the manufacturer/dealer and has a frank session where I said what I wanted and they told me what was possible.
In the end I probably picked the most expensive option but I almost had the gear range I wanted.
A couple of further tweaks as I got used to them has given me exactly what I want from my gears, a range of 9.4"-178".

So there's always a choice, but it may not be an easily obvious choice .........


----------



## roadrash (8 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> you want" implies a choice of me, and there was no choice of me -




you did have a choice and you chose to buy




its not that difficult ….you parted with money and got goods in return, that means you bought something


----------



## silva (18 Sep 2019)

Tigerbiten said:


> But your choice is do you accept what the dealer had picked or not.


The dealer didn't specify all properties of all parts of the bike.
The dealer didn't give me a list of brands and models of all parts of the bike.
The dealer didn't even know himself which brands/models the drivetrain components would be.
I was demanded an ahead-payment of 2500 of the 4300 euro that the bike costed.
Reason given: "to give the engineers something to work with".
The rear light, was compared to that just a detail, I never expected it to have no switch, I never had a bike with lights without an on/off switch. And also unaware those existed. It was a surprise, post mortem. 
There was alot untold to me. Including that 5mm wrong chainline, which unveiled the dealers production time - statement that they had found a solution to make the chainline "100% straight" as a plain lie.
I asked for a 1/8" drivetrain. I wasn't told that the chainring was 3/32". I had to discover it, when it wore out in a single month, not only due to being thinner, but also due to the chainline.
And then you claim here that it all were choices of me?


----------



## roadrash (18 Sep 2019)

you chose to buy , not knowing what you was buying ,then complain you didn't get what you wanted..... I give up....


----------



## silva (18 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> you did have a choice and you chose to buy
> 
> its not that difficult ….you parted with money and got goods in return, that means you bought something


The claim was not that I bought something, but that I chosed the parts of the bike. A wrong claim. It's that easy.


----------



## roadrash (18 Sep 2019)

ok you chose to buy something , you didn't know what that something was but you bought it anyway , then complain that the something that you bought, wasnt what you wanted


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (18 Sep 2019)

If you had specific requirements, you should have put those in writing to the dealer when ordering, and you should not have accepted delivery of the bike without checking if it was built to the required spec. If I buy a new car and tell the dealer I want it in blue, I am not going to accept being supplied with a yellow one.


----------



## silva (21 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> ok you chose to buy something , you didn't know what that something was but you bought it anyway , then complain that the something that you bought, wasnt what you wanted


I didn't know bikelights without an off switch existed.
It wasn't mentioned in the advertisement blahblah.
I expected a switch. 
I discovered a none.
This isn't hard to understand - your surprise must be jesting?


----------



## roadrash (21 Sep 2019)

silva said:


> I expected a switch.



and that's where you went wrong, expect nothing, check everything, then pert with your hard earned only when you are happy that you are buying what you WANT, and not something you DIDNT WANT


----------



## silva (21 Sep 2019)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> If you had specific requirements, you should have put those in writing to the dealer when ordering, and you should not have accepted delivery of the bike without checking if it was built to the required spec. If I buy a new car and tell the dealer I want it in blue, I am not going to accept being supplied with a yellow one.


The whole bike turnt out to be a mash together with a dozen problems (some dealer aware-but-unsaid to customer), with as most ridiculous one being a 5 mm offcenter chainline on a fixie.
As example, I had a specific requirement: a 1/8" drivetrain. The chainring turnt out to be 3/32". I discovered it when I was trying to figure out why the drivetrain of a 4300 euro bike wore down after 5-6 weeks while those on my 1000 euro earlier fixies held it out a 6-9 months. See, you're right, I should have checked (read: measure everything) but I just didn't expect such plain lies. That chainline issue I only discovered after a whole year, when chain parts hung 45° tilted, the dealer still jesting surprise and no idea at all, and me ceasing to believe the jest. It a question on a forum to receive that explanation, some learning (how to measure chainline) and a reference to the explanation, to finally force the dealers admittance, and still then, insinuating unawareness by answering that he had followed my measurements and that they appeared to be correct.
To finally reveil it all as a single big lie, since during the production phase of the bike, the dealer had once mailed me this:
(a Google translate):


> Day <myname>,
> 
> just a final update regarding your bike.
> 
> ...


He said they've found a solution for a chainline that is not 100% perfect straight, to me, this implies a solution that makes a 100% perfect straight (let's consider < 1% as perfect haha).
However, post that "solution" execution, the chainline was 5 mm wrong.
If that "rear sprocket comes out A LOT MORE" had been really true, then the bikes original (pre-"solution") chainline must have been how much wrong?
10 mm?
15 mm?
25 mm?
...?

This stability issue must also have a specific cause - the behavior difference is just as remarkable as that 45° tilted chain caused by 5 mm wrong chainline.
Only for me much less problematic, since I pack some kilo's on top of the rack as a default luggage. 
What I'm at the moment pestered most with, is the chains tension variation. It's now less than halve as worse as it has been (1 cause identified and solved) but a second one (likely chainsets spider offcenter) still there. Spending bucks on yet another chainset (by elimination as last cause identified, or it should be due to the eccentric chain tensioner which would be hard to explain), with hope as sole insurance, I don't consider an option right now. The tension variation causes a noisy drivetrain (some creaking, some clicking) as background music.


