new(ish) Ortliebs

[jacksonz]

If I ever loose an insert, I'll replace it. Big deal.

[Heltor Chasca]

If I ever loose an insert, I'll replace it. Big deal.

I've got plenty spare now [emoji6]

[Sweep]

If the product is used to specification there is no problem.

This means what?

Re andy miller's post, i agree. My r&k fittings on my alturas have never caused a single issue.

And to clarify - generally i think the ortlieb bikepackers are brilliant, hence my interest in the newer version.

And yes, jackson, i do know about the tabs.

Luckily ortlieb do not appear to take your position, that any problem is the fault of bone-headed users, and so appear to have taken steps to address the issue. This probably helps to explain germany's continuing manufacturing success.

My question was to do with whether this change has solved a problem both users and ortlieb have been aware of.

[jacksonz]

If the product is used to specification there is no problem.

This means what?

Re andy miller's post, i agree. My r&k fittings on my alturas have never caused a single issue.

And to clarify - generally i think the ortlieb bikepackers are brilliant, hence my interest in the newer version.

And yes, jackson, i do know about the tabs.

Luckily ortlieb do not appear to take your position, that any problem is the fault of bone-headed users, and so appear to have taken steps to address the issue. This probably helps to explain germany's continuing manufacturing success.

My question was to do with whether this change has solved a problem both users and ortlieb have been aware of.

It means that you have the problem, there is nothing wrong with the Ortlieb attachment system.

I just received a pair of Ortlieb City back-roller panniers from Rose. They still use the traditional QL-1 attachment system. So it appears that Ortlieb do not see a problem with QL-1.

Fine, the QL-2 system looks great but I notice that it uses the exact same inserts that you have "issues" with. To answer your initial question, I suggest that Ortlieb is not for you. You have other options, you won't have to bother about inserts again....

[Sweep]

, I suggest that Ortlieb is not for you. You have other options, you won't have to bother about inserts again....

What a bizarre response.

Though thanks as it gives me a wonderful image of a petulant Ortlieb pannier flouncing out of the door in an imperious fit.

I have four Ortlieb products - aforementioned bikepacker pluses which I have had since last century, have been very well used, but still look like new. A drybag. Their suitcase looking thing which goes on the rear rack (very well made but has hardly been used). And a pair of front roller classics. Generally very well made stuff.

Though different folks are fans of different panniers, I think it's fair to say that the company has an excellent reputation amongst cyclists on here. Though if it wanted its reputation to plummet it should surely put you in charge of its PR/marketing/customer relations.

[BottomGear]

I gather that pretty recently ortlieb has made a couple of changes to its rear bikepacker pluses.

https://www.ortlieb.com/en/produkt-deta ... 20Panniers

1: an external pocket which is lidded rather than the old rollover external pocket

2: QL2.1 hooks, the ".1" apparently includes a change to the hook reducing inserts which apparently pop in from the side (rather than bottom) and so are supposedly less likely to come out and get lost.

I have had a pair of bikepacker pluses for around 15 years and am generally very happy - they have had a lot of demanding use yet, miraculously, still look like new. But i would potentially be interested in the new versions as :

1: I don't like the external pocket/flap on mine and this once caused me to lose a much valued wind/showerproof top and reflective jacket.

2: like many folk i have been plagued by those **** inserts popping out. Have had no issues at all with my altura klickfix hooks.

So, has anyone got some of these newer panniers and could they comment on the effectiveness of these two changes?

I can't fully answer as I've only recently taken delivery of a pair of rear Bike Packer Plus Ortliebs and have only used them on just a few occasions, but they seem very well made. The QL2.1 attachment system seems rattle free and secure with no hint of the inserts coming loose - but as I said I've not used this for anything more than a few day outings so time will tell on that. The outer pocket design works well enough, the lid folds over on itself and due to a simple but clever piece of a plastic insert, folds over and stays closed quite securely. There are a straps stitched to the side which act as additional compression straps which is good too. If anything, if I had the choice I would probably prefer the previous packer design of a mesh outer rather than an enclosed pocket as it would seem more suited to drying things on the move - but that's just personal preference. I'm not sure if the older versions had internal pockets, but my version has a large zipped mesh pocket and is very handy for keeping things you want to stay flat such as maps or documents etc.

hope it helps...

[Sweep]

Many thanks for the reply bottomgear.

And for the detail on the outer pocket - i had rather wondered how it stayed closed. Don't want to lose anything else.

Reassuring words from you on the inserts as well - thanks.

Strangely, just pack from a short trip, I have come to rather like the roll over outer pockets on mine - i was overfilling them before, for the older bikepackers were a tad smaller than some rear panniers. The newer ones have a fair bit higher quoted capacity I think.

[doodah]

Hi Sweep, very briefly in answer to your OP, the new inserts are 12mm as opposed to 11mm on the old inserts. I have old rear panniers and new front panniers

I personally haven't had the old inserts pop out. I noticed that Ortlieb claim that the material used on the new inserts will not scuff the racks. Wrong! They do scuff and in my circumstance, the Tara front low loader was badly abraded. I believe that it is because the inserts are 1mm bigger and therefore more slap on them - a term commonly referred to in R&D.

I have followed MartinBrice's idea and fitted the clear plastic tube. The panniers fit a treat. Rattle eliminated. Abrasion eliminated. Possible loss of inserts eliminated. Extended life of panniers racks. The only possible downside is the lack of aesthetic appeal, but that is a small sacrifice given the gains.

I also think the new system is more versatile as regards the different orientations of the fixings, but have to admit that I like the "feel" of the security using the torx screws on the earlier fixings.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the info MartinBrice.

doodah

[Sweep]

Thanks for the post doodah

[doodah]

Hi,

Not completely off topic, but I read on a thread somewhere on this forum that you could get conversion kit arm for the QL-1 system that will allow it to fit the fatter tube of the Tara low loader.

I have looked at Ortliebs website and am hesitant to select the right component part.

Can anyone inform me please of the correct part number?

In case any of you eagle eyed voyeurs are wondering why I want these parts as I have previously mentioned that I have the new QL-2 system panniers for the front, the answer is because MartinBrices idea was such a success, I am going to put the tube on the rear rack where the arm tucks onto the rack. It also gets scuffed there and the plastic tube will prevent this but at the cost of increasing the diameter - hence my request for the new arms.

Phew!! Hope you lot understand that.

Thanks

doodah

[gloomyandy]

I think this is what you need:
http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php ... b0s74p2780

[doodah]

Spot on, thanks gloomy - by the way, are you related to paulatic?

I didn't see this article on Ortliebs website - should I go to Specsavers?

Thanks

doodah

[Sweep]

I think my lowrider is a tara. And my front ortlieb classic rollers use QL 1. Intrigued by the fact that I had never had any great problem getting the bags on the rack I checked the spa cycles web page and it appears to say that the tara uses 10mm tubing. So no problem? Are there two versions of the tara around? Apologies if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick/rack.

[gloomyandy]

Not sure about the Tara but (a recent Duo) definitely uses 14mm tubing for the main part of the rack. It uses a smaller diameter for the bit the rack latches hook on to though. The diagram on the Tubus website shows the Tara using 14mm tubes in a similar way. Maybe they have changed things?

I'd love to see how others attach a Sport Packer to this rack though. My older Sport Packers use QL-1 fittings. By turning the curved lower track thing round (so that it curves upwards no down), I've managed to get the original hook to sort of fit, but I'm not sure it is ideal. Perhaps it would be better with the "special" fitting?

[Sweep]

Thanks for the reply gloomyandy

but

Doh!

just checked - my front rack is an Ergo, hence no issue.

sorry.