Brake reach for '68 Paramount
#26
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I had no idea that there are so many variations. Where did I put that ruler?
#27
Senior Member
#28
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,641
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4671 Post(s)
Liked 5,769 Times
in
2,272 Posts
So, the longer reach in the brake for less leverage is the best answer I've heard so far. It just doesn't add up with the many bikes I've ridden with same reach brakes front and rear that don't have an issue. It also doesn't jive with the fact that thousands and thousands of hydraulic rear disc braked bikes don't seem to have an issue - and they're much easier to lock up with not much hand force than an old centerpull.
The craziness of this is that same reach brakes front and rear equate to more interchangeable parts, higher volume of fewer parts, and potential cost savings to manufacturers.
The craziness of this is that same reach brakes front and rear equate to more interchangeable parts, higher volume of fewer parts, and potential cost savings to manufacturers.
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
Likes For gugie:
#29
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,641
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4671 Post(s)
Liked 5,769 Times
in
2,272 Posts
Not seeing how a longer reach brake in the rear helps you get the top tube lower.
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,323
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3449 Post(s)
Liked 2,800 Times
in
1,974 Posts
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Middle Earth (aka IA)
Posts: 20,505
Bikes: A bunch of old bikes and a few new ones
Mentioned: 178 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5877 Post(s)
Liked 3,445 Times
in
2,066 Posts
The longer reach in the rear was definitely a thing. I have the brakes I harvested from a mid 70s Gitane TdF; weinmann 610 up front and weinmann 750 in the rear. At OEM prices, I'll bet the cost differential was very small to non-existent for the larger volume manufacturers.
#32
Senior Member
Start from the default position of, oh, 1946. Size small for mens frames is usually 54cm. Both brakes are long reach. Shorter riders can't stand over the bike. Shorter riders don't want to ride ladies frames. Now figure out how to get top tube lower. This is about as self evident as it ever gets. Stop living in mental universe where all riders are over 6' and all ride frames 2cm to 6cm too big.
When decision is made to alter front end of bike sheer inertia keeps rear brake bridge right where it was. Also simplifies fitting of the rear fender.
The wife's '73 Colnago, 51cm c-t, has a standover of 28-1/2". Front brake is short reach, roughly 44mm. Rear is standard reach, 52mm. Ernesto spends an extra lira or two to get Campy to provide mixed length brake calipers. Because he buys a lot of these brakesets, uses them on all the bikes, it is one lira cheaper than if he bought some mixed sets and some matched sets. And short reach on front makes the bike look racy.
#33
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,641
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4671 Post(s)
Liked 5,769 Times
in
2,272 Posts
Having a short reach brake in front gets the top tube lower.
Start from the default position of, oh, 1946. Size small for mens frames is usually 54cm. Both brakes are long reach. Shorter riders can't stand over the bike. Shorter riders don't want to ride ladies frames. Now figure out how to get top tube lower. This is about as self evident as it ever gets. Stop living in mental universe where all riders are over 6' and all ride frames 2cm to 6cm too big.
When decision is made to alter front end of bike sheer inertia keeps rear brake bridge right where it was. Also simplifies fitting of the rear fender.
The wife's '73 Colnago, 51cm c-t, has a standover of 28-1/2". Front brake is short reach, roughly 44mm. Rear is standard reach, 52mm. Ernesto spends an extra lira or two to get Campy to provide mixed length brake calipers. Because he buys a lot of these brakesets, uses them on all the bikes, it is one lira cheaper than if he bought some mixed sets and some matched sets. And short reach on front makes the bike look racy.
Start from the default position of, oh, 1946. Size small for mens frames is usually 54cm. Both brakes are long reach. Shorter riders can't stand over the bike. Shorter riders don't want to ride ladies frames. Now figure out how to get top tube lower. This is about as self evident as it ever gets. Stop living in mental universe where all riders are over 6' and all ride frames 2cm to 6cm too big.
