cbr400 nc23 forks why do they not have a brace?

Forum rules
Please can you post items for sale or wanted in the correct For Sale section. Items / bikes for sale here will be removed without warning. Reasons for this are in the FAQ. Thanks
Post Reply
wig
Settled in member
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:10 pm

cbr400 nc23 forks why do they not have a brace?

Post by wig » Sun May 31, 2009 12:46 am

I was looking at my forks today and wandering why the two lower bits are not connected like they are on push bikes? instead it just the mudguard that acts like a bridge?
whould it make the forks stiffer against flex if they were - and if so why have they not made them like that?
or is there an upgrade that you can get to do the job?
cheers :?:

kiwi racer
Settled in member
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:10 pm
Bike owned: CBRs
Location: New Zealand

Re: cbr400 nc23 forks why do they not have a brace?

Post by kiwi racer » Sun May 31, 2009 3:46 am

They dont have a fork brace because they dont really need one. A steering damper never hurt though lol.

greggo
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:08 pm

Re: cbr400 nc23 forks why do they not have a brace?

Post by greggo » Sun May 31, 2009 8:53 am

While the forks on some of the earlier bikes are known to flex under heavy loads (braking on race tracks), you won't generally experience it on the road. Although it is why upside down forks were introduced.

Also you have to remember that you need to keep the fork slider area free so the forks can fully compress. Which generally means either the brace is so high it is effectively the lower triple clamp, or so low it goes where the mudguard does, and becomes problematic to fix a problem you would have to be really pushing the bike to experience.

If you look at some historic racers, such as early CB's etc, it's not uncommon to find them fitted with a fork brace. Effectively just a clamp (like a triple clamp) that went across the forks to reduce the effect. Heres a couple of nice examples; http://www.rswracing.com/

I guess Honda didn't think it was warranted on the road.

idl1975
Settled in member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 11:35 am

Re: cbr400 nc23 forks why do they not have a brace?

Post by idl1975 » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:14 pm

wig wrote:I was looking at my forks today and wandering why the two lower bits are not connected like they are on push bikes? instead it just the mudguard that acts like a bridge?
whould it make the forks stiffer against flex if they were - and if so why have they not made them like that?
or is there an upgrade that you can get to do the job?
cheers :?:
You have one hell of a mudguard!

MTB forks don't feature triple clamps, unless you're talking about serious downhill bikes. The average NC features an upper fork clamp, lower fork clamp and a bloody great front axle which is a mite tougher than a QR skewer. All of these keep the forks very well located. Meaningful fork flex is something from the days of hopeless chassis design 30 years ago ... or Yuri Geller. ;) Something else will happen before the forks flex enough for you to notice - you'll run out of traction, bottom out the forks or stoppie yourself over the front.

However, for eking out maximum placebo effect you CAN buy a fork brace, and mighty cool it looks too. Just search on e-bay...

wig
Settled in member
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: cbr400 nc23 forks why do they not have a brace?

Post by wig » Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:51 pm

all mtb forks have each stanction bridged together, I know they dont have tripple clamps apart from the downhil forks.
its the bridge that I wandered why my cbr doesnt have one.
if you lean hard on a corner not going fast, i can hear the brakes sound like they are a tiny bit rubbing, I work in a push bike shop, so when i mentioned it to another guy in the workshop, he asked the question initially.
anyhow my fornt mudguard brackets broke so i repaird them with fibre glass, now i have a bridge if i wanted it or not!

Post Reply