Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [rootsradicals] wideloader weight limit

Expand Messages
  • phaedrus at yahoo
    I think you can get more weight on by loading the bags in the freeloaders but fastening them low and open so the weight is partially supported by the
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I think you can get more weight on by loading the bags in the freeloaders but fastening them low and open so the weight is partially supported by the wideloaders and partially by the freeloaders.

      However, if you've got an xtracycle (as opposed to a dummy or other full framed longbike), as Devin said, the flex can get a bit interesting especially if the roads are bumpy.

      - phaedrus

    • David Chase
      ... Seems like you could get more, but you d have to be careful, by rigging support lines from one side to the other over the top of the snap deck. Or you
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 2011-12-05, at 4:44 PM, Steve Fuller wrote:

        > I recall seeing/reading that the weight limit for the wideloaders is 60 lbs each.

        Seems like you could get more, but you'd have to be careful, by rigging support lines from one side to the other over the top of the snap deck.

        Or you could make two trips.

        David
      • Steve Fuller
        I wonder if one of the issues is the aluminum used in the wideloader frame? Something made out of steel would be heavier, but might have a higher weight
        Message 3 of 21 , Dec 5, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          I wonder if one of the issues is the aluminum used in the wideloader frame? Something made out of steel would be heavier, but might have a higher weight capacity, assuming the frame can take it. That said, maybe a trailer on the back is in order. :)

          Steve
        • Pete B
          I ve always viewed the use of Al for the Wideloaders & V(&P)-Racks as an (intentional?) compromise by Xtracycle. Al of course has a weight advantage even
          Message 4 of 21 , Dec 5, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I've always viewed the use of Al for the Wideloaders & V(&P)-Racks as an (intentional?) compromise by Xtracycle.
            Al of course has a weight advantage even though not having the strength of a similar diameter&thickness steel tube. 
            But the use of Al has a critical safety feature if you accidentally hit something very hard with the wideloader. It's like a car crumple zone, the Al tube will deform before the frame tube does. Much easier to replace a wideloader than to get the Xtracycle/Dummy frame repaired.

            Pete B 

            'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others. He cannot rightfully be compelled for his own good, or because, in the opinion of others, it would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for persuading him, but not for compelling him.' : John Stuart Mill


            On 6 December 2011 09:55, Steve Fuller <sfuller@...> wrote:

            I wonder if one of the issues is the aluminum used in the wideloader frame? Something made out of steel would be heavier, but might have a higher weight capacity, assuming the frame can take it. That said, maybe a trailer on the back is in order. :)

            Steve


          • Steve Fuller
            ... That definitely makes a lot of sense. I ve barely tagged something with a wideloader and it woke me up. :) Steve
            Message 5 of 21 , Dec 5, 2011
            • 0 Attachment

              On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Pete B wrote:

               

              I've always viewed the use of Al for the Wideloaders & V(&P)-Racks as an (intentional?) compromise by Xtracycle.

              Al of course has a weight advantage even though not having the strength of a similar diameter&thickness steel tube. 
              But the use of Al has a critical safety feature if you accidentally hit something very hard with the wideloader. It's like a car crumple zone, the Al tube will deform before the frame tube does. Much easier to replace a wideloader than to get the Xtracycle/Dummy frame repaired.

              That definitely makes a lot of sense. I've barely tagged something with a wideloader and it woke me up. :)

              Steve

            • Rob Glover
              I ve tagged a few immovable objects with the wideloaders, I d have to agree that a fairly soft aluminum is a good idea. 7075, while still aluminum, would have
              Message 6 of 21 , Dec 5, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I've tagged a few immovable objects with the wideloaders, I'd have to agree that a fairly soft aluminum is a good idea. 7075, while still aluminum, would have been painful as well as expensive. Steel might have been just painful.

                One thing I see as missing from this discussion is the addition of a 50 lb sack of something to the front end of the bike. I've found that the load needs to be distributed a bit, adding a sack of whatever to a Nice rack up front will help to keep the tail from wagging the dog.

