Re: [CR]For Sale: 1960s Carlton frame_NOW_F/R brake reach discrepancy

(Example: Framebuilders:Alberto Masi)

From: "Takao Noda" <tanoda@d1.dion.ne.jp>
To: "Classic Bike List" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <4.3.2.20011124212602.01c16158@mail.gscrk1.sc.home.com> <000b01c1755b$b2c7d940$1c29b018@vncvr1.wa.home.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]For Sale: 1960s Carlton frame_NOW_F/R brake reach discrepancy
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:22:26 +0900


I think in those days the rear tire was not necessarily fatter than the front . With a rear mudguard and rear dropouts for road bicycle, more clearance was necessary to put off the rear wheel.

Takao Noda
Hachioji Tokyo Japan


----- Original Message -----
From: feldman
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [CR]For Sale: 1960s Carlton frame_NOW_F/R brake reach


discrepancy


> To accommodate a fatter rear tire?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Slotkin" <jeffslotkin@home.com>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR]For Sale: 1960s Carlton frame_NOW_F/R brake reach
> discrepancy
>
>
> > At 08:40 PM 11/24/2001 -0500, OROBOYZ@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >Oh yes, often the rear brake is a longer reach than the front, as per the
> > >common practice in those days..
> >
> > This is patently true, but does anyone know WHY it was done?
> >
> > Jeff "Commonly an Offender, Here's Where I Live" Slotkin
> > Goose Creek, SC
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com