When decision is made to alter front end of bike sheer inertia keeps rear brake bridge right where it was. Also simplifies fitting of the rear fender.
The wife's '73 Colnago, 51cm c-t, has a standover of 28-1/2". Front brake is short reach, roughly 44mm. Rear is standard reach, 52mm. Ernesto spends an extra lira or two to get Campy to provide mixed length brake calipers. Because he buys a lot of these brakesets, uses them on all the bikes, it is one lira cheaper than if he bought some mixed sets and some matched sets. And short reach on front makes the bike look racy.
Giving you a bit more room for fenders in the rear doesn't help at all with fender clearance in the front in this scenario. We're talking about frames in an era with long chainstays and fork blades that were made for fenders.
The OP has a Paramount and needs a long reach brake in the back, I believe. I'm going off of RiddleOfSteel 's Paramount that was at the Atelier a few years ago, it needed a truly long reach brake, not standard, for the rear. He had a matched set of standard reach sidepulls he wanted to use, I relocated the rear brake bridge so he could do so. I thought at the time "why would they make a frame to use different reach brakes?"
If they wanted to "de-rate" the rear brake, they were solving a problem that really didn't exist. Proof of this are the many models of production frames made with same reach brakes front and rear from that time period. I don't remember seeing any posts complaining that the rear brake was too powerful on bikes from that era.
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#34
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 6,347
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1953 Post(s)
Liked 3,634 Times
in
1,671 Posts
I have no answer to this but i do have a small early 60s bianchi frame that is long reach in back, shorter in front. It seems to be an entry level sport bike. The fact that it isnt my size, and the chainstays are split makes it nothing but wall art, however it did take 2 different size brakes.
#35
Senior Member
Yeah, but that's an answer to a different question. Why not use short reach front and rear? Ernesto et a al save a lira/franc/pence or two, and we call can find a lot of corners cut on production bikes to save money.
Giving you a bit more room for fenders in the rear doesn't help at all with fender clearance in the front in this scenario. We're talking about frames in an era with long chainstays and fork blades that were made for fenders.
The OP has a Paramount and needs a long reach brake in the back, I believe. I'm going off of RiddleOfSteel 's Paramount that was at the Atelier a few years ago, it needed a truly long reach brake, not standard, for the rear. He had a matched set of standard reach sidepulls he wanted to use, I relocated the rear brake bridge so he could do so. I thought at the time "why would they make a frame to use different reach brakes?"
If they wanted to "de-rate" the rear brake, they were solving a problem that really didn't exist. Proof of this are the many models of production frames made with same reach brakes front and rear from that time period. I don't remember seeing any posts complaining that the rear brake was too powerful on bikes from that era.
Giving you a bit more room for fenders in the rear doesn't help at all with fender clearance in the front in this scenario. We're talking about frames in an era with long chainstays and fork blades that were made for fenders.
The OP has a Paramount and needs a long reach brake in the back, I believe. I'm going off of RiddleOfSteel 's Paramount that was at the Atelier a few years ago, it needed a truly long reach brake, not standard, for the rear. He had a matched set of standard reach sidepulls he wanted to use, I relocated the rear brake bridge so he could do so. I thought at the time "why would they make a frame to use different reach brakes?"
If they wanted to "de-rate" the rear brake, they were solving a problem that really didn't exist. Proof of this are the many models of production frames made with same reach brakes front and rear from that time period. I don't remember seeing any posts complaining that the rear brake was too powerful on bikes from that era.
For fifty years I have personally experienced a constant drumbeat of short riders complaining there is nothing for them. Mostly they are correct. When I sold them on the retail floor I often said, you are right, I have nothing to sell you. We can re-equip a DL-22L or you can buy a better looking bike that's too big. This has only barely changed. What just will not ever change is anyone's thinking about how small frames are designed. 98% or maybe 99.9% of knowledgable aficionados are never going to think about anyone different than themselves. It is not about notions of performance. It is not about "de-rating" a brake caliper. It is about being able to stand over the bike or dismount w/o pain. The wife's Colnago is the best designed small frame I have ever seen and it is that way because Ernesto was short himself. Explaining this to a tall person may be impossible.
