Bone headed question- Pace forks

[uphillcursing2]

Is there a structural reason for the brake mounts to be facing towards the rear of the bike? Is there any reason other than aesthetics that i cant swap them over to have them facing forward?

 

[Spudly]

As far as im aware it was only done to look fussy, im fairly sure one of my mates swapped his round to the front back in the day as he thought his RC35's had been assembled incorrectly lol!

 

[terminator]

You mean you're asking for Survivors, to come forward !

Cheers
terminator

 

[uphillcursing2]

Terminator

Made me laugh!!!

 

[terminator]

It was Spudly's : ' FAIRLY sure' made me think " Ooo-err' !
and he ominously doesn't sound like he sees his mate anymore. LOL

Take care
terminator

 

[gerryattrick]

In the words of the wonderful Destiny's Child, I'm a survivor

Been using them with the brakes at the front for a year now, including the FOD ride this year with no problems at all.

 

[misteroo]

Yeah...but they look rubbish, and every one will say "shouldn't the brakes be on the back of the forks?"

 

[Anthony]

It has nothing to do with aesthetics. The theory is that having the rotating force of the wheel on the brake acting towards the fork, rather than away from it, increases the rigidity of the braking action. Manitou also adopted it in later times, so did Orange with their rigid forks in 1999.

I think the only argument against it is that people think it looks odd. Nobody thinks it looks odd to have the rear brake behind, rather than in front of the brake posts though.

 

[Archangel]

I don't think Manitou did those backward facing brake posts but only the bridge was located behind the legs.

 

[Anthony]

You may well be right about Manitou, but another example is disc brakes - has anybody ever seen a fork where the disc calipers are in front of the blades so that rotational forces are pulling the brake away from the fork?