Advice: Roof rack or hitch

[BAC5.2]

I've definitely never heard of a LOCKED rack getting stolen. Unlocked racks get stolen all the time. But a locked one is new to me too.

[RabidWombat]

One other comment on hitches. The sedan doesn't have the wiring harness for brake lights the way the wagon does. So if you want to use the hitch for towing a trailer, you may be looking at a fairly complicated electrical install. People have reported mixed results just tapping into the brake lights.

[ST13Pilot]

I've definitely never heard of a LOCKED rack getting stolen. Unlocked racks get stolen all the time. But a locked one is new to me too.

 

I know....it's crazy. Luckily, since the rack was attached (locked) to the vehicle, my insurance company claims they're going to cover it (over $600). I'm optimistic, but will feel better once the check is in hand. And it appears the estimate to repair the roof was a bit low.....now they're saying just over $2k. F@#king animals!!!

[el5y]

I'd say go with the hitch if you have a sedan. I have both a Hitch and a roof rack for mine and I have yet to use the roof rack. The hitch mount bike rack is just so much easier to throw on when I want to take bikes along. Unless you're like BAC2.5 and always have the bike rack on...if that's the case then I have no idea. I liked the hitch mount rack because it was quick to put on and take off.

[BAC5.2]

I don't always have the roof rack on.

 

I don't have a hitch rack, because there are LOTS of steep entrances/exits around here and I'd scrape.

 

I have a D-ring shackle insert for my hitch. I wear it when it's snowing, so I have a quick-and-easy attachment to pull people out of the snow. Unfortunately, after I lowered the car, I would scrape it all over the place.

[biketowork]

Thanks for all the posts. It looks like the hitch will be a better fit for us. The hitch mounted bike racks are a lot easier to load and unload (for us anyway). I've read through all of the threads on OEM v aftermarket hitches and am leaning towards a hidden hitch, mainly, because I can find them cheaper.

 

Jeff, I told a friend who works in insurance about your problem. She said that if your car insurance doesn't cover it or doesn't cover enough, that you could talk with your homeowner's/renter's insurance agent because it happened at your home. Hope you can get everything taken care of without too much headache.

[mkeGT]

<snip> I've read through all of the threads on OEM v aftermarket hitches and am leaning towards a hidden hitch, mainly, because I can find them cheaper.<snip>

 

Not sure about the ride height difference from a '09 GT & Base, but I can't stress this enough. Be EXTREMELY careful exiting and entering driveways. Bikes on a rack sit pretty low too. Low enough where the tires MIGHT also scrape on a driveway.

 

I don't know if you are like me and cringe a little when hitting an unexpected pothole, but just my final $0.02

[ST13Pilot]

Well, my insurance company did fully cover the cost of my Yakima roof rack, and gave me an extra $50 "labor" to install a new one.

 

Though not my favorite option, I've decided to go with a trunk mounted rack for now. (Thule Raceway 3) Considering I'm picking up the deductible for my car repair, buying a hitch and hitch rack added up to more than I can spend right now.

 

Car gets dropped off tonight. Thanks everybody for all the help/tips. Jeff

[vr4Legacy]

Jeff, I told a friend who works in insurance about your problem. She said that if your car insurance doesn't cover it or doesn't cover enough, that you could talk with your homeowner's/renter's insurance agent because it happened at your home. Hope you can get everything taken care of without too much headache.

 

That's interesting, because I had tornado damage caused to my car, while parked in my garage, from my garage entrance door being blown open into the side of my car. My homeowners said they would not cover the damage because the car was insured, so I would need to file a claim with them (and pay another deductible!!) If I had no car insurance they said they would have covered it .... anyway, sorry to go OT.

[ehsnils]

Personally I go for a hitch first, and a roof rack second.

 

The big disadvantage these days is that a roof rack that fits one car is useless on another. Older cars with gutters were no problem at all when it came to roof racks.

 

And with a hitch you can always do a trailer with a motorcycle instead whenever necessary.

[SCHM1AN]

You're going to have some scary drops in MPG with a roof rack. I've heard up to 25% drop in MPG with a roof rack.

[ST13Pilot]

Just an FYI, The rack I had (Yakima) could have been put on another model car with the purchase of vehicle specific "Q" clips at around $50.

 

As far as gas mileage goes, I keep track of my mpg's religiously, and I did see a drop after I installed the rack, but it was only about 1/5 a mpg.

[BAC5.2]

You're going to have some scary drops in MPG with a roof rack. I've heard up to 25% drop in MPG with a roof rack.

 

Not even close.

 

The difference is marginal.

[biketowork]

mkeGT, thanks for your $0.02. I'm like you with potholes. My wife likes to aim for them, so I'll definitely keep the clearance issue in mind. Does the OEM one sit higher?

 

vr4Legacey, it was the first I had heard of homeowners covering anything extra too. My friend is an insurance agent dealing with homeowners insurance, so it my just be her company. My bother's car insurance wouldn't even cover his car when lightning struck a tree and it fell on his car. They said, "It is an act of God." We could easily start a whole new rant thread about insurance...no matter what, I thought it was worth a try if car insurance didn't cover the rack.

[SCHM1AN]

As far as gas mileage goes, I keep track of my mpg's religiously, and I did see a drop after I installed the rack, but it was only about 1/5 a mpg.

 

That is good to know. I was just going off of what I overheard my friend saying a few weeks ago. Each car is different, so I'm glad to hear the LGTs are a little easier going than other cars out there

[blaze741]

I've had my rack on for a while now. In the spring(warmer) and completely local, I'm getting about 18/19 mpg. I remember I could get like 21 just maybe without the rack. I barely notice anymore. On highway without the rack I can get 26/27 mpg, with the rack 100% highway I have no tested yet. Will have that number for you in a week.

