Lots of opinions here, Rick,
I think the focus of this list is classic bikes. I don't think mountain bikes are on topic for the thread or list, but I did briefly mention them and since you bring it up, I suppose that the models that aren't heavily suspended might fit fenders. A lot of the road bikes I see don't have the clearance though.
You'd be hard pressed to convince everyone that mountain bikes are the spiritual successor to those utilitarian British and French rough stuff bikes. I don't buy it. Spiritual successor to a stripped down cantilever frame used to ride hiking paths and logging roads, perhaps.
Why, are only people who own "LATER Classic" race frames fortunate? Fenders don't bastardize bikes that have fender or rack eyelets, do they?
I'm done on this topic. It doesn't matter anyway.
Everyone is way to be*itchy lately, myself included.
"Greg Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [CR] fenders, brakes, and other opinions...
> All of this teeth gnashing about brake reach would be unnecessary if we used
> cantilever brakes. They fit Classic iron better with fenders and big tires
> than caliper brakes or centerpulls and the better ones are more powerful.
> They are generally cheaper, as well.
> That said, if you are fortunate enough to own a LATER (as opposed to an
> EARLIER) Classic race frame, why on earth would you want bastardize it with
> I take issue with your assertion that there are practically no production
> frames currently made with fender and/or rack mounts. Most mountain bikes
> (bad words) have them and they outsell modern road bikes by a large margin.
> As much as some of you hate to admit it, mountain bikes (oops, sorry) are
> the spiritual successor to those utilitarian British and French rough stuff
> and touring bikes we all revere.
> Rick Chasteen in Kansas City where 6 inches of snow is currently falling.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Braley <email@example.com>
> To: KCTOMMY <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Grant Petersen of Rivendell had an article in one of his Rivendell
> Readers a
> > while back that explained his version of the acceptance of short reach
> > brakes as the standard, and reason that "normal" reach (57mm) nutted
> > were shunned by the major companies. According to Grant, there were folks
> > racing crit bikes with track bike frame geometries in the late '70s and
> > early '80s. These tight frames didn't have clearance for normal reach
> > brakes, fenders or any other features found on "tourist" style bikes.
> > all the manufacturers started building crit style road bikes with short
> > reach brakes. Whether anyone can identify specific examples that prove
> > theory I don't know, but it seems plausible.
> > Whatever the root cause, there are practically no production frames and
> > few custom frames that allow both big tires and fenders with short reach
> > brakes, and practically no one builds frames for normal reach brakes
> > anymore, probably because the big S company and the big C company don't
> > a market demand sufficient to produce normal reach brakes. Vicious cycle
> > here....
> > Ed
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "KCTOMMY" <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>
> > To: <email@example.com>
> > > > Is there any practical reason why short reach-recessed rules the
> > The
> > > effects I know of are negative: no room for fenders and it's harder to
> > > mount a rear rack.
> > > Tom Adams, watching a set of Weinmanns in Kansas City