Touring - Another Broken Surly Nice Rack (Front)

For how heavy these things are you would think the mounting hardware would be a lot more robust. This is at least the 3rd or 4th example I have found of these braking in the exact same spot. Anyone else have any issues? Obviously this guy has given it a lot of abuse but he has also been having trouble with it almost the entire journey.

Scroll to bottom:

http://www.thebigafricacycle.com/general-posts/2828?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigAfricaCycle+%28Big+Africa+Cycle%29

Actually, the hardware broke, not the rack itself.

First I've heard of this problem. Stainless Steel is more brittle than the crmo tubing used in the rack itself, so it's more likely to break from fatigue. Getting these things repaired in the field by a guy whose expertise is limited to welding thick, heavy farm equipment and the like usually results in a repeat failure, such as in the case of the fellow you linked to. Sounds like he finally got it right by having a piece of angle iron forged from mild steel bar stock. That will probably last the rest of the trip.

I doubt Surly warranties this - the last time I looked they even excluded paint (powdercoat) from their limited manufacturers warranty policy.

Pretty much anything can be broken. If this bothers you much, consider a Tubus rack - they have a warranty, and more importantly, a reputation for actually honoring their warranty. I've read of them shipping a replacement rack to a tourist in the middle of the Amazon region of Brazil.

http://www.tubus.com/en/service-a-warranty/warranty

Yes, I did go with a Tubus Tara last year because of the multiple times I have read of the Surly Nice Rack breaking at that exact spot.

Although I see your point, I would still say that the rack has broken. The rack was installed with the Surly mounting hardware that was included with the rack. That broke and because of it, the rack is no longer functional. Thus, the rack is broken. It seems like an obvious design flaw that Surly should have fixed by now. Unfortunately the rack itself is already so heavy, and many customers already complaining about how much the current mounting hardware weighs, that they might not want to include beefier hardware. Maybe they are working on an all new design that we don't know about? ;) I love my LHT though!

Anyone else have any issues?

I had two instances of the same failure while crossing Russia. I worked around things by switching off brackets and also by moving the bracket back. After I returned, Surly replaced the brackets.

I had two instances of the same failure while crossing Russia. I worked around things by switching off brackets and also by moving the bracket back. After I returned, Surly replaced the brackets.

Did they replace them with better, upgraded brackets or just new of the same?

It must be about the heaviest rack on the market so breakage is surprising. Since it is the bracket it should be easy for Surly to retrofit a fix in the form of a more sturdy bracket.

Looking at the instructions on the website, it looks like the offset mounting plate is supposed to be used for the mount at the dropout, which is the load bearing point.

Take a look at the two different mounting plates. The one that is supposed to be used at the bottom is WAY beefier. No way that part should break. Seems like a case of failure to RTFM.

http://surlybikes.com/uploads/parts/RK0101.jpg

I'm not shocked the rack is overly burly for the mounting hardware which is poor engineering. The rack should be as strong as the weakest part and no more.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/707452-Low-rider-front-racks-Vs-high-rider

I think you can double them up or carry a spare if you are really worried. Frankly, I never want to carry so much weight on the front that I'm shearing off brackets.

Looking at the instructions on the website, it looks like the offset mounting plate is supposed to be used for the mount at the dropout, which is the load bearing point.

Take a look at the two different mounting plates. The one that is supposed to be used at the bottom is WAY beefier. No way that part should break. Seems like a case of failure to RTFM.

http://surlybikes.com/uploads/parts/RK0101.jpg

+1 that's how mine is mounted

One could always make the argument that some sort of failure at stress points is inevitable, given enough use. Maybe Surly realized this, and made those points easily replaceable, so when something does fail, it's the cheap mounting tab, not the expensive rack.

Or maybe it was just an oversight.

Take a look at the two different mounting plates. The one that is supposed to be used at the bottom is WAY beefier. No way that part should break. Seems like a case of failure to RTFM.


Note that I bought my Surly rack at end of 2006 when the same bracket was used both top and bottom.

A little hard to see, but here is a similar Surly rack on my 2004 Trek: http://www.bikerussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/big/P1010038.jpg

After that photo was taken, I bought a 2007 Trek in December 2006 and another Surly rack with same brackets. These are ones that broke in 2007 (twice) while crossing Russia. Surly replaced those brackets in 2008 with the same bracket type. However, it may be that Surly updated their bracket design after that.

Transferred my Bruce Gordon racks to a second frame, bought them 25 years ago..
they're still in fine shape.

One could always make the argument that some sort of failure at stress points is inevitable, given enough use.

I don't think any rack should break, if it's being used within its design load parameters.