----------



## silva (21 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> and that's where you went wrong, expect nothing, check everything, then pert with your hard earned only when you are happy that you are buying what you WANT, and not something you DIDNT WANT


I also don't cut a breads bag and crust to check if a bread is really brown not white.


----------



## roadrash (21 Sep 2019)

sorry, silly me, I didn't realise the bike came in a bag and you couldn't see it . not really the same is it spending a pound on a loaf or hundreds on a bike, your not happy with what you got because you didn't check what you was buying , ….simple as that , anyway that's me done on the matter


----------



## silva (21 Sep 2019)

roadrash said:


> sorry, silly me, I didn't realise the bike came in a bag and you couldn't see it . not really the same is it spending a pound on a loaf or hundreds on a bike, your not happy with what you got because you didn't check what you was buying , ….simple as that , anyway that's me done on the matter


The bike was really the same - I paid 2500 ahead of production and the remainder upon presence in shop. I had to take the train and ride the bike home since the dealer said he couldn't deliver home due to no car, after having promised months earlier before order that he had a familiar who would do this job for him.
And my pickup of the bike was required to happen in a hurry because he planned holiday start first weekend after.

I could further add such stories, but since you say you've done on the matter, and also (again) off to the topics subject, I'll pass.


----------



## Notafettler (10 Jan 2020)

I didn't think they did off switch on a dynamo lights? That is the of point of the built-in battery. Anyone ever heard of an off switch on dynamo lights. I can think of an odd occasion when I would want it. I sometimes leave my bike in a wood while I walk the dog, would appreciate being able to switch front and rear light of. I have my doubts that option is available?


----------



## Notafettler (10 Jan 2020)

PS @silva there is no logic in your luggage set up. Front panniers before putting the basket on the top of your rear rack. It is inherently unstable or I once had a cheap as chips single wheel trailer as long as you don't overload it (mainly height) it was brill. Alas I often did overload it and it started decoupling when overloaded it. Never caused an accident but decided to buy one that was designed for heavier loads. They are popular for touring.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (10 Jan 2020)

You're wasting your time trying to inject any logic into this thread. Silva is hell-bent on grossly mis-loading his bike by putting all the weight high up hanging off the back - and then complains that it makes it unstable and he has to ride more slowly. No shoot sherlock, if I carried the amount of crap around piled up on the back of any of my bikes that Silva does, I would have a job even getting my leg over the saddle to mount the thing and it would want to topple over and spin round whenever stopped unless the bars were held tight and the top tube braced between my legs. 
No serious cycle tourist with a big load would dream of carrying so much of it so high up and so far to the rear, as it will make the tail wag the dog and cause instability. They use front panniers and handlebar bags for a very good reason when heavily loaded. Silva should have bought one of those cargo trikes with a box mounted between the rear wheels and piled all his crap into that if he wanted stability with a large rear load.


----------



## silva (10 Jan 2020)

Notafettler said:


> I didn't think they did off switch on a dynamo lights? That is the of point of the built-in battery. Anyone ever heard of an off switch on dynamo lights. I can think of an odd occasion when I would want it. I sometimes leave my bike in a wood while I walk the dog, would appreciate being able to switch front and rear light of. I have my doubts that option is available?


My two other singlespeed>fixed gears both had dynamo lights and a switch off that instantly ceased lighting, and kept the energy in the capacitor, instead of wasting it for nothing. 
Bought them about a decade ago from NL, Philips Saferide led bikelight 60 dynamo, 78,95 EUR each. This is a link to see it: 
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-Saferide-Dynamo-Bicycle-Light/dp/B0047T6PHC

Switch OFF is OFF...
The model is now outdated and probably not available anymore.
At the time I didn't pay attention to the off switch. Until recently I thought it was just normal to have an off switch switching off the light. When I discovered the Son headlight (Edelux II) stayed lit after switching off my first thought was a defect. But it was a designed.... "feature".
I mailed Son about this, answer was:
"The electronics inside our rear light are very minimalistic. Just the
capacitor drains via the LED until its empty. In the future we might also
add a switch-off-timer. A mechanical switch just adds an opening into the
housing, needs much space and might cause new problems. Our main concern
is a very robust, waterproof design."
... not that I ever had water problems with that Philips Saferide model, not with its robustness.
Only complaint I had about it was that the cable left the housing on a place stupidly close to the crown bolt of the bike where it was mounted, causing the cable to get pinched>damaged - I had to use a longer bolt and 1 cm series of nuts and washers.

The main thing is simply this: I can arrive somewhere (shop, home, ..) switch off the light immediately, and then when back (even if that is the next morning) I can switch on the light so that I can see enough to find keys/unlock / etc. Due to the energy stored in the capacitor. Handy. The Son light just wastes that energy and leaves me dark upon return.


----------



## silva (10 Jan 2020)

Notafettler said:


> PS @silva there is no logic in your luggage set up. Front panniers before putting the basket on the top of your rear rack. It is inherently unstable or I once had a cheap as chips single wheel trailer as long as you don't overload it (mainly height) it was brill. Alas I often did overload it and it started decoupling when overloaded it. Never caused an accident but decided to buy one that was designed for heavier loads. They are popular for touring.


