Dangerous mudguards

[fixer]

If your stays are a loose fit in the secu-clip, you can put in a bit of thin sheet plastic, eg from a bag or wrapper, and that will hold the stay in place.

I've only had stays pop out of the secu-clips once. I had fitted a new front sidepull brake cable and didn't cut the cable to the correct length but coiled the excess into a loop. I think it unravelled and then caught on the tyre.

[plancashire]

I had a bike in the workshop this week with the break-away at the mudguard end. A plastic clip on the end of the stay fits over the rolled edge of the guard. The original had an additional tab that fitted into a slot in the guard; the replacement just had the clip and no tab. It wobbled a bit but held firm, so I explained to the customer why the break-away is important and she was happy.

[Bmblbzzz]

Having the breakaway at the mudguard end of the say seems more sensible in terms of the flailing spoke potential mentioned earlier. Does it affect the functioning, perhaps due to reduced leverage?

[cycle tramp]

Having the breakaway at the mudguard end of the say seems more sensible in terms of the flailing spoke potential mentioned earlier. Does it affect the functioning, perhaps due to reduced leverage?

I can see your point of view- but in doing so that would leave the end of an exposed metal rod pointing towards the rider, who may or may not be falling towards it....
..despite the probability of this not happening.. its still going to be enough for that sort of break away stay design to be stopped in its tracks by the companies lawyers....

[531colin]

This is an old old thread resurrected by a one post new member, so it’s probably all a waste of time

However, I have tried to get the vee shaped mudguard stay which pulls out of the SKS release to catch in the spokes, and I failed. It’s pretty easy to try it and reassure yourself it’s all perfectly safe.

[cycle tramp]

Having the breakaway at the mudguard end of the say seems more sensible in terms of the flailing spoke potential mentioned earlier. Does it affect the functioning, perhaps due to reduced leverage?

Perhaps the only way forward is not to mount the mudguard at the same level as the front wheel axle, but mid way up on the front fork - so that if an object is caught between the front wheel and mudguard stay, as the mudguard is pushed around, the arc of its travel differs front the arc of the tyre and the mudguard ends up being pushed away from the tyre releasing the object...

[Bmblbzzz]

Having the breakaway at the mudguard end of the say seems more sensible in terms of the flailing spoke potential mentioned earlier. Does it affect the functioning, perhaps due to reduced leverage?

I can see your point of view- but in doing so that would leave the end of an exposed metal rod pointing towards the rider, who may or may not be falling towards it....
..despite the probability of this not happening.. its still going to be enough for that sort of break away stay design to be stopped in its tracks by the companies lawyers....

It doesn't need to leave exposed metal – there are designs, including ones from SKS that actually work, where two plastic parts separate. Noting also Colin's point that both risks are minimal.

[squeaker]

This is an old old thread resurrected by a one post new member, so it’s probably all a waste of time

Not for me! Its resurrection prodded me into fitting some SKS stays onto the front guard of my shopping bike

[TrevA]

I only use these there are NO issues


Img_1626.jpg

They might keep you clean and dry but my cycling club mates wouldn’t be very impressed by those, as they’d get a face full of road muck. You obviously don’t ever ride in a group.

[keyboardmonkey]

Just throwing this in to the mix…

For those on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/adelangers/status/1 ... 1706709292

[cycle tramp]

Just throwing this in to the mix…


DF5C2682-A263-47DD-B44D-E75F41658D68.png

For those on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/adelangers/status/1 ... 1706709292

Thanks, and it's good to know that the rider survived... however it goes back to a previous comment I made on the 18th March 2o24.....
Whilst it undoubtedly looks neater to attach the mudguard stays at the lowest point.... I personally would have attached the mudguards at the mounting which is higher than the front hub... by changing the location of the mud mount/pivot point to a place higher than the front axle, this would mean that the mudguard stays are placed on a different arc and one which was not parallel to the front tyre...
By using the higher mount the mudguard blade is effectively pushed away from the tyre, should an object be caught between the two, and as a result of this the object might have been released before it reached the top of the forks and jammed the 'guard.

[AndyB1]

That mudguard looks like it might have had a solid type of ‘mudflap’ which extended backwards from the mudguard. If so, I can imagine that would make a nice trap for the wood.

With the very low mudguard mounting position the stays would pull the guard tight against the tyre as they rotated forwards - as said above by cycle tramp, it might be better to have higher mudguard mounts so the guard moves away from the tyre.

[531colin]

Or just fit the breakaways which are supplied with the guards; I think this is a legal requirement in the UK.

[Airsporter1st]

Just throwing this in to the mix…


DF5C2682-A263-47DD-B44D-E75F41658D68.png

For those on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/adelangers/status/1 ... 1706709292

There’s a lot to be said for keeping one’s eyes on the road ahead.

[keyboardmonkey]

A post script...