I know this is way off topic but I have to send this one before I get to work for the morning: There is no good reason for short brakes, only marketing reasons. Too many bike company inside employees are either non-cyclists or relatively young ones with short cycling backgrounds--that's where stupid bike designs come from. I hoard long brakes when I can find them and learned how to build frames so that in twenty years I can still have a comfortable bike with fender room--there are regions and climates where a road bike that won't fit fenders is one really useless item. I'd like to take one of these idiot product planners from a Big Bike Company on four hour ride on a day when it's going to rain half an inch, them on their Tupperware wonder bike and me on my imitation Jack Taylor Tour of Britain with full fenders. Who's going to merely feel like a wet cyclist at the end of that and who's going to feel like a rat in a drainage ditch? David Feldman
> If you'd been a member of the Bridgestone Owners Bunch or a subscriber to
> The Rivendell Reader, this phenomenon would be very familiar to you.
>
> Grant Petersen of Rivendell had an article in one of his Rivendell Readers
a
> while back that explained his version of the acceptance of short reach
> brakes as the standard, and reason that "normal" reach (57mm) nutted
brakes
> were shunned by the major companies. According to Grant, there were folks
> racing crit bikes with track bike frame geometries in the late '70s and
> early '80s. These tight frames didn't have clearance for normal reach
> brakes, fenders or any other features found on "tourist" style bikes.
Then,
> all the manufacturers started building crit style road bikes with short
> reach brakes. Whether anyone can identify specific examples that prove
this
> theory I don't know, but it seems plausible.
>
> Whatever the root cause, there are practically no production frames and
damn
> few custom frames that allow both big tires and fenders with short reach
> brakes, and practically no one builds frames for normal reach brakes
> anymore, probably because the big S company and the big C company don't
see
> a market demand sufficient to produce normal reach brakes. Vicious cycle
> here....
>
> Personally, I think that the industry is too concerned in putting every
> cyclist into some neat little box, building high strung race bikes loaded
> with clicks and pops, heavy clunky hybrids, rad-dude mountain bikes,
> Supercross style kamikazee downhill sleds, and finally, a few mid-spec
sport
> touring bikes. Okay, rant over.
>
> It's pretty hard to beat the mindset that all of those advertising dollars
> cements into the heads of the buying public, so I doubt any of this is
going
> to change anytime soon. So, stock up on the parts you want, normal reach
> brakes and all. We're not likely to see any new production of this kind of
> stuff.
>
> I can't explain why you don't have fenders on any of your bikes, other
than
> to say that fenders should be used, and if you do so, the bike will get
> dirty. You might need a bike that you don't care much about, one that fits
> normal reach brakes and fenders, and one that you'll ride in the rain and
> put away wet. Every rider needs a bike like this. The bike should fit well
> and be comfortable, none the less, because if you actually like the bike,
> you'll ride it.
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "KCTOMMY" <KCTOMMY@email.msn.com>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 6:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: [CR]Interesting finds on eBay ... from same seller
>
>
> > After a few days haunting eBay trying to find some spare stoppers for my
> > flotilla, I was struck by how hard it is to find long reach nutted
brakes
> > and how many bikes I have that take them. Lets see: PX 10, Marinnoni,
> > Raleigh Pro, Raleigh International, Trek 710, Cirrus 7 (rear only,
> > replacement fork issues that I'm working on), 5.5 out of 8 bikes in the
> > garage take long reach nutters, three of them originally with center
> pulls.
> > So that makes my vintage brake nut factor 68.75 percent. I'm curious
how
> > the number runs for the group. Anyone with a higher percentage? No
wonder
> > I'm always scrounging for spare parts. And in this rainy season, why
> > haven't I got a set of fenders on ONE of them?
> >
> > Is there any practical reason why short reach-recessed rules the world?
> The
> > effects I know of are negative: no room for fenders and it's harder to
> > mount a rear rack. Is there that much weight savings, or is there a
> > functional difference? Or is it just style because short recessed is the
> > "racer's edge"?
> >
> > Tom Adams, watching a set of Weinmanns in Kansas City