Hi all, I'm looking at getting a roof rack as the new bike is a bit too long to fit in the car neatly, plus if it's covered in crap after a ride it's much easier to throw it on the car.
Roof rack is the choice for me as my current lease doesn't have a towbar, and a lot of the cars I'm considering as my next are unable to have them fitted whereas all can have roof rails.
So the frame is a Specialized Stumpjumper Evo Carbon, I was originally looking at the Thule 598 but it seems like the clamp on the frame is not ideal, so instead I'm looking at the Thule 568 fork mounted rack. Anyone got experience with these 2 and this sort of frame?
The 568 looks fancy.
I've got the 561 fork mount which works ok. You need an adapter for 15mm boost though.
Both my bikes are longish (XL izzo being the longest) , but seem to fit ok.
I think the 568 is basically a newer version of the 561, same principle and everything and supports 15mm boost thru axles as stock.
No issues with the 561? My only concern was the lack of any locking, but I suppose you can always throw something between the rack and the frame around the BB area for a visual deterrent
Clamped carbon frames many a time, as long as yoour not a hamfisted oaf, it's not an issue.. Some fork manufacturers warn against fork mounts too IIRC?.
The issue with this particular frame is it's a Stumpy, so the swat box cavity is right where you'd be clamping the frame, at what would arguably be the weakest point on the downtube as the top of the clamp only has minimal contact.
I think I'd just prefer a fork mount for the extra stability, can't see anything from Rockshox about it being an issue whereas Specialized are adamant that clamping the downtube is a no no.
I just got a Thule Upride as my new bike didn’t work with my old 598 (the shock gets in the way of where the clamp needs to go).
The Upride clamps the front wheel by the tyre and secures the rear wheel as per usual. No frame contact at all. It works an absolute treat. Fits my road bike (which I never put on the roof before as I didn’t want to clamp the wafer thin frame) and my silly long hardtail and full sus bikes.
Is nae cheap but it’s rock solid.
The Yakima Frontloader is another option which only grips the tyres, not the frame. I've been very happy indeed with mine.
598 is fine for carbon frames. Nice soft clamp and a torque limiter. If you're worried about the frame then some 3m tape around the area that gets clamped.
I used mine with my swat box camber. Clamped below the door.
I have a 598, it just about works for me but I wouldn't buy it again. It's prone to inconvenience or incompatibility due to clamping down near the BB which is generally a cluttered area - cables/hoses crossing across (or upwards to the seat tube for the dropper), offset bottle cages, shocks, ...
can’t see anything from Rockshox about it being an issue whereas Specialized are adamant that clamping the downtube is a no no.
Of course frame manufacturers are going to say that though. And equally, I'm sure someone somewhere once crushed the paper-thin downtube of road bike by being an inept gorilla. But IMO that doesn't make it a valid consideration for MTBers. I haven't read of anyone damaging a carbon MTB in this way. I've also seen plenty of reports that it's totally fine (which is my experience too).
From a mechanical sympathy point of view, when you see how much bikes on (roof) racks lean when going round corners, the concentration of stress in a fork dropout is worrisome. I'd be much happier attaching my (carbon) MTB to a 598 than a 561.
From a mechanical sympathy point of view, when you see how much bikes on (roof) racks lean when going round corners, the concentration of stress in a fork dropout is worrisome.
Compared to the stresses exerted on those dropouts by the front wheel when riding hard? Really?
The movement you see of bikes on the roof is mostly the rack flexing.
Compared to the stresses exerted on those dropouts by the front wheel when riding hard? Really?
A hell of a lot of that will be dissipated through the spokes tbh.
Oooft must be taking my life in my hands every time I put my propel or stealth TT bike on the roof....that clamp doesn't need to be mashed up it's literally stabilising*
* Mines not fallen off get and neither has it broken the frame.
A hell of a lot of that will be dissipated through the spokes tbh.
Yeah, this.
IANAMechEng but the idea of the fork being held very rigidly at its dropout and then a lateral force added up top does not sit well with me.
The movement you see of bikes on the roof is mostly the rack flexing.
Yeah, this is a good thing. I'd rather sacrifice the £100 rack than a bike. Having said that, even though my old 591 looked like it flexed a lot, it never became sloppy or failed in years of constant use.
I stick everything from carbon roadbikes to carbon, alu and steel fatbikes on my 4 x 598 roofrack. Been doing so with my supersix evo for 5 years with no problem.
Watch any stage of the tour de france and see how they clamp all the bikes on and off the roofracks- if there was any worry for the lightest bikes used by pros they'd have found another method.
I have the ThruRide 565 which is similar, I put my Trek Rail Carbon on it. No issue so far but only put the Rail on it 4 or 5 times. I also use 2 straps to hopefully stabilise it further and place them around the handle bar and the main roof bar.
I used to move bikes professionally. I guess I've moved over 1,000 carbon framed bikes clamping on the frame. As nobeer says, there's no need to tighten it up like a gorilla.
598 has a 'soft' clamp is probably pretty safe. I've used old 591 for years but hard clamp can cause a bit of rubbing over time, I just put a bit of helicopter tape on where the clamp grips. This includes gripping cables on frames which have them near bb, bit of tape underneath.
They all have a 'cupping' effect round the frame, put a microfibre cloth around the frame if your bothered about rubbing, and tighten enough that the frame can't escape the narrow part, it doesn't actually have to be particularly tight.
Compared to the stresses exerted on those dropouts by the front wheel when riding hard? Really?
Yes, remember back in the day Pace refusing to warranty their forks if they had been used on fork mount bike racks. But then they were the days of magnesium QR dropouts bonded onto the bottom of carbon lower tubes.
The side-loading or twisting forces on the front wheel are actually pretty small, that's why even upside down* forks which you can visually flex by clamping the wheel between your feet, aren't completely rubbish when actually ridden.
But I can't see it being a problem on modern both though forks though, you've not got the QR system twisting, and you've not got dropouts that can become unbonded.
*or even conventional forks Vs say a lefty which is actually a much better system at resisting twisting despite only having one leg.
We use 591/598 on S Works Stumpy no issues so far, the same setup was used for Previous Scale again no issue. I clamp just above the swat box use to wrap a rag around area but don't bother anymore.
I’ve been clamping my Carbon Stumpy for ages, doesn’t seem to have broken it yet! There’s room down from the swat box just by the BB area on mine though.
An old inner tube wrapped around the frame works wonders for grip and avoiding rub.
One of the best things about a carbon stumpy is that a 598/591 clamp fits perfectly snugly in that little space. It's like they're designed for it, even if you have the multitool on the bottle cage.
It's right at the interface with the BB moulding, it's far from a weak spot.
Had two carbon stumpys on Thule racks clamped under the bottle cage hundreds of times without issue.
Was going to say that we have clamped my gf's stumpy many a time without issue. However the newer ones (assymetric shock brace types) seem to have the swat box lower down, so cant comment on the suitability for them.
But regardless, I very much doubt your ability to impart enough force to crush a carbon downtube by doing up the ratchet mechanism by hand.
