# Front panniers



## headcoat (21 Oct 2011)

Hi

Couple of questions, I have a front suspension MB which I used last year for a tour of IoM using just rear panniers. I am now considering getting front panniers as well to help spread the load.

1. Can I use any panniers to fit on the rack or are there specific ones for the front?

2. A decent but not expensive rack (this will only be occasional use), I understand I have to take account of the suspension.

Thanks in advance


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Oct 2011)

you need something like this...

http://www.oldmanmountain.com/Merch...re_Code=O&Product_Code=1401A26&Category_Code=

...not cheap but they do the job.


----------



## willem (21 Oct 2011)

Old Man Mountain are indeed the specialists, and my OMM favourite would be the Ultimate lowrider. Personally, however, I am apprehensive about any front rack on suspension bikes. Suspension forks are just not as strong and stiff as rigid forks. Instead, I think I would recommend that you use the 150 pounds or so that you save by not having a front rack and front panniers to reduce the weight of your luggage. Your bike will handle much better, even with only 2 kg less. And don't forget: a front rack and panniers weigh 2-2.5 kg, even empty.
Willem


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Oct 2011)

I've got these - cheap; they do the job - but I don't have suspension so I don't know if they'd fit yours?

I got smaller panniers for the front - wouldn't fancy trying to steer with the amount of stuff I can cram into the big back ones


----------



## Ticktockmy (21 Oct 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> you need something like this...
> 
> http://www.oldmanmou...&Category_Code=
> 
> ...not cheap but they do the job.



Carradice are the UK dealer for Old man mountain racks. I use there sherpa on the front as I like to use Bridleways and farm track as well as tarmac roads and have had no trouble with it, whereas the LowRider hangs the panniers a tad low, meaning they hit rocks and heather and dip into the water when fording streams, it fits easly to my front suspension using a custom QR skewer supplied, and P clips. On the rear I use a cold spring rear. However, in the main I only use the rear carrier, just putting the front rack when I need to carry my full camping gear during the late autumn or early spring time.
Here is there link
http://www.carradice...e&product_id=77 

Bob G.


----------



## Crankarm (21 Oct 2011)

I have a Kona MTB with a Tubus Ergo low loader on. I have made some mounts to attach the front rack to the suspension fork. It works a treat. I was thinking of selling these mounting kits, but as soon as there are a few about some one would copy them them and rip my idea off. Patents cost ££££££ and some are worthless anyway as it costs a fortune to enforce your intellectual property rights against sheisters.

Those cheap Halfords racks do look .......... cheap


----------



## mickle (21 Oct 2011)

Suspension forks aren't designed to carry the weight of panniers. On top of the higher loads imposed through the bushes and fork bridge, hanging several kilos of dirty laundry off them screws the handling and has such a negative effect on the unsprung weight that you might as well not have suspension forks. Fit some (suspension adjusted) normal rigid steel forks like as Kona P2s - even if you only use them when you have panniers aboard, your travels will be much happier.


----------



## vernon (21 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Those cheap Halfords racks do look .......... cheap



They might look cheap but they do the job and represent great value for money.


----------



## psmiffy (22 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Suspension forks aren't designed to carry the weight of panniers. On top of the higher loads imposed through the bushes and fork bridge, hanging several kilos of dirty laundry off them screws the handling and has such a negative effect on the unsprung weight that you might as well not have suspension forks. Fit some (suspension adjusted) normal rigid steel forks like as Kona P2s - even if you only use them when you have panniers aboard, your travels will be much happier.






True they are not designed for use with panniers - but - The size of panniers that you are likely to be able hang off them will be small and therefore the weight of them (unless of course you take barbells touring with you) will be in comparisom to the riders weight and the dynamic forces that they are designed to take (unlikely to be doing much riding that max's the fork with panniers attached) will be relatively small - something like the OMM is a good choice for occasional use - I have met people on the road doing quite long tours with this set up.

