Hey Michael,
How are you liking the 620 as a conversion? I'm wondering about doing a
similar route with a 1983 620, and I'd be interested to hear your
impressions, comparing 700c (or 27" I guess) to 650b on the same frame.
Kieran
On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:59:37 AM UTC-4, Michael Hechm
The newest Campy shift cables are 4.1mm, down from 4.5mm "normal" shift
cables and 5.0mm brake cables.
Segue: I recently rehabbed a 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10 as a commuter.
It came with a rear chainstay U-brake and front cantilevers (Deore XT
M730). The original brake cables were heavier gaug
FWIW, SRAM makes (or made) shift cables that were a teeny bit thinner than
typical. I think they were meant for grip shifters but I should imagine
they'd work with other types too...
Steve
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Bobish wrote:
> True, perhaps. But now standards have already been esta
Thicker cables are more apt to fail at the shifter drum than thinner
cables. The most damaging things that happen to cables are always the
clamp screws.
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:54:24 PM UTC-5, Michael Hechmer wrote:
>
> Good thought only this bike, and the bike where the derailler cab
Good thought only this bike, and the bike where the derailler cable failed
were both DT shifters, hence no cable housing at all. The tightest bend is
clearly around the DT shifter itself. All other bends are much less than
that.
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 8:52:12 AM UTC-4, Ron Mc wrote:
>
For what it's worth, I'm working on an early '70s all-Campy bike, and all
the cables are the same thickness. (brake size) Different cable heads
though. Don't know if it would matter, but I went ahead and sprung for NOS
derailleur cables, Just in case. On the other hand, I have English and
F
In the middle of my own assembly project, I found your observations quite
valid. The Trek looks great. Safe travels and enjoy the riding in California.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and sto
True, perhaps. But now standards have already been established. Changing at
this point = Giant Pita.
• Perry
On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Michael Hechmer wrote:
> No doubt derailler cable needs to be more flexible, but I'm betting we have
> reached a point in material science where we can ma
making cable housings too short leading to excessively tight bends is the
most common demise of cables.
My buddy had a short derailleur cable that shifted on him from frame flex
under a climbing load (exactly where you don't need it)
Lengthening the cable housing solved the problem.
On Satur
No doubt derailler cable needs to be more flexible, but I'm betting we have
reached a point in material science where we can make a strong & flexible
cable.
Michael
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 4:13:04 AM UTC-4, Perry wrote:
>
> Some excellent points. Regarding the cable splitters...
>
> > I
Michael,
Very insightful regarding all those points especially the funnel shaped
entry point and cable size. I suspect some would say the derailleur cables
needs to be a smaller diameter so the cable flexes a bit more especially at
the rear with all the curves. I'm just guessing here as I am no
Michael,
Congrats on your new build! I'm quite fond of the older Trek's myself and
converted what I believe to be a 1982 715. I'd considered the Bilenkey
S&S, re-paint route as well but I was able to get side pull's that reach
the 650B rims. My 42mm EL Hetre's just barely fit, getting the st
12 matches
Mail list logo
