Re: Rear Luggage Rack Web Site Update

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:27:13 -0700, tkeats2005@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Tom
> Keats) wrote:
> 
>> In article <j3msb3lfrnq4cj8p4q5gdq71c4aq1f5jfq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> 	Zoot Katz <zootkatz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>> Jim Beam made the valid point about the wheel base not fitting on
>>> normal bus bike-racks or possibly being too long for other forms of
>>> public trans****t.
>> I think that was actually "Rick" -- a couple of posts
>> up-thread from here.
>>
>> Jim Beam is concerned about lateral stiffness.
> 
> You're right. My bad.
> Apologies extended.
>> To which I say: tandem frames get by okay.
> 
> Technically, bikes exceeding 185cm (73") overall  length are
> prohibited on SkyTrain. Das Mule hits seven feet on the nose.
> Donald's barbecue bike and Douglas's monster chopper are ten feet.
> 
> We've discovered that city buses won't take tall-bkes even if the
> wheelbase is normal. Everything else about the bike is too weird.
>> Maybe a lontail bike is basically a tandem with
>> inanimate cargo instead of an animate stoker.
> 
> I found 130 pounds of live weight easier to carry on the Xtracycle
> than third as much dead weight on top of the deck. Some of the
> passenger's weight is below the deck sup****ted by the foot rests.
> 
> The twitchiest load so far has been about 65 pounds of silk in
> five-foot wide rolls without a stiff core. They were hanging off the
> back of the deck and threw and extra hook into the normal S curve you
> can get with heavy loads.
> 
> Two 45# bags of mortar mix were easier to carry 

right on!

> than just one because
> the load was balanced low on the bike. One bag on the top is slightly
> better than one bag on one side and light bulbs on the other. 
> 
> Carrying the heavier passenger was easier in terms of handling though
> slower going up hills.