Maybe Surly realized this, and made those points easily replaceable, so when something does fail, it's the cheap mounting tab, not the expensive rack.

My understanding has been that Surly designed their rack this way so that it would fit many different bike configurations, rather than for any ease of replaceability considerations.


Or maybe it was just an oversight.

I seem to have read more than a couple of comments over the years about these racks not being the most robust, despite being very heavy (and therefore, you might assume, beefy as all get out). There was an article in a German magazine where they did stress tests on a number of racks and the Surly ones broke fairly quickly - here's the thread which mentions that (perhaps any German speakers here could confirm or refute the translation of the Surly failing after 20 hours?):

http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/forum/board/message/?thread_id=68119

Neil

It was NOT the rack people! From the looks of those photos that dude could have well over 80 lbs of **** on the front end. A small piece of flat steel eventually broke. How would you ever repair that on your around the world journey? :innocent:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/petergostelow/5389798805/in/photostream/#/photos/petergostelow/5389798805/in/photostream/lightbox/

If it wasn't mounted properly, does anyone have a photo of how it should be set up?

It was NOT the rack people! From the looks of those photos that dude could have well over 80 lbs of **** on the front end. A small piece of flat steel eventually broke. How would you ever repair that on your around the world journey? :innocent:

=http://www.flickr.com/photos/petergostelow/5389815959/in/photostream/lightbox/

wow, with that kind of load I'd start worrying about eyelets breaking off.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/petergostelow/5389815959/in/photostream/lightbox/

How would you ever repair that on your around the world journey? :innocent::lol:

Doesn't look to have that much on the front tbh. He has 2 front panniers plus a small bag on top of the rack. The barbag is, I assume, attached to the handlebar. A lot on the rear though.

I can't make out his bars/levers. It looks like drop levers pointing upwards?

Gee,I don't know why it would vibrate and break?......Oh Yea....it's a stupid design,the weight should be carried through the brazeon,not cantilevered off the side.

The mountings for that rack should be welded on the 2 cross bars, so that they mount directly to the brazeons,pushing down on them,not hanging 2 inches of the back.

If it wasn't mounted properly, does anyone have a photo of how it should be set up?

I had not heard of this type of failure on this rack before. As noted by Mev above, Surly changed their mounting hardware. I am also stuck with the same version as the one that broke.

I would have expected that the bolt in the dropout would shear before the bracket failed. For this reason I suspect that the bracket is made of pretty weak brittle metal.

If I decide to buy a better rack, does anyone have an opinion of the Tubus Duo?

If I decide to buy a better rack, does anyone have an opinion of the Tubus Duo?

The Duo is a really nice, strong rack - but you do need holes on both the outside and inside of your fork (midway up) in order to mount it. Don't be put off by the fact that there's no hoop going over the wheel - that gave me pause when I was thinking about one for my Salsa Fargo, but in reality this is one strong rack.

My current favorite is the Nova, due to being stainless and having a nicer profile for pannier hooks than the Tara. But I don't have any experience of durability yet, because I haven't had a chance to go on any significant tours with it. Hopefully being a Tubus it will not have any problems, but who knows with their racks being made in China now (quality control seems to have gone downhill a bit - e.g. I had to return the first Cosmo I got last year, due to a partial dry weld).

Neil

"The rack was installed with the Surly mounting hardware that was included with the rack. That broke and because of it, the rack is no longer functional. Thus, the rack is broken."

That's like saying the sole came off your shoe, therefore your leg is broken since you can no longer continue hiking the rocky trail you find yourself on. The rack is broken if you have to weld the rack, and the bracket is broken if you have to weld or repair the bracket. At the end of the day, something broke, but it unfairly suggests that the major component is shot. One's wallet would know the difference.

"Take a look at the two different mounting plates. The one that is supposed to be used at the bottom is WAY beefier. No way that part should break. Seems like a case of failure to RTFM."

Agreed, unless considering the mention of multiple breaks, he had already burned off the original lower brackets...

No problem finding "my tubus rack broke" threads. The responders normally respond by saying "when my rack broke... "

Look at the Sakkit racks if you want to see what needs to be done to beef up a rack designed for lessor things. The manufacturers need to pick something to design for, and the rest of us who aren't doing endless tours would just have overweight gear if they designed only for the worst case.

Maybe friable brackets are a good thing, sorta taking the hit for the rest of the system. :)

That's like saying the sole came off your shoe, therefore your leg is broken.

No, its like saying the sole of your shoe came off, so now your shoe is broken. Its just a true statement. Ever heard the phrase: "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link?"