                FatRob


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Steve Fuller <sfuller@...>
                To: rootsradicals <rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 3:27 pm
                Subject: Re: [rootsradicals] wideloader weight limit

                 

                On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Pete B wrote:

                 
                I've always viewed the use of Al for the Wideloaders & V(&P)-Racks as an (intentional?) compromise by Xtracycle.
                Al of course has a weight advantage even though not having the strength of a similar diameter&thickness steel tube. 
                But the use of Al has a critical safety feature if you accidentally hit something very hard with the wideloader. It's like a car crumple zone, the Al tube will deform before the frame tube does. Much easier to replace a wideloader than to get the Xtracycle/Dummy frame repaired.

                That definitely makes a lot of sense. I've barely tagged something with a wideloader and it woke me up. :)

                Steve

              • jj
                So one ton of pellets for the stove comes out to 50 bags, each roughly 50 lbs. I could probably do it, but that much weight on a consistent basis would
                Message 7 of 21 , Dec 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  So one ton of pellets for the stove comes out to 50 bags, each roughly 50 lbs. I could probably do it, but that much weight on a consistent basis would certainly take a toll. truck time.

                  After discussion with the wife, I think we might just put the word out to folks this spring, have everyone load up a single bag (or more if you can handle it) and bring it back here.

                  Just to prove a point.

                  Kinda like a funky, weird bike move.

                  hehehehe

                  jj

                  On 12/05/2011 06:39 PM, Rob Glover wrote:  

                  I've tagged a few immovable objects with the wideloaders, I'd have to agree that a fairly soft aluminum is a good idea. 7075, while still aluminum, would have been painful as well as expensive. Steel might have been just painful.


                  One thing I see as missing from this discussion is the addition of a 50 lb sack of something to the front end of the bike. I've found that the load needs to be distributed a bit, adding a sack of whatever to a Nice rack up front will help to keep the tail from wagging the dog.

                  FatRob


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Steve Fuller <sfuller@...>
                  To: rootsradicals <rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 3:27 pm
                  Subject: Re: [rootsradicals] wideloader weight limit

                   

                  On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Pete B wrote:

                   
                  I've always viewed the use of Al for the Wideloaders & V(&P)-Racks as an (intentional?) compromise by Xtracycle.
                  Al of course has a weight advantage even though not having the strength of a similar diameter&thickness steel tube. 
                  But the use of Al has a critical safety feature if you accidentally hit something very hard with the wideloader. It's like a car crumple zone, the Al tube will deform before the frame tube does. Much easier to replace a wideloader than to get the Xtracycle/Dummy frame repaired.

                  That definitely makes a lot of sense. I've barely tagged something with a wideloader and it woke me up. :)

                  Steve



                  -- 
                  My opinions are my own. They are not the opinions of any employer, current or past, nor my spouse, current. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a total moron.
                • David Dannenberg
                  You can easily put one bag on each side with combination of free and wide loader. I do it with chicken feed and it is OK. I think you could then distribute
                  Message 8 of 21 , Dec 6, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    You can easily put one bag on each side with combination of free and wide loader. I do it with chicken feed and it is OK. I think you could then distribute half a bag on each side (75lbs side) and maybe another 25lbs in front if you have a rack or somesuch. You have a BD or an X? My experience is with the BD (and 2.5" Hookworms)

                    David Dannenberg
                  • Steve Fuller
                    I don t think I d have any issues with this plan. ... I don t think I d have any issues with this plan. 3 bags a trip is still 17 trips.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Dec 6, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't think I'd have any issues with this plan.

                      On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:21 AM, David Dannenberg wrote:

                       

                      You can easily put one bag on each side with combination of free and wide loader. I do it with chicken feed and it is OK. I think you could then distribute half a bag on each side (75lbs side) and maybe another 25lbs in front if you have a rack or somesuch. You have a BD or an X? My experience is with the BD (and 2.5" Hookworms)



                      I don't think I'd have any issues with this plan. 3 bags a trip is still 17 trips. 
                    • jj velvetackbar
                      X. Stoked, but still just an X. I have carried up to 260lbs (passengers) but that was on the deck, not the WL s. Hrm food for thought. Thanks folks! JJ
                      Message 10 of 21 , Dec 6, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        X. Stoked, but still just an X. I have carried up to 260lbs (passengers) but that was on the deck, not the WL's.

