Maybe it's because of the difference in chainstay lengths and trying to make to fender and tire equidistant for aesthetic appeal. Front fork varied plenty, too and if the braces weren't adjustable, the front fender and tire looked uneven also. Ted Ernst Palos Verdes Estates, Ca
> Don;
>
> Same deal with the Universals on my '68 Masi Special. My theory is that
> rear wheel fenders needed more clearance for wheel removal due to the
> horizo
> ntal
> drops. Yeah, I know you really only need the clearance in front, but
> fende
> rs
> that are not equidistant from the tire all the way around look goofy to
> most
>
> folks, so that means there's gonna be more clearance on top and in back
> too.
>
> This was apparantly a pretty common thing... I've seen several NIB sets of
> Universal 61's and '68's on eBay that were mixed reach. Perhaps this was
> t
> he
> only way they were sold at certain times? If so, it might explain why
> some
>
> bikes that were seldom fitted with fenders were still built with different
> reaches front and back.
>
> Bob hovey
> Columbus, GA
>
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Donald Gillies <gillies@cs.ubc.ca>
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: [CR]Weinmann 610 on front, 750 on rear ??
> Message-ID: <200605231725.KAA18450@cascade.cs.ubc.ca>
> Precedence: list
> Message: 12
>
> Can someone explain to me why a vintage bike maker would use short
> reach (610) brakes on the front, and long-reach (750) brakes on the
> back? I am thinking mainly of Raleigh, of course, but I also think
> that Peugeot and maybe Motobecane and maybe others did the same thing.
> This might make sense if the maker shipped larger tires on the back,
> but I'm pretty sure that they never did this ...
>
> Is the bike maker trying to allow a larger fender and tire on the
> rear, while providing good braking leverage on the front, where it
> matters ?? Is there another reason? This isn't done any more, as far
> as I am aware.
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA