I would also say that the ease of set-up is a major help to bike shops too, especially ones that have inexperienced folks (cheap) running the repair side of things.
I guess for me its easy to be retro-grouchy I do all my own wrenching except for wheel truing, I give that to a friend who has been doing it for 30 plus years. I know how to set-up anything except disc brakes, which is fine cause I dont plan on using them. Im one of those odd cats that loves fiddly parts and I like working on my bikes almost as much as I like riding. I like the challenge of getting odd combinations of things working well together, when they can, and have tried many different kinds of set-ups. I like mixing it all up a bit. my interest in bike tech ends at about the year 1998 though. Disc brakes, full suspension, carbon fiber, 9 spd and above, are all a distraction from the purity of the experience of riding a bike for me at least. Aesthetically too most bike stuff after the late 90's is just plain fugly for me. surprise surprise, after all this is the RBW Owners bunch. On Nov 30, 8:58 am, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <[email protected]> wrote: > Making build-ups faster is certainly a consideration. But I disagree > that the refinements in bicycle and component design are not, in fact, > genuine improvements. Here's my take on how these examples represent > improvements for the end-user: > > V-brakes: A lot of people seem to be saying that cantilevers have > stopping power that's comparable to that of v-brakes, provided that > the set-up is correct. This has never been my observation, as v-brakes > have always seemed much more powerful to me. I concede that I may not > know the secrets to canti set-up, though I have done it many, many > times, usually for money. For my own bikes, I was a canti-fan up until > the last year or so, and I used them all. Now I'm all about v-brakes. > > outboard BB bearings: there's no point in considering these bearings > except as part of the modern crank/bb assembly. The outboard > positioning of the bearings allow for a larger bearing with the wider > spacing reducing the force on each bearing. This should represent > added stiffness and durability and perhaps reduced weight, which may > or may not be relevant to the end-user. Aside from that, the entire > assembly can be disassembled and serviced with an 5mm wrench and a > Park BBT-9 tool. These are much easier to use (and harder to screw up) > than a thread-in crank puller and the splined BB tool (plus big wrench > or ratchet) that is required for the older Shimano UN series square- > taper cartridge BBs. Consider chain suck. With the modern style of > crank, it is a simple matter to loosen the crank with a 5mm wrench to > extract the chain without further damaging the paint on the chainstay. > With square taper systems, I have had times where I would have been > stranded if I wasn't compulsive about carrying lots of tools, like a > crank puller and 8mm allen wrench, for example... > > Threadless headsets: > Again, ease of adjustment with common tools is a big one for me. I've > had loosening threaded headsets on long rides...where did I put those > headset spanners again? I also much prefer a 9/8" threadless set-up > for the added stiffness when I have a heavy front load. I still use > bikes with threaded/quill arrangements because I have them and they're > fine for most of my riding, but if I'm buying a new bike, I consider > threadless to be a significant advantage. Aesthetically, I think both > are fine, but I came of age with bikes after threaded headsets and > clamp-on stems were commonplace. > > compact frames: If the bike fits and rides well, then it doesn't > matter unless you're attached to a certain look as being "correct". I > have come to prefer traditional designs, because they make for a > bigger triangle to accommodate my 40oz water bottles, various frame > bags, etc. > > I have often noticed that older bikes, say a 1970s/80s touring bike or > a 1950s 3-speed are more similar to modern bikes than they are > dissimilar. I could have a grand time riding a 50-year-old 3-speed > across the continent. Older equipment and older technologies work as > well now as they ever did. And if certain aesthetics or certain > nostalgic leanings are important to a cyclist, and the parts are still > available, there's no reason to not be "retro". But for those of us > who are mechanical geeks and get exposed to all the latest and > greatest, some of the older technologies, while they may be adequate, > seem rather archaic and cumbersome. > > cyclotourist wrote: > > Basically every "improvement" in bicycle components & design over the > last > two decades has been to make build ups faster. They may or may not > improve > things on the bike, usually neutral at best. Consider the following: > > V-brakes: check > outboard BB bearings: check > threadless headsets: check > "compact" frames: check > > All these are fine and good, and don't hurt anything, but are really > unnecessary. They let a factory put more bikes out and let the shops > assemble them faster (with less customer complaints). The problem is > that > they're marketed as "improvements" which they aren't for the end > user. And > they make perfectly good parts and designs outdated, which bugs most > of us > here. > > My $.02 for the evening. > > On Nov 29, 7:53 pm, cyclotourist <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Basically every "improvement" in bicycle components & design over the last > > two decades has been to make build ups faster. They may or may not improve > > things on the bike, usually neutral at best. Consider the following: > > > V-brakes: check > > outboard BB bearings: check > > threadless headsets: check > > "compact" frames: check > > > All these are fine and good, and don't hurt anything, but are really > > unnecessary. They let a factory put more bikes out and let the shops > > assemble them faster (with less customer complaints). The problem is that > > they're marketed as "improvements" which they aren't for the end user. And > > they make perfectly good parts and designs outdated, which bugs most of us > > here. > > > My $.02 for the evening. > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:46 PM, williwoods <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have to disagree with some of the statements. > > > > V-brakes are just easier not to screw up during setup (fewer > > > adjustments, fewer things to setup wrong), thats really the only major > > > advantage, there is a small leverage benefit but canti's have better > > > modulation in general. > > > > If you setup Canti's properly and run the right brake pads and proper > > > short pull levers they will stop as well as any cable actuated rim > > > brake will maybe even as good as cable discs. I have bikes that run > > > Canti's that you can lock up the wheels with 1 finger. I have also > > > used V-brakes that sucked. > > > > The trick is older Canti's can be a pain to setup right, Im talking XT > > > cantilever brakes here or similar. Or really any kind that uses the > > > plain non-threaded post mount brake pads, except the 90's Avid > > > Cantilever brakes those are the best for setup ever. Most of it is > > > about geometry though. You have to have the Straddle cable setup right > > > and then have to have the brake pads hitting the rim at 90 degrees and > > > toed in, most of the poorly performing Canti brakes are not adjusted > > > to the correct geometry. Proper setup of Canti Brakes is a bit of a > > > lost art these days. > > > > Nowadays the Tektro CR720 Cantilever Brakes are just about as easy to > > > setup as V brakes, mostly due to the fact that they use regular V- > > > brake style brake pads. The only thing more fiddly on these is setting > > > up the straddle cable correctly. The Pauls would also be just as easy > > > to setup right, or again any canti brake that uses the threaded V > > > brake brake pads. > > > > anyway thats my 2 cents. > > > > Will > > > > On Nov 29, 12:05 pm, RoadieRyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 on V brakes with the Tektro road levers. I have them set up with > > > > some Avid V brakes on my Handsome Devil. Overall I still prefer > > > > sidepulls for set up and adjustment but I like the V's over the > > > > Canti's. > > > > > R > > > > > On Nov 29, 12:07 am, Daniel M <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Can I also chime in in favor of V-brakes with Tektro levers? I have > > > > > had my Hillborne since May built by Rivendell with Deore V-brakes, > > > > > Noodle bars, and Tektro levers and interruptors. The braking is > > > > > superb. Loaded touring with tent, sleeping bag, food, clothes, etc, > > > > > coming down paved roads at 35mph, in the drops, and literally only > > > > > needing ONE finger on each lever to moderate slowing/stopping > > > > > perfectly. I had a Bianchi Volpe with short-arm cantis and needed to > > > > > apply so much pressure in similar situations that my hands ached. > > > > > > The long-arm cantis that Rivendell sells are doubtless much better > > > > > than the ones that came on my Volpe, but V-brakes are so powerful, so > > > > > simple, and so easy to adjust that I can't imagine using anything > > > > > else. > > > > > > DM > > > > > > On Nov 24, 3:28 am, EricP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Another one who feels that the 113 BB length is good. > > > > > > > Will chime in on the brakes - my SH presently has Tektro 720 > > > > > > cantilevers. The main winter project is switching it over to V > > > > > > brakes. The cantis are not bad. But overall the newer V brakes are > > > > > > so much nicer for stopping power. The only cantis, IMO, that come > > > > > > close are the Pauls. If price is no object, then, yeah, go that > > > > > > route. Otherwise, it's V for me. > > > > > > > Oh yeah, my back story is originally riding on old mountain bikes > > > > > > (back when they were new) and cantilevers were king. So I've always > > > > > > been able to set them up. Even with that, still prefer them > > > > > > newfangled stoppythingies. > > > > > > > Eric Platt > > > > > > St. Paul, MN > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 12:52 am, charlie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > If it doesn't rub its okay...... > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<rbw-owners-bunch%2Bunsubscrib > > > [email protected]> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > > -- > > Cheers, > > David > > Redlands, CA > > > *...in terms of recreational cycling there are many riders who would > > probably benefit more from > > improving their taste than from improving their performance.* - RTMS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