Personally as Ticktockmy says I like a front rack that keeps the panniers well away from the ground - I used low riders initially but found they were too much bother if I went for "little excursions" and limited me to panniers only big enought to keep hankerchiefs in - used high rack for last 15years or so and found that if anything I liked the handling better

When I had only one bike - MTB - hardtail - It was a bit of a faff changing the forks reasonably in advance of going on tour


----------



## Ticktockmy (22 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Suspension forks aren't designed to carry the weight of panniers. On top of the higher loads imposed through the bushes and fork bridge, hanging several kilos of dirty laundry off them screws the handling and has such a negative effect on the unsprung weight that you might as well not have suspension forks. Fit some (suspension adjusted) normal rigid steel forks like as Kona P2s - even if you only use them when you have panniers aboard, your travels will be much happier.



Whilst Suspension forks are not designed for having racks and panniers fitted, most units are over engineered anyway, so they are able to cope for most normal touring requirements. With the Old man mountain front rack I have not found that problem, as the racks fit to the main body of the suspension, thus they do not effect the movement of the Suspension, the forks are free to operate the same as they do without the racks being fitted. onroad i have the suspension locked out anyway, off road then i just adjust the forks to suit the load and Ground Conditions. and after quite a few years touring now with suspension forks i have not had any problems.
Bob G.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Suspension forks aren't designed to carry the weight of panniers. On top of the higher loads imposed through the bushes and fork bridge, hanging several kilos of dirty laundry off them screws the handling and has such a negative effect on the unsprung weight that you might as well not have suspension forks. Fit some (suspension adjusted) normal rigid steel forks like as Kona P2s - even if you only use them when you have panniers aboard, your travels will be much happier.



Thanks for your concerns and criticisms.

First my bike's front rack is so mounted that it does not affect movement of the suspension or create any additional load for the suspension parts that move. The clue is in the type of front rack - low loader. So sorry to blow your criticism out the water. I can still choose whether to lock out or not lock out the fork. Agreed the low loader rack could cause clearance issues with the panniers on rough terrain but then surely this would be the same with a solid fork yes? In fact my front panniers are a couple on inches, maybe only an inch higher (26" wheel) than on my commute bike with solid fork 700C.

Second I have looked at the Kona P2 fork and was not impressed. I would not like to ride with that fork on my bike over hundreds or thousands of miles over rough roads or tracks as it doesn't seem robust enough to me - sorry. My suspension fork is soooo over engineered in comparison - Kona Kula, sorry can't remember make of fork or spec. It is far far stronger than any P2. The bridge is way above the panniers and rack. Why would one mount a front rack to the fork bridge? This would IMHO make steering and controlling the bike much harder and more tiring as the CoG is so much higher having any weight mounted much higher up.

Thirdly I don't carry several kilogrammes of dirty laundry in my front panniers. I carry it in the rear right  .

I would like to post a pic of my set up but will prefer not to just now as I am thinking of making up kits and seeing how I go. I do not want my rather simple idea being ripped off. I thought about it for quite some time and then it came to me. Way better than the expensive kits Wiggle sell which aren't half as good imho.


----------



## mickle (24 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> Thanks for your concerns and criticisms.
> 
> First *my bike's front rack is so mounted that it does not affect movement of the suspension or create any additional load for the suspension parts that move. The clue is in the type of front rack - low loader. *So sorry to blow your criticism out the water. I can still choose whether to lock out or not lock out the fork. Agreed the low loader rack could cause clearance issues with the panniers on rough terrain but then surely this would be the same with a solid fork yes? In fact my front panniers are a couple on inches, maybe only an inch higher (26" wheel) than on my commute bike with solid fork 700C.
> 
> ...



Does your rack attach to the stanchions or to the sliders?


----------



## Zoiders (24 Oct 2011)

The limpit design that clamps to the slider legs has been used by many who claim to have no real problems with them despite dire warnings to the contrary.

If I really wanted to up the carrying capacity for a bike that's sprung I would ditch the panniers and go for a trailer.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2011)

I used to be keen on a trailer but lost interest as I read so many tales where the hitch mount or welding of it to the trailer had sheared. Plus I think if you can carry all your stuff on your bike in panniers it is far easier to manouevre your bike, detach panniers and carry them up say stairs or onto a train if you absolutely have to, than having to worry about an additional trailer as well. I can see that trailers have their attractions and benefits but I am not convinced these would actually be useful to me unless you can persuade me .......