"Logic"?
How will front panniers carry the kinds of luggage I regularly transport?
Today I bought 16 hardwood slats (likely from a dismantled furniture), together about 20 kilo, 150 cm long each.
I put them through the mazes of the basket at the rear, they protruded about 50 cm behind the rear baskets.
Or look at my avatar pic. How you gonna put that in front panniers?
My avatar pic is abit outdated too, I now have a much bigger basket on my rear rack, but added a small (kid size) backpack mounted between front light and handlebars, on the vertical frame tube, to put my concentrated weight (tools, spare chain etc) in it, as a counterbalance for the weight on the rear rack.
A handlebars mounted bag blocks my view, and I don't want bags hanging low at the front wheel, same reason, and also I want to easily lift /control the front of the bike, needed in city with lotsa crap / things in the way. And with bags hanging low at the front, it's hard to put the bike upside down, my rear bags hang free for that reason, they just lay on the ground when bike upside down. Hanging free at the front makes steering crap.

The thing is, I decide/know the things on site. I don't know on forehand if, and what, I will have to transport. I don't want to mess around with a trailer for an 'in case'. I often don't even know where all I will ride, I just decide along the road, depending on a variety of elements. And thus, I arrived at this bike setup.
It's what it needs to be, to be practical for me. It's logic FOR ME.

The only stability issue I have is, remarkably enough, when there is nothing on top of my rear rack. I need several kilo's there to get rid of hard controllability. When I rode the new bike home I returned to dealer to find out what was wrong, why it was so hard to control / just ride in a straight line. The first thought was the tyre pressure in the 62 mm tyres that I never rode on before. But as it turned out, the reason was the lack of weight at the back.
I rode 2 years with the new bike. Month ago I had to dismantle my rear luggage facilities to allow a transport for crankset replacement. When I got the bike back, and rode with it, that unstable feeling was back just like that. And gone after remounting my stuff. Proved something. Why, I still don't know.


----------



## silva (10 Jan 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> You're wasting your time trying to inject any logic into this thread. Silva is hell-bent on grossly mis-loading his bike by putting all the weight high up hanging off the back - and then complains that it makes it unstable and he has to ride more slowly. No shoot sherlock, if I carried the amount of crap around piled up on the back of any of my bikes that Silva does, I would have a job even getting my leg over the saddle to mount the thing and it would want to topple over and spin round whenever stopped unless the bars were held tight and the top tube braced between my legs.
> No serious cycle tourist with a big load would dream of carrying so much of it so high up and so far to the rear, as it will make the tail wag the dog and cause instability. They use front panniers and handlebar bags for a very good reason when heavily loaded. Silva should have bought one of those cargo trikes with a box mounted between the rear wheels and piled all his crap into that if he wanted stability with a large rear load.


As I just explained, also said it before longer ago, instability occurs WITHOUT weight on top of the rear rack.
I have no problems with getting "THE AMOUNT OF CRAP" where I wanna ride it.
With this same bike, I once carried 4 steel racks each 18 kg home. Dismantled, parts through the basket, passing along the horizontal tube, but most on the rear rack since one has to get his legs around. And some connecting parts with an unhandy shape (didn't fit in the basket frame openings), tied on a mountainclimb alu frame on my back.
Why: because I outfitted the bike to succeed this.

My goals were communicated when I searched for a next bike, and my previous bike - same setup, was shown.
I'm "cycle tourist" nor "serious cycle tourist". I have to get jobs done in all occurring situations. If you don't (want to) know the difference that's your problem not mine, don't bother me with it. Get a cargo trike yourself.


----------



## silva (10 Jan 2020)

To illustrate: some notable (aside numerous smaller wide varying kinds of things) stuff I transported last years ending couple weeks, typical distances 20-30km:
- audio amplifier 12 kg
- 9 loudspeakers, heaviest couple 25 kg / unit, usually a couple per ride.
- 12 desk separation alu+textile panels 10 kg each, 160 x 80 x 2 cm, 1 per ride on my rear rack, 12 rides, 2 days with 2 rides.
- some dumbells various weights, easy sitting in the front of the basket on the rear rack.

This aside the stuff everyone needs daily (food,...)
In the past I once carried a folding bike for a work collegue (attached to a frame on my back). He had asked me once, I saw a suiting secondhand on a flea market, bought it, brought it.

It also happens that I just have to carry the daily stuff. I don't know on forehand. Even not that daily stuff, due to out of stock or conservation date not far enough ahead. I also have to get through narrow places / crowd. Alot bicycle dedicated road sections here are despite bidirectional actually too narrow, so in a case of big volume things loaded on the back I have to stop, step aside and wait. That's the benefit of a versatile bike setup: you can fit/handle it upon the need of the moment.
Ex on days with little to do / nothing open, with the same bike I can just go for a ride, still having the 2 backpacks + frame + bag in the basket, it's just 5 kg and it doesn't bother me.

Nothing new, this is since almost a decade, only that I gradually chosed the new bikes so that they held out longer / less replacements / work / hassle so that I have more time for the things that DO interest me.


----------



## newfhouse (11 Jan 2020)

silva said:


> I gradually chosed the new bikes so that they held out longer / less replacements / work / hassle


How is that low effort strategy working out for you?


----------



## silva (11 Jan 2020)

newfhouse said:


> How is that low effort strategy working out for you?


That's a repeat: 1 instead of 3 drivetrain replacements annually and bike not hijacked anymore by dealers for upto 9 months awaiting a repair. Also no ridiculous upto plain dangerous "cases" anymore, alike at a cup/cone bearing replacement by dealer a ball too much causing the bearing to be pushed open and a rear wheel wobbling like crazy upto (I can give couple dozens bad jobs) after a head tube replacement the handlebar disattaching upon bumping over a road level change governments place to force drivers to slowdown at a crosspoint - rendering me unable to steer, brake resulting in a slow zigzag between cars from two directions. A Do It Yourself can hardly be worser than that no?

