Touring - Early 1990s Shimano group

[Bruce Graham]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
<snip>>
> So what's missing?
>
STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.

(I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Bruce Graham wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> <snip>>
>> So what's missing?
>>
> STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
>
> (I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)

What's wrong with cantilevers? They provide more than enough braking
power, and better fender clearance than V-brakes.

--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

 

[Jeff Wills]

[email protected] (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Deore started as a quality (for those days) touring group. Since the
> earliest ATB's didn't have componentry of their own, they used Touring
> parts, and the early frame geometry was actually built to accommodate
> it.
>
> Eventually, ATB componentry and frames became a separate species unto
> itself. And the Deore line became dedicated to it's adopted new species.
> (and the tourist was once again left behind to rot).
>

True, the *original* Deore was dedicated to touring- but that was
before there were any dedicated mountain bike groups. The OP specified
"early '90's", by which time Deore and Deore XT (LX, DX, etc.) had
become mountain bike-specific.

Here's the 1982 specs and pictures, thanks to Sheldon:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/shimano1982/pages/26.html
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/shimano1982/pages/27.html

FWIW: I had one of those original Deore cranksets on a Schwinn
Superior many years ago, complete with the DynaDrive platform pedals.
Darn good pedals for my big feet.

Jeff

 

[gwhite]

Bruce Graham <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> <snip>>
> > So what's missing?
> >
> STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
>
> (I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)

That's fine, but remember that in the so-called glory days of touring,
"they" didn't have brifters. Thus there is no net loss in that sense.
Shimano's modern bar-end shifters are better than the old SunTour
bar-cons, although they were nice.

Cantilevers work fine and I think one can still get the Dia-Compe road
levers designed to work with them.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

[email protected] wrote:

> Bruce Graham <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>> <snip>>
>>> So what's missing?
>>>
>> STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
>>
>> (I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)
>
> That's fine, but remember that in the so-called glory days of touring,
> "they" didn't have brifters. Thus there is no net loss in that sense.
> Shimano's modern bar-end shifters are better than the old SunTour
> bar-cons, although they were nice.
>
> Cantilevers work fine and I think one can still get the Dia-Compe road
> levers designed to work with them.

You must be thinking of V-brakes; cantilevers work fine with regular road
levers.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Bruce Graham wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> Bruce Graham wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>> <snip>>
>>>> So what's missing?
>>>>
>>> STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
>>>
>>> (I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)
>>
>> What's wrong with cantilevers? They provide more than enough braking
>> power, and better fender clearance than V-brakes.
>>
> Power is seductive. More is nicer for me (I explain in another post).

Perhaps you didn't have good cantilevers, or perhaps the straddle cable was
too long, giving you too little mechanical advantage (remember, cantis have
adjustable mechanical advantage!). I have bikes with both cantis and with
v-brakes, and I find the difference fairly insignificant if the cantis are
set up well. On both I can lift my rear wheel with quite light application
of the front brake, and both work fine when descending wet hills with
panniers.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Russell Seaton]

> Also I have the RSX front derailleur,...It is a
> cheap, rattly, ugly device which I don't believe has a modern equivalent
> if I need to replace it, but so far it still works pretty much the same
> as when new.

Which just goes to show that the equipment is very secondary to bike
touring. On all my loaded tours I never really cared too much about
the bike other than it kept going. My best recommendation for touring
equipment is given to the products I never even have to think about
while touring.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Russell Seaton) wrote:

> > Also I have the RSX front derailleur,...It is a
> > cheap, rattly, ugly device which I don't believe has a modern equivalent
> > if I need to replace it, but so far it still works pretty much the same
> > as when new.
>
> Which just goes to show that the equipment is very secondary to bike
> touring. On all my loaded tours I never really cared too much about
> the bike other than it kept going. My best recommendation for touring
> equipment is given to the products I never even have to think about
> while touring.

Fundamentally, this is a great point.

I have all kinds of fun bikes kicking around, from my racer to my
commuter, but if I had to go on a long tour tomorrow, I'd have no doubt
which bike to use.

I'd borrow back the 20-year-old Mikado from my father. Six speeds at the
rear, half-step plus triple at the front, friction shifting, canti
brakes, 27" wheels, and lots of mounting points for racks.

Who needs to shift quickly on a touring bike? All you need is sufficient
range.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[gwhite]

Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Bruce Graham <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> [email protected] says...
> >> <snip>>
> >>> So what's missing?
> >>>
> >> STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
> >>
> >> (I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)
> >
> > That's fine, but remember that in the so-called glory days of touring,
> > "they" didn't have brifters. Thus there is no net loss in that sense.
> > Shimano's modern bar-end shifters are better than the old SunTour
> > bar-cons, although they were nice.
> >
> > Cantilevers work fine and I think one can still get the Dia-Compe road
> > levers designed to work with them.
>
> You must be thinking of V-brakes; cantilevers work fine with regular road
> levers.


Actually no. Yes "regular" levers are okay with cantilevers -- I too
have used them. But there is a Dia-Compe set specifically designed
for cantilevers. I don't know what the mechanical advantage
difference of the two styles. Given that "regular" levers are okay,
there probably isn't a huge difference.

