Long Distance Competition/Ultracycling, Randonneuring and Endurance Cycling - Randonneur racks and carbon forks

Is it possible (and safe) to install a randonneur front rack (http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bags_and_racks?a=1&page=3#product=20-108) on a carbon fiber fork using fork clamps?

I am considering ordering a SOMA Smoothie ES frame and would like to go with the IRD carbon fork (http://store.somafab.com/irdmo57cafof.html) instead of the heavier steel fork (http://store.somafab.com/ird157brlufo.html) option, but I want to take into consideration whether this would limit my options for accessories later on.

I think it would work, but of course would depend on how much load you'd put on it. Keep the load under 5 lbs or so and I wouldn't think it will be an issue. (Just a guess tho)

Is it possible (and safe) to install a randonneur front rack on a carbon fiber fork using fork clamps?Who get's to define "safe?"

You would think that adding some clamps and a small rack/load couldn't possibly affect the fork's integrity but then again - you're asking questions here instead of addressing the fork manufacturer.

No answer can include all the unintended consequences that will result from the installation as well as usage of a "clamped on" rack. Therefore it's possible that you could install and use the rack safely. But it's just as likely that your new accessory/fork setup could become unsafe due to unforeseeable stresses that you never intended to create nor knew about until you operated the bicycle with load until failure.

Who get's to define "safe?"

That would be me, ultimately.



You would think that adding some clamps and a small rack/load couldn't possibly affect the fork's integrity but then again - you're asking questions here instead of addressing the fork manufacturer.

It is a question I will ask of the manufacturer before making a final decision, but I am also interested in the experiences of the experts here.


No answer can include all the unintended consequences that will result from the installation as well as usage of a "clamped on" rack. Therefore it's possible that you could install and use the rack safely. But it's just as likely that your new accessory/fork setup could become unsafe due to unforeseeable stresses that you never intended to create nor knew about until you operated the bicycle with load until failure.

Thanks. That's the kind of CYA doublespeak answer I would expect from a corporate attorney. :p

I have a carbon fork on my Soma Double Cross. I use the bike for Century rides and have completed a double Metric this year.

I do not use a front rack. I'm considering a handlebar bag like this, mostly to hold a cue sheet and a few very light items: http://www.topeak.com/products/Bags/HandleBar_DryBag

Like you, I am considering a steel fork. A steel fork would be better for touring, but have not needed it for long distance work. The ride and handling of the Ridley Cyclocross fork on this bike has been great.

I've been able to complete long rides with just a wedge bag for spares & tools and a bento box behind the stem for food.

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/Somka2x2009.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll210/wildcat-bucket/Somasilver021.jpg

The big problem with carbon and clamps is torque. Apply too much torque to the clamp and you could crack or crush the carbon.

I'd look into racks that mount to the brake bosses, like the Old Man Mountain front racks.

Bicycle Quarterly tested the Crumpton CF randonneur. I am pretty sure the forks were carbon, and as you can see from photo it has a front rack connected to eyelets in the carbon.

$11,000.

http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/images/Crumptonfull.jpg

Bicycle Quarterly tested the Crumpton CF randonneur. I am pretty sure the forks were carbon, and as you can see from photo it has a front rack connected to eyelets in the carbon.

$11,000.

http://www.vintagebicyclepress.com/images/Crumptonfull.jpg

It's a Wound Up Composites fork. I know they offer the road fork with eyelets, regular or 57mm reach onthe brakes, but I imagine that the rack mounts might be a custom job. Though they don't look anything special, I've heard those forks are pretty nice and tough too.

The Specialized TriCross (http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=38439&menuItemId=0) bike comes with a carbon fork that has rack mounts. You could try asking your local Specialized dealer if you can buy the fork separately. The same fork is used on all the lower-end versions of that bike, all the way down to the US$900 complete bike, so I cannot imagine that the fork would be too costly on its own.

I use a small top tube bag like Barrettscv along with a full rack mounted on the seatstays. A couple of guys that I ride with use large handlebar mounted bags, which they love, with or without seat wedgies.

At first my rear rack was mounted using clamps, but they eventually slipped. Being a Ti frame, I took it to a shop and had mounts installed. You cannot tighten clamps enough to stop slipping and that would be a problem at the front as well, especially since the carbon fork is a) probably tapered and b) might not be round. The instantaneous weight when you hit a bump is huge.

