Touring - Bruce Gordon lowrider rack on Independent Fabrication Independence

Hello

I just got my brand spanking new, very pretty IF Steel Independence bike and while I requested that the front rack mounts be for Bruce Gordon racks I'm not sure that that happened. So now I have to get a new front rack and probably packs too as the packs were Robert Beckman made for Bruce Gordon.

But - it got me to wondering...IF states that it can do Bruce Gordon low rider mounts or regular low rider mounts but the BG website says that the BG lowrider can fit almost any bike. I'm not so sure about that. Any thoughts?

The bike that the low rider rack came off of was a Bruce Gordon BLT. And the place for fork attachment appears to be about an inch higher than on my new bike.

The new bike has the fork mount at 6.5 in. above the eyelet near the hub.

Just looking for some insight on this matter.

Thanks.

in theory Blackburn's 6.5 inches is the standard. In reality the measurement tends to be all over the place. IIRC Bruce's mounts for his bikes was always a little higher on the fork. I don't know if he is doing that differently now or not. However since IF says it can do the fork mounts two different ways I think IF may have screwed up. The good news is that the racks are made from tubular Chromoly steel and can be modified to fit the 6.5" span by brazing on a new mounting tab a bit lower on the rack.Bruce Gordon or IF should be capable of doing that. Have you contacted IF yet?

in theory Blackburn's 6.5 inches is the standard. In reality the measurement tends to be all over the place. IIRC Bruce's mounts for his bikes was always a little higher on the fork. I don't know if he is doing that differently now or not. However since IF says it can do the fork mounts two different ways I think IF may have screwed up. The good news is that the racks are made from tubular Chromoly steel and can be modified to fit the 6.5" span by brazing on a new mounting tab a bit lower on the rack.Bruce Gordon or IF should be capable of doing that. Have you contacted IF yet?

In all honesty, I don't think IF got the instructions to do the Bruce Gordon rack mount. The bike is great.

I will look into getting a new mounting tab brazed on. It may just be easier to get a new rack for the IF and keep the old BG rack on the BG bike and build it up.

I had basically the same issue with my lowrider BG rack (best racks on the planet) on my Trek 520. I added some aluminum tabs to the racks mounting home to make it fit my fork.
I'll try to remember and get some pics posted here.
Best, John

[QUOTE=Nif]Hello

I just got my brand spanking new, very pretty IF Steel Independence bike and while I requested that the front rack mounts be for Bruce Gordon racks I'm not sure that that happened. So now I have to get a new front rack and probably packs too as the packs were Robert Beckman made for Bruce Gordon.

But - it got me to wondering...IF states that it can do Bruce Gordon low rider mounts or regular low rider mounts but the BG website says that the BG lowrider can fit almost any bike. I'm not so sure about that. Any thoughts?


First let me say that I think IF makes great stuff. That said - If you ordered the braze-ons for a Bruce Gordon Low Rider, and they put them on at the wrong point, then demand that they make you a new fork. They can certainly use the fork you got on a bike that did not request Bruce Gordon Racks.
You should not have to compromise because they made a mistake. I'm sure they will solve the problem for you.

Regards,
Bruce Gordon
Bruce Gordon Cycles
www.bgcycles.com

[QUOTE=Nif]Hello

First let me say that I think IF makes great stuff. That said - If you ordered the braze-ons for a Bruce Gordon Low Rider, and they put them on at the wrong point, then demand that they make you a new fork. They can certainly use the fork you got on a bike that did not request Bruce Gordon Racks.
You should not have to compromise because they made a mistake. I'm sure they will solve the problem for you.

Regards,
Bruce Gordon
Bruce Gordon Cycles
www.bgcycles.com

Thanks Bruce - I thought that you might pop up. I was trying to find out what the differences were between BG rack mounts and other rack mounts and I think that it's a difference of ~1" in the placement of the mounts. Is this correct?

For the record - I'm pretty sure that IF did not screw up! I think that they just weren't told by the bike shop about my request. We are still trying to determine where the wires got crossed. I'm trying not to be negative about any of the experience while doing the research to figure out how to fix the problem.