Likes For 63rickert:
#36
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,641
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4671 Post(s)
Liked 5,769 Times
in
2,272 Posts
Default/de facto was long reach brakes. When the switch is made to short at front, sure, they could have gone short at either end. Against that is inertia. No absolute need to change the rear so it didn't happen. Reduced clearance at front absolutely allows lower standover.
For fifty years I have personally experienced a constant drumbeat of short riders complaining there is nothing for them. Mostly they are correct. When I sold them on the retail floor I often said, you are right, I have nothing to sell you. We can re-equip a DL-22L or you can buy a better looking bike that's too big. This has only barely changed. What just will not ever change is anyone's thinking about how small frames are designed. 98% or maybe 99.9% of knowledgable aficionados are never going to think about anyone different than themselves. It is not about notions of performance. It is not about "de-rating" a brake caliper. It is about being able to stand over the bike or dismount w/o pain. The wife's Colnago is the best designed small frame I have ever seen and it is that way because Ernesto was short himself. Explaining this to a tall person may be impossible.
For fifty years I have personally experienced a constant drumbeat of short riders complaining there is nothing for them. Mostly they are correct. When I sold them on the retail floor I often said, you are right, I have nothing to sell you. We can re-equip a DL-22L or you can buy a better looking bike that's too big. This has only barely changed. What just will not ever change is anyone's thinking about how small frames are designed. 98% or maybe 99.9% of knowledgable aficionados are never going to think about anyone different than themselves. It is not about notions of performance. It is not about "de-rating" a brake caliper. It is about being able to stand over the bike or dismount w/o pain. The wife's Colnago is the best designed small frame I have ever seen and it is that way because Ernesto was short himself. Explaining this to a tall person may be impossible.
When I was a sales rep there was a shop in SF out in the Avenues I used to stop at. His wife (or maybe it was his ex-wife) was tiny, and had a custom built frame for 24" wheels. Smaller wheels are probably the best solution. The problem with a production bike is that this is a small volume of frames. Georgena Terry is at least one maker that is addressing this market. 26" wheeled roadbikes can be found. Is it an underserved market? Now we're getting into business dynamics.
It still begs the question of why design in and mix short and long reach brakes on any frame, short or tall. I hear the reasoning, it just doesn't make logical sense to me. If anybody brought a frame into my shop for mods or repairs and had a "tall" brake bridge compared to the front, I'd suggest "fixing" that if the frame were getting repainted anyway, unless they wanted to reuse the OEM rear brake.
You're sensitive to small frames, I'm sensitive to fender lines - here in the PNW many of us tend to be obsessed with it! BTW, one of my kids is 5'-0" and fully grown. I repurposed an old mountain bike frame. Cantilevers remove the brake reach from the equation, and place nicely with wide tires and fenders.
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
Last edited by gugie; 02-23-20 at 12:22 PM.
Likes For gugie:
#37
framebuilder
I wonder if the problem of extra brake clearance in back was related to how the seat stay brake bridge was fixtured (and therefore inconvenient to change) or maybe they had mitered tons of them and didn't want to throw them away as long as they had back brakes to match.
#38
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,171
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,274 Times
in
846 Posts
I've always thought that the length of the fork legs was enough of a strength-to-weight issue for there to be a bias toward using as short of a front brake reach as practical.
So when using fork tubes, crowns and steerers having standard strength levels, cutting the fork legs shorter improves fork durability (and improves stiffness to the second power of leg length).
So lengthening the fork leg tubes decreases the strength and increases the weight of a fork. It also makes it more flexible in all directions, including torsion.
