Tubus Swing fitted to a Giant XTC 2

Got a chance today to install my Tubus Swing front rack on my Giant XTC 2 in preparation for a short bikepacking trip late next month (if all goes to plan).

Yet to ride it but I had one pannier filled with a bag of food and did notice the weight when I was wheeling the bike around for the photo shoot. Will be interesting to see how it goes in the wild.

A couple of photos. More photos can be found in my Google+ album.

P8020104.JPG


P8020134.JPG


P8020137.JPG


Regards
Andrew
 

Crankarm

Legendary Member
Location
Nr Cambridge
I really don't like these Tubus Swing front racks for suspension forks, not only for their design but or the fact that they add considerable weight to the front shock. A far better approach is to fashion some brackets and mount these to the lower half of the suspension fork and use a Tubus Tara traditional front rack. This way the weight of panniers and of luggage becomes unsprung weight and does not affect the perormance of the suspension and thus creating a high centre of gravity as it does with the Tubus Swing.
 

jim55

Veteran
Location
glasgow
This way the weight of panniers and of luggage becomes unsprung weight and does not affect the perormance of the suspension
!!!!
i think u are putting this the wrong way round ,the gen opinion (in the motorbike/car world albeit (fitting lighter wheels to reduce weight that the spring components have to deal with when asked ) is to do as the op has done )and not put more load on the moving part (in this case the lower fork leg )as im sure this would cause the spring and the damping mechanism to be slower to react etc ,and a load fixed to this point would make the steering a good bit heavier i would think?imagine turning a wee bit and the load doesnt want to stop swinging when u do !!interesting handling ! i take ur point about the c o g but i think the set up you reccomend would have adverse effects ?
 
This way the weight of panniers and of luggage becomes unsprung weight and does not affect the perormance of the suspension
That is my understanding as well and seems to be the frequent suggestion around the place. I would also assume that Tubus has considered this, well I hope so :smile: If I get a chance to test it out next month I will update this thread with the outcome.

Andrew
 

Crankarm

Legendary Member
Location
Nr Cambridge
This way the weight of panniers and of luggage becomes unsprung weight and does not affect the perormance of the suspension
!!!!
i think u are putting this the wrong way round ,the gen opinion (in the motorbike/car world albeit (fitting lighter wheels to reduce weight that the spring components have to deal with when asked ) is to do as the op has done )and not put more load on the moving part (in this case the lower fork leg )as im sure this would cause the spring and the damping mechanism to be slower to react etc ,and a load fixed to this point would make the steering a good bit heavier i would think?imagine turning a wee bit and the load doesnt want to stop swinging when u do !!interesting handling ! i take ur point about the c o g but i think the set up you reccomend would have adverse effects ?
Nope I don't think so. Bicycle forks have an optimum performance range for the weight of the rider NOT rider plus another 30kg of luggage. There is adjustment around the typical weight of a rider, the setting can be varied by increasing or decreasing pressure or rebound of the forks. Motorcycle and for sure 4 wheel vehicle suspension systems such as fitted to cars are FAR more robust and have to be able to cope with carrying more weight such as passengers and heavy loads at far higher speeds and much greater forces and stresses. Bike forks NOT. An increase in suspended weight may cause the fork to bottom out more and if pressure in fork and rebound is increased correspondingly this may take the suspended weight outside the capability of the fork which I sppose to could lead to premature failure of fork seals. It wouldn't perform very well IMHO. So sorry you have the wrong thinking. My set up of brackets around the lower fork casing so I can fit a Tubus front low loader rack works fine and has done so for quite a few years now. A solid fork with low loader adds considerable weight to the front but with no suspension save thick tyres if your bike has 26"x2" tyres.

The only benefit of the Tubus swing set up I can see is increased ground clearance. But I am still put off by the rather high centre of gravity which would potentially make handling and steering cumbersome and difficult on off road loose bumpy surfaces. Just my 2ps worth.
 

Bodhbh

Guru
.An increase in suspended weight may cause the fork to bottom out more and if pressure in fork and rebound is increased correspondingly this may take the suspended weight outside the capability of the fork which I sppose to could lead to premature failure of fork seals. It wouldn't perform very well IMHO....

The only benefit of the Tubus swing set up I can see is increased ground clearance. But I am still put off by the rather high centre of gravity which would potentially make handling and steering cumbersome and difficult on off road loose bumpy surfaces. Just my 2ps worth.
How much extra weight are you typically gonna stick above the forks in reality? 8-12kg for luggage, including the weight of front panniers and the rack? Is that really a big deal? You won't be riding a loaded bike like you're downhilling anyhow, the back end bouncing around will probably limit your speed before anything the front is doing.

I used the Swing rack for a year or 2 before swapping out to rigid forks and a lowrider rack. You are right the centre of gravity feels a bit high on the Swing relative to lowriders, but there were no problems with weight causing the forks to bottom out. And the rack itself and the mounting is absolutely bombproof. The handling is fine off-road, I felt the high centre of gravity on the road mostly.
 

jim55

Veteran
Location
glasgow
Obv they are made for heavier duty
But this doesn't change the basic physics , never mind the unsprung thing as I dunno enough about it to quote a scientific thing , all I know is that I think it perform much better with the rack where it is as opposed to on the lower legs , we will have to disagree on this one unless you can prove things factually and il concede , but in this case I'm pretty sure I'm right
 

Crankarm

Legendary Member
Location
Nr Cambridge
Obv they are made for heavier duty
But this doesn't change the basic physics , never mind the unsprung thing as I dunno enough about it to quote a scientific thing , all I know is that I think it perform much better with the rack where it is as opposed to on the lower legs , we will have to disagree on this one unless you can prove things factually and il concede , but in this case I'm pretty sure I'm right

Well like you say, we'll have to disagree, as I am right. The set up on my bike has worked well for me.
 

jim55

Veteran
Location
glasgow
hahahah ,,very good:rolleyes:
 
Top Bottom