Cycling UK Forum

ChrisF wrote:……...
I've just fitted these guards https://www.vanillabikes.com/products/m-part-commute-full-length-mudguards-700-x-46mm to a carbon frame gravel bike with 35mm tyres; they're 46mm but there would have been room for 55mm whch are also available. The limiting factor, though, was toe clearance. With a bigger tyre the rear of the front guard would catch on my shoes an unacceptable amount.

I wouldn't ride any bike at all on any surface at all without a mudguard stay release.
No release, single stay, doubtful toe clearance and a tyre with a bit of tread ridden off-tar is just about a perfect storm.

I fitted the Giant Defy mudguards on my Defy bike. With 25mm Gatorskins they spun round ok but there was little clearance for anything picked up off the road and spun round with the tyre, eg riding on newly gravelled roads was scary. I do not use any mudguards now preferring to be wet rather than an accident victim. On club runs I ride at the back when neccesary. Over the years we have been lucky - the old Bluemels used to break when obstructed but these days the material does not but twists round, often blocking the wheel.

The other factor is that the Defy mudguards do not have quick releases not even at the front. Even Giant get their designs wrong, just as on my wife's Liv the projecting disc brakes make fitting mudguards a task to test any bike mechanic's ability.b

This was a topic of discussion on yesterday's club run -the inability of the present day cycle industry to produce home mechanic friendly designs. We all have tales of bottom bracket failure after two or three years that need a bike shop mechanic to fix. Good for the LBS but not very good for sustainability.

531colin wrote:

ChrisF wrote:……...
I've just fitted these guards https://www.vanillabikes.com/products/m-part-commute-full-length-mudguards-700-x-46mm to a carbon frame gravel bike with 35mm tyres; they're 46mm but there would have been room for 55mm whch are also available. The limiting factor, though, was toe clearance. With a bigger tyre the rear of the front guard would catch on my shoes an unacceptable amount.

I wouldn't ride any bike at all on any surface at all without a mudguard stay release.
No release, single stay, doubtful toe clearance and a tyre with a bit of tread ridden off-tar is just about a perfect storm.

+1

531colin wrote:

ChrisF wrote:……...
I've just fitted these guards https://www.vanillabikes.com/products/m-part-commute-full-length-mudguards-700-x-46mm to a carbon frame gravel bike with 35mm tyres; they're 46mm but there would have been room for 55mm whch are also available. The limiting factor, though, was toe clearance. With a bigger tyre the rear of the front guard would catch on my shoes an unacceptable amount.

I wouldn't ride any bike at all on any surface at all without a mudguard stay release.
No release, single stay, doubtful toe clearance and a tyre with a bit of tread ridden off-tar is just about a perfect storm.

The 'm-part' guards that I bought (as in the link) do have front stay releases, though not shown in the photo. Bad marketing on their part, then, it seems!

ChrisF wrote:......….The 'm-part' guards that I bought (as in the link) do have front stay releases, though not shown in the photo. Bad marketing on their part, then, it seems!

Good!

reohn2 wrote:Race blades IMO are an accident waiting to happen and are wholly inappropriate for any kind of cycling let alone any kind of gravel road riding.
I know that many people who use them will have a pop at that statement but I stand by it.

Why? I'm pretty sure that race blades will snap the glorified rubber bands holding them to the forks long before they deform enough to jam a wheel - as-is, they can pass under the fork bridge. It's also quite likely that the mudguard itself will break up before jamming, as I've seen one snap across the stay attachment even without any impact, just from rough roads.

pga wrote:This was a topic of discussion on yesterday's club run -the inability of the present day cycle industry to produce home mechanic friendly designs. We all have tales of bottom bracket failure after two or three years that need a bike shop mechanic to fix. Good for the LBS but not very good for sustainability.

Is it inability or just that few seem to consider these things important when buying a new bike (through inexperience or penny-pinching), so commercial businesses don't think it's an important selling point? You can buy lovely easy-to-work-on bikes, but they seem to be a smaller market so more expensive, so people seem keener to buy cheaper race-inspired bikes intended to be serviced by specialists and then grouse about the compromises they have to make in other ways!

mjr wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Race blades IMO are an accident waiting to happen and are wholly inappropriate for any kind of cycling let alone any kind of gravel road riding.
I know that many people who use them will have a pop at that statement but I stand by it.

Why? I'm pretty sure that race blades will snap the glorified rubber bands holding them to the forks long before they deform enough to jam a wheel - as-is, they can pass under the fork bridge. It's also quite likely that the mudguard itself will break up before jamming, as I've seen one snap across the stay attachment even without any impact, just from rough roads.

TBH I wouldn't fit them if they were being given away free,there's more chance of one breaking free and jamming under the bridge because they're designed to be fitted to bikes with tight clearances ie; bike not intended for mudguards in the first place.
Also their effectiveness is slight compared no mudguards at all.
The answer to keeping bike and rider dry in wet weather is to buy a bike with enough clearance to fit proper full length mudguards in the first place,removing them in the drier warmer months if you wish.
Race blades are and have always been an ineffective and potentially dangerous bodge more so on unsealed gravel roads ,YVMV mine won't

reohn2 wrote:

mjr wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Race blades IMO are an accident waiting to happen and are wholly inappropriate for any kind of cycling let alone any kind of gravel road riding.
I know that many people who use them will have a pop at that statement but I stand by it.