My advice would be to either go with a handlebar mounted bag or get a fork with integrated mounts, if you are set on having your gear up front.

Thanks for the responses. I think I need to decide just how much of a priority this option is for me. If I really think I want to carry enough stuff up front to make the low mounting of a rando rack an advantage, then I should probably go with a steel fork.

The Specialized TriCross (http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=38439&menuItemId=0) bike comes with a carbon fork that has rack mounts. You could try asking your local Specialized dealer if you can buy the fork separately. The same fork is used on all the lower-end versions of that bike, all the way down to the US$900 complete bike, so I cannot imagine that the fork would be too costly on its own.

This fork might work on a Cyclocross bike but not on a road bike. The axle to crown distance on a Cyclocross fork is much longer than road bike to improve mud clearance when using fat tires.

Michael

This fork might work on a Cyclocross bike but not on a road bike. The axle to crown distance on a Cyclocross fork is much longer than road bike to improve mud clearance when using fat tires.

Michael

Not to mention the rake is wrong, it has unneeded canti bosses and it's fugly.:lol:

Not to mention the rake is wrong, it has unneeded canti bosses and it's fugly.:lol:

Yeah the looks of the fork is the one thing that keeps me from even considering the TriCross as a new bike

Gunnar has a very nice 57mm steel fork for $275.


Or....
http://www.calhouncycle.com/productcart/pc/catalog/barley_grn_662_general.jpg

Gunnar has a very nice 57mm steel fork for $275.


Or....
http://www.calhouncycle.com/productcart/pc/catalog/barley_grn_662_general.jpg

I'm not really a fan of the straight leg design of Gunnar's fork, but I'm sure it is a good one.

A good saddlebag is more of an "and" than an "or".

You might be able to have your cake and eat it too.

Consider a Cyclocross frameset like the Double Cross. Some front racks, including the Old Man Mountain Sherpa rack, attach at the axle and at the Canti brake studs. See: http://www.oldmanmountain.com/Pages/RackPages/RackGalleries/Pages/sherpaFront_gallery.htm . This will allow the safe installation of the rack on a carbon fiber fork without using clamps or touching the carbon fiber.

Michael

Nothing against CX bikes, but I'm not really interested in one for this particular build.

This type of rack (http://www.velo-orange.com/cofrra.html) could work.

This type of rack (http://www.velo-orange.com/cofrra.html) could work.

yes, that looks great.

That would be me, ultimately.



It is a question I will ask of the manufacturer before making a final decision, but I am also interested in the experiences of the experts here.



Thanks. That's the kind of CYA doublespeak answer I would expect from a corporate attorney. :p

Hey, just for a change I find myself in agreement with Mr. Cranium.

He's giving you good advice.

The fork was almost certainly not designed to carry a load on a front randonneur rack, mounted with clamps. Since the rack plus bag will weigh two to 2-1/2 pounds, you're likely to have a total load of between 8 and 15 pounds if you are using it for randonneuring. And you're going to be pounding the s@!t out of that fork and rack. The bands holding the rack on are steel attached to carbon and with all sorts of stresses. If your front fork snaps at 45mph on a tight downhill turn, you can imagine the consequences.

My view would be that riding it with a load like that is fairly close to suicide.

Hey, just for a change I find myself in agreement with Mr. Cranium.

He's giving you good advice.

The fork was almost certainly not designed to carry a load on a front randonneur rack, mounted with clamps. Since the rack plus bag will weigh two to 2-1/2 pounds, you're likely to have a total load of between 8 and 15 pounds if you are using it for randonneuring. And you're going to be pounding the s@!t out of that fork and rack. The bands holding the rack on are steel attached to carbon and with all sorts of stresses. If your front fork snaps at 45mph on a tight downhill turn, you can imagine the consequences.

My view would be that riding it with a load like that is fairly close to suicide.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where he gave me any advice at all.

But you have given me advice and I tend to agree with what you are saying. Thanks. It confirms what I figured was the case. I have certainly heard nothing here to make me think otherwise.

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. Why don't you just use a rear rack and not worry about it? If you need to carry something up front use a small handlebar bag. Putting a lot of weight on the front of a bike not designed for it is asking for an evil handling bike.

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. Why don't you just use a rear rack and not worry about it? If you need to carry something up front use a small handlebar bag. Putting a lot of weight on the front of a bike not designed for it is asking for an evil handling bike.