No problem finding "my tubus rack broke" threads. The responders normally respond by saying "when my rack broke... "

I cant recall any threads about tubus racks breaking. And i REALLY cant recall any threads about major design flaws of tubus racks, where multiple examples broke in the same place... care to share the examples you have seen?


Look at the Sakkit racks if you want to see what needs to be done to beef up a rack designed for lessor things. The manufacturers need to pick something to design for, and the rest of us who aren't doing endless tours would just have overweight gear if they designed only for the worst case.

Aside from being nearly impossible to actually buy, the sakkit racks lock you into using proprietary panniers etc.
The point is that the surly is heavier than nearly any other rack, and yet, it seems to break (functionally broken, since it cannot be attached to the bike and carry a load...) more than any other rack as well. seems like a bad design to me, especially when i look at my tubus duo which has survived multiple years of washboard road use at about a third of the weight.

For a more similar design to the surly, look at the nitto big front rack: http://www.rivbike.com/products/show/big-front-rack-nitto/20-075
which doesnt use crappy steel plates to cantilever the load out in front of the eyelet. It has very thick plate steel welded on, and hangs directly below the eyelet. A much better design.

Why people thought the Surly front rack was actually going to be durable is beyond me.

Calling it 'nice' was perhaps putting lipstick on a pig?

I took one look Surly's kluge of a bracket system when they were first introduced, took a good look at one, and knew: FAIL.

Anything mounted to the fork receives a lot, a LOT, of thwacks and vibrations.

My heavy tourer is set up with two totally independent front racks, a jannd lowrider and a cheap bor yueh front rack. totally independent mounting locations for each. If one rack or an eyelet on the bike were to ever break, the other rack system is still intact.

Quite light still, a platform and a lowrider, and there is a total of one separate bracket, otherwise the rack struts all bolt directly to the bicycle.

not saying this is the answer for everyone (and could also be considered a kludge of its own), but the redundancy in case of a backwoods rack failure - been there, done that - is nice.

Having a front rack that bolts right to the fork without little or no intermediate hardware will give a rider a more robust connection to the bike. Both styles of Jannd front rack get my recommendation for simple and robust.

Looks like it was welded once, picture is of a 2nd failure..
should have been doubled in thickness at the same time, I'd say.

Prescription: start out replacing the thin brackets
with something more substantial.


I too have a separate rack over the wheel ,
Mine uses the cantilever bosses, and a bolt thru the fork crown ..

BG rack on eyelet and mid fork mount .. 4 points .. light bracket on the hoop.

That's like saying the sole came off your shoe, therefore your leg is broken since you can no longer continue hiking the rocky trail you find yourself on.

This analogy doesn't fit - the mounting hardware is part of the rack, in that it came with the rack and is used to install it, and when it breaks, the rack is then unusable. It's all part of the same system that you purchased. Your shoe and your leg are not connected in the same way - you didn't buy your leg when you bought the shoe, if the shoe's sole fails then the shoe fails as a whole, just like if the rack mounting hardware that came with the rack fails, then the rack fails as a whole. Your leg is not a part of the equation when your shoe fails, just as the bike frame is not a part of the equation when the rack fails.


Maybe friable brackets are a good thing, sorta taking the hit for the rest of the system. :)

I know you're joking, but no. Just no. This stuff should never fail. And I'm not making any exuses for Tubus either - they shouldn't fail, none of this stuff should just break. We don't know exactly how much weight the guy in the original post was carrying, but it looked like a couple of front panniers, with something like a sleeping bag or pad on top, and the handlebar bag was supported by the bars (or maybe not - hard to tell).

To me it's very simple - a touring rack should be over-engineered to the extent that it should not fail, ever. Simply put, the amount of weight you need to break a rack made for touring should be greater than the amount of weight you would ever want to put on that rack. Anything else is sub-par, in my opinion. You don't hear about people breaking Bruce Gordon's racks, I don't think I've ever seen anybody talk about that - though, admittedly, there are far more Surly and Tubus racks in the world, so you're more likely to hear about failures, but by all accounts, it *is* possible to make strong racks that don't break and last 25 years. So we shouldn't make any exuses for any racks that are breaking on people, especially racks that are quite expensive (as both Surly and Tubus are), at least in my opinion.

And to me, the mounting hardware that comes with the rack is part of the rack. If it fails, then the rack fails.

Neil

Neil, When did we hear about a tubus rack failure?

This is a thread about the surly rack... I'm still not aware of any Tubus failures?

Neil, When did we hear about a tubus rack failure?

This is a thread about the surly rack... I'm still not aware of any Tubus failures?

