Land vehicles – Wheeled – Attachment
Reexamination Certificate
2000-12-12
2002-09-10
Rice, Kenneth R. (Department: 3619)
Land vehicles
Wheeled
Attachment
C280S152300, C280S153500, C280S852000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06446994
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention is in the field of bicycles and bicycling. The present invention relates generally to fenders and mudguards for bicycles, and more specifically to removable front and rear fenders for road racing-style bicycles.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Traditional full length fenders for road bicycles are typically made from a rigid plastic material or aluminum and have two sets of two steel support stays that connect to each side of the fender. The stays are usually attached to threaded eyelets located on the fork and frame dropouts. In addition, the fenders are mounted to the brake attachment bolts at the fork crown and the rear brake attachment bridge. This method of mounting traditional bike fenders requires ample clearance between the tires and the bicycle frame, fork crown and brakes and fork crown.
Modern road-racing style bicycles, on the other hand, have narrow, high pressure tires and relatively tight clearances between the tires and the bicycle frame and fork. In addition, such bikes are typically equipped with brakes that provide only minimal tire clearance both under and between the brake calipers. The tight frame clearances of modern road-racing bicycles (unlike fender-friendly touring and commuting bikes) makes the installation of traditional fenders either impossible or impractical, which is reflected by the prevalent use of front and rear dropouts that lack the traditional eyelets for attaching fender support stays.
In addition to the great difficulty of installing fenders on many modern road bicycles, the weight and appearance of traditional road fenders are objectionable to many riders. Because traditional fenders are typically a semi-permanent installation (due to the inconvenience of removing and reinstalling them), and most cycling is done in dry weather, many riders will not consider fenders even if their bikes could accept fenders. The downside, of course, is that when fenderless riders are caught in the rain, they have to endure the spray of water and road grit from both front and rear wheels until the roads are dry or they reach their destination. This is especially annoying for cyclists that are riding in a group paceline, because they must also deal with the spray from the rear wheel of the bike they are following. Fenderless riding in the rain also results in a much grittier bike at the end of the ride, and the need to spend more time on cleaning and maintenance.
Despite the obvious advantages of fenders for wet weather riding, the challenge of designing a full front and rear fender system for bikes with tight frame clearances and an absence of dropout eyelets has never been satisfactorily met by the prior art. The attempts to deal with the incompatibility of traditional fenders and modern road bikes have usually involved a reliance on a partial fender or a small spray shield, but these all have the significant shortcoming of covering only a small section of the circumference of the wheel, thus offering only limited spray protection to the cyclist and no protection to a following rider.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,121,935 to Mathieu, et al. (1992) shows a retractable front and rear fender that can be uncoiled (much like a retractable metal tape measure) to extend over the top of the rear wheel and over the section of the front wheel immediately behind the bicycle fork. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,562,296 to Hall, et al. (1996) discloses a resilient plastic fender that can be uncoiled from a rolled-up storage configuration into a straight length and cantilevered over the rear wheel to provide some spray protection.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,319,763 to White (1982) shows a collapsible fender comprised of two telescoping sections preferably about eight inches long that are extended and secured together by twist ties. The fenders are then inserted between, and twist tied to, the bicycle seat stays and front forks. Because the fenders are a straight length, the front fender must be quite short in order to pass under the bicycle's down tube when the front wheel is turned. The twist tie method of attachment is also of questionable value in maintaining rear fender-tire separation when the fender is inserted, as suggested, between the rear brake calipers of a modern road bike.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,243,241 to Davis (1981) discloses a spray shield intended to prevent spray from the rear wheel from being thrown against the rider's back. It consists of an arm pivotally secured to a clamp mounted to the bicycle seat stay and a spray guard attached to the end of the arm that extends over the rear wheel. The arm may be pivoted upward toward the bicycle saddle when the shield is not needed. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,120,073 to Sealy, Jr. (1992) shows a fender system comprised of front and rear wheel-mounted spray guards and an optional seat-mounted guard positioned to block tangential spray that would otherwise hit the rider. The wheel-mounted guards are preferably attached to the bike by means of a two-piece system consisting of a single L-shaped support arm that connects, preferably, to a flatbar connector bracket with a U-shaped slot on one end that fits over the wheel axle. The other end of the flatbar bracket is adapted to receive the support arm in an adjustable and removable connection. This arrangement permits the support arm to be adjusted radially in relation to the wheel to accommodate variations in wheel/tire diameter, while also allowing the support arm to be disconnected without the need to remove the flatbar bracket. The support arm and flatbar bracket are preferably made from a structural grade of aluminum, with the support arm having a diameter of ¼″.
One significant shortcoming of the Davis '241 and Sealy '073 spray shields is that they leave important areas of the bicycle unprotected from road grit, such as the front and rear brakes, the front derailleur, and the bottom bracket. In addition, the minimalist shape of the rear shield would provide incomplete protection for the rider and no protection to following riders. The two-piece support arm and flatbar bracket combination of Sealy '073 would be susceptible to loosening at the connection of the support arm and bracket from road vibration. Furthermore, the U-shaped slot of the flatbar bracket would not work with the rear dropouts of several higher-end road bikes, in which the quick release contact surface is recessed within an overhang that surrounds a roughly vertical dropout slot.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,361 to Powell (1999) discloses a removable fender system comprised of a flat mudguard that clips onto the bicycle down tube and a rear mudguard with support rods that detachably engage the seat stay fame members. It appears that the illustrated rear fender would be susceptible to sliding downward to contact to rear tire (especially because seat stays tend to taper down as they approach the dropout), unless the optional mechanical fastener was used to secure the support rods, in which case the removable feature of the fender would be compromised. The clip-on down tube shield is also found in other prior art, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,918,904 to Hanesworth (1999), as well as in a number of commercially available mudguards. A common rear fender design, often seen on mountain bikes, is one in which the fender attaches to the seat post or beneath the saddle and cantilevers over the rear wheel. This design protects the rider's back from having mud or water slung onto it from the rear wheel, but offers little protection to the bicycle. Examples of a cantilevered rear fender are found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,322,311 to Dunn (1994), U.S. Pat. No. 5,868,411 to Dymeck (1999), and the Hanesworth '904 patent.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention addresses the need for a sturdy yet lightweight fender system that will accommodate the tight clearances between the tires and the frame tubes and brakes of modern road racing-style bicycles. Unlike the partial fenders and spray guards of the described prior art, the present invention provides full lengt
Buchanan Christopher
Rice Kenneth R.
LandOfFree
Bicycle fender system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Bicycle fender system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Bicycle fender system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2845781