I'm not worrying, just asking my own dumb questions to try and learn a little bit. :)

My interest in the rando type front rack is to avoid the handling problems of carrying weight up high on the handlebars as well as the business of having the bag up in the way. A small rack just above the front wheel seems like a better way to go. I'm sure there is a downside as with most anything.

Here's another dumb question. What would be the characteristics of a bike designed for a small front rack?

I'm not worrying, just asking my own dumb questions to try and learn a little bit. :)

My interest in the rando type front rack is to avoid the handling problems of carrying weight up high on the handlebars as well as the business of having the bag up in the way. A small rack just above the front wheel seems like a better way to go. I'm sure there is a downside as with most anything.

Here's another dumb question. What would be the characteristics of a bike designed for a small front rack?

Porteur bikes just have a different geometry up front to stabilise the load. How much different depends on how much you want to carry.

http://kogswell.com/PR.html

http://kogswell.com/horked/bigLOAD.jpg

to get a good ride with weight on the front you need more rake/less trail.

I'm not worrying, just asking my own dumb questions to try and learn a little bit. :)

My interest in the rando type front rack is to avoid the handling problems of carrying weight up high on the handlebars as well as the business of having the bag up in the way. A small rack just above the front wheel seems like a better way to go. I'm sure there is a downside as with most anything.

Here's another dumb question. What would be the characteristics of a bike designed for a small front rack?

Besides the Kogswell P/R, you could also look at the geometry of the Velo-Orange Rando frame, http://www.velo-orange.com/vorafrcoso.html or the Boulder Bicycles Randonneur frame http://www.renehersebicycles.com/Randonneur%20bikes.htm or the Coho Bicycles Randonneur frame http://cohobicycles.com/cohobicycles/Randonneur.html

In some future part of my lifetime, I hope I can afford to buy one of these low-trail (39 to 40mm of trail) bikes, because I really like to use a handlebar bag, and supposedly the low trail bikes work a lot better with hbar bag than my current "high trail" bikes.

That said, I've ridden many, many thousands of randonneuring kilometers with a handlebar bag containing between 8 and 15 pounds on my Rivendell Rambouillet (trail=about 57mm) and Gunnar Sport (trail=59mm with my current tires). I can't ride them no-hands. But with a 46 cm wide Nitto Noodle handlebar, the extra torque from the wider bars easily offsets the slight increase in handling effort generated by the handlebar bag. This would not help with issues like maximum cornering speed, but I'm typically not pressing those limits anyway.

My handlebar bag is a Lone Peak Alta H-100, which mounts with a bracket to the handlebars, so it is fairly high up. A little front randonneur rack with a lower-mounted bar bag would probably increase handling somewhat, but it would also increase total bicycle weight. So I haven't felt a need to go that direction. I bought mine at the Touring Store. You might be able to get a money-back guarantee so you can just try one out, I'm not sure what their policy is.

Nick

Why don't you save yourself some grief and send a note to Soma Fabrication and ask them if it is appropriate to have that weight on the front of that particualar bike?

Why don't you save yourself some grief and send a note to Soma Fabrication and ask them if it is appropriate to have that weight on the front of that particualar bike?

I appreciate your concern, but really, I am not experiencing any grief over this. I'm sorry if my asking a few questions bothers you. I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that I would check with the manufacturer before making a decision. I will post the response when I get it. Thanks.

In some future part of my lifetime, I hope I can afford to buy one of these low-trail (39 to 40mm of trail) bikes, because I really like to use a handlebar bag, and supposedly the low trail bikes work a lot better with hbar bag than my current "high trail" bikes.



Interesting. Your statement sent me looking for more info on the whole rake/trail issue.

First stop: Sheldon Brown (http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_tp-z.html#trail), who states that increased trail leads to a more stable bike. He links to this post (http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/trail.html) that explains the theory

Dave Moulton also has an article on the subject here (http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2007/5/4/trail-fork-rake-and-a-little-bit-of-history.html).

While none of these specifically mention handlebar bags, I'd think the option that increases stability in a straight line (increased trail) would be more favorable to using bar bags than the option that makes for quicker steering (less trail).

I appreciate your concern, but really, I am not experiencing any grief over this. I'm sorry if my asking a few questions bothers you. I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that I would check with the manufacturer before making a decision. I will post the response when I get it. Thanks.


