None of your 7 considerations calls for switching your brakes. If you're
satisfied with the v-brakes you currently have, don't change them.
To switch them out, depending on what you currently have, you may need new
levers, new cables/housing, new cantis, front cable stop, lots of fiddling
Back when cyclocross race bikes had rim brakes, the mullet
retro-front/touring-back was a preferred set-up so that the retros would't
stab the rider when they had the bike on their shoulder. I've always just
copied this stylistically when setting a bike up this way - just to try to
be cool.
Hi Matthew,
I agree with Phillip and Collin; why switch to cantis when your existing V
brakes appear to work fine? If it's the desire to experiment or just make a
change, well, we've all been down that road — and I'm often on it! A
friend of mine has a canti braked Appaloosa (very nice
I've used cantilevers since the early 80's and while there are distinctions
among brake models, how it is set up, the frame mounts themselves, brake
cable and housing setup, and finally the riders own sensibilities, all play
their part in the experience of braking. In other words, there's no
You should keep the v brakes.
They already are on the bike, they’re quite powerful, they are more out of
the way of panniers, and aren’t affected by rack-top stuff pushing on a
cable.
Philip
Sonoma County, Calif
On Saturday, October 29, 2022 at 4:09:17 PM UTC-7 Matthew Williams wrote:
> Hi
Personally, one of the few/only reasons I would change from v to canti
would be to use short pull drop bar levers that fit my tiny hands
betterthat and visuals, canti brakes just look nicer to my eye.
But given your circumstances, it doesn't seem worth it to go canti unless
you
Hi everyone, based on the brake arrangement, I have a question.
But first, some background: I’m making some changes/upgrades so my bike
will be better equipped for day rides, multi-day trips, and light touring.
Here are some of the considerations:
1. Bike is a Joe Appaloosa
2. Wheels
The line of logic, as I understand it, is according to Paul, the
'Neo-Retro' brakes are more powerful, yet pose heel clearance issues when
used in the rear, so are most often relegated to the front where the bulk
of stopping power is needed while their 'Touring' cantis fit better in the
rear.
Those are neo retro up front and touring in the rear. I have the same set
up on three different bikes. Here's a link to Pauls and you can see the
difference.
https://www.paulcomp.com/product-category/components/brakes/cantilever-brakes/
On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 10:23:44 AM UTC-6 Matthew
Neo Retros are not as powerful as Touring cantis, because you can not get
the straddle wire close to 90 degrees in relation to the brake arm. That
angle is the key to high mechanical advantage. See: V brakes. The idea
that they're stronger is simply based on lever feel. They feel firmer,
A local mechanic reasoned that the touring canti has the same mechanical
advantage as the neo retros that were modeled after vintage canti’s , the
implication is they are equal. Something about the neo’s being more sensitive
to brake ware. Can anyone verify this?
Sent from my iPhone
> On
I have that setup on a bike. Like others have said, heel clearance was
the original consideration. But the wide profile neo retro has more
modulation/subtlety to it, which is good for a front wheel. The low
profile touring is more on/off binary, which is ok for a rear wheel. But,
as
I have the same arrangement on my Bombadil. It was for pannier clearance as
much as heel/leg clearance - my Bombadil is a later, longer chainstay
version with less heel/leg clearance issues. I had originally bought the
brakes for the Hubbuhubbuh, but changed it to Paul V-brakes and moved the
13 matches
Mail list logo