What dire warnings?


----------



## Zoiders (24 Oct 2011)

Have you read the thread?


----------



## Aushiker (25 Oct 2011)

G'day

I have ordered a Tubus Swing for my Giant XTC 2 which has front suspension. From what I have found it out this is the better design approach for carrying panniers on suspension forks.







For panniers, I will use my Ortleib Cassic Roller front panniers.

Regards
Andrew


----------



## Crankarm (25 Oct 2011)

I looked at this rack and didn't feel it was right for a number of reasons 1) The mounted bags create a very high centre of gravity which MAY adversely affect handling and ease of control of bicycle and 2) it would be adding substantially to the weight ie yours, compressing the forks.

It would be helpful if you good credit the source of your "finding out" about this rack being the better design approach for carrying panniers on suspension forks or was it Wiggle's own blurb which no doubt will be slanted to sell these racks.


----------



## Aushiker (25 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> It would be helpful if you good credit the source of your "finding out" about this rack being the better design approach for carrying panniers on suspension forks or was it Wiggle's own blurb which no doubt will be slanted to sell these racks.



As I often do when considering purchases I search around and/or ask in forums where I consider the advice may be useful. In this case my decision was based on feedback from the Surly Long Haul Truckers Owner Group IIRC and the Australian Cycling Forums. Given either my past knowledge of the members contributions and/or the depth of their comments in relation to my request for information I made made my purchasing decision which I believe will work out okay for me given my intended use. 

I am sure a Google search will bring up the discussions if you are so interested.

BTW I have a handling issue anyway, hence the wish to distribute some weight foward and (b) the comments I have seen suggest otherwise with respect to the compression. One of the reasons to go with this sort of mounting over one connected directly to the fork.

Anyway, no doubt I will find out if that is a smart move or not in due course. I doubt I can be any worse off anyway.

Regards
Andrew


----------



## hubbike (25 Oct 2011)

willem said:


> Old Man Mountain are indeed the specialists, and my OMM favourite would be the Ultimate lowrider. Personally, however, I am apprehensive about any front rack on suspension bikes. Suspension forks are just not as strong and stiff as rigid forks. Instead, I think I would recommend that you use the 150 pounds or so that you save by not having a front rack and front panniers to reduce the weight of your luggage. Your bike will handle much better, even with only 2 kg less. And don't forget: a front rack and panniers weigh 2-2.5 kg, even empty.
> Willem



The purpose of suspension is to go fast. As a tourer speed is unlikely to be a primary concern (when compared to load carrying ability and reliability). In the future you're better off with rigid front forks and tubus racks.

For now, get something cheap, get some P-clips and get on with it. if you like touring you'll invest in good kit when you get the chance.


----------



## Crankarm (25 Oct 2011)

willem said:


> Old Man Mountain are indeed the specialists, and my OMM favourite would be the Ultimate lowrider. Personally, however, I am apprehensive about any front rack on suspension bikes. Suspension forks are just not as strong and stiff as rigid forks. Instead, I think I would recommend that you use the 150 pounds or so that you save by not having a front rack and front panniers to reduce the weight of your luggage. Your bike will handle much better, even with only 2 kg less. And don't forget: a front rack and panniers weigh 2-2.5 kg, even empty.
> Willem







hubbike said:


> The purpose of suspension is to go fast. As a tourer speed is unlikely to be a primary concern (when compared to load carrying ability and reliability). In the future you're better off with rigid front forks and tubus racks.
> 
> For now, get something cheap, get some P-clips and get on with it. if you like touring *you'll invest in good kit* when you get the chance.



Didn't you realise, but Willem only buys good kit.