The problem with my last bike purchase was that the dealer, despite being aware of my demands, and having seen my used bike at the time, recommended me a frame (the most expensive too) that he shouldn't have recommended, with as main reason the frame design/geometry - it should gave given the chainring more room and the rear tyre clearance less. My 62 mm tyres have over 2 cm clearance at the bottom bracket > chainstay. That's just way too much for road usage, the bike is ment as a travel bike not mountainbike (lotsa mud un33-5-5paved roads).
A +1 on his annual sales list must have been more important than fullfilling customers demands.

Now, 2 years later, most of the problems solved (myself). The single remaining one is the chains tension variation, and this topics stability subject isn't a problem for me since I always keep 2 backpacks, an alu backframe, a bag and a plastic cover (rain) in the basket on top of my rear rack. But I like to know the cause of this instability. With my previous 2 bikes, used alternatively (one in use, one hijacked by dealer - see above) it didn't make any difference whether a few (about 2-3) kg there present of not present. The bike frame sizes are different (the previous frames were too small, one of the reasons to dump them for a new) so I can't compare 1 on 1.
Recently (due to the chainset replacement by dealer) I was required to remove the basket and when back and after mounting the chainring then at testride that instable riding feeling was back just like that. Remounting the basket and placing the stuff in it > again gone. The frame is named "TravelMaster 3+" by an NL producer named "Santos". Their dealer was unable to give an explanation. Not that this is something to rely on, he also wasn't able to explain my 45° tilted hanging chain after a year riding, being shortly later reveiled as a 5 mm wrong chainline.

How is this answer working out for you?


----------



## newfhouse (11 Jan 2020)

silva said:


> How is this answer working out for you?


If you’re happy, I’m happy


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (11 Jan 2020)

newfhouse said:


> If you’re happy, I’m happy



He's not happy though, otherwise he wouldn't spend so much time continually griping about how the dealer failed to provide a bike fit-for-purpose, despite the fact there doesn't ever appear to have been an agreed written spec.
You could buy a small van with the amount of money that has been wasted cobbling this bike together, and it would do the job of moving bulky & heavy items around more efficiently, more safely, and with a fraction of the effort in a fraction of the time. This has got to be one of the most bizarre threads I have yet encountered on this forum; how to choose completely the wrong type of vehicle for the job and spend a large amount of money achieving nothing..


----------



## silva (11 Jan 2020)

silva said:


> ...
> Only complaint I had about it was that the cable left the housing on a place stupidly close to the crown bolt of the bike where it was mounted, causing the cable to get pinched>damaged - I had to use a longer bolt and 1 cm series of nuts and washers.
> ...


Btw, addendum to that - recently I had to move the front light 8 cm forwards to make room for a bag under the handlebars, its electrical cable came out of a hole in its support stand, same hole needed to insert an allen key to reach the crown bolt to unmount the stand. I had to file out the aluminium / make the hole bigger in order to make place for the tool without risking cable (insulation) damage.
Note: the light support stand is designed by the bikes designer, not by Son (at least afaik).

Just (once again) to illustrate one of the many flaws that shouldn't have been there at such a bike price tag.
Generally (not bike specific) I learnt one thing through the years: what is advertised most, is the most crap. Durable/lasting components need a long search and often found based on forum posts containing other peoples experiences. The frame design must raise a stability related problem in a case no weight behind seatpost on (and above?) the seatposts level. One explanation could have been a battery mounted there, but as it turned out, the battery isn't mounted there, it's under the seatpost.

https://santosbikes.nl/en/bikes/travelmaster-series/travelmaster-3
This is the current advertisement text:


> A crazy amount of luggage
> 
> Stable riding behaviour, even with a lot of luggage
> 
> You can fit the Travelmaster 3+ with more than 40 kg of luggage, divided over 5 bags. For example, choose a Santos TravelRack XL rear rack (26 kg*) and a Tubus lowrider (15kg). The strong, stiff frame and the steel front fork ride effortless over cobblestones and tree-roots. The fat tires give you lots of comfort.



... it's stable riding behaviour, *only* with a lot of luggage, hehe.

I found this same rear rack here: https://www.bikefeeling.nl/vakantiefietsen/heren-santos-fietsen/santos-travel-lite-plus


> De Travel Lite+ draagt met gemak 55 kg bagage verdeeld over 5 tassen op de Santos TravelRack XL achterdrager (40 kg) en een Tubus lowrider (15 kg). Het sterke, stijve frame voelt zeer zeker aan, ook bij hoge snelheden.



... which was the advertisement text at the time I purchased the bike. Apparently they have changed the 40 kg to 26 kg*, with the * reference suggesting a footnote that isn't there.
Also, that "Santos TravelRack XL", here insinuating Santos made, apparently is also from Tubus: see https://www.santosbikes.com/nl/santos-only/santos-travelrack-xl 


> De TravelRack XL is de stijfste drager die Tubus tot nu toe heeft gemaakt.


Also this is mentioned there:


> Lekker lang plateau
> 
> De verlengde voorkant heeft nog een bijkomend voordeel; je hebt *bovenop lekker veel ruimte voor al je bagage*. Het blijft bovendien goed op z'n plaats met die ronde voorkant waar je een spin aan kunt bevestigen.