I also note that rear brakes almost always have relatively poor modulation due to the combined (multiplied, actually) detriments of more cable friction and greater cable elasticity. So a lockup at the rear wheel is not so quickly remedied by the rider's reaction of releasing the lever.
Now it is also true that decreasing the leverage between the lever and the rear brake pads only increases the needed cable tension and thus the elastic stretching of the cable, which seems to at least somewhat offset the above theoretical consideration.
It's not unusual to find modern disc-braked bikes having a larger rotor on the front wheel (never the other way around).
Motorcycles too, to an even much greater degree, and it is at least as much about power than about heat buildup.
So when using fork tubes, crowns and steerers having standard strength levels, cutting the fork legs shorter improves fork durability (and improves stiffness to the second power of leg length).
So lengthening the fork leg tubes decreases the strength and increases the weight of a fork. It also makes it more flexible in all directions, including torsion.
I also note that rear brakes almost always have relatively poor modulation due to the combined (multiplied, actually) detriments of more cable friction and greater cable elasticity. So a lockup at the rear wheel is not so quickly remedied by the rider's reaction of releasing the lever.
Now it is also true that decreasing the leverage between the lever and the rear brake pads only increases the needed cable tension and thus the elastic stretching of the cable, which seems to at least somewhat offset the above theoretical consideration.
It's not unusual to find modern disc-braked bikes having a larger rotor on the front wheel (never the other way around).
Motorcycles too, to an even much greater degree, and it is at least as much about power than about heat buildup.
#39
Senior Member
Gugie
All bikes at factory get front brakes from one bin of front calipers (short). All bikes at factory get rear brakes from one bin of rear calipers (long). No room for error, minimum cost. Yes, the rear brake bridge could be moved. Inertia says no.
I have had exactly this discussion with two short riders who went ahead and built their own frames and did it before they had a huge repertoire of bicycle trivia archived. Each figured out on their own the front brake had to be short reach. That would be be Nola Wilken and Albina McLaughlin. Neither of them had or has any mechanical aptitude whatever and one of them had an instructor who just did not get it.
Georgena Terry's frame designs are just awful.
Recently I put a woman who had once been 4'11" and didn't want to know how short she had become in her old age on a 19" DL-22L. Native saddle and native saddle clamp. 590 wheels of course, with the wide and tall tires that belong there. After first test ride the saddle was actually moved up slightly. It is not hard to design a frame for short riders. That DL-22L would take sewups just fine and that frame handles like a bike should. Lose track of the details and pretty quick no one under 5'6" has a prayer of finding a frame that is not all compromises. There is never a reason to put an adult rider on 520 wheels.
All bikes at factory get front brakes from one bin of front calipers (short). All bikes at factory get rear brakes from one bin of rear calipers (long). No room for error, minimum cost. Yes, the rear brake bridge could be moved. Inertia says no.
I have had exactly this discussion with two short riders who went ahead and built their own frames and did it before they had a huge repertoire of bicycle trivia archived. Each figured out on their own the front brake had to be short reach. That would be be Nola Wilken and Albina McLaughlin. Neither of them had or has any mechanical aptitude whatever and one of them had an instructor who just did not get it.
Georgena Terry's frame designs are just awful.
Recently I put a woman who had once been 4'11" and didn't want to know how short she had become in her old age on a 19" DL-22L. Native saddle and native saddle clamp. 590 wheels of course, with the wide and tall tires that belong there. After first test ride the saddle was actually moved up slightly. It is not hard to design a frame for short riders. That DL-22L would take sewups just fine and that frame handles like a bike should. Lose track of the details and pretty quick no one under 5'6" has a prayer of finding a frame that is not all compromises. There is never a reason to put an adult rider on 520 wheels.
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
So, the longer reach in the brake for less leverage is the best answer I've heard so far. It just doesn't add up with the many bikes I've ridden with same reach brakes front and rear that don't have an issue. It also doesn't jive with the fact that thousands and thousands of hydraulic rear disc braked bikes don't seem to have an issue - and they're much easier to lock up with not much hand force than an old centerpull.
