Brakes

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Chris Davies, Aug 14, 2004.

  1. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:35:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    > V brakes are no less pain in the arse to set up - they are, after all,
    > just a slight variant on cantilevers.
    >

    I know that while in theory they shouldn't be easier, in practise I have
    always found setting up cantis took me much longer. Why is this? Possibly
    more practise setting up Vs, but I'm not so sure.

    >> Also, what would you recommend for brakes?

    >
    > Cane Creek Direct Curve - either DC2 or DC5. The advantage is no noodle.
    > Noodles are not merely a maintenance problem, they can allegedly[1] jump
    > out on rough sections and then you have no brakes.
    > <URL:http://www.canecreek.com/site/product/brakes/02_dc2.html>
    > <URL:http://www.canecreek.com/site/product/brakes/01_dc5.htm>


    Never thought of the noodle jumping out before. Surely your cables would
    have to be seized up?
    Nice looking brakes though.



    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     


  2. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:50:18 +0200, James Thomson <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > "Chris Davies" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Has anyone fitted V-brakes to their touring bike? What sort
    >> of results did you get?

    >
    > I used to run V-brakes with 287V levers on a Raleigh Randonneur, and I
    > was
    > generally very happy with the results.
    >
    > As for the levers themselves, all the steel parts rusted very quickly. I
    > replaced the plated clamps with stainless ones from an old pair of
    > Shimano
    > levers.
    >
    > Someone has a pair for sale on the Cycling+ forum:
    >
    > http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=34787
    >
    > James Thomson

    Cheers!


    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     
  3. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Chris Davies wrote:

    > Also, is it tig welded or lugged? This will make a difference to price.
    > It seems like a very good bike for the money, although I've never been
    > on one and suspect you could recycle some old mountain bikes into
    > something very similar for much less money.


    If you can get a similar quality of manufacture of frame with all the
    right braze-ons for touring in good steel I think you'd have quite a
    long look ahead. And while you were at it you could enjoy teetering
    about with a foot down with full touring luggage from an over-high
    bottom bracket. And you'll probably want to redo the gearing while
    you're at it, and add mudguards, and racks, and by the time you've done
    all that I suspect the "saving" will be a moot point.

    Thorn have embraced 26" designs as probably best for lot of reasons on a
    tourer (they're stronger, more easily available, tyres are more easily
    available and they give you more leeway for smaller riders with the
    frame geometry), so the Sardar isn't the only one. It does seem a lot
    of people expect 700c wheels on a tourer as the "proper" way to do it
    though.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  4. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:37:07 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > If you can get a similar quality of manufacture of frame with all the
    > right braze-ons for touring in good steel I think you'd have quite a
    > long look ahead. And while you were at it you could enjoy teetering
    > about with a foot down with full touring luggage from an over-high
    > bottom bracket. And you'll probably want to redo the gearing while
    > you're at it, and add mudguards, and racks, and by the time you've done
    > all that I suspect the "saving" will be a moot point.


    Not necessarily. There were plenty of good quality steel MTB frames made
    in all sorts of materials. I have a Giant from circa 1994, triple-butted
    cromoly, braze-ons for both front and rear racks along with water bottle
    bosses. That's not even a particularly good example. Better steel frames
    have been built by many firms - Dawes made some corkers back in the day,
    so have Orange.
    Why would you want to redo the gearing? My tourer has 22 front, 34 rear
    for when I'm carrying a lot of luggage or am just not up for it. Gearing
    is a question of rider preference, not genre of bike.
    Looking at some of the promotional material for the Sardar, it mentions
    how it has a higher bottom bracket for better ground clearance off road -
    sound familiar?
    A lot of early MTB designs had very relaxed geometry to give extra
    stability on downhills - this seems to be less prevalent now that mountain
    bikes have become more function specific, but was for quite a long time a
    fashion. This lends itself to touring pretty well.

    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     
  5. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Chris Davies wrote:

    > Not necessarily. There were plenty of good quality steel MTB frames made
    > in all sorts of materials.


    Note "were". You have to find one, and in the right size.

    > Why would you want to redo the gearing? My tourer has 22 front, 34 rear
    > for when I'm carrying a lot of luggage or am just not up for it. Gearing
    > is a question of rider preference, not genre of bike.


    Because as a question of rider preference I can't see me having much use
    for anything that low on the road compared with alternatives like closer
    spacing. And nor can a lot of other people, which is why tourers don't
    generally come with a 22" chainwheel by default. I've got 52/42/30, and
    though I wouldn't mind changing that for 28/38/48 (or maybe 26-46) I
    can't really see I'd want a 22. And I've been touring fully loaded and
    "not up for it" with what I've got.