There are the Dia-Compe 287V Brake Levers specific for v-brakes. The
"plain" 287 levers are for canti's. I don't know who sells them.

 

[Bruce Graham]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Bruce Graham wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >> Bruce Graham wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> [email protected] says...
> >>> <snip>>
> >>>> So what's missing?
> >>>>
> >>> STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
> >>>
> >>> (I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)
> >>
> >> What's wrong with cantilevers? They provide more than enough braking
> >> power, and better fender clearance than V-brakes.
> >>
> > Power is seductive. More is nicer for me (I explain in another post).
>
> Perhaps you didn't have good cantilevers, or perhaps the straddle cable was
> too long, giving you too little mechanical advantage (remember, cantis have
> adjustable mechanical advantage!). I have bikes with both cantis and with
> v-brakes, and I find the difference fairly insignificant if the cantis are
> set up well. On both I can lift my rear wheel with quite light application
> of the front brake, and both work fine when descending wet hills with
> panniers.
>
>
The bike came with Shimano STX cantis and I had the straddle cable set up
with the "official" angle as per the little indicator on the round
anchor. I never did experiment with a separate shorter straddle cable,
but the boss bearings were very wobbly by the time I threw them out
anyway (12,000 km).

 

[dianne_1234]

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:42:14 +1000, Bruce Graham
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
><snip>>
>> So what's missing?
>>
>STI shifters matched to V brakes and mountain front derailleurs.
>
>(I know STI and tourism is heresy, but I know what I like)

I know I'm not supposed to say simply "me too", but Bruce and I agree:
STI is great for touring!

The only other thing missing is touring cranks. Cranks with
- 48T big ring
- Shimano-quality ramps and pins
- spacing for 9s STI
- road triple chain line
- narrow Q

Maybe Shimano will follow trends and introduce a new "compact" 74/110
crank? Something like the old RSX, but higher class and for 9s STI.

 

[dianne_1234]

On 11 Apr 2004 22:08:08 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:

>Cantilevers work fine and I think one can still get the Dia-Compe road
>levers designed to work with them.

Cantis work fine for me, even with STI.

The Dia-Compe levers I've seen for V-brakes have a rough feel to them.
Maybe it's that metal tube inside?

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Bruce Graham wrote:

> The bike came with Shimano STX cantis and I had the straddle cable set up
> with the "official" angle as per the little indicator on the round
> anchor. I never did experiment with a separate shorter straddle cable,
> but the boss bearings were very wobbly by the time I threw them out
> anyway (12,000 km).

That's too bad.
Changing the brake pads can make a difference too. I've heard the stock
Shimano pads are pretty crappy. I can't verify that from experience, but I
know that the pads that came with my Avid Shorties were quite inferior to the
salmon Koolstop pads I've replaced them with. Not only has my stopping
power greatly improved, but I'm no longer plagued with squeaky brakes and
fork shudder. (They're still a bit squeaky on occasion, but it's no longer
the constant ear-splitting squeal that it was.)

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[G.T.]

dianne_1234 wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2004 22:08:08 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
>
>
>>Cantilevers work fine and I think one can still get the Dia-Compe road
>>levers designed to work with them.
>
>
> Cantis work fine for me, even with STI.
>
> The Dia-Compe levers I've seen for V-brakes have a rough feel to them.
> Maybe it's that metal tube inside?

Mine feel fine.

Greg

 

[A Muzi]

>>Cantilevers work fine and I think one can still get the
Dia-Compe road
>>levers designed to work with them.

> On 11 Apr 2004 22:08:08 -0700, [email protected] (gwhite) wrote:
> Cantis work fine for me, even with STI.

dianne_1234 wrote:
> The Dia-Compe levers I've seen for V-brakes have a rough feel to them.
> Maybe it's that metal tube inside?

DiaCompe aero levers use a unique ferrule. We commonly see
these set up without one of those and indeed they do feel
terrible. The proper ferrule is rounded and floats against a
depression in the casting. It was done that way so the
casing can be routed to either side or through a handlebar.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[ccollins]

I'm trying to follow this by testing my current gearing.

Originally posted by Gwhite

> So let's arbitrarily test the result for the 48-44 combo:

> 44 48 11 106.000 115.636 13 89.692
> 97.846 15 77.733 84.800 18 64.778 70.667 21 55.524 60.571 24
> 48.583 53.000 28 41.643 45.429

Aren't these gear inch results for a 47-43 front chainring combo?

--Chris



--

 

[gwhite]

ccollins <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm trying to follow this by testing my current gearing.
>
> Originally posted by Gwhite
>
> > So let's arbitrarily test the result for the 48-44 combo:
>
> > 44 48 11 106.000 115.636 13 89.692
> > 97.846 15 77.733 84.800 18 64.778 70.667 21 55.524 60.571 24
> > 48.583 53.000 28 41.643 45.429
>
> Aren't these gear inch results for a 47-43 front chainring combo?

Don't worry about absolute precision. It is the ratio that counts.

Wheel size for the computation was 26.5 inches.
(About a 700x23-25c tire)