It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I won't have to ride it. :) I missed the part about your checking. I would be interested in hearing what thier response it though.

there is such a thing as too much stability. I'm curious about what happens, so I'm building a set of forks with different trail to test this out.

there is such a thing as too much stability. I'm curious about what happens, so I'm building a set of forks with different trail to test this out.

Are you aware of all the Bicycle Quarterly articles on the topic of trail? They've done a fairly comprehensive job of studying the effects of trail on bicycle handling, particularly with different types of front end loads.

The Dave Moulton article referred to in barturtle's post also seems good. Key note "Trail assists steering; as you lean the bike to the left or right, the steering axis moves in that direction, and thereby turns the wheel in that direction as it pivots on the point of contact with the road."

With a handlebar bag, this effect is over-exaggerated, so it becomes harder to control the bike, particularly as you get slower on a hill. Lower trail is also typically associated with lower wheel flop.

The other good quote from that article is: "Road conditions at that time [the 40's and 50's], especially in countries like Italy and France were often appalling. The long fork rake and the long wheelbase had a dampening affect on the rough road conditions.

As road conditions improved, bikes were built with shorter wheelbases and at the same time tires became much narrower. It eventually became necessary to increase trail to keep the bike going straight."

So on a long wheelbase bike with fat tires, intended to be ridden on nasty roads, lower trail (larger fork rake) improves handling.

Nick

Are you aware of all the Bicycle Quarterly articles on the topic of trail? They've done a fairly comprehensive job of studying the effects of trail on bicycle handling, particularly with different types of front end loads.
Nick
I know I'm not breaking any new ground, I just want to feel what the difference really is for myself. I can build a fork for a low enough price that 3-4 of them isn't going to break the bank. I saw a paper with a fork that had dropouts with multiple wheel positions. I may end up building something like that.

I've ridden a racing bike with fairly extreme geometry with a handlebar bag. It didn't really bother me.

I know I'm not breaking any new ground, I just want to feel what the difference really is for myself. I can build a fork for a low enough price that 3-4 of them isn't going to break the bank. I saw a paper with a fork that had dropouts with multiple wheel positions. I may end up building something like that.

I've ridden a racing bike with fairly extreme geometry with a handlebar bag. It didn't really bother me.

I'd be interested in seeing photos etc. when you're done. How are you building the forks (and so cheaply)? Can I try the experiment when you've finished? :-)

Nick

Here is the response from SOMA

"Small front racks are a great way to carry around stuff. Generally, the more weight up front the more the handling will change, you shouldn't have any issues with a small, reasonably light load for a day of riding. Many true rando bikes have low-trail front ends designed to better carry a front load, although it can take away from their overall unloaded handling. The Smoothie has a road-sport geometry and you can get away with a light load and maintain most of the handling you have now.

For clamping things onto a fork, I would generally recommend a steel fork. The IRD carbon does have eyelets, so if you get a rack with struts that reach the eyelets, you won't need to clamp.
Best,
Soma"

Loos like you got your answer. :) I'd go with the carbon fork with the eyelets. Clamps look ugly. ;)

The fork was almost certainly not designed to carry a load on a front randonneur rack, mounted with clamps.

Although I agree with the recommendation against clamps (see my earlier post) I don't think that the extra weight would be a problem in most cases. For one thing, the extra load is way down an inch or two above the skewers, so it's less likely to put stress on the fork overall than adding, say, a 5 pound bag at the handlebars or the rider shifting their weight as they ride; for another thing, it's probably less than the variation in rider weights. I think that you'd have to look at the entire picture -- is it a 250 pound rider adding 20 pounds or a 135 pound rider adding 20 pounds ?

Ideally you would get a fork that was designed to hold racks, panniers etc. Those touring cyclists will carry an extra hundred pounds or more, distributed between front and rear racks.

Although I agree with the recommendation against clamps (see my earlier post) I don't think that the extra weight would be a problem in most cases. For one thing, the extra load is way down an inch or two above the skewers, so it's less likely to put stress on the fork overall than adding, say, a 5 pound bag at the handlebars or the rider shifting their weight as they ride; for another thing, it's probably less than the variation in rider weights. I think that you'd have to look at the entire picture -- is it a 250 pound rider adding 20 pounds or a 135 pound rider adding 20 pounds ?

Ideally you would get a fork that was designed to hold racks, panniers etc. Those touring cyclists will carry an extra hundred pounds or more, distributed between front and rear racks.

