# reversing and relocating rear brakes ?



## jheeno (Jun 28, 2011)

I figured this fits in more in the newbie corner
But i'm wondering ...
iv the holes and space exists ... is it possible to reverse the rear caliper ?
I am not trying to be an aero weenie here but I personally thing it looks more clean

Any flaws to this idea ?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

have fun w/ the cable routing. and don't forget to swap the pads from left to right. personally, i think it's a stupid idea.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Ok, I'll play along, but your pics confuse me. 

Where do you want to place the caliper? Reversed at the bridge or at the bottom bracket?


----------



## jheeno (Jun 28, 2011)

reversed at the bridge ...
yeah that's the first downfall of the idea .. cable routing is going to be annoying


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

jheeno said:


> reversed at the bridge ...
> yeah that's the first downfall of the idea .. cable routing is going to be annoying


Reversing at the brake bridge poses the problem of how to thread the brake nut, since the frame has a wider inset to accept the nut at the rear. 

That given, you'd be faced with either finding an alternate method of mounting the caliper or modifying the frame. Bottom line (IMO), not recommended - especially considering payback is pretty much zero.


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

The other thing to keep in mind is the mechanical design of the actual calipers. 
They are made with the design of the braking force acting onto the finished outward facing side of the caliper. 
The force will then carry through the brake pads, through the arms, through the mounting post then against the frame bridge. 
Now even if you managed to reverse the brakes; I don't know if the calipers would be able to handle the braking force pulling it away from the mounting post.? 
Just a thought of precaution.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

bikerjohn64 said:


> The other thing to keep in mind is the mechanical design of the actual calipers.
> They are made with the design of the braking force acting onto the finished outward facing side of the caliper.
> The force will then carry through the brake pads, through the arms, through the mounting post then against the frame bridge.
> Now even if you managed to reverse the brakes; I don't know if the calipers would be able to handle the braking force pulling it away from the mounting post.?
> Just a thought of precaution.


You mean like the front caliper does? Of course, without the bridge.


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

redondoaveb said:


> You mean like the front caliper does? Of course, without the bridge.


Doah! I should just go to sleep. 
You are correct! How did I ever overlook that? Feelin red like a tomato right now. 
Scratch my previous post.


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

bikerjohn64 said:


> Doah! I should just go to sleep.
> You are correct! How did I ever overlook that? Feelin red like a tomato right now.
> Scratch my previous post.


I think this may be your problem.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Just leave it. 

I agree with CX on this one.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I know a guy that changed his the same way you're proposing to change yours. It works fine. Cable routing is the hard part.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

BTW, that's quite a bike for a newbie. Very nice.


----------



## jheeno (Jun 28, 2011)

newbie question but i'm not new to riding ... i'm just wondering why it isn't done and why most bikes come with the brakes mounted that way


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

jheeno said:


> newbie question but i'm not new to riding ... i'm just wondering why it isn't done and why most bikes come with the brakes mounted that way


There are a few good reasons for mounting it the way it is:

1. As has already been mentioned, cable routing. Not insurmountable, of course, but cleaner routing placing the brake on top of the bridge.

2. Easier to access the brake caliper and pads for mounting and adjusting. Less cussing from the mechanics. (Under the chain stay is becoming popular, but it has always been annoying to try to adjust the brake under there)

3. Theoretically, stronger braking since forward force of the wheel helps drive the pads and caliper toward the stay. Theoretical, but not practically applicable, as the front is usually mounted on the front side of the fork and it works just fine.

4. Tradition. It's where the brake has always been (whether this reason qualifies as 'good' is debatable, I suppose)


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

You could do as Ridley does on it's Noah FB.


----------



## jheeno (Jun 28, 2011)

redondoaveb said:


> You could do as Ridley does on it's Noah FB.


Funny you mention that because I have my eyes on it
If the price is reasonable I plan on changing my front fork
New Products: 4ZA Fast Fork | Bicycle Business | BikeBiz


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

damn, you're really gonna mess that bike up aren't ya?


----------



## redondoaveb (Jan 16, 2011)

Would that make it a Ridley-Scott. Oh wait, that name is already taken.


----------



## jheeno (Jun 28, 2011)

Well the fork itself isn't specifically Ridley 
and they do come 'unbranded' as such
so only those with a keen eye while i'm riding at speed will notice and complain ...

















BTW Just thinking about the cabling routing ... turns me off so I think I will scrap the idea of the rear brake all together ... oh well .


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

i hate to break the news to you, but the Foil uses a 1 1/8-1 1/4" tapered fork and that FAST fork only comes 1 1/8-1 1/2". sorry man...


----------



## jheeno (Jun 28, 2011)




----------

