Yeah, my thinking has been in line with Steven's. I can't imagine why anyone would want to reduce braking power from the rear brake, so it certainly doesn't make sense (to me anyway) from a brake leverage standpoint.
John Wood Red Lodge, MT
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Steven Willis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> No scorn here. I figured it was to let you run a little larger tire in the
> back and also let you get a rear fender under that brake.
> Steven Willis
> The Bike Stand
> 1778 East Second Street
> Scotch Plains NJ 07076
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:14 PM
> Subject: [CR]Question about logic of "unequal" brake reach
> > Gentlemen and ladies,
> > I'm risking your scorn by asking what may be an old chestnut of a
> > question, but I have tried the archives and can't find an answer.
> > We've noticed a design "feature" on many frames from many countries and
> > built over several decades: the rear brake reach is longer than the
> > It seems most common on older ('60s) frames where centerpull brakes are
> > spec'd, but certainly not exclusive to them.
> > What's the purpose (or purposes) of it?
> > And if it was a good idea back in the 1950s to early 1980s, why not now
> > (other than the obvious, economy and simplified manufacturing)?
> > Thanks in advance (for any info and for your indulgence)
> > Alan Goldsworthy
> > SF, CA, USA