A bizarre "solution" to another self-inflicted "problem" imposed onus by weight weenies

Are you sure you're an engineer, Colesy?

On Jul 15, 1:09*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
I like really flimsy
fenders. I'd rather replace them periodically than have them create more
solid jams in the fork. Zefal fenders are about the flimsiest I've
found. They're still too robust for my liking. Fenders can be hazardous,
but I see bikers with them riding through debris all the time -- not a
good idea.

In almost twenty years riding with fenders I picked up a branch, with
leaves on it, in my spokes only once, at speed, the SKS special strut
links pulled out of their inboard sockets and by the time I slowed the
branch had been stripped of leaves and bent into the spokes against
the fork. No bent spokes, and the struts were easily straightened.
Good stiff SKS P65 fenders never came closer than 2in/50mm of going
into the spokes -- that's where they normally run.

On a properly designed bike the mudguard fits closely enough in the
fork anyway and close enough the top of the tyre, and is made stiff
enough anyway, not to get into the spokes because there is no open
path for them to get into the spokes and the strut-supported part is
short and braced by the fork crown across its full width. (At the back
the mudguards should be fixed to the bike and the rack at so many
places that the strut-supported run is very short indeed -- same safe
result.) This is all about proper design of a joined-up bike from the
beginning, as the Europeans do, and not throwing an ill-assorted bike
together from an oddjob of tacky aftermarket parts as the Americans
do. The problem you foresee, Peter, is entirely a danger of the light
weight obsession in cycling which leads to limp, flexible mudguards.

And you want to "solve" this self-inflicted problem caused by limp
fenders by making them even limper! Man, that's like an electrical
engineer saying, "The Chantilly lace sheathing on this kilovolt cable
won't stop a customer killing himself by grasping it firmly, therefore
let's make the holes in the lace bigger so he kills himself faster."
This is another of your "solutions" that tends towards zero population
growth...

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes

Hi,

On 07/15/2010 07:41 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Are you sure you're an engineer, Colesy?

On Jul 15, 1:09 pm, Peter wrote:
I like really flimsy
fenders. I'd rather replace them periodically than have them create more
solid jams in the fork. Zefal fenders are about the flimsiest I've
found. They're still too robust for my liking. Fenders can be hazardous,
but I see bikers with them riding through debris all the time -- not a
good idea.

Interesting - some people see riding with fenders as dangerous, while I
consider fenders "safety important"... As I'm wearing glasses (and have
been for all my life), I'm rather sensible to dirt or stuff in my eyes
(or on the glasses). So, I consider riding without fenders dangerous, as
you have the dirt thrown right into your face...

Sure, this depends somewhat on the bike, someone sitting low on a racing
bike is closer to the wheels than someone sitting upright on a comfort
bike. Actually, looking at recumbent trikes, where one sits right behind
the wheels, I'd never go without fenders...

Fortunately everyone is responsible for their own bike and for their own
safety ;-)

In almost twenty years riding with fenders I picked up a branch, with
leaves on it, in my spokes only once, at speed, the SKS special strut
links pulled out of their inboard sockets and by the time I slowed the
branch had been stripped of leaves and bent into the spokes against
the fork. No bent spokes, and the struts were easily straightened.
Good stiff SKS P65 fenders never came closer than 2in/50mm of going
into the spokes -- that's where they normally run.

Same with me, though my fenders don't have that safety feature... So I
used a saw to saw through the struts and re-connected them with
electrical terminal strip connectors... Should work fine.

Ciao..