Originally Posted by
gugie
Circling back to the OP, this is a Schwinn Paramount we're talking about. I've already posted my Motobecane Le Champion, again, not a low end bike, and the reach difference between front and rear is 15mm.
I think we're guessing about why they did this in the past. The brake modulation for entry level riders makes as much sense as anything I can think of, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense of and by itself.
Well, as I said, these are generalities and there will be exceptions, such as your Le Champion. And no, it's not just guesswork. I was working in an LBS during the boom. Besides my personal observations, there was feedback from customers, discussions with sales reps and one case where it was actually stated that the difference between the front and rear brakes was an attempt to improve overall brake performance by decreasing rear brake power.
Most cyclists had come from coaster brakes and were used to using only a rear brake. As pointed out by Salamandrine, many had a stigma about front brakes because of horror stories about somebody having a header because of those powerful, centre-pull brakes. It's no different than the stigma over derailleurs that existed at the same time. People wanted to be part of the new cycling movement but many were intimidated by the new technology. So, they bought ten speed bicycles but used primarily the rear brake and rarely, if ever, used the derailleurs once they found a comfortable gear. We may laugh such notions these days but it was fact. A decade or two ago, you could find lots of boom era bicycles with only one worn cog and brake pads that were worn out on the back but like new or at least a lot less worn on the front, when it would normally be the other way around.