Mid-fork eyelets--how important are they?
 

I'm new to loaded touring and looking at frames at the moment. I'm wondering how important mid-fork eyelets are when choosing a frame set. I don't know my requirements yet, but sooner or later I will probably do long distance touring with heavy loads.

Do they allow you to carry heavier loads?

What other advantages do racks that mount to these mid-fork eyelets offer as opposed to just the bottom eyelets?

Having mid-fork eyes provides the best way to mount front pannier racks. If a fork lacks mid-fork mounts, P clamps can substitute.

Most racks, especially low-riders, use both low and mid eyelets so you have more choice. You can use clamps instead of the mid-eleyets but it's not as pretty.

I use an OMM Sherpa front rack that attaches to the brake bosses and skewer. Don't know if it's actually stronger but it sure feels like it.

I've never used mine other than as receptacles to carry spare screws. The one low-rider rack I had must have been odd-sized, or my braze-ons were in the wrong spot, so I used the rubber-coated U-bolts that came with the rack.

Mid-fork eyelets are nice to have, but not an essential. I used these adapters, which worked very well. It is best to get mid-fork eyelets when you buy the bike, but should not be a deal breaker if you have/find a bike that fits you well.

These are made by Tubus. See Wayne at the Touring StoreTubus Bicycle Touring Bike Racks, TheTouringStore.com


http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/y...hi/bracket.jpg

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/y...0605a9b832.jpg

I believe these are cleaner, stronger, and look better than "P" clamps.
http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/y...ntRack-1-1.jpg

If you have a nice old bike without eyelets, use the Tubus clamps.
Otherwise, if buying for a tour, get mid-fork eyelets.

4 point mounted Low rider panniers add stability to the bike Handling..

Heavier loads ?, Id get a chromoly rack ... got decades of rideing from my Bruce Gordon made Racks

Tubus is good too ..

Ones with a Hoop..

good solid bolts into the fork tip will support the load

I use the same clamps with my Bridgestone MB-1 in order to mount the Tubus Tara and found them to be completely adequate on pavement but since I was planning to ride 300 km of gravel I needed them to be more secure. I drilled and tapped the fork where the clamps are positioned and with a longer Allen bolt that penetrates the fork they have been bombproof on all surfaces.

Just a heads up in case you plan to ride on rough surfaces. I think p-clamps will have the same problem.'

Phil

I would not let mid-fork eyelets dictate your choice of bike. Also maybe a slight change in outlook might benefit you. Instead of accepting that a touring load needs to be "heavy" why not
start out thinking of how light you can make your load. Doing long distance touring with a light load is more fun than with a heavy load.

U-Bolts can also be used if no mid fork bosses are present. I looked for and acquired a bike with mid fork bosses but the rack I got has U bolts.

(... so far) :bang:



Sounds sketchy, as described , this go all the way through ? , tube walls of fork blades are rather thin.

the proper way to do that is braze in a tube so it is brazed into the hole on both ends
then the bolt thru the cross tube compresses the ends of the brazed in tube..

Absolutely, my goal is to travel as light as possible. I just want to be prepared in case the load does get heavier.

Good idea-it is always nice to have the option to carry a little more or redistribute the weight. If you go mostly CC/ warmshowers, and camp only on rare occasions you can get away with a pretty light load. If you primarily camp, cook, want the luxury of a tent, and tour in the shoulder seasons when a variety of clothes, and warmer (bulkier) bag are needed; the option for greater capacity is really convenient.

I have a cyclo- cross bike set up for touring. It is a good compromise between durability, weight and load carrying capacity. While not near as light as my road bike, it will handle wider tires, is sturdy and relatively fast when not loaded. I just put a new fork on it that has mid fork baze-ons. My 2007 model pictured above did not have them, but the 2014 models do. However, the braze-ons were just a bonus. I bought the new fork to get a longer steerer tube so I could dial in the fit better.

The clamps go on first then the Allen bolt goes through the clamp and into (but not through) the fork. It's no more sketchy than a braze on. The bolt just keeps the clamp from slipping down the fork. It works I can assure you. Quebec 389*, Ontario's K&P Trail, etc.

*The Tara's horizontal tube is not fixed but bolted on one end. The dropout eyelet does NOT support the bag's weight completely. On gravel roads (Green Mountain Nat'l Forest fire roads where I tested the set up prior to doing the 389) the clamp began to slip down the fork. Since the fork is tapered, and loses diameter toward it's lower end, it didn't take much bouncing to loosen the clamp.

Going light is important to me, but it isn't always possible, if you are buying a conventional touring bike, which is still my preference for touring, light or heavy, I can't see any reason to buy a bike that doesn't have mid fork eyelets. You can put all kinds of stuff there. You don't have to use them, but they don't weaken the fork, or add any significant weight, so why not have them.

They are how certain racks have to be mounted. They distribute the load over 4 screws, which is just as well because the fittings we use for racks evolved from fender needs, not rack needs. And as in this thread, some of the racks have crappy structure in the rack, so 4 points of attachment is better than two, whether for the bolts or the rack. For a custom bike I would have 4 6mm bolts if there was some real long mileage involved.

On the other hand, if you had a bike you wanted to use that didn't have the eyelets, they are easy to add or to work around the absence of . But in buying a purpose built touring or cargo bike, wouldn't touch it without the requisite BOs.

Today I have a new appreciation for my mid-fork boss/eyelets...this vintage Jim Blackburn FL-1 fit like a glove - even with the Longboard's taking up an eyelet. I've seen this rack copied lately and to me its a simple and beautifully engineered rack.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=408296

^ Perhaps it won't line up on your bike, but that mid-fork bolt is usually bolted through those longer holes in the rack.

I personally love the mid-fork mounts on my touring bike. They provide the easiest way to mount a rack, and I'd think it's more solid than using u-bolts. I wouldn't call mid-fork mounts a Necessity, but they are a big bonus and if you're buying a frame, not trying to use one that you already have, I'd put those mounts on the list of things to look for. When I get my next touring bike, I won't be looking at frames that don't have them.

I like having them, but it isn't a deal breaker. I use the Tubus clamps or P-Clips. I haven't problems with either one shifting even under load on off road trails.

Aaron :)

It seems like it allow for lower weight distribution and therefore better handling, but then I don't really understand the nitty-gritty of when getting the weight lower affects handling. But then if you're just substituting in p-clamps, your weight is at the same place.

I have an Old Man Mountain front platform rack that carries most of my touring weight. It connects at the skewer and at the brake bosses, using neither the lower or mid eyelets. I considered swapping it out for a low rider-style rack, thinking that my bags would sit a little lower, and I'd get rid of the platform which interferes with my crown-mounted headlight. But when I looked into it, most other racks that mounted at the mid-fork eyelets were both heavier and rated for lower weight than my OMM mountain rack. So I gave up on that. Plus I like the front platform when it's not interfering with my headlight. So do the mid-fork eyelets let you carry more weight? I would say no.

I do think that most racks will connect to the frame at more than one place, so I don't think it's common to have a rack attach at "just the bottom eyelets." If it did, I'm guessing that might limit your weight limit. But, like everyone is saying, it's not usually a question of just attaching at the lower point. It's a question of whether you can attach directly to your mid-fork eyelets or whether you need to use a clamp. With my Old Man Mountain rack, the answer is "neither," but for most racks it seems you can accomplish the same thing with a clamp.

I guess I was just lucky the FL-1 rack seemed designed for my fork without any mods at all and the placement was perfect in the hole. I would think the wide berth slot is for all others that needed something other than the specific hole. That may explain why you see the wider slot used more often. Would there be any advantage for using the longer slot vs. the hole other than the fact that it allows for more adjustment?

Are those lock nuts on the clamp bolts? If so, do you need a small wrench in addition to an allen wrench to tighten the clamp bolts? I use a Nitto Big front rack that attaches up top with P-Clamps. Attachment and removal requires the use of both. I would like to eliminate that need.

I don't know that it makes any difference. It looks to me, in that small picture, like the rack might be angled a bit far back. You can obviously tell much more in person than I can from that little pic, though. If it's good where it's at, I wouldn't worry about it. I just wanted to give a heads up in case your racks were tilted back but you thought it was just supposed to go in that hole.

gems, Perhaps the importance of the mid fork mounts is that there are so many rack systems made for them to fit modern touring bikes. It seems that the mid fork provision became commonplace in the '90s, IIRC.

Brad

Superglue, JB Weld, or actual weld the bolts in place on the rack?