                        Hrm

                        food for thought. Thanks folks!

                        JJ

                        On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Steve Fuller <sfuller@...> wrote:
                         

                        I don't think I'd have any issues with this plan.


                        On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:21 AM, David Dannenberg wrote:

                         

                        You can easily put one bag on each side with combination of free and wide loader. I do it with chicken feed and it is OK. I think you could then distribute half a bag on each side (75lbs side) and maybe another 25lbs in front if you have a rack or somesuch. You have a BD or an X? My experience is with the BD (and 2.5" Hookworms)



                        I don't think I'd have any issues with this plan. 3 bags a trip is still 17 trips. 


                      • Rich W
                        I am NOT recommending this! Some time ago in a beer hauling thread on Bikeforums there was a claim posted of a owner having hauled home a full keg of beer, on
                        Message 11 of 21 , Dec 7, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I am NOT recommending this!

                          Some time ago in a beer hauling thread on Bikeforums there was a claim posted of a owner having hauled home a full keg of beer, on a BD with rolling jackass center stand IIRC. A keg is 31 gallons or about 250 pounds of beer + the keg weight so close to 300 pounds. I cannot remember if it included a photo. Definitely an unbalanced load and possibly a unbalanced rider too! ;-)

                          Some people are far exceeding the rated cargo weight for the BD and the Freeradical apparently.

                          Rich Wood

                          --- In rootsradicals@yahoogroups.com, jj velvetackbar <jj@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > X. Stoked, but still just an X. I have carried up to 260lbs (passengers)
                          > but that was on the deck, not the WL's.
                          >
                          > Hrm
                          >
                          > food for thought. Thanks folks!
                          >
                          > JJ
                          >
                        • David Forbes
                          ... Third-world countries wouldn t get anything moved at all if they respected the published load limits of their transportation machinery. -- David Forbes,
                          Message 12 of 21 , Dec 7, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 12/7/11 10:23 AM, Rich W wrote:
                            > I am NOT recommending this!
                            >
                            > Some time ago in a beer hauling thread on Bikeforums there was a claim posted of a owner having hauled home a full keg of beer, on a BD with rolling jackass center stand IIRC. A keg is 31 gallons or about 250 pounds of beer + the keg weight so close to 300 pounds. I cannot remember if it included a photo. Definitely an unbalanced load and possibly a unbalanced rider too! ;-)
                            >
                            > Some people are far exceeding the rated cargo weight for the BD and the Freeradical apparently.
                            >
                            > Rich Wood
                            >

                            Third-world countries wouldn't get anything moved at all if they
                            respected the published load limits of their transportation machinery.

                            --
                            David Forbes, Tucson AZ
                          • Mark Garvey
                            I carried a rolled up carpet. 12 x 11 to my daughters house a few years ago. Awkward as hell, but it was about 120 lbs all on one side.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Dec 7, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment

                              I carried a rolled up carpet.  12 x 11 to my daughters house a few years ago.  Awkward as hell,  but it was about  120 lbs all on one side.

                              On Dec 6, 2011 12:20 PM, "Steve Fuller" <sfuller@...> wrote:


                              I don't think I'd have any issues with this plan.

                              On Dec 6, 2011, at 11:21 AM, David Dannenberg wrote:

                               

                              You can easily put one bag on each side with combination of free and wide loader. I do it with chicken feed and it is OK. I think you could then distribute half a bag on each side (75lbs side) and maybe another 25lbs in front if you have a rack or somesuch. You have a BD or an X? My experience is with the BD (and 2.5" Hookworms)



                              I don't think I'd have any issues with this plan. 3 bags a trip is still 17 trips. 


