Maybe a noddy question
 

On modern bikes, why does front suspension (forks) have the springs on the inside but rear suspension (shock) have the spring on the outside?

Is it for looks or does one method perform better/different to the other? If it's only looks then why doesn't anyone do an enclosed shock for the rear as it would be easier to clean and might look nicer.

Just wondering like...

damn good question:puzzled:

Probably cost. And buyers would be wary of something different.

Springs used to be on the outside on the front pre-1950's.
Same with valve springs they used to be on the outside too at one time.

Asthetics and to stop wear maybe? :puzzled:

Ains.

Its about stiffness and weight - if you want big stiff tubes at the front, its a done-deal to put the spring inside it as it can be smaller/lighter then.
At the back, you can still get shocks with tubes over the springs, but they are heavier.

Front and rear suspension on bikes do different jobs, the rear isn't subject to braking forces so the construction can be quite spindly, but on the front, the tubes are relatively massive, so there's plenty of room inside to place the springs out of the way. Those bikes which seperate steering and braking from suspension eg Foale, BMW, Hossack, Yamaha GTS, have solid components for steering and braking, but more dainty items (usually with external springs) for suspension.

I hope I don't spend too much of my saturday night thinking about this :puzzled:

No stopped already back on the **** :lol:

Thanks Phil and Washboard.
So an enclosed rear shock would be over-engineered but would look good right?

Eric, get back to the sauce!