Bianchi San Remo Touring bike
Brian Handy
Hiya folks,
I subscribed to this news group a few weeks ago hoping to see some info
on a touring bike I'm interested in and I haven't seen any posts to that
end, so I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback.
I'm looking for a reasonably nice touring bike in the ~$1000 range, and
visits to the local bike shops have turned up a Bianchi San Remo (with
the Campy Mirage Group) for $900 and $1200, depending on my choice of
bike shop. Now, I've paid enough attention to believe that Bianchi is
probably a good bike. My question is...what's the deal with this Campy
group? I've never heard of it and it REALLY appeals to my inner self to
be able to ride a bike with Campy parts. :-) Any experience with this
stuff, good or bad?
E-mails preferred, always hard to say if posts will make it to my news
server.
Thanks!
Tullio
Brian Handy wrote:
>
> Hiya folks,
>
> I subscribed to this news group a few weeks ago hoping to see some info
> on a touring bike I'm interested in and I haven't seen any posts to that
> end, so I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback.
>
> I'm looking for a reasonably nice touring bike in the ~$1000 range, and
> visits to the local bike shops have turned up a Bianchi San Remo (with
> the Campy Mirage Group) for $900 and $1200, depending on my choice of
> bike shop. Now, I've paid enough attention to believe that Bianchi is
> probably a good bike. My question is...what's the deal with this Campy
> group? I've never heard of it and it REALLY appeals to my inner self to
> be able to ride a bike with Campy parts. :-) Any experience with this
> stuff, good or bad?
While it's not quite as flashy or as smooth as its bigger Campy
brothers, Mirage is a very nice group and one I would recommend over
the RSX/RX100 stuff you tyically see in its price range. Most of
the components, except the hubs, have a very nice finish that you
would have a hard time telling from Athena from a yard away.
The Ergo shifters may be the weak link. They are not as smooth as
the higher-end units, and I've heard of them wearing out much
quicker (although this is also true of RSX STI shifters).
If you get the San Remo, check the brake set up. The Ergo brake
levers do not have optimal cable pull for canitlever brakes. This
is also true of Shimano's STI levers and most other road levers
(except the Dia Compe 287 levers which are speicifically designed to
work with cantis). So, the brake straddle cable must be set up
carefully to get adequate braking leverage. If it's done right, you
can stop on a dime. If not, you can bottom out the levers trying to
stop your loaded bike going downhill.
Good luck!
Todd
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL
e-mail: tul...@TheRamp.net
sd...@ix.netcom.com
In article <4uog6g$s...@netra.oscs.montana.edu>,
uph...@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Brian Handy) wrote:
> Hiya folks,
>
> I subscribed to this news group a few weeks ago hoping to see some info
> on a touring bike I'm interested in and I haven't seen any posts to that
> end, so I thought I'd see if I could get some feedback.
>
> I'm looking for a reasonably nice touring bike in the ~$1000 range, and
> visits to the local bike shops have turned up a Bianchi San Remo (with
> the Campy Mirage Group) for $900 and $1200, depending on my choice of
> bike shop. Now, I've paid enough attention to believe that Bianchi is
> probably a good bike. My question is...what's the deal with this Campy
> group? I've never heard of it and it REALLY appeals to my inner self to
> be able to ride a bike with Campy parts. :-) Any experience with this
> stuff, good or bad?
>
> E-mails preferred, always hard to say if posts will make it to my news
> server.
>
> Thanks!
I just purchased a Bianchi Champione D'Italia. I love the bike and the
Campy Mirage group works real nice. It takes a bit to break in the
Euro-levers so they don't shift so stiff, but after about 2 weeks and 300
miles, they work great. It's a nice change from Shimano. It doesn't
shift as fast as a Shimano's R100's and 105 group, but I like the feel and
the name Campy. The Mirage group falls below the Veloce, but I don't
know how it falls with the rest of the lower groups. The Mirage group
looks very nice and are built well. Go for it! You won't regret it. I
don't and I'm in love with the bike.
Steve
Jim
Go for it. I don't know about the San Remo, but I've got a Bianchi Eros
with Mirage components, and it's just great. As I think someone else
commented, they aren't quite as smooth right out of the box as Shimano,
but once they get broken in they're excellent.