The craziness of this is that same reach brakes front and rear equate to more interchangeable parts, higher volume of fewer parts, and potential cost savings to manufacturers.
The craziness of this is that same reach brakes front and rear equate to more interchangeable parts, higher volume of fewer parts, and potential cost savings to manufacturers.
If you look back at boom era 10 speeds, you'll see the unequal reach concept employed most widely on the entry level models from bigger brands specifically targeting the USA market. When you stepped up to the high end models, you saw it less frequently because the company often assumed the rider buying a bicycle at this level already had experience with lightweight bicycles and caliper brakes. Also, if it was some smaller European brand, you'd be more likely to find equal reach brakes. After the boom, once the consumer became familiar with caliper brakes, manufacturers started to move away from unequal reach brakes. These are only generalizations and it easy to find exceptions.
Regarding the cost savings, almost invariably, all the parts are identical with the exception of the calipers arms. Shimano continued to offer two reach options of 600 Ultegra into the very early 1990s. 105 had two reach options as late as 1998. If the component manufacturer offers two reach options there's no typically no savings for a bicycle company to specify equal reach versus unequal reach. Any savings would come from simplified logistics in the bicycle factory. In that case it's not saving money but preventing cost associated with mistakes.
Last edited by T-Mar; 02-23-20 at 04:00 PM.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
Besides unequal disc sizes, it's also fairly common on bigger motorcycles to have double discs on the front.
#42
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,641
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4671 Post(s)
Liked 5,769 Times
in
2,272 Posts
You need to look at this from the context of the early 1970s. Millions of cyclists who had never used caliper brakes, were buying lightweight bicycles with caliper brakes. They hadn't learned that the front and rear brakes require different modulation for the most effective braking. A rear brake with less mechanical advantage and more flex is easier for a novice to modulate, as it's less sensitive. Basically, it made for an easier (and arguably safer) learning curve for the novice lightweight rider. If you've been raised on caliper brakes, even if they were unequal reach, it's relatively easier to adapt to a different mechanical advantage..
If you look back at boom era 10 speeds, you'll see the unequal reach concept employed most widely on the entry level models from bigger brands specifically targeting the USA market. When you stepped up to the high end models, you saw it less frequently because the company often assumed the rider buying a bicycle at this level already had experience with lightweight bicycles and caliper brakes. Also, if it was some smaller European brand, you'd be more likely to find equal reach brakes. After the boom, once the consumer became familiar with caliper brakes, manufacturers started to move away from unequal reach brakes. These are only generalizations and it easy to find exceptions.
Regarding the cost savings, almost invariably, all the parts are identical with the exception of the calipers arms. Shimano continued to offer two reach options of 600 Ultegra into the very early 1990s. 105 had two reach options as late as 1998. If the component manufacturer offers two reach options there's no typically no savings for a bicycle company to specify equal reach versus unequal reach. Any savings would come from simplified logistics in the bicycle factory. In that case it's not saving money but preventing cost associated with mistakes.
If you look back at boom era 10 speeds, you'll see the unequal reach concept employed most widely on the entry level models from bigger brands specifically targeting the USA market. When you stepped up to the high end models, you saw it less frequently because the company often assumed the rider buying a bicycle at this level already had experience with lightweight bicycles and caliper brakes. Also, if it was some smaller European brand, you'd be more likely to find equal reach brakes. After the boom, once the consumer became familiar with caliper brakes, manufacturers started to move away from unequal reach brakes. These are only generalizations and it easy to find exceptions.
Regarding the cost savings, almost invariably, all the parts are identical with the exception of the calipers arms. Shimano continued to offer two reach options of 600 Ultegra into the very early 1990s. 105 had two reach options as late as 1998. If the component manufacturer offers two reach options there's no typically no savings for a bicycle company to specify equal reach versus unequal reach. Any savings would come from simplified logistics in the bicycle factory. In that case it's not saving money but preventing cost associated with mistakes.