----------



## Bodhbh (25 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I looked at this rack and didn't feel it was right for a number of reasons 1) The mounted bags create a very high centre of gravity which MAY adversely affect handling and ease of control of bicycle



I had the Tubus Swing for a while plus sus forks. The bags are indeed quite high up. I did find switching to Kona P2s and the OMM lowrider gave better handling on the road, and tbh now the bike seems to handle even better with the front loaded heavily. But it's not like the bike was wildly uncontrollable with the Swing, they both do the job.

If bags clipping the floor is liable to be a problem, the OMM rack has 2 rails at different heights. I've never had a problem with panniers scrapping stuff the ground yet, although I use small ones up front.


----------



## mickle (25 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I looked at this rack and didn't feel it was right for a number of reasons 1) The mounted bags create a very high centre of gravity which MAY adversely affect handling and ease of control of bicycle and 2) it would be adding substantially to the weight ie yours, compressing the forks.
> 
> It would be helpful if you good credit the source of your "finding out" about this rack being *the better design approach for carrying panniers on suspension forks* or was it Wiggle's own blurb which no doubt will be slanted to sell these racks.



Google 'unsprung mass'.


----------



## vernon (25 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I looked at this rack and *didn't feel it was right* for a number of reasons 1) The mounted bags create a very high centre of gravity which *MAY* adversely affect handling and ease of control of bicycle and 2) it would be adding substantially to the weight ie yours, compressing the forks.
> 
> It would be helpful if you good credit the source of your "finding out" about this rack being the better design approach for carrying panniers on suspension forks or was it Wiggle's own blurb which no doubt will be slanted to sell these racks.



Crankarm is entitled to his unsupported opinions but he really ought to provide some evidence of his own research before demanding evidence from others.


----------



## headcoat (25 Oct 2011)

We seem to be getting differing opinions here and I am still none the wiser 

Looks like its either rigid OMM or Tubus Swing...I'm just going to have to fork (excuse the pun) out and get some then sell them if they don't feel right!

My other question which has been overlooked....will I have to get special front panniers? 

thanks


----------



## psmiffy (25 Oct 2011)

Forgive me for butting in - never used front panniers with suspension - but I have used them with a rigid fork for over 56000k
My experience is that the height is irrelavent - I use 46l or 56l panniers on a high front rack without being bothered by the handling
the size of panniers that you can use on either of the two racks you have in mind will be my my standards very small and not add that much weight to the front unsprung or otherwise - particulary in view of the fact that modern sus forks have lockouts and a high degree of adjustability wrt to stiffness
no you will need special front panniers - just small ones 


PS - Welcome back Crankarm


----------



## mickle (25 Oct 2011)

headcoat said:


> We seem to be getting differing opinions here and I am still none the wiser




Time to spell it all out then.

Leaving the specifics of suspension forks aside for a moment... There are two kinds of front pannier rack: 'normal' (where the pannier rail is at the same level as a rear rack - above the wheel) and 'low-riders' which are mounted lower on the side of the fork blade and which are sometimes connected by a stabilizing loop over the front of the wheel. On some bikes, with some racks, it's possible to use both at the same time for maximum carrying capacity.

The pro's of each type are as follows: 

'Normal' racks have greater ground clearance, provide a luggage platform which is usually used for bulky but lightweight items such as sleeping bag, carrymat/bedroll. 

'Lowrider' racks lower the centre of gravity of the load so that it sits below the steering axis of the fork. This has the benefit of weighting the steering around the straight ahead position - stabilizing the bike's handling, a good thing for long hours in the saddle.

Any significant weight added to the steering end of the bike will affect the handling. The higher the weight, the greater the tendency to wheel flop. 

Bicycle suspension - like any vehicle suspension - functions best when 'unsprung weight' is kept to a minimum. 'Sprung weight' is that part of the vehicle supported by the suspension: a car's body shell, a bike's frame. Minimising unsprung weight allows the suspension to move up and down quickly in response to the terrain. Adding a pair of panniers to the sliders of a suspension fork severely limits their ability to react. 

In addition, steering a pair of panniers attached to a rigid fork there is a direct connection between the handlebar grips and the rack via the bars, stem and steerer. However rigid a sus fork manufacturer tries to make their fork - for the purposes of steering precision - the stanchions and sliders are separate components. Steering a pair of heavy bags puts undue load on this connection. They just aren't designed for it. 