Why? I'm pretty sure that race blades will snap the glorified rubber bands holding them to the forks long before they deform enough to jam a wheel - as-is, they can pass under the fork bridge. It's also quite likely that the mudguard itself will break up before jamming, as I've seen one snap across the stay attachment even without any impact, just from rough roads.

TBH I wouldn't fit them if they were being given away free,there's more chance of one breaking free and jamming under the bridge because they're designed to be fitted to bikes with tight clearances ie; bike not intended for mudguards in the first place.

Race blades deal with the tight clearances by not going through the bit with the tight clearance at all, resulting in similar clearance to my old Bluemels, so surely they're at no more risk of breaking free?


Actually there's a chance that they'll hit the back of the fork and bounce off instead of passing under it and jamming, which conventional mudguards only do if they snap across a bridge attached behind the forks (instead of the too-frequent habit of people attaching them in front).

reohn2 wrote:Also their effectiveness is slight compared no mudguards at all.

It's less, but good enough to avoid wearing a skunk stripe.

reohn2 wrote:The answer to keeping bike and rider dry in wet weather is to buy a bike with enough clearance to fit proper full length mudguards in the first place,removing them in the drier warmer months if you wish.
Race blades are and have always been an ineffective and potentially dangerous bodge more so on unsealed gravel roads ,YVMV mine won't

As I wrote earlier, buyers don't seem to value mudguard space enough. I think "potentially dangerous" is crying wolf, though.

I've always thought it ridiculous that bikes are marketed in the UK without any mudguard clearance. The choice of a road bike with good clearance is very limited. So called road bikes from yesteryear had good clearances and were the type ridden in Pro races. I suppose the need to reduce weight has much to with it. Short frames and tight clearances equals reduced amounts of frame material and probably larger profit margins. I keep mudguards on all year round as I'm often caught out in summer showers. Old bikes though.

both campagnolo and shimano are arguably to blame; neither makes their good groupsets with brakes that have adequate drop to allow fitment of decent tyres and mudguards. Shimano still make their venerable BR-R650 model brake caliper but this isn't a very good match for any 'new' -ish (NSSLR) shimano brake levers. Also even given the choice in the shop, wannabee roadies don't choose 'gappy' looking bikes, even if it means struggling to fit mudguards when the need arises; crayzee, innit?

What is probably required is a better brake design that is adjustable at both the centrebolt and where the brake blocks mount; this would allow the brake to be configured as a short-reach brake (no mudguard clearance) or as a long reach brake (with mudguard clearance). That way you could have a frame with clearances but not have that gappy look.

Another option would be to have adjustable dropouts in the frame so that it can be configured to give mudguard clearances or not; this would still require a different brake though.

cheers

MJR
As I said YVMV,mine won't.
Keep on believing what you will about bodging mudguards to bikes never designed to be used with mudguards,I'll keep riding bikes designed with clearances and brazeons to be used and fitted properly with mudguards.I know which is the safest.

But now that we are in the Disc brake era they are still selling tight clearance frames. Who came first, the tight frame or the short drop brake? I can remember Jobst Brandt going on about the nonsense of it all. The Giant SCR took full mudguards before they came along with the 'Tighter' Defy.

Brucey wrote:both campagnolo and shimano are arguably to blame; neither makes their good groupsets with brakes that have adequate drop to allow fitment of decent tyres and mudguards. Shimano still make their venerable BR-R650 model brake caliper but this isn't a very good match for any 'new' -ish (NSSLR) shimano brake levers. Also even given the choice in the shop, wannabee roadies don't choose 'gappy' looking bikes, even if it means struggling to fit mudguards when the need arises; crayzee, innit?

What is probably required is a better brake design that is adjustable at both the centrebolt and where the brake blocks mount; this would allow the brake to be configured as a short-reach brake (no mudguard clearance) or as a long reach brake (with mudguard clearance). That way you could have a frame with clearances but not have that gappy look.

Another option would be to have adjustable dropouts in the frame so that it can be configured to give mudguard clearances or not; this would still require a different brake though.

cheers

The problem with the "happy look" is nothing only ignorance and fashion of wannabee idiots who'd rather be either covered in road muck and filth or fit bodged on half mudguards than be drier and warmer.As you say daft innit

Brucey wrote:both campagnolo and shimano are arguably to blame; neither makes their good groupsets with brakes that have adequate drop to allow fitment of decent tyres and mudguards...

cheers

Back in the old days Campagnolo offered 'Record' and 'Super Record' short piccolo brake callipers for serious racers, and 'Record' standard brake callipers with more reach so mudguards would fit though fine.

Mudguard fitting life was so much more simply in those days

as to which came first it isn't quite clear. However it seems that some roadies were having frames built with fag paper clearances and then filing the slots in the calipers upwards to make brakes that worked with those frames.

In the 'drillium' era some folk even cut off the bottom of the slotted part of the brake calipers on TT machines: Initially anyway it could be argued that brake manufacturers were simply meeting a need; for many years campag offered both 'standard' (same as ever) and (new) 'piccolo' calipers, and others did likewise. [At this time the shorter reach brakes/frames offered a worthwhile improvement in braking performance, although this is less true now.] However as time went on the longer reach 'standard' brakes were dropped from most manufacturer's 'best' offerings. Not sure when this happened exactly but triomphe, victory etc were offered with standard reach calipers, at a time when C-record was not.

For the well-heeled TT enthusiast the hot setup in the early 1980s was a super close-clearance frame and Aero-Gran Compe calipers; these offer only ~5mm of vertical adjustment and have a maximum drop of about 43mm. You can only just use 23mm tyres with these brakes....



cheers