                            • Andrew Kreps
                              ... I ve tested that very scenario, and I can tell you, it works. I can t mount the longloader on that side anymore, but it is still useful because I can
                              Message 14 of 21 , Dec 19, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 18:04, Pete B <nackterman@...> wrote:

                                But the use of Al has a critical safety feature if you accidentally hit something very hard with the wideloader. It's like a car crumple zone, the Al tube will deform before the frame tube does. Much easier to replace a wideloader than to get the Xtracycle/Dummy frame repaired.


                                I've tested that very scenario, and I can tell you, it works.  I can't mount the longloader on that side anymore, but it is still useful because I can still slide it into the frame.  

                                A word on weights: I can load the wideloaders and freeloaders with far more weight than I can actually ride with.  And yes, I found that out the hard way on a rather ambitious Ikea trip.  Or should I say, trips.  


                              • Andrew Kreps
                                ... Passengers are a much different animal. You can carry a lot more passenger than cargo because people are dynamic weight. Most of their mass bobs slightly
                                Message 15 of 21 , Dec 19, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:37, jj velvetackbar <jj@...> wrote:

                                  X. Stoked, but still just an X. I have carried up to 260lbs (passengers) but that was on the deck, not the WL's.
                                   
                                  Passengers are a much different animal.  You can carry a lot more passenger than cargo because people are dynamic weight.  Most of their mass bobs slightly to counteract the force of the bicycle tipping from side to side as you ride down the road.  Static cargo exacerbates this problem, and exaggerates it.  In my experience, 260lbs of passengers is something like hauling around 100lbs of cargo -- except the cargo can't get off and walk up the hills.  


                                • Devian Gilbert
                                  I too have had the unfortunate occasion to rip a wideloader out of my BD, when a pedestrian turned directly in front of me in a bicycle path intersection where
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Dec 19, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I too have had the unfortunate occasion to rip a wideloader out of my BD, when a pedestrian turned directly in front of me in a bicycle path intersection where wide wooden bollards have been emplaced.  
                                    avoiding the pedestrian, I unfortunately smacked the bollard with the driveside WideLoader, and actually had the BD endo, throwing me over the handlebars, while the bike went up and over.  that crash was painful enough.  I was going maybe 15mph.  To this day, that bollard still bares a WideLoader impression.

                                    I had no problems or quams with simply ordering a replacement set, and building a new wheel which taco'd in the crash.

                                    I had never thought that maybe if the WideLoaders were made of something stronger, that I would have simply slammed my body into the handlebars, not having the luxury of the aluminum WideLoader bending then ripping away.  I can only imagine the injury(ies) associated with slamming into the handlebar, vs being thrown from the bike and rolling (judo-esq) from the impact.  Perhaps not all riders would be as fortunate. 

                                    which I suppose brings me to another thought.
                                    from a safety and litigious view, I wonder of the "benefits" to having breakaway WideLoaders.

                                    in years past, "breakaway" designs have been present in things such as replaceable derailleur hangers, where the hanger tab itself was designed to breakaway upon an impact of X amount of force.

                                    d-



                                    On Dec 19, 2011, at 10:40 AM, Andrew Kreps wrote:

                                     

                                    On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 18:04, Pete B <nackterman@...> wrote:


                                    But the use of Al has a critical safety feature if you accidentally hit something very hard with the wideloader. It's like a car crumple zone, the Al tube will deform before the frame tube does. Much easier to replace a wideloader than to get the Xtracycle/Dummy frame repaired.


                                    I've tested that very scenario, and I can tell you, it works.  I can't mount the longloader on that side anymore, but it is still useful because I can still slide it into the frame.  

                                    A word on weights: I can load the wideloaders and freeloaders with far more weight than I can actually ride with.  And yes, I found that out the hard way on a rather ambitious Ikea trip.  Or should I say, trips.  




                                  • jj velvetackbar
                                    Yeah, I loaded up a few -- 30 or so? bike boxes on to the wide loader. A gardening project still in the works. the bike tipped backwards, but was rideable. jj
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Dec 19, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Yeah, I loaded up a few -- 30 or so? bike boxes on to the wide loader. A gardening project still in the works.

                                      the bike tipped backwards, but was rideable.

                                      jj
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.