Mudguards.

[hubner]

A good reason not to use mudguards is to annoy the Jan Heine fanboys.

Sigh.
I don't think folks not using mud guards will annoy people who use them.
I think its a shame that in this world of homogeneity and big biz that someone  such as Jan who is an advocate of quality, well engineered solutions to the pastime that we love gets the cheap snarky comments. Oh well.
In the meantime I and my partner will continue to use mudguards and enjoy the benefits that they provide.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with mudguards, steel frames, balloon tyres, handlebar bags etc, all my bikes have steel frames, one has mudguards.

The problem with Jan Heine is he bends facts, leaves out inconvenient details and misleads people with his so called tests.

Mudguards are great for riding on wet roads, that should enough to advocate their use. But he has to claim they don't slow you down. Either he is dishonest, or is using clickbaity headlines to attract attention, or both.

[morbihan]

A good reason not to use mudguards is to annoy the Jan Heine fanboys.

Sigh.
I don't think folks not using mud guards will annoy people who use them.
I think its a shame that in this world of homogeneity and big biz that someone  such as Jan who is an advocate of quality, well engineered solutions to the pastime that we love gets the cheap snarky comments. Oh well.
In the meantime I and my partner will continue to use mudguards and enjoy the benefits that they provide.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with mudguards, steel frames, balloon tyres, handlebar bags etc, all my bikes have steel frames, one has mudguards.

The problem with Jan Heine is he bends facts, leaves out inconvenient details and misleads people with his so called tests.

Mudguards are great for riding on wet roads, that should enough to advocate their use. But he has to claim they don't slow you down. Either he is dishonest, or is using clickbaity headlines to attract attention, or both.

Agreed that  there may be a degree of inherent bias when testing your own products and how you present the results. Which company doesn't do that?
But lets put this in the context of a World where we are sold plastic shite  by the metric tonne with all sorts of ridiculous claims  by enormous conglomerations, (bike companies included), that it will make you cooler, faster, happier etc.
Meantime Yan is out there on his own, left field, researching, marketing and building, by and large artisnal, quality bicycles and components for a pretty slim section of the industry.
I guess I find it sad that folks are so quick to sharpen the knives on these issues and carve up a small innovator without considering the bigger picture.

[Tynan2]

I had beautiful mudguards fitted to my first condor fratello, so small and tight to the tyres that I normally forget they were there. I asked for the same thing from the LBS for my latest and they fitted some relatively ugly plastic ones, they are lovely in the wet though, catch almost all of it. They also getting a bit tired now, perhaps its time to try again to get nice ones, and let the LBS fit them.

[jsabine]

I guess I find it sad that folks are so quick to sharpen the knives on these issues and carve up a small innovator without considering the bigger picture.

And what should the end result of considering the bigger picture be? Uncritical acceptance of his claims, slightly kinder language in countering them, concluding that someone who's already ploughing a lonely furrow could make life easier for themselves by refraining from claims that are, to a first approximation, bollocks?

[fd3]

Agreed that  there may be a degree of inherent bias when testing your own products and how you present the results. Which company doesn't do that?
But lets put this in the context of a World where we are sold plastic shite  by the metric tonne with all sorts of ridiculous claims  by enormous conglomerations, (bike companies included), that it will make you cooler, faster, happier etc.
Meantime Yan is out there on his own, left field, researching, marketing and building, by and large artisnal, quality bicycles and components for a pretty slim section of the industry.
I guess I find it sad that folks are so quick to sharpen the knives on these issues and carve up a small innovator without considering the bigger picture.

My bold is the issues I have. He presents his findings as if they are scientific research, but really they just have the trappings of research.  I would be far more accepting if he were honest and pitched BQ as a Rivendell Reader style magazine with anecdotal evidence and Editor's views, without this pretense that he has  a wealth of evidence to back his claims.  Remember, he once claimed that the herringbone pattern on his tyres was functionally optimal as opposed to aesthetic.

[Frank9755]

Surprised these haven't come up, given we've got onto mudguard aeroz.

https://bikerumor.com/2018/09/25/null-winds-aerodefender-carbon-aero-fenders-slice-headwinds-faster-than-aero-wheels/

[morbihan]

Agreed that  there may be a degree of inherent bias when testing your own products and how you present the results. Which company doesn't do that?
But lets put this in the context of a World where we are sold plastic shite  by the metric tonne with all sorts of ridiculous claims  by enormous conglomerations, (bike companies included), that it will make you cooler, faster, happier etc.
Meantime Yan is out there on his own, left field, researching, marketing and building, by and large artisnal, quality bicycles and components for a pretty slim section of the industry.
I guess I find it sad that folks are so quick to sharpen the knives on these issues and carve up a small innovator without considering the bigger picture.

