FE/FC FE501S Tail Rack?

[Guoseph]

Is the Nomadic rack the only rack available for the FE bikes? Will any of the KTM racks work or are the subframes different enough for it to not fit? Aesthetically I prefer a "plate" style rack over a "tube" style rack if possible.

Thanks all.

 

[Guoseph]

Hmm, on second thought I might need to pass on tail racks all together. I saw a picture of how the Nomadic rack is mounted (underside) and it looks like the weight is going to pull down on the threads of the mounting bolts rather than across the cross section.

If all racks are going to have to mount this way then I'm probably gonna pass, too much stress to the threads over time.

 

[bushwa]

What's wrong with a bolt mounted in tension? Sure beats using a bolt in single shear application. Just about every high pressure bolted piping flange relies on bolts in tension, cylinder head bolts in your engine, etc, etc. Single shear (crossways with the load concentrated on a single plane), is the worse possible application for a bolt.

 

[Guoseph]

What's wrong with a bolt mounted in tension? Sure beats using a bolt in single shear application. Just about every high pressure bolted piping flange relies on bolts in tension, cylinder head bolts in your engine, etc, etc. Single shear (crossways with the load concentrated on a single plane), is the worse possible application for a bolt.

Really? I was never a good engineer so I thought shear would be stronger (bigger than threads), at least that's how my tow hitch seems to be mounted.

So you think the application above may be okay to hold up a 1 gallon Rotopax?

 

[JonXX]

Shaft A with fewer splines will have less holding power than shaft B of equal size with more splines; though the splines are larger on shaft A there's more surface contact area (thus more load-bearing area) on shaft B. Similar principle applies to bolts under tension load versus shear load.

 

[bushwa]

No guarantee with a rotopax, fuel load is one of the worse as it's dynamic, but i'd do it. When I carried extra fuel this way (on a different bike), i'd empty it into the bikes tank as soon as there was room, especially if I was hitting rough trails. I have done a short trip with about 30lbs of stuff on my side racks which mount the same way on one side, although they also tie into the subframe mount bolts down by the pegs. I plan on doing a week trip this summer with 30-40 lbs of my gear.

 

[Guoseph]

Shaft A with fewer splines will have less holding power than shaft B of equal size with more splines; though the splines are larger on shaft A there's more surface contact area (thus more load-bearing area) on shaft B. Similar principle applies to bolts under tension load versus shear load.

That went completely over my head, I'll take your word for it I was thinking getting the Rotopax would be the most versatile in load out. I can run just the stock tank for when I truck it to the OHV, have 3.2 gallons w Rotopax for dual sport rides, and skip all the way up to the 5.3 if I ever do any long distance.

 

[bushwa]

That's not a bad choice. I ran a rotopax on my TE630. For the 501, I decided to just get the 4.1G Acerbis, as it's pretty inexpensive. However, I sat on a few bikes at the motorcycle show this year and it reminded me of how light and narrow the 501 was supposed to feel, and it enticed me to pick up a used fuel pump assembly to install back in the stock tank so I can quickly and easily swap back and forth.

 

[Guoseph]

That's not a bad choice. I ran a rotopax on my TE630. For the 501, I decided to just get the 4.1G Acerbis, as it's pretty inexpensive. However, I sat on a few bikes at the motorcycle show this year and it reminded me of how light and narrow the 501 was supposed to feel, and it enticed me to pick up a used fuel pump assembly to install back in the stock tank so I can quickly and easily swap back and forth.

I've been debating about the 4.1, kind of seems like a tweener while the 5.3 doesn't look that much larger. Then again, how many times a year do I really need 5+ gallons? Cost wise the 4.1 makes the most sense as it is the most versatile (rack + rotopax cost almost as much as the 4.1). I guess it's a good problem to have, I had a 630 too and there basically was the humongoloid Safari and that was all the choice we had.

 

[Brzoza]

Previous 630, current 501 owner here. went for the 5.3 gallon tank. It's pretty similar to the 4.1 but definitely wider. I still have a rotopax from my old bike but I like having minimal amount of gear attached. on the 630 I had alluminium plate bolted straight to the rear fender and the rotopax 1.75G on it.