... which is what I did: mounting a "tasty alot" "on top" of the rack.
I did precisely what they designed the bike for. 
So SkipDiverJohn's comment


> No serious cycle tourist with a big load would dream of carrying so much of it so high up and so far to the rear, as it will make the tail wag the dog and cause instability.


... is NOT according to how the bike is advertised.
And also failed the point: the stability problem of my topic here wasn't when *too much* weight on top, it was when *too less* weight on top.
So since you apparently ignored / refused to read the subject, I wonder the goal of your activity here, SkipDiverJohn?


----------



## silva (11 Jan 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> He's not happy though, otherwise he wouldn't spend so much time continually griping about how the dealer failed to provide a bike fit-for-purpose, despite the fact there doesn't ever appear to have been an agreed written spec.
> You could buy a small van with the amount of money that has been wasted cobbling this bike together, and it would do the job of moving bulky & heavy items around more efficiently, more safely, and with a fraction of the effort in a fraction of the time. This has got to be one of the most bizarre threads I have yet encountered on this forum; how to choose completely the wrong type of vehicle for the job and spend a large amount of money achieving nothing..


The dealer refused to give me a written brands/models list without that pay ahead.
Getting money without binding promises for the money, the easiest way to "money for nothing and chicks for free". Honest people, don't do that. Social people are willing to help others in order to be helped by others.
Also, ignorant SkipdiverJohn, I didn't and still don't want your trike, your small van, your whatever you come up with next, I wanted a bike suiting my needs, for the money I paid for it.
Either don't bother and ignore this topic, either help, period.

In meantime, from somebody that DID want to help, I received a possible explanation of this instability phenomenon.
The mass distribution, notably the mass center of the front part of the frame, has as as same strong influence on the bikes stability as gyroscopic and trail effects.
It's a scientific paper from 2011.
So there must be a difference between this last bike and the previous.

Goal is to identify the frames specific design failure.


----------



## newfhouse (11 Jan 2020)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> spend a large amount of money achieving nothing..


We all have hobbies or interests that cost more than an outside observer might consider sensible or worthwhile. In Silva’s case he seems to enjoy the challenge more than the bike, and that’s fair enough. Hours of entertainment for the rest of us


----------



## Notafettler (11 Jan 2020)

I have two Santos's Travelmasters, happy with both!
I Use carradice super c rear panniers on the front (Surly nice V2 high loader rack)
And carradice super c shoppers (slightly higher volume) on the back. 
I load them most days with logs. 
I could put them high up on the rear rack......if I wanted to lose control and ride into a tree!


----------



## Notafettler (11 Jan 2020)

Too many people have ridden vast tours, including around the world on Santos's for there to be a problem with stability. Bollocks


----------



## silva (26 Jan 2020)

Notafettler said:


> Too many people have ridden vast tours, including around the world on Santos's for there to be a problem with stability. Bollocks


Santos is the brand of the bike, partly mounted by a mechanic of the brand, partly mounted and sold to me by a dealer of the brand. Who of both screwed up stability, in the bike I received, I really don't care. My goal is to hunt causes of problems and solve them.

The most plausible explanation for the instability is rear tyre not lined up with front tyre.
Fact 1: the center of the spokes flanges sits 5 mm away from the center of the frame dropouts - towards the drive side.
Fact 2: the rear tyre wears away from its middle - towards the non drive side, verified on both rear tyres that have been mounted so far.
If I put some kilo's luggage on top of the rear rack, the instability (which makes it harder to follow a road marking line), is gone.
A plausible explanation is that the inertia of the added fixed-position (unlike the rider of the bike) mass gives the bike more laterial stability, thereby reducing the required steering corrections.

So the first time I have the chance (bike needs work) I'll try to check the rear versus front tyre center. A couple ways I can think of is trying to mount the rear flipped and compare distances to rim brake mount. If no difference then the rear tyre isn't umbrella-spoked which means the rear tyre indeed doesn't run in the front tyres trail (spoke flanges center not in center of dropouts). A wheel spokes trueing stand would help but don't have one.
Another (additional) method may be holding a straight stick/whatever along the tyres or better the rims, and see if the stick sits parallel to the frame tube. That would take into account any out of center cause. Of course, judging 5 mm may be hard on this relatively short distance.

Oh, and I don't have problems with 50 kilo loaded on top of the rear rack. It's just harder hill up that's all. No problems staying on a line on the road. For the same reason: mass inertia - it's harder to change the path of a bigger mass than of a smaller mass, meaning, yes o dear fellow forum users, more stability when riding.


----------



## Racing roadkill (26 Jan 2020)

You’ve got all sorts of totally unnecessary stuff stuck to the bike. The centre of gravity is all over the place. I’m surprised it’s even vaguely rideable. That bike is designed for being ridden by a rider, with maybe a rucksack, and possibly a small bar bag / frame bag.


----------



## silva (27 Jan 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> You’ve got all sorts of totally unnecessary stuff stuck to the bike. The centre of gravity is all over the place. I’m surprised it’s even vaguely rideable. That bike is designed for being ridden by a rider, with maybe a rucksack, and possibly a small bar bag / frame bag.



1) I decide what is necessary, not you.
2) https://www.santosbikes.nl/nl/fietsen


> Travelmaster Serie
> 
> De pakezels.
> Reisfietsen voor het zware werk.


Google translate it.