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.
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,323
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3449 Post(s)
Liked 2,800 Times
in
1,974 Posts
Yeah, but that's an answer to a different question. Why not use short reach front and rear? Ernesto et a al save a lira/franc/pence or two, and we call can find a lot of corners cut on production bikes to save money.
Giving you a bit more room for fenders in the rear doesn't help at all with fender clearance in the front in this scenario. We're talking about frames in an era with long chainstays and fork blades that were made for fenders.
The OP has a Paramount and needs a long reach brake in the back, I believe. I'm going off of RiddleOfSteel 's Paramount that was at the Atelier a few years ago, it needed a truly long reach brake, not standard, for the rear. He had a matched set of standard reach sidepulls he wanted to use, I relocated the rear brake bridge so he could do so. I thought at the time "why would they make a frame to use different reach brakes?"
If they wanted to "de-rate" the rear brake, they were solving a problem that really didn't exist. Proof of this are the many models of production frames made with same reach brakes front and rear from that time period. I don't remember seeing any posts complaining that the rear brake was too powerful on bikes from that era.
Giving you a bit more room for fenders in the rear doesn't help at all with fender clearance in the front in this scenario. We're talking about frames in an era with long chainstays and fork blades that were made for fenders.
The OP has a Paramount and needs a long reach brake in the back, I believe. I'm going off of RiddleOfSteel 's Paramount that was at the Atelier a few years ago, it needed a truly long reach brake, not standard, for the rear. He had a matched set of standard reach sidepulls he wanted to use, I relocated the rear brake bridge so he could do so. I thought at the time "why would they make a frame to use different reach brakes?"
If they wanted to "de-rate" the rear brake, they were solving a problem that really didn't exist. Proof of this are the many models of production frames made with same reach brakes front and rear from that time period. I don't remember seeing any posts complaining that the rear brake was too powerful on bikes from that era.
I agree that often the rear bridge is higher than it needs to be. On this particular bike the info is still pending on what model of '68 is is.
#44
Senior Member
You need to look at this from the context of the early 1970s. Millions of cyclists who had never used caliper brakes, were buying lightweight bicycles with caliper brakes. They hadn't learned that the front and rear brakes require different modulation for the most effective braking. A rear brake with less mechanical advantage and more flex is easier for a novice to modulate, as it's less sensitive. Basically, it made for an easier (and arguably safer) learning curve for the novice lightweight rider. If you've been raised on caliper brakes, even if they were unequal reach, it's relatively easier to adapt to a different mechanical advantage.
Additionally, there was a persistent and widely held belief that front brakes were dangerous, and that you could flip yourself over the handlebars if you weren't careful. It seems ridiculous now of course, but at the time, a lot of people worried about that.
Last edited by Salamandrine; 02-23-20 at 07:22 PM.
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 20,323
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3449 Post(s)
Liked 2,800 Times
in
1,974 Posts
Why I bought one of those adapter plates and ran a front brake on my Sting-Ray.
Nothing like late braking before a corner then gaining a bike length or two on my friends after exit.
Nothing like late braking before a corner then gaining a bike length or two on my friends after exit.
#47
Bike Butcher of Portland
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,641
Bikes: It's complicated.
Mentioned: 1299 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4671 Post(s)
Liked 5,769 Times
in
2,272 Posts
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.
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.
__________________
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
If someone tells you that you have enough bicycles and you don't need any more, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
Likes For gugie:
#48
señor miembro
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 8,237
Bikes: '70s - '80s Campagnolo
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3846 Post(s)
Liked 6,437 Times
in
3,183 Posts
The tall rear clearance on these old road bikes is clearly another absurdity of the universe along with the wombat, the platypus and zydeco music.
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
Likes For T-Mar:
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 17,127
Mentioned: 480 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3788 Post(s)
Liked 6,575 Times
in
2,580 Posts
Likes For nlerner: