Thule roof bike carrier (ProRide591)

[rock]

does the rack make a noise when the bike isn't mounted? also hows the fuel economy with the race on and bike off, ie for every day driving ?

[GoLefty!!]

I had a paper copy and it was in german.
can you read german?
or are u just asking because you don't believe me?

 

actually i read german and can found no link to fuel consumption in the article.

 

In fact this line says you're talking absolute bollocks!

"

Reduce it your driving speed! Driving speed should be restricted to 100km/hr. High wind forces place additional stress on all the fastening points and results in high fuel consumption.

The Google translation was abyssmal...

 

This article supports my claim that Roof mounted leads to higher fuel consumption than a tow bar mounted rack:

 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/48/article19.html

 

and the quote:

"One finding surprised me ? the marked effect on fuel consumption. All carriers increased fuel consumption quite significantly. The effect was least for towball-mounted carriers which in the tests caused increased fuel costs of about ?8 for carrying two bikes for 1000 miles. High rear-mounted carriers were worst: a two-bike carrier increased fuel costs by about ?38 for 1000 miles and a three-bike carrier by about ?49. Obviously the best answer is to carry your bikes inside your car if you can."

If you'd like the aerodynamics behind this I'll explain in plain ingrish

[_Daemon_]

 

does the rack make a noise when the bike isn't mounted? also hows the fuel economy with the race on and bike off' date=' ie for every day driving ?[/quote']

 

Rack makes a noise all the time, with or without the bike mounted.

 

Fuel economy goes up a bit, not that much, but enough to notice with the rack on and no bike, with the bike on it get's even worse.

 

[rock]

thats it bike back and seat folded down...case closed, bikes clean, petrols the same, won't get stolen.....

 

now whare can I find a compact bike bag?

[GoLefty!!]

the folks that make those big heavy plastic bike boxes sell bike covers for in-car transport.

 

Just remember that having a 8kg mass, unsecured in the car at 120km'hr has enough kinetic energy (about 3.8KJ) to kill you if you need to break hard...

 

 

tow bar mounting is best, you know this to be true, search your feelings

[TheLegend]

 

I had a paper copy and it was in german.

can you read german?

or are u just asking because you don't believe me?

 

actually i read german and can found no link to fuel consumption in the article.

 

In fact this line says you're talking absolute bollocks!

"

Reduce it your driving speed! Driving speed should be restricted to 100km/hr. High wind forces place additional stress on all the fastening points and results in high fuel consumption.

The Google translation was abyssmal...

 

This article supports my claim that Roof mounted leads to higher fuel consumption than a tow bar mounted rack:

 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/48/article19.html

 

and the quote:

"One finding surprised me ? the marked effect on fuel consumption. All carriers increased fuel consumption quite significantly. The effect was least for towball-mounted carriers which in the tests caused increased fuel costs of about ?8 for carrying two bikes for 1000 miles. High rear-mounted carriers were worst: a two-bike carrier increased fuel costs by about ?38 for 1000 miles and a three-bike carrier by about ?49. Obviously the best answer is to carry your bikes inside your car if you can."

If you'd like the aerodynamics behind this I'll explain in plain ingrish

 

the test rock has psoted is from LAST YEAR. the one i am refering to is from THIS YEAR! you have that Golefty?

i haven't read the test from 2005 thoroughly but if i'm not msitaken there's nothing about fuel consumption in it at all.

 

why do i have to argue with you when i am just giving an advice?

 

tests from adac are reliable.

 

if you wanna save fuel put the bike in the car.

 

[buckshot]

rock, did you get the latest email from chain reaction? they've launched their own branded wheel and bike bags with an intro discount. they look ok...

[GoLefty!!]

I had a paper copy and it was in german.
can you read german?
or are u just asking because you don't believe me?

 

actually i read german and can found no link to fuel consumption in the article.

 

In fact this line says you're talking absolute bollocks!

"

Reduce it your driving speed! Driving speed should be restricted to 100km/hr. High wind forces place additional stress on all the fastening points and results in high fuel consumption.

The Google translation was abyssmal...

