One downside of the MZ Baghira is the all but non-existance of aftermarket accessories, especially on this side of the Atlantic. So I'm thinking I'm going to be making my own fork brace, and have been looking at what is available for other bikes. This has caused some confusion as to what the brace is trying to accomplish. I started out thinking the idea was to make the two fork sliders act more like a single piece, free only to telescope in syncronism. To do that the brace needs to attach solidly to the sliders, and have significant stiffness in a least two shear axes, (against rotation of the tubes sliders, and against differential teliscoping motion) and good torsional stiffness as well. (raising the torsional spring rate of the wheel to handlebar connection) Then I look at this thing: http://www.dual-star.com/index2/Brand/Kawasaki/klr 650 fork brace.htm or this: http://www.happy-trail.com/productinfo.aspx?productid=45&categoryid=1&startpage=1 These have shear webs only against axial rotation of the sliders. There is very limited stiffness against differential extension of the sliders, and almost zero torsional stiffness. It seems the main intent of these designs is to maintain the spacing between the sliders, and little else. So I talked to one of my KLR-riding friends who has the K-9 brace (or a clone) and he said that the stiffer braces are prone to causing binding of the front suspension. I can see how that would be the case if the mounting surfaces aren't true, or the spacing is off....but when you get it right, isn't stiffer better? I wonder if the popular products are compromises to avoid binding when applied to the inevitable variations in machines, bent fork tubes, etc. I have access to a machine shop, and enough mechanical design background to make the thing work, I just need to know what it is supposed to be doing, and what potential problems I need to be avoiding.