Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Designed for a handlebar bag?

I've seen a number of discussions about handlebar bags where someone has commented that some bikes are designed for a handlebar bag, and some aren't. I've seen lots of bike advertisements, and never seen copy that says "designed for a handlebar bag" or "not designed for a handlebar bag".

So what exactly constitues "designed for a handlebar bag"? If I'm looking at a bike, how do I know if it is suitable for carrying a handlebar bag? I'm assuming it probably has a lot to do with the headtube angle and the fork rake, but can someone describe exactly what measurements would be right?

Thanks,

Keith

i'm foggy on the details of the geometry, but i think it's covered in this randon thread (http://groups.google.com/group/randon/browse_thread/thread/278576fa4013ce49/d01860245134ee3b?lnk=gst&q=rake#d01860245134ee3b).

The thread linked above will give you some info (Jan Heine has done much testing and consequent editorializing on the subject via Bicycle Quarterly) and I'll try to give the condensed version here.

Generally, a bike "built for a hbar bag" will have low trail. This usually means above average fork rake, resulting in trail somewhere around 45 mm. The other thing to consider is where the bag sits. Most touring type bags sit high on the front -- up between the brake levers -- attached to the handlebars.

The classic randonneur "handlebar bag," by contrast, is designed to rest on a special front rack that just clears the front wheel/mudguard and is stabilized by a "decaleur" attached to the stem. This keeps the weight lower.

The problem with the combination of modern bags and high trail bikes is that, well into a long distance ride, it becomes increasingly difficult to counteract wheel flop caused by a heavy bag situated high on the steering axis.

Most road bikes are made with relatively high trail, which makes them stable at high cornering speeds ... until you put a load on the front.

I have compromised on my Bleriot (http://www.veloweb.ca/mybikepages/blerioso.html), which has trail of 60mm, by keeping my bar bag (http://www.veloweb.ca/tourpages/bikebags.html#randobags) small and making sure it is snug down on a randonneur rack (http://www.veloweb.ca/garagepages/vo_rackinstall.html). It works well with tyres up to 42 mm (presently the best 650b tyre copied from the classic demi balloon tyres of the 20s). A bike built specifically for wider tyres and bigger front loads would preferably have the kind of trail mentioned above. Such geometry was perfected decades ago by the French constructeurs who built the kind of long-distance bikes recently making a comeback.

They are wonderful to ride; especially on rough roads.

Here's a trail calculator. (http://kogswell.com/geoSLIDE.php)

I recently purchased a new handlebar bag. It was made for 26mm bars, not 31.8mm like mine. I have a 'cross bike and I was still able to fit it snug and even. I have my 'cross levers angled down and the bag doesn't get in the way.

I can mount the angle of the bag up or down. Have a look here (http://flickr.com/photos/9320902@N04/3213808168/).

I've seen a number of discussions about handlebar bags where someone has commented that some bikes are designed for a handlebar bag, and some aren't. I've seen lots of bike advertisements, and never seen copy that says "designed for a handlebar bag" or "not designed for a handlebar bag". I can't add more to the information posted by mattm and Randochap except to link this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdJqzea1jco) which shows someone riding a Kogswell Porteur/Randonneur with a loaded handlebar bag on a no hands descent down the Cascades.

Previously, I had believed that putting a handlebar bag on any bike was going to lead to excessive wheel flop and decreased stability, but that video was pretty convincing evidence of how wrong I was to think that.

One rule of thumb: if it's in stock at a bike shop, it's not designed to carry a bar bag. In general, you're looking for low trail, usually the result of a moderate (73-ish degrees) head angle and lots of fork rake (6cm, give or take). Unfortunately, none of the mainstream bike mfrs build anything like that these days.

SP
Bend, OR

I can't add more to the information posted by mattm and Randochap except to link this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdJqzea1jco) which shows someone riding a Kogswell Porteur/Randonneur with a loaded handlebar bag on a no hands descent down the Cascades.

Previously, I had believed that putting a handlebar bag on any bike was going to lead to excessive wheel flop and decreased stability, but that video was pretty convincing evidence of how wrong I was to think that.

Even without a perfectly constructed, super low-trail rig, a proper bag (like my Berthoud) of modest size will work fine, as long as the centre of gravity is kept low on a rando rack. That's the trick.

You can see the same kind of stability in the video of my commute on this page (http://www.veloweb.ca/bikommute.html). I can even make tight turns no-handed.

Thanks for all of the answers.

I 've got a Miyata 210 ("two-ten"), either an '84 or '85. I just found an online copy of the '84 catalog that has a nice side picture of the 210, so I imported the picture into Visio, rotated it so that the line between the axles is at 0 degrees, then did some measurement. It looks like a 73 degree headtube angle. Assuming that the tire diameter is 684mm (based on 27x 1 1/8 tires as stated in the catalog, and Sheldon Brown's cyclocomputer calibration chart (http://sheldonbrown.com/cyclecomputer-calibration.html)), I came up with a scaling factor, then measured the fork offset as 62.3mm and the trail as 38.6mm. The Kogswell calculator comes up with 40mm (for 686, 62, 73), so my measurements are probably about right.

So I guess my bike actually is "designed for a handlebar bag". That's good to know, since I've been thinking that one would be nice to have. Now I've got to decide on what to get. I don't need huge amounts of space, since I also carry a Jandd rack trunk. I mainly want someplace to carry stuff that I want to be able to get to while rolling, and a map/cue sheet case on top. I also don't want to bag to cost more than an '84 Miyata 210 is worth, so I think I can rule out Gilles BERTHOUD. Any suggestions?

Thanks for all of the answers.