Things to do at first opportunity:
- check if the rear tyre is centered between the dropouts. The center of the flanges of the spokes is 5 mm off towards the drive side, meaning that the spokes should be umbrella shaped in a degree in order to bring the tyre in the center of the dropouts.
- check the frame itself, holding something straight along the tyres/rims or whatever method that could be used.


----------



## Racing roadkill (27 Jan 2020)

silva said:


> 1) I decide what is necessary, not you.


Ooooh get you.



silva said:


> 2) https://www.santosbikes.nl/nl/fietsen
> Google translate it.


I’ll decide what I google translate, not you.


silva said:


> Things to do at first opportunity:
> - check if the rear tyre is centered between the dropouts. The center of the flanges of the spokes is 5 mm off towards the drive side, meaning that the spokes should be umbrella shaped in a degree in order to bring the tyre in the center of the dropouts.
> - check the frame itself, holding something straight along the tyres/rims or whatever method that could be used.


----------



## Vantage (27 Jan 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> Ooooh get you.
> 
> 
> I’ll decide what I google translate, not you.



You're arguing for the sake of arguing. 

@silva There are 2 things you need to check. 
1: Is the frame straight? 
Check this by tying a piece of string to a rear dropout, around the head tube and back to the other rear dropout. Measure the distance of the string on either side of the seat tube. If both sides are the same, the frame is fine. 

2: Are the wheels correctly dished (running central to the axle locknut? 
Have this done by a competent bike mechanic or yourself if you know what you're doing. 

If these two things are the way they're supposed to be then the only other possible problem is your load and how it is carried. No ifs, no buts. It's that simple.


----------



## Notafettler (27 Jan 2020)

Racing roadkill said:


> That bike is designed for being ridden by a rider, with maybe a rucksack, and possibly a small bar bag / frame bag.


If you are talking about the Santos Travelmaster your wrong. It is designed to be used on tours. It is normal for it to come with racks. I have yet to find one on Ebay that doesn't have racks. I am happy carrying heavy loads front and rear. I have tried a few tourers including good old Thorns. Nothing beats a Santos....for me.


----------



## DCBassman (27 Jan 2020)

Notafettler said:


> If you are talking about the Santos Travelmaster your wrong. It is designed to be used on tours. It is normal for it to come with racks. I have yet to find one on Ebay that doesn't have racks. I am happy carrying heavy loads front and rear. I have tried a few tourers including good old Thorns. Nothing beats a Santos....for me.


Yes, but what weight do YOU call "heavy loads"?
It's understood a good tourer hauls weight, but just how much, including rider?


----------



## Notafettler (27 Jan 2020)

DCBassman said:


> Yes, but what weight do YOU call "heavy loads"?
> It's understood a good tourer hauls weight, but just how much, including rider?


I am 12 stone.....and a bit! Large panniers (carradice rear on front, shoppers on back). Regularly filled with firewood, weight...... No idea but emptied into Tesco tray.


----------



## DCBassman (28 Jan 2020)

But still not up to 50kg/120lb, I'd bet? Hundredweight sack of coal in old money. That's a lot.


----------



## Notafettler (28 Jan 2020)

DCBassman said:


> But still not up to 50kg/120lb, I'd bet? Hundredweight sack of coal in old money. That's a lot.




No idea of weight.
50 kg equals 110lb not 120lb.
As it happens I don't cycle home, I put the fully loaded bike on my back and run home with it.
Your turn


----------



## DCBassman (28 Jan 2020)

I only carry me, that's way more than enough, unfortunately!


----------



## Notafettler (28 Jan 2020)

DCBassman said:


> I only carry me, that's way more than enough, unfortunately!


I get someone else to cycle it home for me, I just load it!!
Still your turn!!


----------



## DCBassman (28 Jan 2020)

I get someone to put me and my bike on _their_ bike, and pedal me home...


----------



## silva (2 Feb 2020)

Notafettler said:


> If you are talking about the Santos Travelmaster your wrong. It is designed to be used on tours. It is normal for it to come with racks. I have yet to find one on Ebay that doesn't have racks. I am happy carrying heavy loads front and rear. I have tried a few tourers including good old Thorns. Nothing beats a Santos....for me.


*Irrelevant:*
On the other hand, I had such a so called "bombproof vacation wheel" with the outer rim wall showing a crack running the entire circumference, splitting all the spoke holes.
And a so called sturdy bike stand, losening over and over again, requiring more frequent retightenings, until several times in an hour, with dismounting and inspection unveiling white powder and damaged alu thread, identified as galvanic corrosion of the aluminium by the stainless steel (marked A2-70) bolts they chosed.
And a frontlight mount (alu stand), same story, unveiled when I tried to move it more to the front, with the lights cable blocking tool access to the allen head bolt, requiring me to file the stands hole out in order to not damage the cable.
And a rear fender, broken on the place of the U shaped brake pad mounting bracket, likely due to the brackets dimensions not allowing it to get it over the fender so forced there by deforming it.
And after just some weeks daily usage, something inside the bottom bracket losening, causing the chainring to wobble and scratch the frame, corrected by dealer by using Loctite and contradicting the advertisement claim that Loctite is standard applied.
And rear rack mount, the 2 arms connecting the frame to the seat tube, allen key bolt heads faced towards eachother at the inside, unreachable with the tool, unveiled when the rack losened there and inspection showed one bolt missing and the other loose.
The pedals - anti grip allen key bolthead screws with tool head at the wearing (shoes) side, ruining the boltheads and with it the ability to adjust them.
The rim tape - too narrow, they took the horizontal width of the rim, not taking into account the extra of the sloping of the rim causing the inner tube to contact metal corners - discovered at the new bikes first flat tyre, no outer wall puncture - worn spots on inner wall one with the hole causing the flat.
The rear hydraulic brake line, trajectory along top tube, resulting in a sharp corner under the handlebars towards the brake lever, causing it to break at its most frontwards top tube mounting bolt.

