Originally Posted by
elcruxio
I think it's pertinent to point out that frame size directly correlates with weight distribution, center of gravity and potential issues potentially caused by short chainstays.
I was listening to a cycling podcast where it was mentioned that it's weird that different frame sizes have the same chainstay length. I hadn't really given it much thought but now it seems so obvious. Larger frame sizes should absolutely have longer chainstays. A taller rider is sitting more rearward of the bottom bracket than a shorter rider. To achieve the same weight distribution the chainstay would need to go back as well.
My point is: The bike in your picture is a pretty small size. It's unlikely you'd have any handling issues with rear loads even with CS length of 425mm. For a smallish frame size 425mm isn't that short of a CS. If we had more proportional wheel sizes smaller frames could have even shorter CS's.
Your stem length also doesn't seem to be all that short, which means the reach on said frame is nice and short. That in turn means more of your weight is at the front wheel which helps negate the luggage weight of the rear wheel.
I tried to use myself as an example in my earlier post, because it's really not possible to make overaching statements how short chainstays are bad for touring. It depends. And for anyone else reading this, that's the real takeaway. Make sure the weight distribution works before loading up the rear. Even a short rider may get into trouble if they're riding a really long gravel bike which forces them into using a 40mm stem, yet which still has short chainstays. A well balanced bike is likely not going to be an issue even with short chainstays.
Look at the position of the pannier rather than the length of the stay. The bulk of the load on Imi's Volpe is behind the axle. Additionally, the rack is an aluminum rack which isn't all that stiff. There also appears to be more stuff hanging further off the back of the bike. Long chainstays and long wheelbases isn't all about avoiding heel strike. It's also about how the load is carried on the bike. Loads behind the axle on a flexible rack are going to cause the front to wander more. In 2003, I went from a steel Miyata 610 which I had ridden the wheels off of in the previous 20 years. It had been used for a bunch of touring and had done it well enough. But when I went to a Cannondale with chainstays that were a mere 3/4" longer (but a stiffer frame material) the difference was night and day! Here's what I wrote about the Cannondale in Solo Without Pie
First Ride
I went all mushy about my old bike and what a friend it was and how I felt guilty about abandoning it for a shiny new bike. I gushed about how we had been through so much and how it was a good bike, how nothing could ever match that sweet old bike, etc.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!
Okay the new one is just a bike - a Cannondale T800. For those of you who don't know touring bikes the Cannondale T series has always had good reviews - stiff bike, good ride, yada, yada, yada. I figured that it was mostly hype but the bike was on sale and it looked good from a numbers point of view. Very long chainstays -18'- nice component selection, proper tires and wheels for loaded touring. After I found the right size, the price was just too good to pass up.
I put racks on it (a Tubus up front and a Delta on the back), changed the saddle to a Brooks and made a couple of other modifications and started riding the wheels off. Over a month I have put a little over 500 miles on it because, no matter what, you never take a brand new bike on a tour! I found the bike to be okay. It handled well and rode well. It did tend to push the corners (understeers for those of you who don't know what that means). Out of the saddle (this is sounding more and more like a Bicycling magazine review, 'The bike felt like it was mounted on rails '), it surged ahead when it was supposed to and it doesn't beat you up when you ride in the saddle, although the ride is a little harsher than my old steel bike.
Then I started riding the bike back and forth to work with 30 lbs of rice and beans. I wasn't doing this because I was planning on going anywhere the next month but just to test the bike, if any bad juju fairies were listening. I did replace the rear rack with a Tubus which was much more stable than the Delta. The first time I pushed away from the curb my impressions of the bike and how good my old bike was changed dramatically!!
This bike was made to carry a lot of stuff! It went from behaving like an oversprung truck to riding like a Coupe de Ville! And a good Coupe de Ville at that - not one of those made in the '70's but like a 50's version! The steering that wanders was gone! The harsh ride was gone! You go into a corner hard with that kind of load and you come out on the other side, well, just like the bike is on rails!
One of the most disturbing quirks of the old Miyata was that under a touring load, you couldn't stand up to pedal. If you did manage to stand to pedal up a hill, the pedal strokes had to be straight up and down without any movement in the horizontal plane. If you rocked the bike side to side, the bike would wiggle all over the road like a snake. But with the 'Dale, you can stand up, you can sit, you can even ride no handed and the bike rides just like, well, just like it's on rails!
I can't wait to see what it would do if I were to load it up and say ride it from eastern South Dakota to Memphis, Tenn. in about 3 weeks. Not that I would ever want to do that if any bad juju fairies are listening.
I have ridden loaded bikes with even shorter stays than the Miyata down a long, steep mountain road here in Colorado and I wouldn't suggest it. The bike was a handful.