So. To sum up, if you require good clearance for occasional forays off road your best bet is a fork crown mounted rack of the kind pictured above. 

My preference would be low-riders bolted to a rigid fork.


----------



## psmiffy (25 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> My preference would be low-riders bolted to a rigid fork.



I do not think that anyone has suggested that it is a perfect arrangement - but a good enough workround for occasional use


My preference is a high rack on a good quality rigid fork


----------



## mickle (25 Oct 2011)

psmiffy said:


> I do not think that anyone has suggested that it is a perfect arrangement ....



Have you read the thread?


----------



## psmiffy (25 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> Have you read the thread?




Yes - and having reviewed it again nowhere has anyone suggested that it would be a perfect arrangement, the words - occasional use, apprehensive, In the future you're better off with rigid front forks and tubus racks, etc, et al seem to be prevalent


----------



## mickle (25 Oct 2011)

psmiffy said:


> Yes - and having reviewed it again nowhere has anyone suggested that it would be a perfect arrangement, the words - occasional use, apprehensive, In the future you're better off with rigid front forks and tubus racks, etc, et al seem to be prevalent





Crankarm said:


> I have a Kona MTB with a Tubus Ergo low loader on. I have made some mounts to attach the front rack to the suspension fork. _It works a treat_. ....


----------



## psmiffy (25 Oct 2011)

even Crankarm does not say it is perfect - some German geezers I met in Lithuania with hardtails and OMM racks had come over a 1000ks using theirs - but were given to admire my Nitto front rack on rigid forks - it works - it is a solution


----------



## willem (25 Oct 2011)

The Tubus Swing's name is aptly chosen.




It is a design that is a rip off of a similar but better design by Dutch frame builder m-gineering. The difference with the original is that the Tubus design is more universal and can be used with many more forks, but at the price of the bags being in a more forward position. And it is that forward position rather than the high centre of gravity that makes the bike less than stable.
So it is either the Swing with only light bags, or some unsprung OMM rack in a better position, or the third possibility, the expensive and complex FAIV rack, that combines a sprung design with a low centre of gravity, but at the expense of added complexity, more maintenance, and a high price.
As I said, there is also the option of taking less weight if you must use a suspension fork. After all, you take a bike with a suspension fork because you want to ride off road. Riding off road benefits enormously from a nimble lightly loaded bike.
Willem


----------



## Bodhbh (25 Oct 2011)

headcoat said:


> We seem to be getting differing opinions here and I am still none the wiser
> 
> thanks



You don't need to browse cycling forums for long to notice you will get wildy different and often diametrically opposing views from people who have years of experience and know what they are doing but come to opposite conclusions (not like me, I picked up a bike first time about 4yrs ago, although gradually working out what seems to go for me). Kickstands, front panniers, disk brakes, tarps and hammocks, steel vs aluminium, etc are all liable to flair up into flame wars.

Personally I'd go with lowrider + rigid forks. Sus forks I've never missed since not using them, but I'm sure they've not killed anyone either. God knows I've seen people touring and having a whale of a time on some absolute piles of crap that no one in their right mind would suggest using if had the chance. My first tour was on a rented city bike with 40L mountaineering backpack to take the luggage. 60miles a day with a bit of backache, but I enjoyed it so much every holiday or trip since has been on the bike.


----------



## hubbike (25 Oct 2011)

OP has bike with front susp. and wanted a cheap solution.

I've met many guys out on the road with homemade panniers, bodged together racks, riding godawful bikes. Mainly because they were poor and just had drive and adventurous spirit.

like these guys
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27474601@N07/4569193047/in/set-72157623079723074
this dude
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27474601@N07/4774908389/in/set-72157623079723074
this guy
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27474601@N07/4228673437/in/set-72157623079723074
these nutters
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27474601@N07/4216268900/in/set-72157623079723074
and this madman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27474601@N07/5158211553

(and if you want to see photos of more cyclists and bikes see here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27474601@N07/sets/72157623079723074/)

I suppose my point is that you CAN tour with a cheap bike, dodgy cheap racks, and a pair of cheap bags held on with bungies. And all power to you. Gear is fairly over-rated. If you want to go, then go. whatever you have will do.

that said, if you are prepared to invest the money, and you are serious about touring, IMHO you want rigid forks and lowriders (even if you're planning to tour off-road).

