TW200 Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a Manrack with bungee loops and I emailed the company asking what the weight limit was for my particular model. They would not disclose it. For you metal workers here, or those who would like to take the challenge, what is your ballpark figure for the rack?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,496 Posts
I know the one on my 2014 that I borrowed from Borneo for the Moab Trip....held well until I bounced around with the 2 gallons of fuel latched on it...after a couple of falls, both welds broke...however, the Manrack came out in good shape...now I know that doesn't answer your question, but just saying, there are limits, especially if you are riding off road and falling in sand pits...:hororr:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,949 Posts
It's not the rack capabilities that matter, it's the weight that the rear sub frame on the bike can handle. In this case, sorry to say, but the limit is 7 lbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
It's not the rack capabilities that matter, it's the weight that the rear sub frame on the bike can handle. In this case, sorry to say, but the limit is 7 lbs.
Sorry but the Manracks doesn't use the rear sub-frame for mounting points. It mounts to the same place your seat does. So how much can a TW seat handle? I actually think the pip alongside the seat would fail first.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,949 Posts
I wondered if that was the model. Doesn't it use two mounting points though on that subframe or the whole rear of the rack? That would limit it somewhat...wouldn't it?? I mean you can't put 200 lbs on it can you?? Like you could a Cyclerack??
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,137 Posts
The Manrack mounting points are two-fold – first pair under the seat – second pair at the very beginning of the sub-frame. How much will they take ? – my guess is quite a bit – 60 lb + dead weight ? – probably less if you were bouncing around …….

The standard 7lb loading limit is at the rear of the sub frame – “just” the sub frame – law of the lever and all that.

Why don’t Manracks state a limit ? – because they would have to ruin a perfectly good main frame to find it.

But don’t take my word for it – feel free to find out …………..

The only advantage the Cyclerack has is the leg to the rear footrest, where force is applied directly along the tubing – the indicator mounts are just stabilisers ……….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
Mrs Trip's seat bracket with a cycleracks:



We've been having ongoing issues on our trip between the rack and the bike frame. My bike developed a crack in the cross bar under the seat as well. They have been repaired by Handlebar Motorsports in Durango, CO, by welding round bar to the underside of the crosspiece. I have not seen the repairs yet...I'll see that Tuesday morning. I believe Mrs Trips has been worse because her bike is lowered with the V-Star shock.
We previously had the Cyclerack repaired in Bisbee, Az by a prince among men, the Lawrence Welk of Welding, Merle the Pearl Phillips of All Custom Welding. He saved our ride!


He dropped what he was doing and took us in on a Saturday afternoon and did an excellent repair to the rack.

All this is to say that the weak link is the TW crossmember...I will bet that's the limiting factor on both designs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
Mrs Trip's seat bracket with a cycleracks:

All this is to say that the weak link is the TW crossmember...I will bet that's the limiting factor on both designs.
But it's still probably the strongest place to mount it. I would think the weakest piece of the cycleracks is the length of pipe to the passenger foot pegs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,931 Posts
Actually, I think the weak point on the Cycleracks is the weld between the "L" shape bracket that attaches at the seat, and the round bar of the rack. It would be greatly strengthened with some gusseting. The weld itself could be more robust. The design of the Cycleracks makes that point a fulcrum that carries most of the weight. The load is behind that point, and the legs down to the footpegs are actually resisting an upward force from the balance point. I think any failures would be at the fulcrum. After the rack was repaired by Merle Phillips, the stress was transferred to the TW seat bracket which failed in turn.
I have not seen what the repair to our seat cross members looks like. But I did see a thread where Ronnydog did a great repair to his seat bracket and I doubt he has experienced further problems...even with a big deer hanging off the back of his bike!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,496 Posts
I had the full two gallons with the rotopax....so some 14 pounds, I think I would have been fine, but the second fall, when with Fred and Borneo, was pretty violent....however even then we did not notice the welds had broken until we were unloading the bikes back in Indiana for transfer to my trailer for hauling the 70 miles to my place from Borneo's....and frankly even with the cracked welds, which Montezuma has not gotten to yet, the Manrack is still carrying my 10 pound tool bag without a problem....these things are worth the money, that's why I kept the one Borneo loaned me...and still have not purchased him a new one:hororr: But I will, I will, I promise...:p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Fuel weighs about 6.8 pounds per gallon. A one gallon rotopax you would have no problems
Thank you and good to know. Your science teacher would be so proud of you! ;)

I had the full two gallons with the rotopax....so some 14 pounds....and frankly even with the cracked welds.....the Manrack is still carrying my 10 pound tool bag without a problem....
Interesting! I know the tubular steel seemed tough enough for light travel poundage but I wasn't sure just how much. Thank you for giving me a great visual aid and a giggle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
Fuel weighs about 6.8 pounds per gallon. A one gallon rotopax you would have no problems


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think the Manracks would have no prob with two 1.75 Rotopax. Both fuel or one water. With all the hardware should still be around 25. pounds. Piece of cake!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,404 Posts
I think the Manracks would have no prob with two 1.75 Rotopax. Both fuel or one water. With all the hardware should still be around 25. pounds. Piece of cake!
I dont think, the problem is the manracks as much as it is the attachment points on the rear subframe.

After seeing what Rhodetrip went thru with his i plan to beef up the rear mounting point on my bikes before i load them up again. Mine have not cracked yet but but i feel like they will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,170 Posts
Why not weld in some reinforcement prior to any failure on the trail irregardless of the rack selected? I have seen multiple Cycle Rack weld and fatigue failures as well as turn signal tab cracks, seat crossmember cracks, sub-frame to frame mounts crack.The stresses irregardless of weight of load are also a function of how many Gs of acceleration rack is subjected too. A good bounce or impact can vastly increase the forces to be resisted well beyond the static weight of the load. F=MxA....Force equals mass times acceleration. How much acceleration do you anticipate fair lady DirtGirl? A 10 g bump, (which really is minor and easily encountered on the trail) imparts a tenfold increase in the distructive forces beyond the static load you put on.
Basically all the racks are pretty good given the limitations of the factory mounting locations employed by commercial rack vendors. For something really bomb-proof I was truly impressed with our member ToyAnvil's custom made rack which transfers the load mostly to the rear passenger foot peg assembly. The guy is a fabricating genius with impeccable attention to detail and a savvy engineering sense of what works and what doesn't.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top