    > Looking at some of the promotional material for the Sardar, it mentions
    > how it has a higher bottom bracket for better ground clearance off road
    > - sound familiar?


    Hadn't noticed that, though it strikes me as pretty pointless. If you
    want to do serious off road you'd be better off with an MTB, and if you
    don't then why make every time you touch down more difficult? The Thorn
    26" tourers don't appear to have this affliction.

    But perhaps more to the point, why doesn't your suggestion of "might as
    well use an old MTB frame and save money on a tourer" apply to the (more
    expensive) Galaxy as well as to the Sardar?

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  6. On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:00:03 +0100, Chris Davies wrote:

    > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:37:07 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> If you can get a similar quality of manufacture of frame with all the
    >> right braze-ons for touring in good steel I think you'd have quite a
    >> long look ahead. And while you were at it you could enjoy teetering
    >> about with a foot down with full touring luggage from an over-high
    >> bottom bracket. And you'll probably want to redo the gearing while
    >> you're at it, and add mudguards, and racks, and by the time you've done
    >> all that I suspect the "saving" will be a moot point.

    >
    > Not necessarily. There were plenty of good quality steel MTB frames made
    > in all sorts of materials. I have a Giant from circa 1994, triple-butted
    > cromoly, braze-ons for both front and rear racks along with water bottle
    > bosses.


    Not a Sierra Sport, is it?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
    Random putdown - "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever
    they go." -Oscar Wilde
    www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
    www.macclancy.co.uk
     
  7. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 16/8/04 3:18 pm, in article [email protected], "Peter Clinch"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Why would you want to redo the gearing? My tourer has 22 front, 34 rear
    >> for when I'm carrying a lot of luggage or am just not up for it. Gearing
    >> is a question of rider preference, not genre of bike.

    >
    > Because as a question of rider preference I can't see me having much use
    > for anything that low on the road compared with alternatives like closer
    > spacing. And nor can a lot of other people, which is why tourers don't
    > generally come with a 22" chainwheel by default. I've got 52/42/30, and
    > though I wouldn't mind changing that for 28/38/48 (or maybe 26-46) I
    > can't really see I'd want a 22. And I've been touring fully loaded and
    > "not up for it" with what I've got.


    I currently have 28-48 on the MTB with a 32 largest rear sprocket. I
    originally had 22-42 which I thought was a bit on the low side but was fine
    for dragging kids in trailers up steep slopes off road (when the trick is to
    keep the rear wheel from slipping and the front wheel on the ground.

    My riding style is changing to a much faster cadence = lower gearing so I
    can definitely see the utility in a 22 small ring for touring on steep
    ground. At present I can ride up the local 1 in 8 with a reasonable cadence
    (about 90) at about 8mph on a good day with 28x24. That is on an unloaded
    MTB (with mudguards, rack, big SLA powered lights and so on, probably weighs
    >30lbs). Add luggage and I'd be hard put to go up anything steeper than 1 in

    8 on whatever gears I have.

    As you say, everybody has their own preferences. I think 22 is a good bottom
    gear for a tourer. Not for an Audax bike though, 28 or 30 is probably better
    or have 22 and a closer ratio block.


    ...d
     
  8. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    David Martin wrote:

    > My riding style is changing to a much faster cadence = lower gearing so I
    > can definitely see the utility in a 22 small ring for touring on steep
    > ground.


    I can't mash any more, does my knees in quite quickly. And I've just
    come back from a fully laden tour with plenty of hills. And while I can
    see it might be nice to come down from a 22" bottom gear to 20" or just
    below, a 22 ring would give me a 16" bottom end. That really is /very/
    low, lower than I really want on tarmac without a third wheel to keep me
    from toppling over on a long drag.

    > (about 90) at about 8mph on a good day with 28x24. That is on an unloaded
    > MTB (with mudguards, rack, big SLA powered lights and so on, probably weighs
    > 30lbs).


    The Streetmachine as per my spec weighs slightly over 40 IIRC. And I
    still get up big hills at a reasonable cadence with a 30 small
    chainwheel, and I'm not in a Big Hurry.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  9. Triffid

    Triffid Guest

    Clive George pibbled:
    > "Triffid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> Anyhow, V brakes are if anything /harder/ to set up than cantilevers.
    >> Disc brakes are a toy unless hydraulics are involved. I used to own a
    >> cable-disc motorcycle, and cantilevers on the rim would been a boon!

    >
    > Avid mechanicals are getting a good reputation among tandem riders, which
    > seems a pretty good recommendation for me.
    >
    >> The only proper professional riders in this country have drum brakes,
    >> why aren't they commonly available?