If you are really serious about off-roading then you should read this: 
http://tomsbiketrip.com/2010/04/how-to-build-the-perfect-expedition-bike-part-1/


----------



## Aushiker (26 Oct 2011)

Hi

Another rack option is the Freeload from New Zealand. Not cheap but. 



> _Designed to accept panniers and handle longer top loads with ease, this rack features adjustable 10mm side rails and a flat deck. It is identical to the Sport rack in every way other than the deck.
> 
> Re-positionable 10mm rails give you up to 75mm of fore/aft adjustment - vital for gaining valuable heel clearance on mountain bikes with tight geometry in the rear end, and handy when you want to bring your load closer to the bikes centre of gravity on the front end._ _
> The rail end plugs let you clamp your pannier hooks in place to stop annoying rattles, and keep them from sliding back and forth.
> Our modular design means you can change between decks at a moments notice, no tools required._








Regards
Andrew


----------



## Crankarm (26 Oct 2011)

psmiffy said:


> even Crankarm does not say it is perfect - some German geezers I met in Lithuania with hardtails and OMM racks had come over a 1000ks using theirs - but were given to admire my Nitto front rack on rigid forks - it works - it is a solution



I think I may have given that impression in my excitement! For sure it is not perfect. If mounting a low loader rack such as a Tubus Ergo on a suspension fork is not as perilous as mickle suggests then I think it works pretty well. The only issue I can forsee is maybe ground clearance but as I say the front panniers when fitted are slightly higher than when mounted on my low loader rack on my solid fork commuter bike which I write about below. Mickle and a few others all point to others' anecdotal evidence to support their assertions that mounting panniers like this is not good. I have tried to approach the task to mount panniers as logically as possible arriving at a solution that suits me. I take the point about increasing unsprung weight but using examples from vehicles - ie cars, is I think a little misleading as cars have much greater forces and speeds involved. On a bicycle if you want to carry weight in my mind it is best to carry it in as lower position as possible notwithstanding the other considerations I have mentioned.

It would be nice to have bosses on suspension forks as do some rigid front racks. Just to point out I would think MTB front suspension forks aren't designed to carrying any luggage or racks of what ever flavour. It is difficult to imagine a MTB racing around a course with luggage on front or rear! Yes ideally a solid fork with bosses to mount a front rack, ideally low loader, is the most favourable option but my commuter/touring bike was totalled earlier in the year. It and me met with a car, so for now I modify my MTB which already has a rear rack fitted but which now also has a front rack. The other thing that I was concerned about in where to mount a front rack was the range of sprung weight the front fork was designed to operate between. I am of average weight, plus a few kilos since I have not been doing any cycling really, and to add more than a few kilos with front panniers may well overload the fork because too much weight would be compressing it compromising performance ie travel, bounce rebound etc and of course much reduce longevity. However as previously suggested my use is not going to be steaming around a cyclocross course which must in itself put quite extreme forces through the fork.

I have not had the chance to put the current set up to extreme test but first impressions, loaded with front panniers and riding on fairly smooth tracks is that it works pretty well. The fork on my Kona Kula MTB is pretty hardcore, not some flimsy crappy one you see on some BSOs and appears very over engineered. In normal riding ie road the extra weight of the front panniers will be born by the front axle not the shock absorber itself. The front low loader is mounted to the casing and not the internal shaft or bridge higher up. I cannot see any major disadvantages at present, sorry mickle. Tyres are Marathon XR if you are wanting to know what they. The bike has hydraulic disc brakes. I also have a mount fitted for a bar bag. Does this commit an offence mickle?

