The Givi mount has you remove and replace the grab rail and tail mount and replace it with the metal mount. mounting to the frame under the rear seat as well as at the tail.
Here
What you have (and I had previously) places the top box out on the tail without re-enforcing that subframe. The additional weight out on the tail gets to bouncing like a diving board which can cause those stress fractures.
Not to sidetrack my original thread any further but I think this needs clarification. The conventional wisdom is that the Givi mount (i.e. the SR357)adds some extra support that the stock rack does not. Not in overall individual strength (steel vs. aluminum) but rather in it's connection with something other than the subframe which is the vulnerable piece the Givi rack is claimed to save. But it doesn't as far as I can tell. And the issues have been with broken subframes and not broken OEM racks.
Here again is the Givi with it's two front attachment points highlighted to note their location on the
subframe:
And here is the stock rack highlighting the same two points that IT uses in attaching to the
subframe:
They both use the same three rear points so if
both use the
same five mounting points to the
subframe how is the Givi superior?
From what I have been reading the claim is that it moves the weighted stresses away from the subframe but it's clearly attached
to the subframe (exactly like the stock unit) so what am I missing? I don't mean to be thick-headed here but I not seeing it yet. :blink:
And, one other small point to an earlier poster that expressed concerns to the Shad mount I'll restate the point that
any rack that mounts to either the Givi or stock rack will introduce the same stresses, not unique to any Shad product.