Re: [CR]Question about logic of "unequal" brake reach


Example: Framebuilders:Brian Baylis

Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:12:20 -0500
From: "Steven Willis" <smwillis@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Question about logic of "unequal" brake reach
To: <worthy2@earthlink.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <27104274.1204305251608.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>


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 908-322-3330 http://www.thebikestand.com


----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
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 front.
> 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