-
Thank you for chiming in as well!
Your weight is already at the back, putting a rack on the back already stress the rear end of the bike a lots.
This makes sense.
Yet 99% of the bikes I see with a rack have one in the rear and none in front.
Hence my question (as I mentioned I'm not a pro / touring / whatever cyclist).Most front load bicycle are on the fork only, meaning the fork take the weight, leaving the frame alone allowing it to be nice and lively.
Yea I get that - yet I'd have thought the rather big and sturdy frame could easily take a few kilos, whereas it's the fork that should be nice and lively and not packed with weight.
Guess it's like @TM said one has to try it.
Just made me wonder as, like I said, every fucking bike I see around here uses rear racks.
salad-
whereas it's the fork that should be nice and lively and not packed with weight.
Get out of the saddle and give it the wellies; the back end should feel very spirited, rather than feeling like a damp sausage.
The front-load lark is very popular for one reason; it is much cheaper to get a custom fork designed for a front load without compromising the handling, they're design to be VERY twitchy without a load, so once loaded up, it feel nice and stable yet still allow more precise steering input than even a race bike.
edscoble
Where have you been??
Your weight is already at the back, putting a rack on the back already stress the rear end of the bike a lots.
Plus, more importantly, it's connected to the frames which mean unless it's a touring frame, will handle noodly.
Most front load bicycle are on the fork only, meaning the fork take the weight, leaving the frame alone allowing it to be nice and lively.