It is my opinion that "everybody" who is doing a Rinko fender agrees that all Honjo fenders can afford to sacrifice 2-inches of their own length to provide the Rinko-Bridge-piece, without rendering that fender useless or ineffective. In the one Rinko job I did, the bridge came from the fender itself, and 2" was/is plenty. I am not aware of anybody who has ever purchased a second set of fenders to make one Rinko bridge. If anyone ever did that, I would agree that's an expensive little stub.
BL On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:50:13 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > On 12/20/18 12:46 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: > > "A case could be made for a Rinko-style separable fender for that > situation" > > I've retained the cut-section for exactly that reason. That material > makes the ideal Rinko-bridge piece. I even have an extra Compass > Rinko-nut. All it would take is one more cut, if the situation demands > it. > > > It's a pity Honjo doesn't make "bridge" sections available for that > purpose. It makes sense for a builder to cut up fenders to create bridges > for many bikes but for an individual user, it sure does make that little > stub very expensive! > > Steve Palincsar > Alexandria, Virginia > USA > > > > > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:33:38 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote: >> >> >> On 12/20/18 12:17 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: >> >> Steve asked for my reasoning. >> >> 1. The front extension length was too long because the UNSUPPORTED front >> extension vibrated and flexed enough to make objectionable noises. That's >> an objective fact that we both agree on >> 2. The front extension length was longer than necessary because it is not >> and never will be required to protect the underside of a traditional >> handlebar bag or basket. That is a judgement call by me that I think you >> can provisionally support >> 3. The front extension length was longer than necessary because it was >> much longer than SKS P45s, which I have used for thousands of miles and >> have never felt my body was insufficiently protected from spray off the >> tops of my tires. That is a judgement call by me that you've shared you >> are pretty sure you disagree with. Fair enough >> 4. The lower SPAN between the fork crown and the stay was too long >> because my physical sideways manipulation of the fender at the midpoint of >> that span showed me the fender was objectionably flexy. This model of >> fender is also too skinny in cross section. A wider fender cross section >> would be stiffer laterally and could handle that span-length better. This >> is a judgement call by me. >> 5. The lower extension was both too short and too long, because it >> wasn't long enough to protect my feet optimally, and wasn't short enough to >> add a flap to protect my feet. This is a judgement call by me. >> >> Given those judgments, I needed to do one of three things >> >> A. Add a stay to the front to address 1. Reposition the existing stay to >> address 4. Cut the trailing edge to address 5. Leave the front longer than >> necessary (2,3) because it looks cool >> B. Rotate the whole fender backwards to address 1, 2, 3 and 5. Redrill >> everything to reposition everything, addressing 4. >> C. Cut the trailing edge and add a flap, and rotate the remaining fender >> back. Reposition the existing stay, addressing 1-5. >> >> I went with C because it maintains my ability to put the bike on my >> Yakima fork mount roof rack. A full-length front fender makes that >> impractical, as you know. >> >> >> Thanks for the clear explanation of your thinking. Precisely what I was >> hoping for! I always enjoy seeing the way you work out these solutions. >> >> As for those Yakima mounts, I do indeed know, although shoulder injuries >> have made my use of any roof rack entirely out of the question. A case >> could be made for a Rinko-style separable fender for that situation, in >> that even a shortened fender with flap doesn't work all that well - at >> least, it didn't for me, with SKS fenders on my Rambouillet. >> >> >> Bill >> >> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 8:43:50 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/19/18 10:45 PM, Bill Lindsay wrote: >>> > Steve P asked why I did things my way instead of his way. >>> > >>> > I decided to cut the fender off because I decided the front fender was >>> too long for my use on this bike. If I decided to leave the fender too long >>> for my liking on this bike, I would have run another stay. >>> >>> >>> Fair enough, but how did you determine that its length was too long? >>> Curious to understand your reasoning. >>> >>> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
