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

Re: [rootsradicals] wideloader weight limit

Expand Messages
  • Steve Fuller
    ... That definitely makes a lot of sense. I ve barely tagged something with a wideloader and it woke me up. :) Steve
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.