Securi-clip quoted:
> Jan Heine wrote:
>
> >That said, I have yet to encounter a cyclotourist in France who was
> >injured due to a malfunctioning fender. But then, those are sturdy
> >(albeit light weight) alloy fenders, securely mounted. No quick
> >release on those, although the stays probably will slip out of the
> >eyebolts if enough force is applied.
>
> Bingo! That is why they use the awkward eyebolts! The French know
> about fenders.
Those eyebolts are not meant as alternatives to breakaway stays any more than the ones used on Bluemels or other mudguards. Furthermore, Jan will concur that many if not most of the top French 'constructeur' bikes come with one piece stay loops and no such eyebolts. I dare say that the purpose of these eyebolts was more than likely solely to allow adjustments to an industrial product that couldn't otherwise be used on another non-standardized industrial product (the bike).
Look at how virtually all the vintage Italian racing bikes from the pre-1960 era came with or had purpose-built mudguards available. Virtually all the mudguards were designed with a specific bike in mind and were very sturdy and had virtually no adjustability. Road debris and rough road surfaces were far greater at the time, so it only holds that any "well-documented" problem would have been far greater then than now. I therefore agree with the comment (I believe it was Jan) that the most important point is to ensure a sturdy mounting and structure. How does the saying go? Light, strong, inexpensive; pick any two you want, because you can't have all three.
--
Steven Maasland
Moorestown, NJ