[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-08 Thread LF
I cannot fit fenders under the sidepull > brakes with the 32mm tires I run. I recall that someone had come up with the idea to cut the > fender in two to bypass the brake bridge, and then joined the sections > in some clever way that I can't recall. .. I created a wrap-around out of plumbers

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-08 Thread stevep33
Just fyi, the reach around brackets are basically flat rack stays that are bent in the right places. If you have a vice, stays and some patience, then you can make your own brackets. On Jun 8, 11:17 am, stevep33 wrote: > I had RiverCity reach around brackets on a tight-clearance bike. I had > to

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-08 Thread stevep33
I had RiverCity reach around brackets on a tight-clearance bike. I had to use p-clamps on the front. See them here: http://circlingbits.blogspot.com/2008/03/tight-squeeze-fenders-with-reacharound.html The brackets worked well. The bike is gone, but I probably still have the brackets around if you

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-08 Thread William
I was going 'Full Metal Jacket' specifically. NSFW(audio) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA_nV1NAfTs On Jun 7, 9:28 pm, Eric Norris wrote: > Yes, I think the back door would be the appropriate place for that discussion. > > --Eric > campyonly...@me.comwww.campyonly.comwww.wheelsnorth.org > >

Re: [RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread Eric Norris
Yes, I think the back door would be the appropriate place for that discussion. --Eric campyonly...@me.com www.campyonly.com www.wheelsnorth.org On Jun 7, 2010, at 5:27 PM, William wrote: > That would be common courtesy, cowboy > > On Jun 7, 4:41 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-06-07

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread Bill M.
Steve, If nobody's clued you in off-line, take a look at the Urban Dictionary. Not safe for work, children or the easily offended. Bill On Jun 7, 6:47 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > Personally (not to mention self-evidently) I'd do what I did before I > > tried the Reach Arounds (Steve P.: go

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread William
That would be common courtesy, cowboy On Jun 7, 4:41 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 16:34 -0700, William wrote: > > The owner of River City Bicycles was a co-owner of a chain of shops > > based in San Francisco (where I worked in the late 80's early 90's). > > The double enten

Re: [RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread Steve Palincsar
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 16:34 -0700, William wrote: > The owner of River City Bicycles was a co-owner of a chain of shops > based in San Francisco (where I worked in the late 80's early 90's). > The double entendre was completely intentional, I guarantee you > that. I'm obviously missing something.

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread William
The owner of River City Bicycles was a co-owner of a chain of shops based in San Francisco (where I worked in the late 80's early 90's). The double entendre was completely intentional, I guarantee you that. On Jun 7, 4:33 pm, Eric Norris wrote: > I would hazard to guess that a bike shop in San Fr

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread MichaelH
I'm a bit confused by your question. I don't understand where the pinch point is? Is it between the brake and fender, or between the tire and the fender? I have had better success with single pull brakes, which sit a bit higher than modern dual pull and therefore leave a bit more fender room.

[RBW] Re: Fendering the 'un-fenderable'

2010-06-07 Thread William
plus simple P-clamps to take care of your lack of fender eyelets on the frame On Jun 7, 4:08 pm, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 15:55 -0700, dos.ruedas wrote: > > I have an old Trek 500 - series frame that I converted to be my light > > touring/loaded commuter bike and while I