More general, one may question the choice steel for the luggage racks - it is rustprotected by black lacquer and if there is anything that a luggage rack suffers everyday it's grinding from bags and whatever, resulting in lacquer gone and rust.
When I showed the dealer the rust places he said that people tape the steel tubing off as a solution, rather awkward for things with such a price tag.
Also note the contradiction: on one hand they chose stainless bolts wherever but its on aluminium so galvanic corrosion prone and on the other hand they chose non stainless steel instead of aluminium so ordinary corrosion prone.
Grease? Not on any bolt including one I had to unscrew to repair the broken rear fender - seized - had to use a tong around the head, guess what: repeated story: white powder meaning the thread in the frame got damaged, had to tap it out.
It's like they think stainless - nothing can go wrong no grease needed.
Also no grease on any drivetrain component or its mount. I have had the axle and crankset replaced by a third party dealer, he noted there was not any grease applied on the older.

So all in all, these are some design and execution flaws for a bike frame that is advertised as travelbike in worse weather/road/environment conditions.
Last, aboves list is just limited to problems origining from the standard configuration of brand/model.
The ones origining from the conversion to fixed gear would make that list quite longer...unlike other bike frames, one can solve problems and modify the outfitting due to the many frame mount places.

I'm not saying here that the brand/model is crap - I'm saying that it should have been better (choices and job) for the price tag. I have had numerous hours work to make it usable in the way it is advertised.

My usage is abit similar to yours - a variety of whatever, it's not because you don't have a car that you need less stuff, etc.
I find a commonshaped bike frame with "internal" load provisions as most practical. Imagine having to tow a trailer all the time. 10-15 kilo and its own problems, "just in case" due to unknown on forehand if something and if yes, what, to transport. Or a gulliver front part of the bike, even heavier. You won't tilt the bike up let alone putting it upside down to cope with flats / whatever problems. And hard to maneuver in small or busy places.
So I arrived of a configuration of a small backpack (plan to have a wider same height) hanging under the handlebars, big double bags hanging aside the rear wheel, and wide/long (66x50x16cm) basket on top of a rear rack that is extended to the back with two triangular alu frames.
In that large basket, I keep with me a smaller and bigger backpack, an aluminium frame barebone version of a backpack, a handbag and some plastic sheets as raincover for rack and eventual bigger luggage.

*Relevant*
It all works, I've no problems riding and maneuvering with it, only that my rear tyre wears off the center away from the driveside, and that the barebone bike (no luggage at all) rides alike I constantly have to correct something, making it almost certain that something was screwed up during its production.

So you also use this brand bike in a similar fashion, is it the same model? If so, do you experience it's harder to ride straight with an unloaded bike?
What drivetrain configuration you have?

For some reason (possibly to reduce a chainline error of 10 mm (yes haha) to 5 mm), the middle of the spokes flanges of my rear wheel sits 5 mm off the middle of the frame dropouts, towards the driveside. If the wheel/spokes would be symmetrically (so not umbrella) shaped, the rear tyre would run 5 mm off the trail of the front tyre towards the driveside.
So together, seen from riderposition looking down, the rear tyre wears to the right, and runs to the left of the front wheels trail.

Does that fit or contradict eachother?

If a rear tyre runs to the left, I'd say the bike tends to changes course to the right because in effect a line connecting both wheels ground contacts biases towards the right of the frame line/direction.
Meaning the rider has to correct this by turning the handlebars and/or moving his body weight center to the left. Then the frame bends over to the left, and the rear tyre thus indeed wearing outside its center towards the left (non driveside).

Let's just suppose so, that the bikes producer/dealer would have deliberately (what else?) NOT trued the wheel so that the tyre sits in the middle of the axle ends / frame dropouts. What could have been the motivation?
See, there is another consequence of a tyre sitting 5 mm away from the frame center: the rim is also, and the hydraulic brake pads would thus also sit on different distances from their rim wall sides.
I just "measured" - had a short piece alu rail 13 mm thick. At the driveside, it fits between the side of the tyre and the frame tube, at the non driveside (left), it clearly doesn't, at least 3 mm too narrow, indicating that the rear tyre sits outside the middle towards the non driveside (left).
Why deliberately: because the rear rim has been replaced due to the crack (see the *irrelevant* section of my post) so despite that I informed the dealer the need for umbrella dishing due to the offcenter of the spokes flanges middle, the wheel with the new rim should have ALSO (just like the first/original and the spare second) been dished symmetrically.
The spare wheel that also got a rim replacement under warranty I didn't use so far so that I don't know without mounting it.
But what on earth could made them absolutely wanting to NOT dish the wheel to compensate for the different frame dropouts and spoke flanges center positions?


----------



## Notafettler (2 Feb 2020)

I ride my bike with no problems whatsoever. The previous owner road to Pakistan and south Africa on it with no problems.


