Forgot to say... I also have seen people tilt the TopRack up a bit in the back to account for the rise in the tire ...which, at first, seems like the wrong thing to do for me since I'm a fan of things being nice and level.. But, the rack essentially disappears under the bag and it could help relieve the bunching under the saddle and fill the no-mans-land space.
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 6:53:22 PM UTC-4 J Schwartz wrote: > Thanks Patrick , the SQR looks like a smart solution for just such a > conundrum. > > Joe, the medium sack on your custom looks more inflated than the large > sack on my Appaloosa ...so probably the medium would work fine on my frame > but I'd need to continue using the Top Rack. > > I really prefer the seat post connection on the Medium vs the tombstone > connection on the Large. If the proportions are right, it helps tuck the > back in that empty unused space. > > For instance....this looks right ...even though it needs the rack. (that's > a Happisack, btw) > [image: > SackvilleInfo-05_00188601-9c68-416b-abe9-b0fbf76d259c_1024x1024.jpg] > > > hmm...I may be putting my vintage saddleback Large up for sale soon > > On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 3:26:35 PM UTC-4 Patrick Moore wrote: > >> I don't have measurements, but I have used many large saddlebags without >> supports, and I know that you need a great deal of distance. The attached >> photo from Oh! So many years ago! shows my 2003 Riv Road 26" wheel custom >> (overall wheel diameter about 25") with a first gen medium Saddlesack. >> There was enough clearance, but just enough. OTOH, I think that the later >> Saddlesacks were shorter top-to-bottom, because more recently I used a >> medium Saddlesack on a clone of this bike, this time with fenders, and it >> cleared. Still, even with fenders the gap to saddle was considerably more >> than with 650B or 700C wheels, esp with fat tires. >> >> Note that the 2003 frame is no midget; it's a 58 c-c for a rider who >> rides a 60 c-c with level top tube. >> >> One device you might consider, if it works with the Saddlesack design (it >> is designed for the old Carradice Nelson and Camper-type of saddlebag) is >> the Carradice SQR that can be raised so that it holds the top of the bag >> higher than the saddle. This does makes you swing your leg higher to mount >> the bike. I used this on my "road bike for dirt" that has wheels 29 1/2" >> tall, with the purpose-designed SQR Slim saddlebag designed by Carradice to >> fit into shallow sapces. (That's* not* it in the picture.) >> >> [image: image.png] >> >> https://www.carradice.co.uk/products/accessories/sqr-system >> >> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 12:35 PM Joe Bernard <joer...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have the old Medium Saddlesack and about the same clearance as you on >>> two Rivs. It sits on the rackless Susie with a bit of space to the tire, >>> looks great, all good. EXCEPT..this doesn't work at all once I put stuff in >>> the bag and sit on the bike: the saddle drops a bit and the cargo pushes >>> down the bottom. So I'm afraid it's a no-go for you without some kind of >>> uplift device to hang the bag on. >>> >>> Here's how it looks on my Top Rack-ed custom. Yep, I get some of the >>> squish and droop but it eventually fills out if I cram enough stuff in >>> there so I live with it. >>> >>> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 7:04:54 AM UTC-7 J Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>> I've been using a old SaddleSack Large from the first releases on a >>>> Nitto TopRack on my bikes for about 10 years...Mostly on a Sam >>>> >>>> In that time I've acquired different frames (Appa and Clem) that are >>>> larger with much larger tires. >>>> >>>> Now I don't really have the vertical distance between the saddle loops >>>> and top of rear tire without smushing the bag too much. >>>> >>>> I think it's time to move the Saddlesack Large on to someone who has >>>> the frame for it. >>>> >>>> Perhaps a Saddlesack Medium would work for me or one of the newer >>>> happisacks...with a rack. I'd prefer to lose the rack but I don't think I >>>> have the space. >>>> >>>> It's kind of a bummer bc I love how broken-in my current sack is..and >>>> the new ones look too perfect. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I can't really tell from the Riv site the minimum space needed >>>> to run that bag without tire rub. >>>> Does anyone know? >>>> The site lists the bag as 8.5" tall and that's essentially what I have >>>> on both the App and the Clem from saddle loop to highest point of tire. >>>> >>>> Here's a pic of my Large mounted to the bike without the rack..just >>>> sitting directly on the tire to illustrate how the bag should really >>>> drape...but I can't achieve this with the rack. The rack, even when >>>> installed as low as possible, pushes the the whole thing up quite a bit. >>>> >>>> Also a pic showing how much distance there is sans rack. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance >>>> JS >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/71a3d807-9aab-4b38-a4c0-b54d355ce3c1n%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/71a3d807-9aab-4b38-a4c0-b54d355ce3c1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Patrick Moore >> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a4eed376-abe8-4977-b9e9-084816fc1c1dn%40googlegroups.com.