    >
    > ?? (couriers?)
    >


    Postmen!
     
  10. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:26:56 +0100, Michael MacClancy
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:00:03 +0100, Chris Davies wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:37:07 +0100, Peter Clinch
    >> <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> If you can get a similar quality of manufacture of frame with all the
    >>> right braze-ons for touring in good steel I think you'd have quite a
    >>> long look ahead. And while you were at it you could enjoy teetering
    >>> about with a foot down with full touring luggage from an over-high
    >>> bottom bracket. And you'll probably want to redo the gearing while
    >>> you're at it, and add mudguards, and racks, and by the time you've done
    >>> all that I suspect the "saving" will be a moot point.

    >>
    >> Not necessarily. There were plenty of good quality steel MTB frames made
    >> in all sorts of materials. I have a Giant from circa 1994, triple-butted
    >> cromoly, braze-ons for both front and rear racks along with water bottle
    >> bosses.

    >
    > Not a Sierra Sport, is it?


    It's a Giant Track. Fab little bike, the rather dated exterior disguises
    the fact that it's loads of fun to ride.

    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     
  11. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:18:32 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > Note "were". You have to find one, and in the right size.


    I believe my exact words in the original post were "some old mountain
    bikes". If you're not in a hurry, you can always get what you're looking
    for, or something else that will do. I bought the Giant at a car boot sale
    for £20.

    > Because as a question of rider preference I can't see me having much use
    > for anything that low on the road compared with alternatives like closer
    > spacing. And nor can a lot of other people, which is why tourers don't
    > generally come with a 22" chainwheel by default. I've got 52/42/30, and
    > though I wouldn't mind changing that for 28/38/48 (or maybe 26-46) I
    > can't really see I'd want a 22. And I've been touring fully loaded and
    > "not up for it" with what I've got.


    If high, close ratio gears are your thing, then I hope you enjoy them. I'm
    transferring the chainset and casette of my old bike to my new one. I like
    them, that's the reason I chose them.

    > Hadn't noticed that, though it strikes me as pretty pointless. If you
    > want to do serious off road you'd be better off with an MTB, and if you
    > don't then why make every time you touch down more difficult? The Thorn
    > 26" tourers don't appear to have this affliction.


    But it isn't for serious off road. Neither is an MTB when you're running
    it with slick tyres and tons of luggage, for that matter. But what if
    you're on a tour, and you decided to do a bit of off roading? The whole
    idea of the Sardar as I see it is a little more versatility than the
    Galaxy. The designers obviously thought that it was worthwhile to design
    this into the frame, and it was worth a small trade-off in ease when
    starting. If people are happy riding the bike fully loaded isn't that
    enough? BTW, what is serious off road anyway?

    > But perhaps more to the point, why doesn't your suggestion of "might as
    > well use an old MTB frame and save money on a tourer" apply to the (more
    > expensive) Galaxy as well as to the Sardar?


    I like the Galaxy. I quite like the Sardar too for that matter, although
    I've no personal experience of it. I was merely saying that I thought the
    Sardar was very close as an idea to a lot of bikes that you can now pick
    up for next to nothing. Pick one up, you might be delighted and ride it
    for the rest of your life. Or you might decry it as a waste of good steel.
    Like I've already said, it's a question of what you want, not what others
    say you should have.

    Chris.
    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     
  12. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Chris Davies wrote:

    > If high, close ratio gears are your thing, then I hope you enjoy them.


    Errrr. They're not, and I don't have them. And nor do most tourers
    unless they're Audaxy sort of things.

    > But it isn't for serious off road. Neither is an MTB when you're running
    > it with slick tyres and tons of luggage, for that matter. But what if
    > you're on a tour, and you decided to do a bit of off roading?


    Well, on our fully laden recumbents we just went ahead and did it. On a
    rather boggy section of the Formartine & Buchan way we passed a couple
    of the sort of bikes that's allegedly ideal for this sort of touring
    being pushed down the way as we rode up, and subsequently overhauled a
    couple of kids on MTBs. Ever since the MTB became widespread there
    seems to be a general misapprehension that you need some sort of special
    bike the instant that the tarmac stops, but it isn't so.

    > idea of the Sardar as I see it is a little more versatility than the
    > Galaxy. The designers obviously thought that it was worthwhile to design
    > this into the frame, and it was worth a small trade-off in ease when
    > starting. If people are happy riding the bike fully loaded isn't that
    > enough? BTW, what is serious off road anyway?


