# Which road bikes can take mudguards?



## DDYB (1 Feb 2009)

I'm looking to buy a road bike (my first) with a budget of around £600.

I am looking for a bike that has a triple and can accomodate mudguards and at least 25/26mm tyres.
So far I have found Giant Defy 3 and Trek 1.2.

Could anyone recommend any other bikes I should also look at?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Mortiroloboy (1 Feb 2009)

DDYB, have you considered race blades? You don't need mudguard eyelets, as they clip to the seat stays at the rear and the fork at the front, then you can take them off in the better weather if you are just using the one bike.

SKS make them, as do Tor Tec.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Feb 2009)

my bike (scott speedster) ticks all those boxes. dunno about the stock forks though, i've upgraded them.


----------



## TVC (1 Feb 2009)

I use race blades, they clip straight on and off. Great for cleaning and you can decide if you need them just before you go out.

http://www.evanscycles.com/search.html?query=race+blade&x=17&y=1


----------



## jimboalee (1 Feb 2009)

Strictly speaking, a 'Road bike' shouldn't take mudguards. It wasn't designed to accomodate mudguards.

My Dawes Giro 500 is marketed as an 'Entry level' road bike, but in reality, its a 'Sports tourer'. It came with 23mm tyre profile.

Speaking stricter still, a road geometry bike that weights over 17 lb is NOT a road bike. Any rider worth his/her salt wouldn't ride competitively on such a heavy bike.

I have a Specialized SWorks Alu from 2005 which is 16.5 lb, and that's heavy for 2nd and 1st Cat; and Elite riders.
I have never EVER contemplated insulting it with mudguards... even race blades.

I also have a Peugeot 531 from the mid seventies, no mudguards, its a road bike.

The lesson here is - If it has mudguard clearance, its a "sports" bike.


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Feb 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Strictly speaking, a 'Road bike' shouldn't take mudguards. It wasn't designed to accomodate mudguards.
> 
> My Dawes Giro 500 is marketed as an 'Entry level' road bike, but in reality, its a 'Sports tourer'. It came with 23mm tyre profile.
> 
> ...


Rubbish.

A "sports bike" is a clunker with unbranded tubing and crap equipment that is sold in places like Argos and by mail order catalogues. Many high quality bikes are built with mudguard clearence because they are intended for distance riding in all weathers by serious cyclists.


----------



## bonj2 (1 Feb 2009)

yep, agree - jimboalee's post is largely bollocks.


----------



## Tynan (1 Feb 2009)

Condor Fratello, came with guards so tight to the tyres I can't even touch the tyres where the guards run, brill

if youlre commuting you're fine with something a bit less race anyway, someon the audax style bikes will have mounts for guards and rack


----------



## Cranky (1 Feb 2009)

My daughter's Giant FCR2 (the SCR2 is the same but with drops) was very successfully fitted with SKS full mudguards and is in your price range.


----------



## HLaB (1 Feb 2009)

That Kinesis that magnatom got looks very nice, he says it takes guards.


----------



## DDYB (1 Feb 2009)

Thanks for the replies.

I have also been looking at a touring bike (Ridgeback Voyage) - Is there a huge difference between a tourer and a road bike with a triple that can take mud guards etc?

I am around 19st+ so I don't think the weight of the bike will make a huge difference given the weight it will be carrying!

Any advice appreciated.


----------



## Crackle (1 Feb 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Strictly speaking, a 'Road bike' shouldn't take mudguards. It wasn't designed to accomodate mudguards.
> 
> My Dawes Giro 500 is marketed as an 'Entry level' road bike, but in reality, its a 'Sports tourer'. It came with 23mm tyre profile.
> 
> ...




I'd agree with that as it fits with how I was brought up with bikes however the definitions seem to have changed and the boundaries have become blurred, so one mans sports tourer is anothers audax etc....

...and there's no need to be rude chaps, just make your point and disagree politely.


----------



## Randochap (1 Feb 2009)

_Ben_ said:


> yep, agree - jimboalee's post is largely bollocks.



Rubbish _and_ bollocks.