Leung Cheung
In article <3211A2...@theramp.net>, Tullio <tul...@TheRamp.net> wrote:
>
>If you get the San Remo, check the brake set up. The Ergo brake
>levers do not have optimal cable pull for canitlever brakes. This
>is also true of Shimano's STI levers and most other road levers
>(except the Dia Compe 287 levers which are speicifically designed to
>work with cantis). So, the brake straddle cable must be set up
>carefully to get adequate braking leverage. If it's done right, you
>can stop on a dime. If not, you can bottom out the levers trying to
>stop your loaded bike going downhill.
>
I read time and again about the DiaCompe 287 levers being meant for
cantis because of their extra pull, but personal experience hasn't
borne it out.
I have a hybrid which I converted to use a drop bar. I initially used
DiaCompe BRS-400 levers and found quickly that the brake pads had to be
closer to the rims than before in order for the levers to not bottom out.
I also needed stronger return springs for the cantis and a Goretex rear
brake cable to ensure clearance of the pads from the rims. I wasn't
completely happy with this arrangement.
Later (that was last year), I heard about the 287's. I put them on,
and must say they're, at a price 50% higher than the BSR-400's, a
disappointment. I hardly noticed any improvement. My expectation of
the 287's performing like mountain brake levers never materialized.
What are the experiences of net folks using the 287?
From Bridgestone and Trek catalogs, I learn that the '94 RB-T used Exage
300EX levers and the '94 520 used "Shimano aero levers" (not sure which
one in particular). I think the 520 from 95 on uses RSX levers. Would
owners of these "real" touring bikes care to comment about their braking
performance? I'm very curious, since the levers aren't "canti-specific."
Also, are there any inherent limitations in the design of "road" levers
vs. that of "mountain" levers that make "road" levers in general
"incompatible" with canti brakes? Will there be a problem if a pair of
287's is put on a bike with caliper brakes?
Thanks for any discussion.
Since my followup is somewhat off-topic, I've changed the subject line.
Leung Cheung
l...@netcom.com
Ken Walters
>From Bridgestone and Trek catalogs, I learn that the '94 RB-T used Exage
>300EX levers and the '94 520 used "Shimano aero levers" (not sure which
>one in particular). I think the 520 from 95 on uses RSX levers. Would
>owners of these "real" touring bikes care to comment about their braking
>performance? I'm very curious, since the levers aren't "canti-specific."
>
>Also, are there any inherent limitations in the design of "road" levers
>vs. that of "mountain" levers that make "road" levers in general
>"incompatible" with canti brakes? Will there be a problem if a pair of
>287's is put on a bike with caliper brakes?
>
I have a C'dale T700 with LX cantilevers, Ultegra brake levers and DuraAce
cable housing. My braking performance improved dramatically when I did
two things:
1. put the canti return springs in the top hole to give maximum return, and
2. Adjust the brake pads in the cantis so that the alignment guide on the
LX cable hanger was in near perfect alignment with the cable going to the
canti on the right side (the one you take the cable off to remove the wheel).
Joshua_Putnam
>Later (that was last year), I heard about the 287's. I put them on,
>and must say they're, at a price 50% higher than the BSR-400's, a
>disappointment. I hardly noticed any improvement. My expectation of
>the 287's performing like mountain brake levers never materialized.
>What are the experiences of net folks using the 287?
I have 287s on two bikes and find the extra cable pull is a help,
but the most important thing is to ignore all the mountain bike
standards for setting up cantilevers, since they're designed
around brake levers that still pull a lot more cable. Adjust the
straddle cable for a touring bike, not a mountain bike, and the
brakes work fine with any aero levers I've tried. This does, of
course, mean you need a real straddle cable and carrier, not one
of Shimano's fixed-length setups.
>Also, are there any inherent limitations in the design of "road" levers
>vs. that of "mountain" levers that make "road" levers in general
>"incompatible" with canti brakes? Will there be a problem if a pair of
>287's is put on a bike with caliper brakes?
287s pull more cable, which means they have less leverage.
You'll need to grip them a bit harder to get equivalent
performance from your calipers, but they will work just fine.
