You guys have all missed the boat again, IMO.
Don't you ever get tired of falling off the pier and getting wet?
If I get time later I'll write my take, otherwise tomorrow.
Ted Ernst
Palos Verdes Estates
CA USA
> Sheldon started off so well when he wrote:
> "Rear-opening fork ends have no virtue for well designed frames,
> they're just an atavistic styling exercise."
>
> only to get side-tracked (pun intended) by what I believe to be the
> absolutely incorrect successive statement:
>
> "It is true that for frames with stupidly short chainstays
> rear-opening fork ends are the way to go."
>
> You simply cannot make a frame with shorter stays with rear-ward facing
> dropouts. In the best case the chainstay lengths can be the same as on
> forward facing dropouts. In a rearward facing dropout bike, the wheel
> cannot be bolted to the utter foremost position in the groove, otherwise
> it is impossible to fit the chain. You must always leave enough forward
> movement space to pull the chain onto the cog. The only way to avoid
> this would be to remove a pin in the chain which would be
> counterproductive.
>
> As best as I can tell, there is absolutely no reason to ever justify
> rearward facing dropouts over forward facing ones.
> Steven Maasland
> Moorestown, NJ
> USA