----------



## Tynan (1 Feb 2009)

tourer will be heavier and more sedate, menat to handle plenty panniers loaded up, plus it's more comfy/slower

all things being equal

audax in between


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

Seems definitions have changed in the mists of time.

As I know it -
Road - Race. Close clearance. Close to the UCI weight limit. Featherweight slick tyres.
Sports - Clearance for mudguards. Winter trainer. Wider tyres with some tread.
Sports tourer - As above, but with heavier rims and even wider tyres.
Tourer - Dawes Super Gal.
Upright - Dutch
Shopper - Raleigh 20
Fun bike - Custom built with Extended forks, Apehangers and Banana seat.
Tracker - Stripped down Dutch upright with Cowhorns. 
Cross - 
Track -
Cycle polo - Fixed with only 3/4 a handlebar. ( shorter on the side you hold the stick )

Audax - Sports or Sports Tourer.

MTB - An elaborate Tracker.


Progress will happen. Names and trends will change. This is a list of bikes I have owned in the last forty years.


----------



## Steve Austin (2 Feb 2009)

There is a lot of nonsense posted on this thread.

ALL bikes will take mudguards. There was picture of Cavendish riding his 8k RACEbike with mudguards on the front page of the comic the other week. You can't its not a racebike because it can take mudguards, as it most definitely is!!

a MTB is not an elaborate Tracker. Jimbolee. That comment of yours right there shows your naivety, and blinkered biased opinions when i to comes to giving advice on bikes.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

It is fabled the 'Mountain bike' was invented by a pair of enterprising chaps in Marin co. California.
Seems strange, as ALL off highway land is privately owned so they must have been riding illegally, ie trespassing.

For one who has been to Marin several times, and spoke to the LBS owners in the area:- Fairfax, Sausalito and Marin City itself. Mountain bikes ( [converted Huffies with Cowhorns] that's their description, not mine ) are NOT popular there. Amongst adult cyclists anyway.

The vast majority of club riders ride ROAD bikes.
I saw a couple of tourers with paniers and mudguards, but these were rare. Guys travelling through along Highway 1.

Hybrids are ridden by the visitors who rent them from the hire shop.
I hired a ROAD bike worthy of a Cat 1 race.

Across the bridge in San Francisco, commuters ride either Sports bikes or fixies, depending whether you are a lady or a gent.

In Palo Alto Bicycles, my LBS in California, the largest turnover for the adult riders are ROAD bikes. Showing photos of my Dawes with full mudguards raises an eyebrow, but is understood when they realise the weather I face here in Britain. With clearance for mudguards, its a SPORTS bike.


----------



## Steve Austin (2 Feb 2009)

Your views are incredibly old fashioned Jimbolee

MTBs created back in the good old days have no resemblance to anyhting on the market today. I was riding a flat barred roadbike off road 30 years ago, and then I rode BMXs in the woods as that worked to. The heavy trackers you are referring to as MTB's may have been right 30 years ago.
But if you can describe this carbon racing wonder as an 'elaborate tracker', then i am lost for words and i think you are on the wind up


----------



## Crackle (2 Feb 2009)

Steve Austin said:


> Your views are incredibly old fashioned Jimbolee



I think that's the nub of it. Jimbo also has many wise words. You just have to be aware Jimbo, that your approach doesn't necessarily suit everyone.

Personally I like reading Jimbo's posts but methods and bikes have changed, you know this Jimbo don't you?

Anyway, I say again, to those who've been rudely dismissive (and to whom I now think less), that being polite costs nothing.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

OK.

26" wheels.
Diamond Frame based on Starley's 'Safety bicycle' concept.
Upswept handlebars.
No mudguards.

Progress has given it -
A plethora of gears, copying the application of the TA short arm spider on early MTBs.
Great big knobbly tyres, reaction to the 'mudsplat' treatment.
Disc brakes - a very clever marketing strategy, cus if there wasn't the machining capability, MTBs would still have cantis.
Carbon fibre frame - Some are willing to pay for it.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

Don't worry Crackle. I'm in the 21st Century with the rest of you.