Cantilevers, unlike calipers, have adjustable mechanical
advantage, so you can really use them with just about any levers
you want to.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
Used & classic bike parts for sale: finger Joshua...@WolfeNet.com for list.
Suntour Accushift 6-sp Bar-Cons, NEW w/cables & instructions, $30
Rich Whalen
l...@netcom.com (Leung Cheung) wrote:
>What are the experiences of net folks using the 287?
>From Bridgestone and Trek catalogs, I learn that the '94 RB-T used Exage
>300EX levers and the '94 520 used "Shimano aero levers" (not sure which
>one in particular). I think the 520 from 95 on uses RSX levers. Would
>owners of these "real" touring bikes care to comment about their braking
>performance? I'm very curious, since the levers aren't "canti-specific."
I have a '94 RB-T with it's stock levers and a '95 Santana tandem with
the Dia-Compe 287 levers, so I can give an objective comparison of the
two.
The big difference between 287s and other drop-bar levers is that the
287s are further away from the bar so that they can pull more cable
before they bottom out. This is most evident when you are in the
drops and reach for the levers.
In both cases it is necessary to keep the brakes well adjusted in
order for them to work well. Cantilever brakes are designed for a
lever that has a higher mechanical advantage (and more cable pull)
than caliper brake levers generally provide. With standard drop-bar
levers and Shimano LX cantis you are operating at the edge of the
limits. (Shimano V-Brakes are beyond the limit.) The 287s give more
cable pull, so you give yourself some more room to work. The cable
routing for (aero) drop bar levers provides more friction than mtb
lever cable routing, so you need to keep you wheels truer so that the
brakes don't drag when they take a while to return.
When I keep the brakes in proper adjustment the two bikes brake
equally as well. The tandem benefits from the greater cable pull of
the 287s as that long rear brake cable can (elasticly) stretch a lot
after the pads hit the rims. As well as cable stretch there can also
be some flexing of the seat stays. I improved the braking on the
RB-T by adding a brake-booster to the seatstays which reduced the flex
there. The tandem might benefit from this too, though not as much as
its stays are larger in diameter to begin with.
Remember that the primary reason for putting cantilevers on road bikes
is to allow for greater tire clearance and fenders.
Rich
------------------------------------------------------
Rich Whalen
You don't know where these bits have been!
Leung Cheung
In article <4vcg9f$i...@sniff.shr.dec.com>,
Rich Whalen <Rich_...@shr.dec.com> wrote:
>
>The big difference between 287s and other drop-bar levers is that the
>287s are further away from the bar so that they can pull more cable
>before they bottom out. This is most evident when you are in the
>drops and reach for the levers.
Relative to the RX-100 levers that I have on my road bike, the 287's on
my hybrid are indeed further away from the bar, though not by much. The
shape of the bar should also play a part, though. (The RX-100 levers
are used with an ITM, whereas the 287's, a Sakae.)
I hope the shape of the 287's isn't the main reason they have more pull,
else people with smaller hands won't be able to use these levers. It'd
also be disappointing if that's why we have to pay a premium for them
over generic levers.
> I improved the braking on the
>RB-T by adding a brake-booster to the seatstays which reduced the flex
>there.
What is a brake-booster? Doesn't the RB-T have a bridge across the seat
stays for strength?
>
>Remember that the primary reason for putting cantilevers on road bikes
>is to allow for greater tire clearance and fenders.
>
Compared to adjustment of mountain levers used with cantis, or road
levers used with calipers, adjustment of road levers with cantis is
excessively tedious. It'd be interesting to know if the problem is
due to the two components being "inherently" incompatible, or if it's
just an area that cries out for more attention.
To be concrete, even when "canti-specific" brake levers are used, the
situation still isn't entirely satisfactory. The 287's increase cable
pull at expense of mechanical advantage. To regain some MA, the straddle
cable angle has to be increased (so the cable is "flatter"), reducing
room for fenders. Then there's the constant need to check the levers
against bottoming out, and to keep the wheels true. There's less safety
margin. Life is on the edge.
Surely long-reach caliper brakes exist that can be used with road levers
with little fiddling, or am I dreaming?