Yes you do hear of other cyclists setting off on real BSOs and cobbling together various luggage carrying systems of not the mainstream quality kit we are all familiar with and many do just fine, so as some one has suggested, there is quite a bit of snobbery and probably inverted envy as well. They probably have more fun and adventures than some of us chaps who have acquired all the brand kit you "must have". Each to their own. If you like it and feel it works for you then go for it. 


Psmiffy thanks for the welcome back. I had a break for a while following my forced unseating. I have been lurking recently though and gradually replying to more stuff. I still haven't got back to riding regularly though preferring to prepare for riding in cycling nirvana where ever that might be - a long weekend on Welsh trails?


----------



## Crankarm (26 Oct 2011)

hubbike said:


> OP has bike with front susp. and wanted a cheap solution.
> 
> I've met many guys out on the road with homemade panniers, bodged together racks, riding godawful bikes. Mainly because they were poor and just had drive and adventurous spirit.
> 
> ...




I am struggling to find why you think the cyclists in the links you posted are "nutters" or "madmen or madwomen" riding "Godawful bikes". All but the last guy, who looks as if he is South American but still doing the touring thing so top marks to him and another bike, are riding fairly decent bikes or old style MTBs with the ubiquitous Ortlieb panniers and Tubus racks or similar. The "nutters" link are several young guys riding UTE bikes which I happen to think is pretty cool, not some thing I have ever considered or even tried or would, but each to their own. All these people look to be having an excellent time touring and I am bemused that you feel the need for disparaging remarks. Sorry.


----------



## albion (26 Oct 2011)

I'd certainly say there is a heck of a lot of adventure in anyone making their own panniers and racks.


----------



## Ticktockmy (26 Oct 2011)

I think we must have left the OP, totally baffled by all the different views and likes and dislikes, that we have put forward. I think he will have to end up doing what we have all done, and allow time and experiment to find what setup suits him and his riding style best.

I must say I find the arguments against using a suspension forks a little baffling. For years I used a “proper Touring Bike” if there is such a thing, then just days before setting of on a tour of Morocco the frame snapped just above the BB, which on hindsight was a stroke of luck. So the MTB was brought in to play, which had Suspension forks on it and this was 2001, so not so good as the modern ones. After some heavy engineering work making brackets to fit my racks to the Bike, I had a very successful trip, with no problems from the racks or the suspension and handling related problems.

Since then, I have always used a Mountain Bike fitted with Suspension. I find that by fitting the Front rack to the bottom section of the forks and like Crankarm said the weight is taken on the Front axle, and we are only talking a load of 10KG at the most. Last year I cycled down from Durness to Carlisle carrying my camping kit, using minor back roads and Landover tracks and some singletrack and had no problems indeed I think the Front suspension saved my wrists from taking a battering on the off road sections.

But of course what suits one person, will not suit another, I am concerned that the Racks that clamp on the crown assembly will put strain on to the Sliders and the seals and cause the suspension to bounce excessively which offroad and indeed on road lead to lose of control.


----------



## willem (26 Oct 2011)

I would like to add a little bit of factual information. It was said here that with the OMM Ultimate Lowrider the bags hang pretty low. That was indeed true until recently. However, the current version is vertically adjustable.
Willem


----------



## hubbike (26 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I am struggling to find why you think the cyclists in the links you posted are "nutters" or "madmen or madwomen" riding "Godawful bikes". All but the last guy, who looks as if he is South American but still doing the touring thing so top marks to him and another bike, are riding fairly decent bikes or old style MTBs with the ubiquitous Ortlieb panniers and Tubus racks or similar. The "nutters" link are several young guys riding UTE bikes which I happen to think is pretty cool, not some thing I have ever considered or even tried or would, but each to their own. All these people look to be having an excellent time touring and I am bemused that you feel the need for disparaging remarks. Sorry.



Crankarm, seriously. My remarks were in jest! You've missed my point by 180 degrees. If you re-read you'll realise I think these guys are inspiring and I have the utmost respect for them. My remarks were not disparaging at all. 