Its about time there was some healthy debate on this chatboard, rather than unhealthy dismissive rantings.


----------



## Steve Austin (2 Feb 2009)

I'm all up for Debate Jimbolee. But you have just dismissed Modern developments in gears, quality XC tyres, Disc brakes and carbon fibre all in one post. The developments in MTB's in the last 20 years is immeasurable.

You seem to be the one not willing to debate.

Can you really say that Scott Scale resembles anything that folk were riding off-road 30 years?
Apart from pedantic points, and some general design principles it has very little in common with some 'tracker bike' that you would describe it as.


----------



## Andy in Sig (2 Feb 2009)

DDYB said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> I have also been looking at a touring bike (Ridgeback Voyage) - Is there a huge difference between a tourer and a road bike with a triple that can take mud guards etc?
> 
> ...



A true road bike is quite a specialised bit of kit being really meant for only one thing: going as fast as you can on decent surfaces.

A tourer OTH is IMO the best all round bike you can get. They're fast enough for efficient commuting and training, are designed to take panniers so you can carry a bit of kit around with you and they tend to be very comfortable and stable. Edinburgh bikes do one which is probably around your price level. I would give serious consideration to a tourer if I were you.

Oh and they're perfect for light off road stuff like canal towpaths, woodland paths and most bike paths.


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

I have a 1975 Puegeot 531 road bike.
I also have a 2005 Specialized SWorks.

Basically, they are both the same. 
The Spesh is made of lighter metals and has more gears, so it is 16.5lb rather than the 22.5lb of the Pug.

I had an adapted 26" upright with cowhorns.
I had a Muddy Fox when they were first imported. It was an easier and more secure ride with derailleur gears and those big knobblies instead of ribbed 26" tyres, but basically the same bike.

I had a test ride on a modern up-to-date downhiller. 
http://www.2x2worldwide.com/LR2009/technoDH.html
One of these cus I work for Land Rover.
A lot lighter with a 'staircase climbing' gear. Very nice ride, but I wouldn't buy one because there's nowhere near where I live to take full advantage of it.
There are plenty of roads, so that's where I ride.


----------



## Ravenz (2 Feb 2009)

Steve Austin said:


> There is a lot of nonsense posted on this thread.
> 
> ALL bikes will take mudguards. There was picture of Cavendish riding his 8k RACEbike with mudguards on the front page of the comic the other week. .



.. blimey.. yur right! he is!
Ok Mr J is going to have to concede on the mudguard front at least!


----------



## tyred (2 Feb 2009)

Pulls chair up to the fire, opens beer can and sits back to enjoy the argument


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

OK, I concede. 

How about that. Remembering when I was a impressionable young lad, I bought a pair of 'Halfs'. What use they performed, I don't know, but it was a craze at the time. 
Someone once said the UCI regulated their use many years ago, and they were necessary. I cannot find any evidence. 

Some of my clubmates have Raceblades on £600 Trek and Spesh (not what we consider a road bike, more like a Winter trainer ( Sports )). They don't stop the rider getting filthy, and certainly don't protect the B/B, cables or front mech. They don't even stop the following rider getting soaked, so Raceblades or not, just be prepared for a wetting.

IMHO, a Road bike shouldn't have mudguards. A Winter trainer ( sports ) bike which has clearances designed in, can have mudguards.

That's my opinion. And in the words of the famous General "Never poo-poo a poo-poo".


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

If you read again my initial post where I say a road bike wasn't designed to take mudguards, who can dissagree?

The Raceblade design, albeit not patented or specifically manufactured, was around decades ago. It took some home mechanicking to sort them out and they did a similar job to today's commercial Raceblades.

Many riders, after struggling with hacksaw and rivet gun were dissapointed with the result. Not a lot of guard for all the thought and work.
The design fell out of use until a mudguard manufacturer saw an opportunity to make some money selling their product to owners of close-clearance road bikes who couldn't be bothered ( or hadn't the skills ) to do some mechanicking. ( Or were too afraid of a good old fashioned soaking  ). 

