pannier(s) versus backpack

kencogl said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

For a 1/2 day ride get panniers. It's an easier way to carry things, more comfortable on you and you
won't have a big sweat stain on your back.

A backpack is OK for a short distance.

Try throwing 60lb of gear in your backpack and taking a ride around the
block:-]

Backpacks work great for commute clothes and other small stuff. For larger loads, do yourself a
favor and get panniers or a trailer (not to start a war here, I use both).

-pete

"kencogl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

--

A milk crate tied to a luggage rack is tops for convenience; it's out of the wind so doesn't cause
any drag, and can carry two full paper grocery bags of stuff (double bag each if you're going to
build upwards; cover each with an inverted plastic grocery bag if it's raining; attach plastic bags
to milk crate or they'll blow away).

The problem is that it has to be rigidly attached to the bike and under heavy load this takes some
doing - otherwise the bike becomes difficult to control as different pieces of it are going
different directions at once.

For super strength and rigidity, I use regular cheap aluminum rack attached over a seatpost luggage
rack stripped to its main beam only. The seatpost luggage rack beam provides side-to-side stability,
and the regular rack (supported off the wheel dropouts as well as atop the beam) keeps the load
aloft. I've had no failures of that with up to 60lbs of stuff in it.
--
Ron Hardin [email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

I guess one factor is that overall centre of gravity is going to be increased with a back pack,
dependant on how much you put in it, so the panniers are presumably going to feel more stable.

"kencogl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

--

There's a couple of panniers that double as backpacks. I have a set of minature suitcases that
double as front lowrider panniers. They attach to each other to become a backpack. Called MULTIPAC
but I don't know if thats a brand or just a model name. Got them on eBay from Germany. Very nice
product if you can find it.

Vaude makes a rear pannier set that converts to a nice backpack. The backpack part goes on top of
the rear rack and zips on to the panniers which hang on either side. It's expensive $150 range, but
very nice. Many LBSs have Vaude products.

I think Arkel also makes some panniers that do this.

panniers.companniers.comOpen ↗

But for just riding around, I think panniers are definately better than a backpack. Feels good not
having weight on your back.

-Bruce-

"kencogl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

--

"kencogl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

Like someone else said, backpacks increase the chance that you'll sweat down your back. Since I
sweat easily, I always use panniers for my commuting rides. Even in the summer when I will sweat in
any even, I use panniers because it does allow me to be a little cooler.

However, I have noticed that when I use a backpack, the bike feels a lot lighter and faster. The
majority of the arguments I've seen about center of gravity say that its better when its lower, but
personally, my bike feels better when I'm wearing a backpack, so the main reason I use panniers is
so that I can stay cool.

Jerry said:

I guess one factor is that overall centre of gravity is going to be increased with a back pack,
dependant on how much you put in it, so the panniers are presumably going to feel more stable.

Just the opposite, the higher the center of gravity, the more stable.

The weight of the backpack on your shoulders though is not a plus, in fact is very discouraging.
--
Ron Hardin [email hidden]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

"M. Barbee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

However, I have noticed that when I use a backpack, the bike feels a lot lighter and faster.

Emphasis on "feels". There is no evidence that you actually are faster.

Quoted message said:

The majority of the arguments I've seen about center of gravity say that its better when its
lower, but personally, my bike feels better when I'm wearing a backpack, so the main reason I use
panniers is

so

Quoted message said:

that I can stay cool.

But with a backpack the weight is on you. If you have to stand to climb then every time you pedal
down raising your body up, you are lifting your body weight plus the backpack weight. So maybe the
bike feels livelier but your body doesn't.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:55:11 GMT, kencogl

may have said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

Bckpacks put the load on you; panniers put the load on the bike. You'll be a lot less worn out at
the end of the day with panniers.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Quoted message said:

Just the opposite, the higher the center of gravity, the more stable.

To go straight. I guess. Correct ? But isn't it easier to fall ?

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet-
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

backpack = sweaty back maybe achy shoulders. panniers, no sweatty back, no achy shoulders. Once off
the bike, a backpack is easier to carry, althoug I have seen panniers that also double as back
packs. I prefer to have the load on my bike and not on my back. You will need to get a bike rack in
order to use panniers, so that will add to the cost.
---------------
Alex

"Ron Hardin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A milk crate tied to a luggage rack is tops for convenience; it's out of the wind so doesn't cause
any drag, and can carry two full paper grocery bags of stuff

I like this solution as well. I throw my backpack into the crate to ride, then when I get to my
destination I pull it out & put it on. If I'm on a shopping trip, I can wear the backpack on the
return leg if the crate is full. Fold-out panniers are nice too, but won't fit most backpacks.