----------



## silva (4 Feb 2020)

A try to understand what happened if the wheel is indeed not built (spokes) like it should (centered)
I don't know a thing about wheel building, but is there any problem that may prevent a wheel from being built like it should?
Looking back the entire story from the start, the big chainline due to the frame that is designed to allow 62 mm tyres, posed a problem during the bikes production. Probably, the "closest" achieved towards a straight chainline was initially a 10 mm off, way too much to be acceptable, so (again) likely the hub was mounted 5 mm towards the driveside in order to reduce that 10 mm to 5 mm, which was how the bike was delivered, and used until the chain wore so asymmetrical that link sections hung 45% tilted, clearly indicating something was seriously wrong.
So, the wheel should have been dished to compensate for that hub being 5 mm off the wheels mounts center.
How is this done? Through a part of the spokes at higher tension than the other part? Or by longer/shorter spokes at one side? Is there a criterium that makes the decision former or latter?


----------



## Notafettler (5 Feb 2020)

I have two Santos's travelmaster. One has done 25,000 kilometres with the same chainwheel and sprocket. Neither has stability problems. I think you talk bollocks.


----------



## silva (7 Feb 2020)

Notafettler said:


> I have two Santos's travelmaster. One has done 25,000 kilometres with the same chainwheel and sprocket. Neither has stability problems. I think you talk bollocks.


I don't care about your mileage and also don't care what you think.
I had a specific question: the hub center sits 5 mm off the frames dropout center, this should be compensated for because the rear tyre would run 5 mm aside the front tyres trail. How is this normally done, different spoke lengths left/right, or tension difference?


----------



## Shadow121 (13 Feb 2020)

silva said:


> Santos is the brand of the bike, partly mounted by a mechanic of the brand, partly mounted and sold to me by a dealer of the brand. Who of both screwed up stability, in the bike I received, I really don't care. My goal is to hunt causes of problems and solve them.
> 
> The most plausible explanation for the instability is rear tyre not lined up with front tyre.
> Fact 1: the center of the spokes flanges sits 5 mm away from the center of the frame dropouts - towards the drive side.
> ...


You should never pay for a bike until you look it over, ride it and are happy with it, then you would not have the problems you bought and paid for. The reality is the bike builder took the piss out of you and sold you rubbish that was all out of line, and you accepted it instead of getting your money back.
There is nothing you can do now other than start fresh with a bike that works.
There are plenty of people touring with weight that wouldn’t want 62mm wide wheels, why, they fit nothing
unless you mess up the frame like you ordered, and that’s why your bike is out of line.


----------



## silva (13 Feb 2020)

Shadow121 said:


> You should never pay for a bike until you look it over, ride it and are happy with it, then you would not have the problems you bought and paid for. The reality is the bike builder took the piss out of you and sold you rubbish that was all out of line, and you accepted it instead of getting your money back.
> There is nothing you can do now other than start fresh with a bike that works.
> There are plenty of people touring with weight that wouldn’t want 62mm wide wheels, why, they fit nothing
> unless you mess up the frame like you ordered, and that’s why your bike is out of line.


I was unaware at the time. Bike dealer didn't tell me. Rather the opposite: lied. One at a time, I discovered the problems the hard way. For ex the chainline, when chain parts hung tilted like 45 degrees with the dealer saying no idea why. Seen afterwards, obvious, but during the bikes production he sent me a mail that the chainline wasn't 100% straight but that they found a solution and that I needed just a little patience. 
The 62 mm tyres were given to me as 1 of 2 options, I wasn't informed about the consequences. They even name such a tyres set "vacation wheels", clearly suggesting the opposite of what you say.
And I like the 62 mm tyres. They serve as shock absorbers and done with getting stuck in rails in cities. 
Why would I not be able to do something about that stability issue? I solved the chainline.
So again my specific question:
The hub center sits 5 mm off the frames dropout center, this should be compensated for because the rear tyre would run 5 mm aside the front tyres trail. How is this normally done, different spoke lengths left/right, or tension difference?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Feb 2020)

Right spoke lengths and correct spoke tension range. You centre (Dish) the rim between the locknuts as you build it.


----------



## silva (16 Feb 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Right spoke lengths and correct spoke tension range. You centre (Dish) the rim between the locknuts as you build it.


Ofcourse right / correct, my question was if on a 27.5" wheel/tyre size a 5mm hub offcenter can be compensated for by spoke tension alone - so not requiring spokes replacement (by another length).
My motivation for this question: it's quite possible (based on the communication back then) that the rear wheel was first build with a centered hub, that subsequently was discovered as resulting in a 10 mm wrong chainline (rear cog on 6 bolt brake disc mount), which was again subsequently reduced to 5 mm, along spacers/whatever to move the hub 5 mm towards the driveside, and whoever did it didn't bother to correct the wheel to bring the tyre back to the center.

Recently (couple months), the rear rim got replaced due to failure (crack), and for reasons ungiven and untold to me either, the wheel has been shipped to the producer. I only knew because they had forgotten to remount the spacers and cog on the wheel when they told me ready to pickup, which apparently required a shipment from the NL producer of the bike, clearly proving that not their dealer replaced the rim).
Now, in aboves case, this would give them a chance to correct the wheel. I had also informed the dealer of the possible requirement for tyre centering (due to the symptoms harder to stay on a road line and the tyre wearing away from its center). I think that was the third time I asked about the problem, so far he never responded specifically.

So, if I would now know that 5 mm on this wheel size cannot be compensated for by tension difference alone, then that would support that whoever indeed didn't bother to correct the wheel centering after the chainline error reducement by hub position change.


----------