My bold is the issues I have. He presents his findings as if they are scientific research, but really they just have the trappings of research.  I would be far more accepting if he were honest and pitched BQ as a Rivendell Reader style magazine with anecdotal evidence and Editor's views, without this pretense that he has  a wealth of evidence to back his claims.  Remember, he once claimed that the herringbone pattern on his tyres was functionally optimal as opposed to aesthetic.

Hmmm, I  have an arts background as opposed to a science background, so perhaps a lot of it goes over my head, but I do recall reading some pretty convincing arguments by Yan, such as tests to disprove that skinnier tyres are faster etc.
https://www.renehersecycles.com/bq-tire-test-results/

Ted King, Lael Wilcox and Sophiane Sehili seem to be doing alright on them too.

[FifeingEejit]

Im confused, that first test seems to say the roll down had a constant distance and velocity so if I've read it correctly, no shit sherlock the time is also the same.

Presumably I have read it incorrectly, and it's standing start and designed so that speed doesn't exceed 15kmh over 250m

It also says they want to remove aerodynamics, hence lower speed, how about instead use same rider, same bike and same input power over a longer distance where the time differences is more statistically significant than the noise.

I mean over 250m and 30s the noise and variation is likely to be similar, give it further and longer say over 5km on an ebike pumping out 150w and the rider twiddling just to keep the motor on and the noise from slight changes in wind, cornering and stopwatch accuracy and that of any impact the tyres have should be more distinct?

Sent from my BKL-L09 using Tapatalk

[grams]

There’s a very waffley methodology page that I think means they start the roll down test at a constant speed and time between two points once it’s reached. Although it’s very short on exactly what they do.

It looks to me like they’re measuring things well below the noise floor of such manual tests, but who knows.

Also I’d question whether building bikes that are identical to every single mass-produced bike built ca. 1960-1990 is leftfield or a break from uniformity.

[fd3]

Hmmm, I  have an arts background as opposed to a science background, so perhaps a lot of it goes over my head,

Possibly having worked in science I am applying unreasonable standards.
My issue with Yan's BQ articles is that they are festooned with the trappings of science, but in essence this is a trick done with mirrors.  His articles will have a number of citations, like a real science would have, but they are all citations of Yan's previous work.  This is a massive red flag in the science world.
Sure, in the science world people sometimes go off in their own direction and they can only cite their own previous work (but I don't believe that this applies to Yan's work, he's not the only person to have done rolldown tests or to have compared the effect of tyre width), however what these scientists will do is they will submit their articles to an independent journal and undergo peer review - this is something that Yan avoids by self publishing all his own results in his own paper - which is another massive red flag in the science world.
If Yan believed in his results there are journals he could submit his articles to, as these are proper science journals he could even publish a proper scientific investigation there and still publish his cut-down version in BQ.  But he chooses not to submit his "research" to testing by the community.

So, maybe this is my Science/Research background but I immediately do not trust his work on this basis.  I would enjoy BQ more if he didn;t pretend that he did rigorous scientific trials.

but I do recall reading some pretty convincing arguments by Yan, such as tests to disprove that skinnier tyres are faster etc.
https://www.renehersecycles.com/bq-tire-test-results/

I'll have a read of that.  My experience of his tyre tests was one where the results were within 2xreaction_time of each other and then he got a friend of his with a Maths PhD to do inappropriate stats to prove that the results were somehow significant.  Again, it could be my positivist scientific background kicking in, but you can't seriously publish results without error bars (and it's disingenuous when those error bars would invalidate your conclusion).  And I could be wrong, but we wouldn't really know because there was no peer review.

I was reading an old Laidback Cyclist with a couple of tests Mike Burros performed, all data and methodology presented, errors/uncertainties discussed and the floor was open to feedback from his peers.  And this in a magazine that has no pretense of doing science.

Ted King, Lael Wilcox and Sophiane Sehili seem to be doing alright on them too.

While being a valid endorsement, it's not science or research.  We know that sports people have often done things out of hunch or habit hat are not supported by science - we know that even Scientists do it (e.g. Einstein railing against Quantum Mechanics).

[Tommyp27]

When I was younger I hated full mudguards, Thought crud catchers were much cooler.

That prejudice was still there when I started as a cycle courier and just wore waterproofs and overshoes instead. Eventually I tried the sks raceblade which funnily enough made a noticeable difference, even though they're not the most effective.