So now we see close-clearance roadrace bikes with Raceblades. 
I will never use them. My sports bike has full SKS. 

Does anyone have a chainguard on their road bike? Discuss.


----------



## Crackle (2 Feb 2009)

So where are we with the definitions then (any mods to separate this out of DDYB's thread into a new one)?

Road bike for me, now covers a multitude of sins but it basically separates mtn bikes and road bikes with hybrids in-between.

So within roadbikes what do we have:-

race bikes
Sportive bikes
Winter trainers
Audax bikes
Tourers 

That would be my thinking with winter trainers, Audax and Tourers definitely having mudguard clearances but the others not.

Geometry wise they could all be quite similar, except the tourer and the race bike is likely to have a much tighter wheelbase.

Yes, no?


----------



## Mortiroloboy (2 Feb 2009)

jimboalee said:


> If you read again my initial post where I say a road bike wasn't designed to take mudguards, who can dissagree?
> 
> The Raceblade design, albeit not patented or specifically manufactured, was around decades ago. It took some home mechanicking to sort them out and they did a similar job to today's commercial Raceblades.
> 
> ...




OMG


----------



## jimboalee (2 Feb 2009)

Road bike.

Anything that complies with UCI regulations for competing in a Roadrace.

This is a minor step-down for me, insomuchas I would classify a road bike as one which was designed and intended to be raced, and nothing else.


Within the 'Road' bike spectrum, there are all sorts of machines.

Bikes for flat stages with 'laid back geometry' and a little heavier than UCI limit.
Climbing bikes. Really laid back, right on 15lb.
Criterium bikes with more upright head angle and steep seat angle.
Time trial bikes.


I'll stick with my oldie-worldie terms of 'Sports' and 'Sports tourer'; which have modern equivalent names of 'Winter trainer' and 'Audax'. Bikes designed with mudguard clearance.

A further message to the OP. There was once a system called the Salmon Profile. A very basic mudguard system which was nothing more than a strip of aluminium sheet approx 20mm wide.
These are, with the agreement of oldie-Worldie club riders, acceptable on the Road bike.

http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/review/reviewproduct/mps/RPN/21703/prod/Salmon-Super-Profil-Cycle-Mudguards/RCN/0/rgn//sp//v/1

They are bloody expensive, but when you are seen with them, you get instant kudos over the cheapskates with Raceblades.


----------



## bonj2 (2 Feb 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I have a 1975 Puegeot 531 road bike.
> I also have a 2005 Specialized SWorks.
> 
> Basically, they are both the same.
> ...



what the HELL is going on with the cranks/BB/drive train on that thing?


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Feb 2009)

Jimboalee,

you are wrong in your definition of "Sports bike". It was a term invented by the magazines in the late seventies to describe the sort of bike they were then too polite to call a pile of shoot.

Generally all steel componants, gas pipe tubing and a single chainring.


----------



## jimboalee (3 Feb 2009)

Here's what Sheldon Brown says:-

*Sport-touring Bicycle*

Sport touring bicycles occupy a middle ground between touring and road racing bicycles. The meaning of this term has been changing: 

Older "sport-touring" bikes, the typical 10 speeds of the 1970's bike boom were solid, sturdy machines that differed from touring bicycles mainly in that they didn't have as wide a gear range. They could be used for moderately loaded touring by riders strong enough to get along without serious low gears. 
Current "sport-touring" bikes are more like road racing bicycles which have had a triple crankset added. These bicycles have low enough gearing to let aging baby-boomers still get up the hills. Most bikes in this category are not well suited for serious touring, because their wheels are too fragile, and they often are poorly designed so that there is not adequate frame clearance for fenders and touring-width tires.
--------------------------------------------------

To me, that says "Somewhere between a tourer and a racer".


----------



## jimboalee (3 Feb 2009)

When I conducted the supplier search for my Summer commute bike, I looked at several 'Sports' bikes, such as the Trek 1.2.

As Mr Brown says, it was ill-designed with not enough clearance for mudguards and as you say, it was a pile of shoot.