Pete Grey said:

Backpacks work great for commute clothes and other small stuff. For larger loads, do yourself a
favor and get panniers or a trailer (not to start a war here, I use both).

And/or a saddlebag, which also works well for small loads.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Phil Brown) said:

Quoted message said:

Just the opposite, the higher the center of gravity, the more stable.

Not quite, but close. The key is mass centralizition. Phil Brown

Mass centralization makes a bicycle easier to lean and turn (less stable), not harder. Motorcycle
makers have been heavily touting mass centralization for several years as a design principle for
their fastest, most maneuverable bikes.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Advantages of a backpack over panniers:

- The weight is under better control. You can always lift the mass when needed. Backpack does not
impare ability to jump as much as panniers do.

- When you leave the bicycle, all your stuff is already with you

- No need for racks (extra weight).

Advantages of panniers over a backpack:

- Your back breaths. Actually, backpack with frame and a mesh almost solves the problem of sweaty
back, only the shoulders and hips which are under strips are wet. But that is still noticeable.

- The shoulders are more comfortable when they are free.

Riding off-road, backpack with a belt is the only option. When carrying much weight (say more than
10kg) or riding long time (many hours), no other choice than panniers. Try them both and select the
one which you like better. I use backpack for off-road rides and panniers for road. On my daily
commutes I find backpack best in summer. In winter, when the bike is heavy anyway, maneurability is
low, and sweating quickly leads to problems, panniers win. For short rides in fine weather, it is
actually no difference at all, both do the job.

Konstantn.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Phil Brown) said:

Quoted message said:

Mass centralization makes a bicycle easier to lean and turn (less stable), not harder. Motorcycle
makers have been heavily touting mass centralization for several years as a design principle for
their fastest, most maneuverable bikes.

But since single track vehicles are inherently unstable this increased controlability means
they're easier to ride. There is no such thing as an inherently stable bicycle, hence anything
that makes it easier to control increases the stability of the rider/bicycle combo. Phil Brown

I think this reasoning is faulty. Bicycles are dynamically stable: most work just fine on their own,
as anyone who has "ghost-ridden" a bike can tell you.

Mass centralization means that the bike is able to turn faster. It's akin to shortening the
wheelbase of a vehicle, though not quite the same. Here is where the engineers would properly mutter
something about polar moments of inertia and pull out some nice maths to roughly describe the
numbers for a typical bike-rider system.

A vehicle which has a low polar moment etc. and mass centralization and rims made of dysprosium or
whatever is going to be twitchier, but that does not equate to more "controllability". You can
certainly understand that one could build a very short-wheelbase bike with a steep steering angle
and small wheels for "increased controllability." The problem is that at some very easily reached
point, the vehicle would require steering inputs faster and more accurately than most humans could
manage well, and it would be hard to ride.

The real world provides us with myriad examples: tandem bikes are clumsy to start, but once they
start rolling are ponderously stable. It's easy to control a rolling tandem because no mere bump in
the road is going to make the tandem behave badly.

Moving to the parallel world of Formula 1, in 1998 ('97? First year of the "skinny" cars) revised
regulations led to very different cars from the previous year's designs. At the start of the year,
all but one of the major teams (McLaren) started with a short wheelbase, near the limits of the
regulations. This conformed to your reasoning: the cars were more responsive to control inputs.

The McLaren was notably faster than every other team. By the end of the year Williams finally
regained some semblance of competitiveness by changing to a longer-wheelbase design like McLaren.
The cars were too twitchy, and the more stable McLaren was much easier to drive fast, even for the
all-out qualifying laps.

Another good parallel is motorcycle design. I have had the privilege of riding a great number of
different bikes, including everything from a BMW touring bike to a couple of rather extreme mass-
centralized sportbikes.

The most stable and controllable bike was surely the long, low Virago 1100 I rode. It had a turning
circle that was about 16' (yes, it could do a U-turn in little more than one lane-width), and
tremendous low-speed manners, all because it was really stable and responded relatively slowly to
inputs (wide handlebars contributed to these slower, but relatively finer inputs).