These days I have full metal mudguards. Due to lack of space to even attempt it myself I got the LBS to fit them. Although for better or worse they did what they thought was right with the front one- the back offers about as much protection as I think it possibly could especially with the brooks flap, but the front doesn't fully cover under my front/ handlebar bag rack and is fitted too low to fit a front flap, meaning it does kick up a bit more spray than I'd like. I don't have a work bench and easy means to drill it myself. Also they didn't bolt it under the headset despite it having the appropriate fitting put in by Roberts when it was built. I could get an extra inch if I moved it,  but it would still not offer the coverage I want. I guess I could put some sort of tape in place and it would all be hidden by the front rack, but it's still annoying. Another think I'd do next time is get hammered mudguards since they hide scratches better.

[Tommyp27]

Agreed that  there may be a degree of inherent bias when testing your own products and how you present the results. Which company doesn't do that?
But lets put this in the context of a World where we are sold plastic shite  by the metric tonne with all sorts of ridiculous claims  by enormous conglomerations, (bike companies included), that it will make you cooler, faster, happier etc.
Meantime Yan is out there on his own, left field, researching, marketing and building, by and large artisnal, quality bicycles and components for a pretty slim section of the industry.
I guess I find it sad that folks are so quick to sharpen the knives on these issues and carve up a small innovator without considering the bigger picture.

My bold is the issues I have. He presents his findings as if they are scientific research, but really they just have the trappings of research.  I would be far more accepting if he were honest and pitched BQ as a Rivendell Reader style magazine with anecdotal evidence and Editor's views, without this pretense that he has  a wealth of evidence to back his claims.  Remember, he once claimed that the herringbone pattern on his tyres was functionally optimal as opposed to aesthetic.

I disagree with some other people's points about Jan/ BQ/ RH, but I think this is very true.

He tries to push the 'science' aspect too hard. I quite enjoy his magazine but even though I actually use his tyres I no longer bother to read what he writes about them.

The irony is, that if he did as you've pointed out that if he toned down the 'research' aspect people might be more receptive. Although that said the industry is full of persuedo science and research towards racing, but not maybe your average cyclist.

I can't knock Mike Burrows innovations into aero dynamics, but I have worked on an 8 Freight and it was at absolute pig to ride. It was chosen by someone else who worked at the company on their own beliefs on what would be best. Fortunately we soon after got Bullit Cargo bikes. Much more intuitive, and less prone to breaking down when loaded up.

Rivendell push a similar line to RH/ BQ but less aggressively so and maybe that's why they get less grief for it. But they've also struggled in the past. Trek/ Giant/ Shimano/ Sram.. amongst others have a very aggressive attitude to the market and they don't like change unless it suits them. I was sceptical about 650b/ front racks over rear/ subtle tires, till I tried them. Steel as my favoured frame material has been the case for a long time, having broken several aluminium bikes, not liking the feel of carbon and it simply lasting a very long time even compared to Ti.

[hubner]

Surprised these haven't come up, given we've got onto mudguard aeroz.

https://bikerumor.com/2018/09/25/null-winds-aerodefender-carbon-aero-fenders-slice-headwinds-faster-than-aero-wheels/

That sort of thing has been mentioned upthread. They're aerodynamic fairings the cover the wheels and I would guess they are next to useless as mudguards.

[Kim]

I find an aerodynamic fairing that covers the wheel makes a pretty effective mudguard...

[fd3]

Rivendell push a similar line to RH/ BQ but less aggressively so and maybe that's why they get less grief for it.

There is much similarity, but I think the sales pitch and ideology is very different .  Riv are all "unracer" and "when you realise you don't want to ride an uncomfortable plastic bike...", BQ is trying to keep the racer image at the same time.  Riv dabbled with trying to convince people, but then they released "just ride" which is a very positive "ride whatever you like" book - an excellent "soft sell".

[mzjo]

I find an aerodynamic fairing that covers the wheel makes a pretty effective mudguard...

Lacking a humongous great rear mudflap 

[Cudzoziemiec]

Yep. Doesn't look as if it would be effective at all at keeping splatter off whoever's behind. Which, given its intended use, doesn't actually matter.

[Frank9755]

Surprised these haven't come up, given we've got onto mudguard aeroz.

https://bikerumor.com/2018/09/25/null-winds-aerodefender-carbon-aero-fenders-slice-headwinds-faster-than-aero-wheels/

That sort of thing has been mentioned upthread. They're aerodynamic fairings the cover the wheels and I would guess they are next to useless as mudguards.

That depends what you want your mudguards to do.

However my point maybe needed more explanation but it was that others apart from JH believe there are worthwhile aero benefits in having something shielding the top bit of the wheel