The original post that started this thread was asking about a Nitto Mark's Rack, which has diagonal struts that need to attach to the forks about halfway down. So you'd need some sort of clamps. When you hit a bump hard, those clamps get torqued so that the bottom front metal edge of the clamp digs into the CF, as does the top back edge. Kind of like taking a screwdriver and putting it edge-on across your CF fork and then pounding on it repeatedly with a hammer with moderate force. I wouldn't like my chances on that fork :-)

If the OP did as Soma suggests and buys a front rack that attaches to the eyebolts, then a carbon fork seems like it'd work fine, having the stresses placed where the designer expects stresses. Or a touring carbon fork designed to have rack-mounts half-way up. Or ... a steel fork, that won't have any problems with these stresses. The IRD Mosaic 57 CF fork weighs 520 grams. Don't know what kind of steel fork Soma uses, but the Salsa Casseroll steel fork weighs 800 grams. So it's about a half pound difference. The Winwood cross fork is almost 700 grams, so it's not clear that you get much weight advantage once you spec a fork that is beefy enough to really handle any significant front load. Of course, a touring steel fork might also be heavier.

I decided to go with a different bike, the Salsa Casseroll. The Casseroll comes with a steel fork, so the carbon question is no longer an issue. Someday down the line I will probably put a small front rack on it, possibly this Pletscher (http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bags_and_racks?a=1&page=2#product=20-193).

I decided to go with a different bike, the Salsa Casseroll. The Casseroll comes with a steel fork, so the carbon question is no longer an issue. Someday down the line I will probably put a small front rack on it, possibly this Pletscher (http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bags_and_racks?a=1&page=2#product=20-193).

mark's rack is much nicer... yes, more $$$... but much nicer IMHO. esp for small loads.
you could carry a lot of stuff with that pletscher... and its fugly IMHO.

I'd be interested in seeing photos etc. when you're done. How are you building the forks (and so cheaply)? Can I try the experiment when you've finished? :-)

Nick
Are you a member of the DC Randonneurs? We can probably arrange for a test session.

Yeah the looks of the fork is the one thing that keeps me from even considering the TriCross as a new bike

The fork looks awesome with either a 45c or 29er tire stuffed in there.

I decided to go with a different bike, the Salsa Casseroll. The Casseroll comes with a steel fork, so the carbon question is no longer an issue. Someday down the line I will probably put a small front rack on it, possibly this Pletscher (http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bags_and_racks?a=1&page=2#product=20-193).

There's nothing at all wrong with the Casseroll, but why not just go with your original choice, but use a steel or aluminum fork instead? I was going to ask why you were concerned about saving a bit of weight on the fork just to add a rack and cargo, but that is a moot point now.
I also second the Mark's rack. It is very good quality. I have one up front with a Sackville Small Trunksack upon it which is also very good quality. Had I not be so impulsive I might have gone with the Brand V Barbox simply because it would have been much cheaper due to no need for a rack while having almost as much capacity. http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/bags_and_racks#product=20-198

There's nothing at all wrong with the Casseroll, but why not just go with your original choice, but use a steel or aluminum fork instead?

Although I had not mentioned it in this thread, the Casseroll had always been under consideration along with the Smoothie ES. In the end, the Salsa just worked out to be a better deal. I'm sure the Soma would have made for a great bike, but I am very happy with the choice I made. The bike fits me perfectly and looks great. I'll start the conversion to a geared triple soon, but right now I'm enjoying riding it as a single speed.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2498/4057310618_4ec4cefbfb_o.jpg

Although I had not mentioned it in this thread, the Casseroll had always been under consideration along with the Smoothie ES. In the end, the Salsa just worked out to be a better deal. I'm sure the Soma would have made for a great bike, but I am very happy with the choice I made. The bike fits me perfectly and looks great. I'll start the conversion to a geared triple soon, but right now I'm enjoying riding it as a single speed.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2498/4057310618_4ec4cefbfb_o.jpg

That bike is a great rando platform. I was considering picking up a used one as a FG / SS last year - but the size was off for me.


We picked one up for the wife, a friend has one in parts waiting for a winter build, and a significant other of said friend loves hers...

Looks good, but I thought the Casseroll used to have a color matching stem?

Looks good, but I thought the Casseroll used to have a color matching stem?

They did. (http://www.salsacromotostem.com/) :(