Nimbus 36 brake mounts misplaced

Dunno if this question has been brought up before: Why does the Nimbus 36 have its brake mounts not on the rear fork legs but on those at the front. This way the maguras constantly chafe my thighs.

Thats were they should be, there stronger that way. If you look on a bike they are efectivly on the front. That way under braking they are being compressed, forced onto the frame were as when they are on the back of the frame when you brake the forces are trying to rip them from the frame. Which is obviously alot weaker.

I don’t mean to move the brake mounts to the other side of the fork tube – I wonder why the brakes are not placed on the rear pair of tubes where they would be out of the way for my legs.

The mounts are on the fork pair that is in line with the seat tube so you can add a brake cable support over the tire (GB style stuff) and so you can route the brake lines easier. It would be a mess to run the cables down the back fork pair. This setup also keeps the brakes themselves within the footprint of the frame which can avoid damage when moving or storing the cycle.

So this design is inferior then?


I covered several hundred miles on my N36 with Maguars, and never had any kind of chafing. (My Schlumpf frame does chafe, but that’s for another thread).

Maybe chicken legs are different to monkey legs :smiley:


That style of chafing or rubbing does depend on the length of your legs and the size of your thighs. Shorter legs means that the fatter part of your thigh can end up right where the brake mounts. The ergonomics for a short stocky person vs. a tall lankly person is quite different in terms of whether brakes or crowns will rub the legs.

Has anyone tried the new Echo hydraulic rim brakes? Supposedly have a shorter cylinder down at the brake pad so they don’t stick out as much as the Magura brakes.

I completely agree with you. This is one of the largest flaws with the N36 frame. The mounts should be on the rear portion, like the Hunter.

For those who feel it is stronger in the center, you are probably right, but I seriously doubt you would have any inferior breaking power by having them on the rear fork leg.

Here are the reasons I think they should be on the rear fork lekgs:

  • My girlfriend, who is 5’2", also gets chaffing from them.
  • I constantly break my brake lines when one-footing. If they were on the rear (like hunter’s), this wouldn’t be an issue.


The original N36 prototype had the brakes on the rear members. I remember Roger stateing in a thread why he moved them, but im damned if i can remember the reason.

I think the reason was to protect cable style rim brakes from damage or to somehow make the frame work better for that style of brake. But I’m all vague on that.

i imagnie if it was on the back the stopping power would be gretaly compromised.

if i apply pressure to my hydros on the nimubs 36 frame, you can actually see the frame flex outwards because the brakes are just forcing them out. this would be worse on the backpart of th eframe, i imagine?

but i could very well be wrong, i dunno. and do you need to apply that much pressure to stop anyway? i dunno. just putting it out there.

Hate to say this, but because we use very little braking force when riding, all the above issues (save for the starting post) are trivial. As for outward frame flex, that would actually help to modulate the grabbiness of rim brakes. Whether the calipers are mounted on the front or rear fork section has no effect on braking forces as we use them. Have yet to see anyone “slam on the brakes”.

JC, nice call on the Echos. I’ve already got an all-green anodized set in my shop, and the calipers are indeed somewhat smaller than maggies. But they take the same pads as maggies. My set is earmarked for next year’s “Florian Green” uni (if Mr. Schlumpf can come through on his end…).

Exactly. We don’t need “stopping power” only “slowing down power”.

If you would place the brake mounts on the rear fork they would probably flex less (in the direction of the wheel) than in the original position because of the angular reinforcement going from top of rear tube to saddle tube.

First time I see them. Looks like they copied the maguras quite well. Still the price is higher.

Found it.

Roger says:

As for brakes on the front and not rear leg it is simply that it is the leg that is directly below the rider and the one with the highest load on it. Should there be any flex in the frame then it is the leg that will have least movement.