    Serious off road is something that is very unlikely to happen with a
    fully loaded tourer, whether that be a capable MTB with racks or
    anything else.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  13. Chris Davies wrote:

    > Has anyone fitted V-brakes to their touring bike? What sort of
    > results did you get? I find cantilevers a pain in the a**e to set up,
    > and I reckon I deserve a decent set of brakes now I'm only to have
    > one bike.
    > The Dia-compe 287 lever is interesting, never seen a bike with one
    > fitted - does anyone have a set?


    I changed my tourer from cantis to V-brakes (Avid of some sort) a couple of
    years ago, using the Dia-Compe V287 levers. Braking is marginally better
    than it was before, but I have a suspicion that the bosses may be too close
    together for them to work properly. Also they interfered a bit with the
    upper rack mounts, requiring a certain amount of bodgery...

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  14. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:30:04 +0100, Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Chris Davies wrote:
    >
    >> Has anyone fitted V-brakes to their touring bike? What sort of
    >> results did you get? I find cantilevers a pain in the a**e to set up,
    >> and I reckon I deserve a decent set of brakes now I'm only to have
    >> one bike.
    >> The Dia-compe 287 lever is interesting, never seen a bike with one
    >> fitted - does anyone have a set?

    >
    > I changed my tourer from cantis to V-brakes (Avid of some sort) a couple
    > of
    > years ago, using the Dia-Compe V287 levers. Braking is marginally better
    > than it was before, but I have a suspicion that the bosses may be too
    > close
    > together for them to work properly. Also they interfered a bit with the
    > upper rack mounts, requiring a certain amount of bodgery...
    >


    Cheers! That's exactly what I wanted to know.

    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     
  15. Chris Davies

    Chris Davies Guest

    I think this is going in circles now, don't you? I've said all I have to
    say about it.
    Originally I was only asking a question about brake levers - on reflection
    don't think I'll bother running v-brakes. Thanks to everyone for their
    advice.
    I am glad you enjoy using your bike as it is. It's not the way I have
    chosen to use mine, but there you go. They're the most personal piece of
    machinery there is, so maybe we should be glad our bikes aren't the same!
    Certainly, diverse bikes and their equally diverse riders is one of the
    things I love about cycling. I hope one day we can meet and go for a
    trundle together. You certainly know your stuff and I'd be interested to
    see your bike.
    BTW, my new Galaxy is a babe! Picked it up yesterday, it's stood next to
    the computer glinting at me as I type this message. Time to get out with
    it. (;

    Chris.
    --
    |C|H|R|I|S|@|T|R|I|N|I|T|Y|W|I|L|L|S|.|C|O|M|
    Remove the bars to contact me
     
  16. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Chris Davies wrote:

    > They're the most personal piece of machinery there is


    <pedant> surely a replacement hip joint is rather more personal than a
    bike? </pedant> ;-)

    > I'd be interested to see your bike.


    http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/tourdunord.htm and following
    has some pix. Gears setup is standard for the bike, brakes were the
    standard Vs but have now been changed for the Maguras which are
    definitely a worthwhile step up IMHO.

    > BTW, my new Galaxy is a babe! Picked it up yesterday, it's stood next to
    > the computer glinting at me as I type this message. Time to get out with
    > it. (;


    En-joy! :)

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  17. Mark South

    Mark South Guest

    "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Chris Davies wrote:
    >
    > > They're the most personal piece of machinery there is

    >
    > <pedant> surely a replacement hip joint is rather more personal than a
    > bike? </pedant> ;-)


    Also: Watch. Knife. Pen. Colostomy bag.

    But it's the most fun of them all.
    --
    Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
     
  18. Jon Senior

    Jon Senior Guest

    Mark South [email protected]lid opined the following...
    > Also: Watch. Knife. Pen. Colostomy bag.
    >
    > But it's the most fun of them all.


    You don't enjoy your colostomy bad more? Are you sure you've got it set
    up right for you?

    Jon :)
     
  19. Mark South

    Mark South Guest

    "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Mark South [email protected]lid opined the following...
    > > Also: Watch. Knife. Pen. Colostomy bag.
    > >
    > > But it's the most fun of them all.

    >
    > You don't enjoy your colostomy bad more? Are you sure you've got it set
    > up right for you?


    Glad to say I do NOT enjoy a colostomy bag :)

    Now I'm wondering which of those other items I have the most of....

    Of course, on a bike I have them all, since the seatpack contains notebook and
    pen, plus Alien with knifeblade. The computer contains a clock.

    Therefore cycling is the most fun, since it goes so well with those gadgets and
    GPS, HRM, mobile phone, camera etc etc etc.
    --
    Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
     
Loading...
Loading...