Meanwhile, a really fast bike (say, an FZR400 or a ZX-9R) would require more effort at slow or high
speeds. But its ultimate limits would be higher, and such a bike works well at speeds where the
steering becomes heavy due to the machine's inertia. And at such speeds the Virago's slack design
would start to betray it.

So unless your vehicle is so slow-responding and stable that it simply takes too long to make any
reasonable input change (think of a bus), then twitchier is not necessarily better.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:55:11 GMT received comm from
"kencogl <[email hidden]> on channel rec.bicycles.tech ":

: As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
: in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
: sized loads.
:
: Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

I addition to all other well explained posts in this thread I would like to offer you a third
option: a classic English type of saddle bad (can take much more load than small traditional saddle
bags, but still not require expensive and heavy bike racks).

I have one from Carradice called SQR Tour, but they have several more models (including wide
traditional ones) and also other manufactures which makes that type of bags (even if I'm only
familiar with Carradice myself).

carradice.co.uksqr products.htmOpen ↗

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
194.236.153.211194.236.153.211Open ↗

Ryan Cousineau said:

Moving to the parallel world of Formula 1, in 1998 ('97? First year of the "skinny" cars) revised
regulations led to very different cars from the previous year's designs. At the start of the year,
all but one of the major teams (McLaren) started with a short wheelbase, near the limits of the
regulations. This conformed to your reasoning: the cars were more responsive to control inputs.

The McLaren was notably faster than every other team. By the end of the year Williams finally
regained some semblance of competitiveness by changing to a longer-wheelbase design like McLaren.
The cars were too twitchy, and the more stable McLaren was much easier to drive fast, even for the
all-out qualifying laps.

Another good parallel is motorcycle design. I have had the privilege of riding a great number of
different bikes, including everything from a BMW touring bike to a couple of rather extreme mass-
centralized sportbikes.

The most stable and controllable bike was surely the long, low Virago 1100 I rode. It had a
turning circle that was about 16' (yes, it could do a U-turn in little more than one lane-width),
and tremendous low-speed manners, all because it was really stable and responded relatively slowly
to inputs (wide handlebars contributed to these slower, but relatively finer inputs).

This certainly has its parallels in bicycling, and Ryan makes a good point about wheelbase length
and stability. I'd add that not only overall wheelbase but the relationship between front and rear
centers is important.

"Modern" road bikes tend to have long front centers (since top tubes are proportionally longer and
frame angles are typically more upright than 25 years ago), and chainstays are typically at the
limit of shortness with a 700 x 28 rubbing against the seat tube or chainstays near the BB shell. In
the larger sizes I ride (62 cm or so), these designs handle miserably in crits- even thought this is
considered a "racing" geometry- because the front wheel is underweighted. When climbing steep hills
seated, the front wheel wants to lift off the ground.

For many years, chainstays got proportionally longer as frames got bigger, precisely to address this
issue. With the increasing triumph of marketing fantasy over riding reality on the bike industry,
and with cost cutting being all the rage, the well-known geometric relationships of the bicycle
being ignored more and more. This affects the largest and smallest frame sizes the most. If you look
at geometry charts, many manufacturers use the same length chain stays on frames from 54 to 62 cm. A
39 cm chain stay might be fine on a 54 cm frame, but a 62 cm frame should have a 42 cm stay or so
(for a "racing" bike).

When I switched from my Reparto Corsa-built Bianchi to a Ritchey, which has longer chainstays and a
shorter front center, I was amazed at how much better the bike handled in crits and when climbing. I
did better in races because I was more comfortable and more confident on the Ritchey than on the
Bianchi. I'm a good descender, but I found that the Ritchey was a faster bike to get to the bottom
of the hills if the descent was technical- even though by modern bike mag analysis the Ritchey
should be "stodgy" and "not as responsive."

Another option is to bungee a pack to a seatpost rack. I have one that
attaches to the seatpost and extends back over the back wheel. I've found
it ideal for long trips when not carrying TOO much.
"kencogl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As a new cyclist (using a hybrid, so far for up to 1/2 day recreational rides), I am interested
in the relative advantages and disadvantages of panniers and backpacks for carrying similarly
sized loads.

Can someone please advise on what is to be learned from science &/or experience?😕

--