[SilvrFyre]

That's interesting, because I had tornado damage caused to my car, while parked in my garage, from my garage entrance door being blown open into the side of my car. My homeowners said they would not cover the damage because the car was insured, so I would need to file a claim with them (and pay another deductible!!) If I had no car insurance they said they would have covered it .... anyway, sorry to go OT.

 

That should still fall under the homeowners/renters insurance. Anything not covered by your auto policy, including the deductible should be considered double coverage and the policies should overlap. If you had liability only coverage through your auto policy it would be considered uninsured/uninsured.

[SilvrFyre]

You're going to have some scary drops in MPG with a roof rack. I've heard up to 25% drop in MPG with a roof rack.

 

I don't even see more than a 2 mpg drop when I pull my 19 foot 2000 pound pop-up tent trailer. How could you possibly lose 25% from just a little roof rack?

[Scotty]

My last car, 96 Camry, normally got 32-33 mpg with no roof rack, 28 mpg with roof rack w/anything on it, and 23 mpg with 3 bikes on the roof along with 2 pax and gear.

 

My Scooby wagon doesn't see much of a difference like 1 mpg with just the roof rack on it.

[SCHM1AN]

I don't even see more than a 2 mpg drop when I pull my 19 foot 2000 pound pop-up tent trailer. How could you possibly lose 25% from just a little roof rack?

 

4 years in engineering school does this to you... Fd=(1/2)*p*Cd*A*v^2

 

If you add a roof rack, you're increasing the frontal area of the car by maybe 2-3 ft^2. Plus you're increasing your drag coefficient.

 

Now maybe that won't add up to 25% increase in Fd, but that's just the figure I overheard from a friend the other day.

[vr4Legacy]

I don't even see more than a 2 mpg drop when I pull my 19 foot 2000 pound pop-up tent trailer. How could you possibly lose 25% from just a little roof rack?

 

Where are starting from though? If you are getting 19-22 mpg, then you won't see as big of a difference. But for a light, underpowered fuel efficient car cruising at 33mpg, the slightest change in drag is going to net worse mileage.

 

Also if he was hauling 3 bikes and other stuff, he most likely had a few passengers that aren't calculated into that 33mpg.... so the roof rack ALONE may not be what's causing the huge difference.

[BAC5.2]

4 years in engineering school does this to you... Fd=(1/2)*p*Cd*A*v^2

 

If you add a roof rack, you're increasing the frontal area of the car by maybe 2-3 ft^2. Plus you're increasing your drag coefficient.

 

Now maybe that won't add up to 25% increase in Fd, but that's just the figure I overheard from a friend the other day.

 

A 25% increase in Fd doesn't equal a 25% increase in fuel consumption.

 

In fact, Cd hardly changes if you use a fairing. It might go up by 0.01, but that's marginal.

 

Wet frontal area increase is marginal in comparison to the frontal area of the car itself.

 

Relative velocity is the clear and driving factor in the drag force. It's pretty obvious that every other component is marginal in comparison.

 

To require a 25% increase in consumption, you would have to do something MASSIVELY drastic. Like double the wet frontal area, quadruple the weight, or go much much faster.

 

I think your friend was making things up.

[SCHM1AN]

A 25% increase in Fd doesn't equal a 25% increase in fuel consumption.

 

In fact, Cd hardly changes if you use a fairing. It might go up by 0.01, but that's marginal.

 

Wet frontal area increase is marginal in comparison to the frontal area of the car itself.

 

Relative velocity is the clear and driving factor in the drag force. It's pretty obvious that every other component is marginal in comparison.

 

To require a 25% increase in consumption, you would have to do something MASSIVELY drastic. Like double the wet frontal area, quadruple the weight, or go much much faster.

 

I think your friend was making things up.

 

Assuming all other things being equal, no, a 25% increase in Fd doesn't equal 25% deduction in MPG, but it's close. The only other opposing force is rolling resistance, and RR at highway speeds is so small in comparison to drag, it's almost negligable. Although, a roof rack will increase your RR, but we'll consider that negligable as well.

 

Doubling the frontal area will double your Fd.

 

From 55mph, increasing your speed by 6.500mph is a 25% increase in Fd.

From 60mph, increasing your speed by 7.075mph is a 25% increase in Fd.

From 65mph, increasing your speed by 7.675mph is a 25% increase in Fd.

From 70mph, increasing your speed by 8.250mph is a 25% increase in Fd.

 

... You don't have to go that much faster to increase your drag by 25% at highway speeds.

 

Using a fairing may increase your Cd by a margin, but I think roof rack manufacturers are going to make these as aerodynamic as possible. However, due to all of the protuberances (cross members, voids between the fairing and car roof, clips, etc.) you're going to increase your Cd regardless. 0.01 increase seems reasonable.

 

Also, my friend could've been pulling my leg. He does tend to overexaggerate things from time to time. Just thinking this over, I could believe about a 10-15% deduction.

[Scotty]

I can tell you that with 3 pax and no roof rack, a 96 Camry will hit the speed limiter. With 2 pax and 3 bikes on the roof on a steep downhill, it will just nudge 100 mph.

[Claw]

Hitch.. easier to load/unload, bikes stay cleaner. Rack is tilted a bit because I mounted the hitch above the tow hook.

 

http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff385/stfurtfm/hitchrack.jpg