 

This article supports my claim that Roof mounted leads to higher fuel consumption than a tow bar mounted rack:

 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/48/article19.html

 

and the quote:

"One finding surprised me ? the marked effect on fuel consumption. All carriers increased fuel consumption quite significantly. The effect was least for towball-mounted carriers which in the tests caused increased fuel costs of about ?8 for carrying two bikes for 1000 miles. High rear-mounted carriers were worst: a two-bike carrier increased fuel costs by about ?38 for 1000 miles and a three-bike carrier by about ?49. Obviously the best answer is to carry your bikes inside your car if you can."

If you'd like the aerodynamics behind this I'll explain in plain ingrish

the test rock has psoted is from LAST YEAR. the one i am refering to is from THIS YEAR! you have that Golefty?
i haven't read the test from 2005 thoroughly but if i'm not msitaken there's nothing about fuel consumption in it at all.

why do i have to argue with you when i am just giving an advice?

tests from adac are reliable.

if you wanna save fuel put the bike in the car.

 

So you're saying that the laws of aerodynamics changed over the last year...

 

Oh sh*t better go back to school and relearn these new laws then..

[TheLegend]

 

I had a paper copy and it was in german.

can you read german?

or are u just asking because you don't believe me?

 

actually i read german and can found no link to fuel consumption in the article.

 

In fact this line says you're talking absolute bollocks!

"

Reduce it your driving speed! Driving speed should be restricted to 100km/hr. High wind forces place additional stress on all the fastening points and results in high fuel consumption.

The Google translation was abyssmal...

 

This article supports my claim that Roof mounted leads to higher fuel consumption than a tow bar mounted rack:

 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/48/article19.html

 

and the quote:

"One finding surprised me ? the marked effect on fuel consumption. All carriers increased fuel consumption quite significantly. The effect was least for towball-mounted carriers which in the tests caused increased fuel costs of about ?8 for carrying two bikes for 1000 miles. High rear-mounted carriers were worst: a two-bike carrier increased fuel costs by about ?38 for 1000 miles and a three-bike carrier by about ?49. Obviously the best answer is to carry your bikes inside your car if you can."

If you'd like the aerodynamics behind this I'll explain in plain ingrish

 

the test rock has psoted is from LAST YEAR. the one i am refering to is from THIS YEAR! you have that Golefty?

i haven't read the test from 2005 thoroughly but if i'm not msitaken there's nothing about fuel consumption in it at all.

 

why do i have to argue with you when i am just giving an advice?

 

tests from adac are reliable.

 

if you wanna save fuel put the bike in the car.

 

So you're saying that the laws of aerodynamics changed over the last year...

 

Oh sh*t better go back to school and relearn these new laws then..

 

dude, how ignorant can you be?

 

I read that in the test. in the test they make tests, have numbers and figures which describe the result. the result was that the carriers behind the car use more fuel.

their result, comprehensible to me.

you know more then them? you have done exhaustive tests? write them - perhaps the number of scientists behind the test will be happyly let you correct them!

i don't know what makes you act so arrogant and i don't wanna know. just read closely what i write before you attack.

 

 

now you better write them an email and tell them to do their work better and argue with them!

 

[rock]

the folks that make those big heavy plastic bike boxes sell bike covers for in-car transport.

 

Just remember that having a 8kg mass' date=' unsecured in the car at 120km'hr has enough kinetic energy (about 3.8KJ) to kill you if you need to break hard...

 

 

tow bar mounting is best, you know this to be true, search your feelings

[/quote']

 

part of the reason I took out my subwoofer..........some ratchet straps can help keeping the bike in one place....

 

 

[rock]

rock' date=' did you get the latest email from chain reaction? they've launched their own branded wheel and bike bags with an intro discount. they look ok...

[/quote']

 

looks good.......30% import duty......shipping......weak rand.......

[GoLefty!!]

I had a paper copy and it was in german.
can you read german?
or are u just asking because you don't believe me?

 

actually i read german and can found no link to fuel consumption in the article.

 

In fact this line says you're talking absolute bollocks!

"

Reduce it your driving speed! Driving speed should be restricted to 100km/hr. High wind forces place additional stress on all the fastening points and results in high fuel consumption.

The Google translation was abyssmal...