I chose pictures of poor quality racks, poor quality panniers and poor quality bikes (with dodgy and unnecessary front susp.) precisely to illustrate what can be achieved *without* Gucci kit. There is no tubus or ortlieb to be seen in the shots (of ecuadorians, a frenchman, an italian and a colombian.) Old style mountain bikes are so rugged and hardy they'll take one hell of a battering and are ideal for touring (if you don't have the cash for something better). 


The Ride the Spine lads won't mind being called nutters. (because they are!) and Carlos is a madman. whether he likes it or not.


----------



## mickle (26 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I think I may have given that impression in my excitement! For sure it is not perfect. If mounting a low loader rack such as a Tubus Ergo on a suspension fork is not as perilous as mickle suggests then I think it works pretty well. The only issue I can forsee is maybe ground clearance but as I say the front panniers when fitted are slightly higher than when mounted on my low loader rack on my solid fork commuter bike which I write about below. Mickle and a few others all point to others' anecdotal evidence to support their assertions that mounting panniers like this is not good. I have tried to approach the task to mount panniers as logically as possible arriving at a solution that suits me. I take the point about increasing unsprung weight but using examples from vehicles - ie cars, is I think a little misleading as cars have much greater forces and speeds involved. On a bicycle if you want to carry weight in my mind it is best to carry it in as lower position as possible notwithstanding the other considerations I have mentioned.
> 
> It would be nice to have bosses on suspension forks as do some rigid front racks. Just to point out I would think MTB front suspension forks aren't designed to carrying any luggage or racks of what ever flavour. It is difficult to imagine a MTB racing around a course with luggage on front or rear! Yes ideally a solid fork with bosses to mount a front rack, ideally low loader, is the most favourable option but my commuter/touring bike was totalled earlier in the year. It and me met with a car, so for now I modify my MTB which already has a rear rack fitted but which now also has a front rack. The other thing that I was concerned about in where to mount a front rack was the range of sprung weight the front fork was designed to operate between. I am of average weight, plus a few kilos since I have not been doing any cycling really, and to add more than a few kilos with front panniers may well overload the fork because too much weight would be compressing it compromising performance ie travel, bounce rebound etc and of course much reduce longevity. However as previously suggested my use is not going to be steaming around a cyclocross course which must in itself put quite extreme forces through the fork.
> 
> ...



You've got no call getting snippy with me mister. Ride a full BSO with a rucksack and a wicker basket if you want, I'm simply trying to explain best practice.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Oct 2011)

Ticktockmy said:


> I think we must have left the OP, totally baffled by all the different views and likes and dislikes, that we have put forward. I think he will have to end up doing what we have all done, and allow time and experiment to find what setup suits him and his riding style best.
> 
> I must say I find the arguments against using a suspension forks a little baffling. For years I used a “proper Touring Bike” if there is such a thing, then just days before setting of on a tour of Morocco the frame snapped just above the BB, which on hindsight was a stroke of luck. So the MTB was brought in to play, which had Suspension forks on it and this was 2001, so not so good as the modern ones. After some heavy engineering work making brackets to fit my racks to the Bike, I had a very successful trip, with no problems from the racks or the suspension and handling related problems.
> 
> ...



+1.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Oct 2011)

mickle said:


> You've got no call getting snippy with me mister. Ride a full BSO with a rucksack and a wicker basket if you want, I'm simply trying to explain best practice.



I think some people prefer to take a contrary stance just for the sake of it or because they can. What best practice?


----------



## mickle (27 Oct 2011)

Crankarm said:


> I think some people prefer to take a contrary stance just for the sake of it or because they can. What best practice?



wibble


----------



## headcoat (27 Oct 2011)

It's decided, after reading the helpful (and not so helpful threads




) I am going for the OMM Ultimate Lowrider, just need to find it cheaper that £84





I don't think clearance is an issue as I won't really be going off road, apart from the odd dirt track, or when getting lost! 

I agree that no suspension may be better, but up to know I will only be doing this type of trip once a year for at max 7 days, so don't really want to get another bike!


----------



## vernon (27 Oct 2011)

You appear to have two choices:

SJS Cycles at £83.99 when they have them in stock

or

Carradice at £84


----------