Sorry, I was just responding to previous comments - in any case, in any thread about equipment failure, it's almost inevitable that people will pop up with suggestions for alternatives, and then off the argument goes on various tangents like this. I don't have any specific Tubus failures in mind, but at Peterpan's suggestion, just out of curiosity I did go and do a quick google for "my tubus rack broke" and of course there are threads out there where people talk about that. But that alone doesn't really speak to the relative frequency of failure. Formal test results are more useful - I seem to remember that in the German magazine test article, the Tubus racks didn't fail at all, for example, whereas the Surly rack broke after 20 hours. That's one data point, at least.

My main point isn't about Tubus, though, it's that *any* touring rack should not fail under the sorts of loads that a touring cyclist is likely to put on their bike. It's surely not that difficult to over-engineer these things to be able to deal with that sort of stress - after all this is just a bicycle, not a fighter jet. And again, you just don't hear about Bruce Gordon racks breaking at all, do you? Like, ever?

I honestly get the feeling that with some of these racks on the market, no real engineering has gone into them. Otherwise they would all have the triangulation of the Tubus, which just makes perfect sense once you see it. Many of them look kind of hacked together, and in the case of the Surly rack, I think they made compromises with the mounting hardware in order to make it fit the maximum range of bicycles - i.e. a cost saving measure, rather than good engineering. As Vik pointed out, the rack only needs to be as strong as its weakest point, and in this case it looks like Surly made these racks way more beefy (and thus heavy) than they needed to be in some areas, while being ludicrously weak in other areas. What use is it if the rack is extremely strong in one spot, if it's going to fail early due to some cheapo piece of flat, brittle stainless steel which sees excessive stress due to the overall design of the mounting system?

Neil

Like others here, I also went with a double front rack setup. I use a Tubus Tara with a Nitto Min front rack. Works great except that my head tube is fairly short so that, after I mount my bar bag, I dont have all that much room on the front rack left. This would be a problem though with any front rack that has a top platform. Here are some pictures of my bike with the front rack and stem setup, just scroll down a bit: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/page/?o=RrzKj&page_id=164233&v=8j

I think Niel is spot on in his last post. If your design a rack for touring it should not break when carrying a touring load down any road. If you dont need or want the extra weight and durability of a rack that is capable of this, then buy a commuter rack and use it for light touring. However, it seems silly to designate a rack for touring that has been known to break while being used for its given function. Not harping on the Surly here because it is a touring rack for sure. However, this is a rack that has been on the market for a good long while and something as simple as a mounting bracket failure should have been fix by now.

The mountings for that rack should be welded on the 2 cross bars, so that they mount directly to the brazeons,pushing down on them,not hanging 2 inches of the back.

yep, the rack is hanging 2" or so BEHIND the eyelets, not ON them. Looks like the updated design addresses the weak link on the bottom attachment.

I fully concur with NielGunton, expensive touring gear should be sufficiently robust to last. I am not suggesting that a $15 rack should last forever, those are not sold for serious touring. But if a rack costs over $100 USD, weighs half as much as a bike frame and is specifically sold to the loaded touring market, it should be as solid as the bike frame that it is attached to, if not more so.

Surly should do a recall on that part and offer a free bracket upgrade to those that have the earlier brackets instead of waiting to see how many more fail. My rack is several years passed the minimalist one year warranty so I am sure that Surly will cite that as an excuse to not stand behind their poorly designed component.

Thorn rates their heaviest duty rack with two capacities depending on size bolt used to attach it to the frame. Most dropouts (or maybe all?) are threaded for an M5 bolt but Thorn rates that rack for more capacity if you instead use M6 bolts. That is how touring bike racks should be built, they should be as strong or stronger than the bolts used to attach them.

I do not like to tour with gear that I am not fully confident in, I might have to buy a Tubus rack to replace my Surly rack.

Hi. I work for Surly.

We redesigned the lower front rack mount (to the thicker z-profile one shown on the first page of this thread) a few years ago when we heard about two of these breaking. We've heard about a few others since then and have always been happy to send out the new set no matter the age of the rack in question. None of the new ones have broken.

Feel free to contact us if you have an older rack. We'll fire you out a new pair just like that.

We are not perfect, but we do stand behind our designs. Thanks for all of your opinions.


Cheers,
Eric "Skip Bernet" Sovern
Surly Bikes
877-743-3191
derby@surlybikes.com

Thanks Skip, I on the other hand am perfect and presently own a Surly LHT and Cross-Check. While not perfect they are elevated in my presence. I'm thinking one of those 15mm wrenches/bottle openers would be near perfect in the kitchen.

And that, folks, is why i love Surly.