----------



## jimboalee (3 Feb 2009)

Confusion might arise thus:- In Europe, a 'Sports' bike was a racer style bike constructed with 26" wheels, aimed at the youth market of ages 11 - 14.

This is how Peugeot saw it in the seventies, but American manufacturers even before Trek and Specialized viewed 'Sports' as Sheldon has described.


----------



## jimboalee (3 Feb 2009)

http://mysite.verizon.net/imagelib/..._Sport_BikeBoomPeugeot.JPG&target=tlx_pic4zgd

Here's the page from the Peugeot catalogue of 1966. A 'Sport' bike and a 'Competition' bike.

Here's the cover of that catalogue :-

http://mysite.verizon.net/imagelib/...Covers_BikeBoomPeugeot.JPG&target=tlx_pic1j7d

Who's that big guy?


----------



## Paulus (3 Feb 2009)

Who's the big guy??? That is a certain Mr Tom Simpson, English, from Nottingham who was the world champion in 1965, rode several TDF's being the first English rider to wear the yellow yersey in 1962. He died on Mont Ventoux in the 1967 Tour. He used to ride Peugeot bikes and ride for their team.


----------



## ed_o_brain (3 Feb 2009)

Don't normally disagree with Jimboalee.

A road racing bike will not have the clearances nor the necessary braze ons for mudguards.

A road bike being a broader or more general classification of bike, may take mudgards. 

I'd add Ridgeback Horizon to your list of possibilities.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Feb 2009)

Paulus said:


> Who's the big guy??? That is a certain Mr Tom Simpson, English, from Nottingham who was the world champion in 1965, rode several TDF's being the first English rider to wear the yellow yersey in 1962. He died on Mont Ventoux in the 1967 Tour. *He used to ride Peugeot bikes and ride for their team.*


Simpson's bikes may have had Peugeot decals on the frame, but they were not made by Peugeot. He had his frames built by Masi in Italy and sprayed in team colours, something that used to be common among pros. When he died there were two frames awaiting his collection from Condor in London, to be painted appropriately when he got them back to France. Many of Barry Hoban's frames were built by Woodrup in Leeds.


----------



## ed_o_brain (3 Feb 2009)

ed_o_brain said:


> I'd add Ridgeback Horizon to your list of possibilities.



Also, Dawes Audax, the 2006 version of which is available from Spa Cycles for £650.

A third very rugged possibility is the Specialized Tri-Cross.


----------



## Crackle (3 Feb 2009)

ed_o_brain said:


> Also, Dawes Audax, the 2006 version of which is available from Spa Cycles for £650.
> 
> A third very rugged possibility is the Specialized Tri-Cross.



I think it's only left in one or two sizes now and I'd have to go and look at mine to see what the max tyre size would be, it comes with 23's.

Kona Jake is another cross bike in the same price range as the Tricross.


----------



## Paulus (4 Feb 2009)

Smokin Joe said:


> Simpson's bikes may have had Peugeot decals on the frame, but they were not made by Peugeot. He had his frames built by Masi in Italy and sprayed in team colours, something that used to be common among pros. When he died there were two frames awaiting his collection from Condor in London, to be painted appropriately when he got them back to France. Many of Barry Hoban's frames were built by Woodrup in Leeds.




I'Ve learnt something today. I bow to your knowledge Smokin joe.


----------



## Chris James (4 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> I think it's only left in one or two sizes now and I'd have to go and look at mine to see what the max tyre size would be, it comes with 23's.



The back wheel is tightest. You might get a 28mm on, especially if it was a 'small' 28mm. I am happy with 23s though.


----------



## jay clock (26 Mar 2010)

> such as the Trek 1.2......As Mr Brown says, it was ill-designed with not enough clearance for mudguards and as you say, it was a pile of shoot.


I have a a trek 1.2 2008 model and there is ample room for mudguards although it doesn't look like it at the back. No rubbing, no rattling. The bike is actually an excellent all rounder. I just did a week of tri training in Lanzarote on it (took rack and guards off!) and it performed fantastically, keeping up with others on bikes 2 to 5 times more pricey. Glad I left my other road bike behind!


----------

