I have to agree with Jim Thill that V-brakes are more powerful than cantis, but I think that is one reason to *stay away* from them unless you do a lot of steep downhill single track, where hand-fatigue from braking can become a real issue.
More power = less modulation, all other things being equal. One data point: My 100 lb ex-girlfriend was riding her V-brake non-suspension Cannondale mtn bike in the park, going slow on a slight down slope (10-12mph?) and casually reached for her brakes to slow down a bit. A second later she found herself on the pavement, having gone over the bars as the front brake had locked up. Her brakes were properly set up. A brake that is so powerful that it can lock up a wheel when you are simply trying to slow very gently is at least as dangerous as a brake that requires white knuckles to lock up the wheel. In addition to being driven by ease of set-up, reduced costs, and trying to convince people that what they bought two years ago isn't good enough anymore, too much bike innovation is developed for the lunatic road- or downhill-racing fringe, and may actually be a step in the wrong direction for transportation/smell the roses type cyclists. Just my 2 Thai Baht, Gernot On Nov 30, 11:58 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> 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 <cyclotour...@gmail.com> 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 <willh...@yahoo.com> 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 <ryansub...@gmail.com> 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 <dpmay...@hotmail.com> 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 <ericpl...@aol.com> 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 <charles_v...@hotmail.com> 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 rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<rbw-owners-bunch%2Bunsubscrib > > > e...@googlegroups.com> > > > . > > > 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 rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
