• Hi everyone,

    As you all know, Coffee (Dean) passed away a couple of years ago. I am Dean's ex-wife's husband and happen to have spent my career in tech. Over the years, I occasionally helped Dean with various tech issues.

    When he passed, I worked with his kids to gather the necessary credentials to keep this site running. Since then (and for however long they worked with Coffee), Woodschick and Dirtdame have been maintaining the site and covering the costs. Without their hard work and financial support, CafeHusky would have been lost.

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working to migrate the site to a free cloud compute instance so that Woodschick and Dirtdame no longer have to fund it. At the same time, I’ve updated the site to a current version of XenForo (the discussion software it runs on). The previous version was outdated and no longer supported.

    Unfortunately, the new software version doesn’t support importing the old site’s styles, so for now, you’ll see the XenForo default style. This may change over time.

    Coffee didn’t document the work he did on the site, so I’ve been digging through the old setup to understand how everything was running. There may still be things I’ve missed. One known issue is that email functionality is not yet working on the new site, but I hope to resolve this over time.

    Thanks for your patience and support!

Luggage - Thinking outside the box

Fast1

Fast1

Husqvarna
AA Class
Found this gentleman that had an alternative idea on how to support rear panniers.

Wonder what all of you think about fabricating up something similar for the TE630 and having the pillion peg supports hold panniers or containers for soft bags? Weight low with no interference on body positioning in rough terrain. Maybe move the baggage/containers in closer to the bike on the TE than what was done in the photos since the bike in the photos was set up wide so that a pillion could still use the pegs.

Maybe a support for a fuel cell like the Acerbis, Koplin or Rotopax and the associated mounting hardware

dumb idea or a possibility?

Image0540.jpg


Image0538.jpg


Image0544.jpg


From this side view profile if the bracket were to bolt right near the peg support the pannier or fuel cell would be at least as close or closer to the bike as any of the aftermarket mounting systems such was Wolfman or Dirt bagz..

IMAG0278.jpg
 
Not a dumb idea at all, I have been scratching my head on how to use the pillion peg supports to 'help' carry luggage, but I think they are too flimsey on the TE630 to carry any real weight (as in your pictures). If you coulld make up a bracket that would attach to both the peg support and the grab handle mount points, that would allow for a lot more weight. I'm not a welder (not for over 25 years anyway) so I don't have the skills to design and fabricate myself, but it seems an obvious and overlooked mounting point.

S1
 
exactly, tie a top support to the grab hold mount in addition. This might allow the opportunity to move the luggage allot closer to the bike, especially for those that have converted to single can, than the existing products available.
 
I was thinking about adapting an idea from the WR250R mega thread for carrying fuel. The thought was that it would also help support the rear sub frame. Due to time constraints I decided to purchase the Safari tank instead. However, the Idea is still a good one and could work on both sides for fuel or luggage. The guy who came up with this is emerson biguns over on ADV Rider.

R/

Mike

1-6.jpg


Rotopax.jpg
 
with only one attachment point to the panniers, they would bounce and wiggle like mad, stress fractures would result. The design needs 2-3 arms supporting the pannier, IMO.
 
TrailPunter said:
I was thinking about adapting an idea from the WR250R mega thread for carrying fuel. The thought was that it would also help support the rear sub frame. Due to time constraints I decided to purchase the Safari tank instead. However, the Idea is still a good one and could work on both sides for fuel or luggage. The guy who came up with this is emerson biguns over on ADV Rider.
Click to expand...

This is similar (but prob not as strong) as adding Wolfman side racks with RotoPax mounts. I added all the components required and totaled up to well over $500. And then where does your luggage go? On top of the RotoPax making your rear end stick out super wide. When you stop for gas you're filling up three tanks and then out on the trail you need to stop and dump in the two rear aux tanks. For an extra $200 I finally came to realize the Safari tank is the only way to go. This decision has caused me to eat major crow as I was initially very opposed to a Safari tank for looks and cost. But end of the day it is the most practical, convenient and not that much more expensive solution. If you don't need all 6.6 gallons then fill your tank halfway. With a half fill your gas (weight) will actually sit lower on the bike than a stock tank. And when bike is packed for full on adventure riding you have your luggage weight on the rear and the extra 20 lbs of fuel in the front balancing things out.

_
 
I think this is my take as well - Safari or live with standard tank (and a fuel cell if really need be) ... and sodt luggage for me = Great Basin/Giant Loop/Cayote
 
Must say this is my take as well - Safari or OEM tank (with fuel cell if really need be) and soft luggage for me = Giant Loop/ Great Basin or Cayote, forget the racks etc. LESS IS MORE.
 
SilverBullet said:
This is similar (but prob not as strong) as adding Wolfman side racks with RotoPax mounts. I added all the components required and totaled up to well over $500. And then where does your luggage go? On top of the RotoPax making your rear end stick out super wide. When you stop for gas you're filling up three tanks and then out on the trail you need to stop and dump in the two rear aux tanks. For an extra $200 I finally came to realize the Safari tank is the only way to go. This decision has caused me to eat major crow as I was initially very opposed to a Safari tank for looks and cost. But end of the day it is the most practical, convenient and not that much more expensive solution. If you don't need all 6.6 gallons then fill your tank halfway. With a half fill your gas (weight) will actually sit lower on the bike than a stock tank. And when bike is packed for full on adventure riding you have your luggage weight on the rear and the extra 20 lbs of fuel in the front balancing things out.

_
Click to expand...

While I'm not against the Safari tank, your math doesn't quite pencil out. You are counting the Wolfman side racks as part of the fuel solution, but they are a luggage solution. So even after you buy the safari, you still have to buy some kind of luggage solution, and the cost differential would be $200 plus whatever luggage solution you choose.
 
Guoseph said:
While I'm not against the Safari tank, your math doesn't quite pencil out. You are counting the Wolfman side racks as part of the fuel solution, but they are a luggage solution. So even after you buy the safari, you still have to buy some kind of luggage solution, and the cost differential would be $200 plus whatever luggage solution you choose.
Click to expand...

I was really only addressing the fuel solution when comparing costs. Not everyone needs a luggage solution. But I did reference a full adventure setup above for weight balancing reasons. However you can always use bags that don't require a rack. Those bags are very comparable in cost to bags that use side racks so really a wash. Of course if you require your bags used without a rack to have a GL logo then it would be up to an additional $200 depending on size you need.

_
 
I went with the Safari tank. For luggage I use the Giantloopmoto Coyote saddle bag and the Fandango tank bag. Adding up all of the costs for materials, welding, rotopax tanks, designing it, and the time spent running around gathering everything it seemed much easier to simply buy the bigger tank and be done with it.

R/

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top