The bike shop as acknowledged the mistake and we are trying to figure out what to do as I leave in 3 weeks and either:
A) need a new fork or
B) need a new rack and packs as I got the Beckman packs to fit the BG rack.

I'd like to use my BG rack, as it is a great rack, and do not want to rig it to the bike as I will be going on some pretty rough conditions.

Hey Nif,

Just curious - why aren't you riding the BG BLT?

Hey Nif,

Just curious - why aren't you riding the BG BLT?

Well mostly because...

I talked to a bunch of people about wheel size for mostly off road touring and the consensus was 26" vs 700. After thinking about where I was going to be (Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile) and the fact that I was potentially going to be solo I made the decision to try to find a 26" wheel bike. After trying to find an available Koga Miyata I was bummed to find that there was almost no way to test ride one. They had to be bought and ordered. I wasn't comfortable with that so I did the math and figured I could spend a little more and get a custom bike. More research. Decided that IF had a good rep, and there was a local bike shop that I could order through. So I went for it. The BG has had many of the parts stripped and I will get it built up for my husband and use it for myself for more road based touring.

And who can resist the opportunity for a new bike?

You've got the answer from the guy (i.e. Mr. Gordon himself).

His measurement page (http://bgcycles.com/racksiz.html) is rather clear about the position of a braze-on: 7.5 inches above the dropout eyelet.

When he says that the racks can be installed on almost any bike, his "standard" installation practice calls for sturdy rubberized P-clamps at that point. It means that the rack may fit on almost any bike regardless of the shape of the fork, position of the supplied braze-ons (or lack thereof, etc.). When I got my racks last January, I had two sets of clamps of slightly different diametre, so that even if my measurement was off by 1 mm, the rack would fit anyway. The clamps supplied have black coating on them, and since they are mostly hidden by the rack frame, they are not too obvious. I have absolutely no problems with them on my deep blue 520 and they don't look out of place on my tropical green tandem. Still, I don't think I would like to see them on a white or flashy yellow I.F., especially if I had ordered it with custom braze-ons.

Why not just order the chromoly mountain Bike Rack from Bruce. Seems like a more practical design with rack space on top for bulky items like pineapples or sleeping bags. That way you have two of his racks for whatever kind of riding or rigging you ultimately prefer. Since the MTB rack doesn't use the fork eyelets it's a moot point. you can sort out the fork tragedy as time permits.

I second PeterPan on using the BG Mountain Rack. I have been using one almost since their introduction years ago. It solved my problem of low rider panniers striking rocks offroad and tearing out the bottoms and/or causing crashes on narrow trails.
This problem first happened in 1986-87 in the Andes of Ecuador for me in pumice fields on Chimborazo at 5000 meters. Ecuador was one of my favorite countries in South America- a microcosm of the continent.

I remember climbing several thousand feet up from a deep river canyon feeling great on my high tech mountain bike when I was passed by an Ecuadorian on a one speed bike piled high with wire cages filled with chickens headed for the market in Quito.The bike commuter rapidly passed me with a smile on his face and a hearty Buenos Dias. Any hubris I carried about myself, my country or biking prowess was relegated to their proper place-the trash.
Have a great trip. The Gordon racks and Beckman Panniers will serve you well as they have for me over the last almost 20 years.

I second PeterPan on using the BG Mountain Rack. I have been using one almost since their introduction years ago. It solved my problem of low rider panniers striking rocks offroad and tearing out the bottoms and/or causing crashes on narrow trails.
...
Have a great trip. The Gordon racks and Beckman Panniers will serve you well as they have for me over the last almost 20 years.

PeterPan and Arctos -

This is a great idea! I have just called and left a message with Bruce to see if A) The Beckman packs will fit on the mtb rack vs the lowrider racks and if so then B) How long would it take to get a rack.

I'm on the edge of running out of time and the bike shop seems willing to work with me.

I also can't make out from the pictures how the BG mtb rack attaches to the frame besides at the eyelet near the hub, but I will try to talk to Bruce today.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

Nif

As I recall the BG/RBD combo of the BLT vintage works with the high and low front racks.

Trust my memory but Verify with Bruce- Almighty!

As I recall the BG/RBD combo of the BLT vintage works with the high and low front racks.

