Used Mtn Bike

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Mark, Oct 12, 2004.

  1. Mark

    Mark Guest

    I just seen a older Mtn bike (no noticable brand name) at a local 2nd
    store. The bike is in relatively good shape, tires have no cracks (rear
    rim needs trueing), hold air, the gears, brakes work, but need some
    minor adjusting. Another point is the bike is extremely light (no
    suspension at all!!) for a mtn bike

    All in all it is not too bad, I figure with an hour or so of work, the
    bike can tuned up and ready to be rode.

    The bike is equipped with Shimanno Deore shifters and derailleurs, what
    is the quality on this components. I am not too worried about them as I
    can replace if needed. If I decide to replace these components, what
    would be a suitable replacement considering cost vs performance and
    reliability without breaking the pocketbook.


    Thanks,
    Mark
     
    Tags:


  2. Dan Daniel

    Dan Daniel Guest

    On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:31:57 GMT, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I just seen a older Mtn bike (no noticable brand name) at a local 2nd
    >store. The bike is in relatively good shape, tires have no cracks (rear
    >rim needs trueing), hold air, the gears, brakes work, but need some
    >minor adjusting. Another point is the bike is extremely light (no
    >suspension at all!!) for a mtn bike
    >
    >All in all it is not too bad, I figure with an hour or so of work, the
    >bike can tuned up and ready to be rode.
    >
    >The bike is equipped with Shimanno Deore shifters and derailleurs, what
    >is the quality on this components. I am not too worried about them as I
    >can replace if needed. If I decide to replace these components, what
    >would be a suitable replacement considering cost vs performance and
    >reliability without breaking the pocketbook.
    >
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Mark


    Deore is mid-level, which is pretty good since even Shimano's
    low-level is pretty good. When buying replacement parts, Deore is a
    nice choice for that cost/peerformance level. Anything 'higher' in
    Shimano's hierarchy is primarily less weight; improvements in function
    are minor for the extra money. Lower levels will also work fine, and
    sometimes a 'lower' part has desirable qualities that Shimano has
    dropped from 'higher' parts.

    Starting at the top, Shimano's hierarchy of MTB parts-

    http://bike.shimano.com/mtb/index.asp

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good policy with a large hunk of
    Shimano's parts.
     
  3. Mark

    Mark Guest

    Dan Daniel wrote:
    > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:31:57 GMT, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Deore is mid-level, which is pretty good since even Shimano's
    > low-level is pretty good. When buying replacement parts, Deore is a
    > nice choice for that cost/peerformance level. Anything 'higher' in
    > Shimano's hierarchy is primarily less weight; improvements in function
    > are minor for the extra money. Lower levels will also work fine, and
    > sometimes a 'lower' part has desirable qualities that Shimano has
    > dropped from 'higher' parts.
    >
    > Starting at the top, Shimano's hierarchy of MTB parts-
    >
    > http://bike.shimano.com/mtb/index.asp
    >
    > If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good policy with a large hunk of
    > Shimano's parts.


    One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
    mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
    before. My concerns would be keeping the brake components free of
    debris, water etc. Also there are no mounting points on the rear top
    stay to move the brakes to even if I wanted to.

    Anyone have any comments on these bottom mounted brake setups.

    Thanks
    Mark
     
  4. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:46:27 GMT, <[email protected]>, Mark
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
    >mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
    >before. My concerns would be keeping the brake components free of
    >debris, water etc. Also there are no mounting points on the rear top
    >stay to move the brakes to even if I wanted to.


    It sounds like a U-Brake.
    Sheldon Brown says:

    "A form of cantilever brake that works like a centerpull caliper. The
    "L"-shaped arms cross over above the tire, so the left brake shoe is
    operated by the right side of the transverse cable. A U-brake uses
    studs that are above the rim, rather than below the it, as with
    conventional cantilevers. They use the same type and placement of
    studs as rollercam brakes do.

    In 1986-88 there was a fad for equipping mountain bikes with U-brakes
    mounted underneath the chain stays. This provided a nice clean look to
    the seat stay area of the bicycle, and provided a somewhat simpler
    cable routing. In addition, since the chain stays are larger and more
    rigid than typical seat stays, the "problem" of flexing of the studs
    under load was reduced. Conventional cantileves cannot be mounted on
    the chainstays, because the cantilevers would get in the way of the
    cranks.

    Although U-brakes were cool looking and powerful, the fad died quite
    abruptly when people actually started using the bikes that were sold
    with chainstay- mounted U-brakes. They had several serious drawbacks:

    The inaccessible location made it very difficult to service or adjust
    the brakes.
    They complicated the process of wheel removal.
    They tended to get clogged with mud.
    Due to the high-mounted studs, if you didn't monitor the brake shoe
    wear carefully, as they would wear, they would hit higher and higher
    on the rim. Eventually, they would overshoot the rim and start rubbing
    on the tire sidewall. This is one of the fastest known ways to destroy
    a tire.

    In recent years U-brakes have been making a bit of a comeback on
    freestyle bikes."
    --
    zk
     
  5. Mark

    Mark Guest

    Zoot Katz wrote:
    > Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:46:27 GMT, <[email protected]>, Mark
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
    >>mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
    >>before. My concerns would be keeping the brake components free of
    >>debris, water etc. Also there are no mounting points on the rear top
    >>stay to move the brakes to even if I wanted to.

    >
    >
    > It sounds like a U-Brake.
    > Sheldon Brown says:


    Thanks for the info, it is appreciated.

    Mark
     
  6. David

    David Guest

    "Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:D[email protected]
    >
    > One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
    > mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
    > before.


    The bike is from the 80s. Still might be a fun bike. The U-brakes
    worked fine, even if they were in a silly location. I'll guess the bike
    has a 6-speed rear end. Freewheel instead of cassette? Cassettes
    are much better, but freewheels were OK too.

    BTW, my Deore equipped 80s fully rigid bike weighed about as much
    as the full-suspension bike I bought many years later (80s bike lasted
    longer though), and more than either of the front-suspension equipped
    hardtails I've had.
     
Loading...