Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Apparently that's the case if you want to use Ortlieb panniers; I'll
take 
> your word for it. But it's certainly capable enough for others. We sell
a 
> fair number of 520s, and they get used pretty heavily. It's a bike that 
> almost never comes back with problems. Very conservative design,
downright 
> boringly so. For excitement they change the color to a different shade
of 
> green from time to time (although the current one is actually black I 
> think... how rad!).

I counted six obvious issues with the 520 rack.

First of all, touring racks should have three struts for sufficient 
stiffness and strength for fully loaded touring.

Second, the rear strut should be a “dogleg” strut because this keeps 
panniers from hitting the wheel when they are mounted toward the rear. 
Blackburn realized this with their Expedition EX-2 rack, which updated 
their popular EX-1 which lacked the dogleg.

Third, the struts should meet very close to the threaded mounting hole 
by the rear axle.

Fourth, double tubing should not be used at any point along the side 
rails, as many pannier mounting systems won’t work with double tubing 
(i.e. the Arkel mount). At a minimum, the double tubing should not be 
near the back of the rack.

Fifth, there should not be a load stop at the front of the rack (though 
Trek is hardly alone in this).

Sixth, if positioning panniers toward the rear, there is no place to 
attach the bottom hook of the pannier's shock cord without bringing it 
down at at about a 40 degree angle, which tends to lift the front hook 
up off the rack.

On the plus side, It does appear to be a rather long rack. It's also 
probably very light.

I think Trek realizes that the 520 is not really a touring bicycle, and 
that no one is going to pile a tent, sleeping bag, and heavy panniers 
onto that rack.

Since Trek listens to you, maybe you can encourage them to switch to a 
better rack on the 520.