Trust my memory but Verify with Bruce- Almighty!

Talked to Bruce and...

The mtn rack would work with the rear RB packs but not my existing RB front packs.

Either I get a new fork or I get a BG mtn rack which doesn't depend on the mount location & Ortlieb packs.

Will post about how the bike store handles this.

Another option is to just run the Ortliebs in the front on the MTB rack. I sense that getting the right rig is more important on a long trip like this one than a cheap fix, but the reality is that you probably don't need all your packs to be super waterproof, or super organizeable, but a little of both would probably be fine. I sometimes feel as though the Beckman are overcomplicated, and others have said that the Ortliebs can be too waterproof with difficulties getting stuff dried out in humid conditions.

The only problem with mix and match is that I personally tend to carry dense stuff up front since, at least my front paniers are rather small and dense stuff like pots, cans, tools, doesn't need to be all that dry, usually. But Ortliebs are bigger so maybe this isn't an issue, it would depend on how you like to pack.

I think of it like a canoe trip where I want to keep some stuff in dry packs but other stuff like day packs, or climbing gear for a sidetrip to the Cirque of the Unclimbables, is not required to be waterproof.

Or your idea of all Ortlieb is a good one too. I personally like a big bag with net sacks to keep stuff organized.

Give Bob Beckman a call. He may have a solution for modifying the pannier mounting to work with the min rack.

The only problem with mix and match is that I personally tend to carry dense stuff up front since, at least my front paniers are rather small and dense stuff like pots, cans, tools, doesn't need to be all that dry, usually. But Ortliebs are bigger so maybe this isn't an issue, it would depend on how you like to pack.

Or your idea of all Ortlieb is a good one too. I personally like a big bag with net sacks to keep stuff organized.

Howdy -

I don't think I said it right in the last post.

1) Keeping the BG rear rack and the RB rear packs (although the RB rear packs will fit on the BG mtn front rack)
2) Want for strength, the BG mtn front rack and Ortlieb front packs

The net sacks are a great idea too.

The low rider can be rigged to fit on the mounts that I have but I want a rock solid connection on the rack because that is what I asked for and rack connections breaking is the last thing I want to be worrying about in the middle of nowhere Bolivia (or wherever I head to in the future).

Also - will call Beckmen back today - he responed to emails I sent a day or so ago.

Thanks for the continued suggestions!

So after various permutations...

The bike shop has contacted IF and I believe my fork will be sent back to have additional holes put in it to meet the specs of the BG low-rider rack.

How does that sound?

Will the fork be as strong with two mount holes - an inch apart?

Oh yeah, the existing rack mount is not just a braze on eyelet - it goes all the way through the fork.

I put in a call to IF, but as it's the Memorial Day weekend I won't hear anything until Tuesday.

I figure that the existing mount can stay there - no need to grind off as there is a hole in the fork anyway that cannot be filled in. Keep the options open.

So now - depending on what IF says I have three options:

1) Existing fork gets additional mount and is made to look new and pretty
2) Get BG mountain front rack and Ortlieb packs
3) Get new fork

At this point I don't want a new fork - as the cost of a new fork and the cost of racks/packs for the bike shop are probably about the same.

I don't mind this "add-a-hole" option as long as I can be guaranteed that it will not fail under the weight and road conditions.

Happy long weekend.

If IF says it's OK, it's OK. These guys are some of the best in the business.

Jay

I have only made a few forks for myself so I have no experince with whether two through mounts an inch apart are going to be structuraly sound. if IF says it will work and they will guarantee it ...

But before spending $350 plus for either a new fork or a new rack and bag, Why not first ask Bruce if he can build you one of his lowrider racks to fit your 6.5" spacing and still accept the Beckman bags I would think that would be the most economically sensible solution.

When you are just riding along on the road with you loads going more or less straight down and up then the holes in the fork are in the "neutral plane", exactly where you would want them. Your weight on the bike cause the underside of the fork to come under tension and the top to come under compression. The neutral plane is where neither force is present. And extreme version of what can be done with this phenomenon, is the tubes your bike is built with the neutral plane would be right were the tube is hollow.