 

This article supports my claim that Roof mounted leads to higher fuel consumption than a tow bar mounted rack:

 http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/48/article19.html

 

and the quote:

"One finding surprised me ? the marked effect on fuel consumption. All carriers increased fuel consumption quite significantly. The effect was least for towball-mounted carriers which in the tests caused increased fuel costs of about ?8 for carrying two bikes for 1000 miles. High rear-mounted carriers were worst: a two-bike carrier increased fuel costs by about ?38 for 1000 miles and a three-bike carrier by about ?49. Obviously the best answer is to carry your bikes inside your car if you can."

If you'd like the aerodynamics behind this I'll explain in plain ingrish

the test rock has psoted is from LAST YEAR. the one i am refering to is from THIS YEAR! you have that Golefty?
i haven't read the test from 2005 thoroughly but if i'm not msitaken there's nothing about fuel consumption in it at all.

why do i have to argue with you when i am just giving an advice?

tests from adac are reliable.

if you wanna save fuel put the bike in the car.

 

So you're saying that the laws of aerodynamics changed over the last year...

 

Oh sh*t better go back to school and relearn these new laws then..

dude' date=' how ignorant can you be?

I read that in the test. in the test they make tests, have numbers and figures which describe the result. the result was that the carriers behind the car use more fuel.
their result, comprehensible to me.
you know more then them? you have done exhaustive tests? write them - perhaps the number of scientists behind the test will be happyly let you correct them!
i don't know what makes you act so arrogant and i don't wanna know. just read closely what i write before you attack.


now you better write them an email and tell them to do their work better and argue with them!
[/quote']

 

 

I think you need to qualify what was written before posting your version of their findings.

 

Boot mounted racks do have the highest drag.

Roof Mounted racks have lower drag than boot mounted racks.

Tow Bar mounted racks have the lowest drag.

 

now if your "Scientists" say different then please post the article.

But in the space of 12 months I doubt the law of aerodynamics have changed, despite how much you would like them to support your arguement

[Guest Big H]

The warning about forgetting your bike on the roof must be taken seriously. Exactly a year ago when we came down to the 94.7 I jury rigged a baseplate to the rollbar on my bakkie to carry the tandem. The rear wheel was on top of the back lid. When we arrived ..... fairly knackered because we drove from Moz through Zim to Pta in one go, I had to go and fetch our Bakwena entries. There is a boom that stops lorries entering the parking lot. I remembered in time and stopped 50 mm away from the boom!!!!!!!!!!........ but the whole entrance behind me was stacked with cars. I had to remove the bike with about twenty impatient cars behind me...... verrrrrrrry embarressing but it could also have been verrrry costly. It is a risk. I think a boom like that could trim a carbon frame verrry nicely.... snap, crackle, pop!!!!!!!

[stringbean]

Don't waste your time with the roof carrier.Somewhere, sometime you will forget the bike is on the roof.Ask Stu,he has one and has already replaced a bar,stem and sti from one trip over chappies.If you wan't a soft bikebag you can lend mine for free

 

[bikemonster]

This thread has been a learning experience.

 

Henceforth I shall draft other cyclists by riding on top of them, using my newfound knowledge of aerodynamics.

 

As an added bonus they will not even know that I am there because they will still be applying old-fashioned physics and looking behind themselves.

 

[TheLegend]

This is getting annoying so the following will be the last thing i'll write to this topic:

 

the ADAC (allgemeiner deutscher automobile club) is germany's biggest automobile club with a couplke of members. they do have a magazine where they publish (besdies internet) their tests and other stuff. they do test like car crashes, equipment for your car, ferries..anything related to cars. they do the tests in special research centres. the tests are done by scientists.

amongst others they have published the results of their tests with bike carriers. one of their statemnets was that carriers behind the car eat up more fuel. that's their result. the issue was this year in late summer.

if you believe different-do so. but don't write arrogant stuff here. if you have knowledge in this are good for you. do proper tests like the adac did and then tell them they were wrong.

unless you do that stop claiming. anyone can just claim without proof.

i will not go searching for the article because the magazine has probably alreadybeen thrown away. you say you speak german - then go to www.adac.de and write to them about their results.

I know what I've read there and since i know about their reputation and i haven't seen any research that showed different results i've no reason to doubt them. if there are different reults i'll be happy to see them and make up my mind. you have any proper research results?

 

stop pulling my posts into ridiculousness. i am saying what i've read in a magazine with scientific researches. you just argue.

 

that's it.