I 've got a Miyata 210 ("two-ten"), either an '84 or '85. I just found an online copy of the '84 catalog that has a nice side picture of the 210, so I imported the picture into Visio, rotated it so that the line between the axles is at 0 degrees, then did some measurement. It looks like a 73 degree headtube angle. Assuming that the tire diameter is 684mm (based on 27x 1 1/8 tires as stated in the catalog, and Sheldon Brown's cyclocomputer calibration chart (http://sheldonbrown.com/cyclecomputer-calibration.html)), I came up with a scaling factor, then measured the fork offset as 62.3mm and the trail as 38.6mm. The Kogswell calculator comes up with 40mm (for 686, 62, 73), so my measurements are probably about right.

So I guess my bike actually is "designed for a handlebar bag". That's good to know, since I've been thinking that one would be nice to have. Now I've got to decide on what to get. I don't need huge amounts of space, since I also carry a Jandd rack trunk. I mainly want someplace to carry stuff that I want to be able to get to while rolling, and a map/cue sheet case on top. I also don't want to bag to cost more than an '84 Miyata 210 is worth, so I think I can rule out Gilles BERTHOUD. Any suggestions?

Look (http://bikeisland.com/cgi-bin/BKTK_STOR20.cgi?Action=Details&ProdID=146) no further.

I bought a japanese Ostrich bag for my new Randonneur bike, the bike was built with an integrated decalleur welded to the stem and a Nitto front carrier. When I ordered the bike, they asked me if I wanted a handlebag and they built it to support a big bag. I got the F106 and I believe it's around 11 liters, pretty massive.

The bike is balanced and the size of the bag is not an issue. I have Shimano brakes and downtube shifter, so no interference with cables.

The bag was on sale http://www.cb-asahi.co.jp/image/kokunai/ost/2006/f106.html

It was really cheap compared to a handmade Guu Watanabe bag
http://www.guu-watanabe.com/english.htm

I really want a Watanabe bag!

Even without a perfectly constructed, super low-trail rig, a proper bag (like my Berthoud) of modest size will work fine, as long as the centre of gravity is kept low on a rando rack. That's the trick.

You can see the same kind of stability in the video of my commute on this page (http://www.veloweb.ca/bikommute.html). I can even make tight turns no-handed.

I love that ride video! What a lot of fun! I can and love to ride no handed like that, but never tried it with a front bag.

I came up with a scaling factor, then measured the fork offset as 62.3mm and the trail as 38.6mm. The Kogswell calculator comes up with 40mm (for 686, 62, 73), so my measurements are probably about right.

I don't need huge amounts of space, since I also carry a Jandd rack trunk. I mainly want someplace to carry stuff that I want to be able to get to while rolling, and a map/cue sheet case on top.

As a side note, given the 210's geometry, you may want to experiment with carrying more load up front vs. the rear rack trunk. If the calculated geometry is right, you may find the bike handling even better the more weight you distribute to the front. That's one of the features of low-trail design, it's meant for front loads rather than rear.

Of course, YMMV.

Good luck!

I've been using a Lone Peak Atra 100 from The Touring Store for four years of randonneuring. It works very nicely. Though the handling would be improved by having it on a little front rack instead of cantilevered off the front bars, I think I'd be unhappy carrying the extra weight of the front rack, so I haven't bothered. My second choice hbar pack would have been the JandD Touring Handlebar Pack II,

http://www.jandd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=FTOR2

But the clamp looks like it would take up too much handlebar real-estate.

I've been using a Lone Peak Atra 100 from The Touring Store for four years of randonneuring. It works very nicely. Though the handling would be improved by having it on a little front rack instead of cantilevered off the front bars, I think I'd be unhappy carrying the extra weight of the front rack, so I haven't bothered. My second choice hbar pack would have been the JandD Touring Handlebar Pack II,

http://www.jandd.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=FTOR2

But the clamp looks like it would take up too much handlebar real-estate.

Not really. Have a look (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9320902@N04/3207591104/in/photostream/). Since the photo was taken I have gotten the clamp to fit flush with the bars (without modification).

Not really. Have a look (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9320902@N04/3207591104/in/photostream/). Since the photo was taken I have gotten the clamp to fit flush with the bars (without modification).

That doesn't work as well for me ... in fact, your photo shows me that I was right to get the Lone Peak. The two handlebar bags are otherwise nearly identical, except for the clamp. Similar capacity, weight, materials, construction, design, functionality, and price. But the clamp on the Lone Peak does not cover the handlebars, but rather is two loops that go around the bars with an empty space between. Very similar to the Ortlieb clamp. That leaves the space between the two loops open to put my cue clip holders through. And then the cue clip itself can sit flat against the stem. Plus the brake cables on my non-aero brakes run nicely through the clamp -- the JandD clamp would force them a little to either side, putting a little bend into the cables that I'd rather not see. Don't get me wrong ... JandD makes great stuff. I use their frame pack all the time. But their handlebar clamp is pretty clunky looking, in my opinion.

That doesn't work as well for me ... in fact, your photo shows me that I was right to get the Lone Peak. The two handlebar bags are otherwise nearly identical, except for the clamp. Similar capacity, weight, materials, construction, design, functionality, and price. But the clamp on the Lone Peak does not cover the handlebars, but rather is two loops that go around the bars with an empty space between. Very similar to the Ortlieb clamp. That leaves the space between the two loops open to put my cue clip holders through. And then the cue clip itself can sit flat against the stem. Plus the brake cables on my non-aero brakes run nicely through the clamp -- the JandD clamp would force them a little to either side, putting a little bend into the cables that I'd rather not see. Don't get me wrong ... JandD makes great stuff. I use their frame pack all the time. But their handlebar clamp is pretty clunky looking, in my opinion.

I see. Nice setup by the way.