When you lean the bike, the outside of the fork comes under compression or tension, and the presence of those holes is right where those loads ought to be taken. The good news, though, is that in this axis the two forks are working together so rather than a structure where the top is 19mm apart form the bottom, here you have two full tubes separated by 100 mm, less were the holes are. That kind of spread adds strength to the square of the separation, or in this case it could be 25 times stronger, not even counting the fact there is a whole tube out there.

I'm not an engineer and can't tell you it's good or it isn't good, but the structural concept is pretty reassuring. You can see Harleys with I-beam front fork blades where the whole shear web is drilled out. I wouldn't worry about it.

The other issue is how closely together the holes are spaced. I don't know the issues there, but it is real common to see lightening holes, for instance in aircraft web structures that are spaced a radius or two apart. Here you have something closer to 5 radii. sounds good to me.

What whether do you expect, Michelle, when you get down there?

The other issue is how closely together the holes are spaced. I don't know the issues there, but it is real common to see lightening holes, for instance in aircraft web structures that are spaced a radius or two apart. Here you have something closer to 5 radii. sounds good to me.

What whether do you expect, Michelle, when you get down there?

I like this multi-brain thing of the forums.

The mechanics describe by PeterPan1 sound sound. I have an engineering background, but have forgotten all of my Mechanics & Dynamics - lets' just say the education gave me enough info to know when to ask questions and to question the answers if necessary.

When I hear it from IF's mouth (i.e. when they return my phone call after the holiday weekend) I will feel better. I would like them to understand the load and the worst case road conditions (unpaved with little boulders strewn everywhere).

Since I'm not paying for anything - it's the bike shop's mistake (we've at least figured that out) - I just want it resolved. I'm also trying to make it clear to the bike shop that if a "fixed" fork is structurally sound - that it is probably the cheapest, quickest and best solution. I don't want to force the issue with a new fork as why bother if the fixed one works and a new fork and new rack/packs will cost them about the same I imagine. Wrong holes and new rack/packs could be a blessing in disguise.

Oh - and I'm Nif - the goofy one holding up the crab and wearing glasses :). Michelle is a friend of mine.

Sorry, I thought all the pictures were the same, time to start wearing my glasses!


Oops weather, not whether.

Sorry, I thought all the pictures were the same, time to start wearing my glasses!


Oops weather, not whether.

The weather - I forgot to answer that part. I think I'll be sort of in Spring/Fall like weather the whole way. In the Andes it will be 60's to 70's F during the day and down to 30's and maybe lower at night. By the time I get to Ushuaia (sp) I will definately be in their Spring (unless I get there in November) which may be late winter.

I have layers for everything, a 3 season tent and a 20deg bag and think (and hope) that I will miss any snowstorms, but if they come, they come and hopefully I will be indoor somewhere!

I used the avg temp from a bunch of guidebooks and used the "travel planner" thing on http://www.wunderground.com It's very handy - gives 5 years or so of weather data on many cities worldwide.

Just to let everyone know how this turned out...

First - thank you everyone for the kind offers - they really made me feel like someone had my back and I appreciate that.:D

I dropped the bike off at the shop on Saturday with a letter stating that absolutely nothing was to be done until I heard it from the horse's mouth (IF) that the fork would be just as strong with two holes as it was with one. The bike shop called IF to see about drilling this other hole, and after speaking with IF today they decided to make me a new fork.

The fork should show up this Saturday and they mentioned something about a discount - not for me to buy the new fork, but off the original price. Fine by me.

I'm not sure why exactally they choose to suck up the cost of a new fork rather than just get me a rack and packs, but it solves the problem. Everything just got way too complicated.

Now I'm back where I should have been a week or two ago with a clean slate and I can put this all behind me with the knowledge that I learned a hell of a lot about racks and packs and forks (oh my) and that there is a very supportive touring community out there.

I'm excited and there is so much left to do not the least of which is to ride the thing loaded and figure out the packing. I will be mapping the route with a GPS and posting Google Earth kml files on the website. At least I will try to do this.

Glad it's working out. This way the bike you get is no compromise with the original vision, and that has to be IF's concern also. No half-measures.

Good luck getting the bike set up and on the road.