The verdict blames one thing. If I fix it, does the bag fit?
Ten refusals rest on one objection; two have a second underneath
A fit verdict names one dimension. A refusal names the first blocking objection the ruleset raised; a verdict that clears names the measured dimension closest to its own threshold. Either way the rules found more than they showed, and what they dropped decides whether fixing the named thing is enough.
10 of 39pairs whose refusal rests on exactly one blocking objection
The two refusals with a second reason
| Bag | Frame | Reported as limiting | Also blocking |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frame bag, 9000 ml | Small · 47 cm | top tube length | seat tube |
| Seat pack, 14000 ml | Small · 47 cm | exposed seatpost | tyre clearance |
Both sit on the smallest reference frame, and for both the answer to the question is no. Shorten the bag until the top tube length objection goes away and the seat tube one is still there. Nothing in the verdict said so. A blocking finding returns no clearance, so there is no margin to weigh and no sense in which the second objection was close; it is simply also true.
What a verdict that clears leaves out
| Frame | Verdict | Named as limiting | Raised and not shown |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small · 47 cm | No fit | top tube length | thigh line, 4 mm; clearance at the down-tube boss, 11 mm |
| Medium · The Mule | Tight | thigh line | top tube clearance, 35 mm; clearance at the down-tube boss, 11 mm |
| Large · 58 cm | Tight | thigh line | top tube clearance, 95 mm; clearance at the down-tube boss, 11 mm |
This is the widest gap between the verdict and the working. The down-tube boss clearance is the same on all three frames and is never what the verdict names, because on two of them something else is nearer its limit and on the third a refusal outranks it. On the small frame the thigh line clears by only a few millimetres and the rider is told about the top tube instead: a blocking objection is reported ahead of any measured one, however tight the measured one is. The two larger frames give the same verdict and the same named dimension while differing by tens of millimetres on a clearance neither page shows.
Where the verdict is the whole story
- The 5500 ml frame bag raises no objection at all, on any of the three frames. There is nothing behind its verdict to find.
- Each handlebar bag raises exactly one objection per frame, and that is the one reported.
- The 3000 ml fork or cargo bag raises exactly one objection per frame, and that is the one reported.
- The two refusals for a missing mount raise one objection each: the mount is absent, and no second thing was found.
What this cannot tell you
A count of objections is not a count of fixes. The rules do not know which of them a rider could act on, and most of these dimensions are frame geometry, which is not a thing anyone fixes — for those, fixing the one thing means buying a different bag. Two objections may also share one cause, and nothing here can tell them apart. The unnamed clearances are computed against thresholds this page does not carry, so a figure being larger is not proof it is safer. And the sweep is 13 bags against 3 frames; a bag outside the catalogue, or your own frame, may raise objections in a different order and name a different one.
Every claim above, and how it is known
- DERIVEDThe fit check was run over 39 pairs: 13 bags in the catalogue against 3 reference frames.
- DERIVEDOf those 39 pairs, 10 are refused on exactly one blocking objection.
- DERIVEDTwo pairs are refused on more than one blocking objection, and both are on the small 47 cm frame.
- DERIVEDThe 9000 ml frame bag on the small frame raises 2 objections, both blocking: top tube length, which the verdict names, and seat tube, which it does not.
- DERIVEDThe 14000 ml seat pack on the small frame raises 2 objections, both blocking: exposed seatpost, which the verdict names, and tyre clearance, which it does not.
- DERIVEDThe 7000 ml frame bag raises 3 objections against each of the three reference frames.
- DERIVEDOn the small frame the 7000 ml frame bag is refused at top tube length, with a thigh line clearance of 4 mm and a down-tube boss clearance of 11 mm neither shown.
- DERIVEDOn the medium frame the 7000 ml frame bag is Tight at the thigh line, with a top tube clearance of 35 mm and a down-tube boss clearance of 11 mm neither shown.
- DERIVEDOn the large frame the 7000 ml frame bag is Tight at the thigh line, with a top tube clearance of 95 mm and a down-tube boss clearance of 11 mm neither shown.
- DERIVEDThe 5500 ml frame bag raises no objection at all on any of the three frames.
- DERIVEDEach handlebar bag raises 1 objection on each of the three frames, and it is the one the verdict names.
- DERIVEDThe 3000 ml fork or cargo bag raises 1 objection on each of the three frames, and it is the one the verdict names.
- DERIVEDThe refusals for a missing mount — the 18000 ml seat pack and the 4000 ml fork or cargo bag — raise 1 objection each and nothing else.
Other notes worked the same way
- Do I need bolts on my fork to carry a bag there?
Only for the bolt-on fork bag; the strap-on one comes out Tight
- I have bags for a weekend. Do I need more for two weeks?
Two weeks asks for the same list a weekend does
- My bike is a size M. Will this bag fit?
A frame size is a name; these are the measurements that decide
Every figure here came out of the same rules that answer the interview, so it moves when they do. Yours differ wherever your answers differ.