Leung Cheung
l...@netcom.com
Rich Whalen
l...@netcom.com (Leung Cheung) wrote:
>I hope the shape of the 287's isn't the main reason they have more pull,
>else people with smaller hands won't be able to use these levers. It'd
>also be disappointing if that's why we have to pay a premium for them
>over generic levers.
Well, since I'm not tall (5'6"), I have hands that on the smaller
size. I notice that the 287s take a bit more reach when I'm in the
drops than any of my other brake levers (even STI levers). Riding on
the hoods there is no noticable difference.
>> I improved the braking on the
>>RB-T by adding a brake-booster to the seatstays which reduced the flex
>>there.
>What is a brake-booster? Doesn't the RB-T have a bridge across the seat
>stays for strength?
A brake-booster is a U shaped piece of aluminum that attaches to the
cantilever mounting points on the far side of the frame. (i.e. the
order is: frame bosses, cantilevers, booster). The U is wide in the
plane that the force will be applied, so it is quite inflexible. Yes,
the RB-T has a bridge across the seat stay (the fender mounts there),
and this does a good job.
>Compared to adjustment of mountain levers used with cantis, or road
>levers used with calipers, adjustment of road levers with cantis is
>excessively tedious. It'd be interesting to know if the problem is
>due to the two components being "inherently" incompatible, or if it's
>just an area that cries out for more attention.
>To be concrete, even when "canti-specific" brake levers are used, the
>situation still isn't entirely satisfactory. The 287's increase cable
>pull at expense of mechanical advantage. To regain some MA, the straddle
I don't think that the 287's reduce the mechanical advantage at all.
Placing the pivot point further from the handle bar would only change
the potential for cable pull if all of the other lever dimensions
stayed the same. If I have time this evening I'll take some
measurements of the leves on my tandem and my RB-T and post the
results.
You can find a good article on adjusting cantilevers at:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biz/hub/cantilever_geometry.html
(We should probably be discussing this in rec.bicycles.tech, but I
don't want to move it there.)
Tim Chambers
In article <lchDw9...@netcom.com>, Leung Cheung <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3211A2...@theramp.net>, Tullio <tul...@TheRamp.net> wrote:
<brake levers>
>I read time and again about the DiaCompe 287 levers being meant for
>cantis because of their extra pull, but personal experience hasn't
>borne it out.
>one in particular). I think the 520 from 95 on uses RSX levers. Would
>owners of these "real" touring bikes care to comment about their braking
>performance? I'm very curious, since the levers aren't "canti-specific."
I have a Cannondale T700 which uses the RSX levers with cantilever brakes.
It works well. The pads need not be all that close to the rims, but as
always the closer the better. :-) I keep mine within a couple of
millimetres of the rims.
>
>Also, are there any inherent limitations in the design of "road" levers
>vs. that of "mountain" levers that make "road" levers in general
>"incompatible" with canti brakes? Will there be a problem if a pair of
>287's is put on a bike with caliper brakes?
>
>Thanks for any discussion.
>
>Since my followup is somewhat off-topic, I've changed the subject line.
>
>Leung Cheung
>l...@netcom.com
--
____________
Tim Chambers
__o
_\<,_ May you forever dance
(^)/(^)_______Lightly on your pedals_________
Rich Whalen
Rich_...@shr.dec.com (Rich Whalen) wrote:
>I don't think that the 287's reduce the mechanical advantage at all.
>Placing the pivot point further from the handle bar would only change
>the potential for cable pull if all of the other lever dimensions
>stayed the same. If I have time this evening I'll take some
>measurements of the leves on my tandem and my RB-T and post the
>results.
I measured the levers last night and it appears that the pivot point
on the 287s are about 1/8 inch further from the bar than with Shimano
levers (Exage LS, RX100). Also, the lever is another 1/8 inch forward
of the pivot point from a Shimano lever, giving a net increase of 1/4
from the hande bars. (No wonder it's a tough reach when I'm in the
drops!) This additional 1/8 inch probably increases the mechanical
advantage slightly from the usual 4. (The lever is 4 inches long
(pivot point to tip) and there is 1 inch from the pivot point to the
cable attachment.)