Tektro R556 long reach brakes: Any opinions?
dvt
minutes with Google shows mixed results. Some found them flexy, others
thought they worked well. I'm soliciting further opinions, so here's
your chance. If you've used them, can you tell me how you liked them? If
you know of an alternative, can you share?
The range of reach for these brakes is 55-73 mm. I'm sure the brakes are
more flexy when the pads are set at the 73 mm end, and I wonder if that
has some influence on the various opinions on the web. I'd be using the
brakes at about mid-range (63-64 mm).
Background: I have an old Fuji Saratoga [1] that I use as a commuter
bike. The bike came with 27" wheels and cantis. I've converted to 700c
for tire availability and compatibility with my stock of various wheels,
but I'm tired of messing with the canti adjustment. I tried an old
Weinmann 605 caliper in the rear, but it's next to useless. I wouldn't
dare use such a weak brake in the front. I measure the required reach to
be 63-64 mm, so brakes with 49-59 mm reach won't work.
[1] very similar bike: http://equusbicycle.com/bike/fuji/fujipage.htm
Thanks.
--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
landotter
> I'm interested in using a Tektro R556 long reach caliper brake. A few
> minutes with Google shows mixed results. Some found them flexy, others
> thought they worked well. I'm soliciting further opinions, so here's
> your chance. If you've used them, can you tell me how you liked them? If
> you know of an alternative, can you share?
Thought about a modern canti that takes a vee type orbital threaded
pad that's a bit easier to adjust? Something like an Oryx or even a
retro looking CR720?
>
> The range of reach for these brakes is 55-73 mm. I'm sure the brakes are
> more flexy when the pads are set at the 73 mm end, and I wonder if that
> has some influence on the various opinions on the web. I'd be using the
> brakes at about mid-range (63-64 mm).
I use their standard reach at 57mm and they're solid as a rock. I'd
imagine if you didn't have the pads fully down in the slots that you'd
get pretty good performance. Tektro makes a really good value dual
pivot brake.
dvt
> On Aug 19, 11:26 am, dvt <dvt+use...@psu.edu> wrote:
>> I'm interested in using a Tektro R556 long reach caliper brake. A few
>> minutes with Google shows mixed results. Some found them flexy, others
>> thought they worked well. I'm soliciting further opinions, so here's
>> your chance. If you've used them, can you tell me how you liked them? If
>> you know of an alternative, can you share?
>
> Thought about a modern canti that takes a vee type orbital threaded
> pad that's a bit easier to adjust? Something like an Oryx or even a
> retro looking CR720?
Not really. Since the canti studs are designed for 630mm rims and I'm
using 622mm rims, the canti pivots are too close to the rim. So a new
set of cantis may not work at all, and if they do, I'd probably still
have to adjust them frequently to compensate for pad wear.
>> The range of reach for these brakes is 55-73 mm. I'm sure the brakes are
>> more flexy when the pads are set at the 73 mm end, and I wonder if that
>> has some influence on the various opinions on the web. I'd be using the
>> brakes at about mid-range (63-64 mm).
>
> I use their standard reach at 57mm and they're solid as a rock. I'd
> imagine if you didn't have the pads fully down in the slots that you'd
> get pretty good performance. Tektro makes a really good value dual
> pivot brake.
Thanks for the input.
Owen Pope
I have the R556 on a Surly Cross-Check that is set up as a commuter
bike. They replaced a set of Avid Shorty 6 cantilever brakes that would
not stop squealing. I had to slightly modify the frame because the bike
was designed only for cantis.
The Tektros work like a brake should; they stop the bike quickly, with
no squealing, and they don't need the constant fiddling that cantis
always seem to need. The stock pads aren't very good (picked up grit
pretty quickly), so I replaced them with Kool-Stops and everything is
great. I haven't noticed any flex, but they also don't launch me over
the bars unless I'm really trying. Maybe this would be improved by
using less reach.
I'd say that they are definitely worth a try.
-Owen
dvt
> I have the R556 on a Surly Cross-Check that is set up as a commuter
> bike. They replaced a set of Avid Shorty 6 cantilever brakes that would
> not stop squealing. I had to slightly modify the frame because the bike
> was designed only for cantis.
>
> The Tektros work like a brake should; they stop the bike quickly, with
> no squealing, and they don't need the constant fiddling that cantis
> always seem to need. The stock pads aren't very good (picked up grit
> pretty quickly), so I replaced them with Kool-Stops and everything is
> great. I haven't noticed any flex, but they also don't launch me over
> the bars unless I'm really trying. Maybe this would be improved by
> using less reach.
>
> I'd say that they are definitely worth a try.
Thanks! This is exactly the type of info I wanted. I'd *like* the brakes
to launch me over the bars without huge effort, and I'm not incredibly
picky about modulation (I don't use the bike on long twisty mountain
descents). So it sounds like the mechanical advantage of the R556 is a
little less than I *want* but it probably meets my *needs*.
I also have a Cross-Check, and I could modify that with the R556 brakes
rather than the older Fuji. With cantis, both of these bikes can fit my
700x38mm knobbies plus fenders. So the frame and fork designs are pretty
similar in the area of brakes and tyre clearance. Do you know if the
caliper brakes or your frame mod reduced the clearance for these giant
tyres?
I'd also like a hint about the frame mods required... did you have to
drill it out for recessed brake nuts? Or was there something else. I've
read Sheldon's excellent (as usual) commentary on this, and I think the
recessed brake nuts is a fairly simple matter to overcome.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
Jobst Brandt
landotter
> Owen Pope wrote:
> > I have the R556 on a Surly Cross-Check that is set up as a commuter
> > bike. They replaced a set of Avid Shorty 6 cantilever brakes that would
> > not stop squealing. I had to slightly modify the frame because the bike
> > was designed only for cantis.
>
> > The Tektros work like a brake should; they stop the bike quickly, with
> > no squealing, and they don't need the constant fiddling that cantis
> > always seem to need. The stock pads aren't very good (picked up grit
> > pretty quickly), so I replaced them with Kool-Stops and everything is
> > great. I haven't noticed any flex, but they also don't launch me over
> > the bars unless I'm really trying. Maybe this would be improved by
> > using less reach.
>
> > I'd say that they are definitely worth a try.
>
> Thanks! This is exactly the type of info I wanted. I'd *like* the brakes
> to launch me over the bars without huge effort, and I'm not incredibly
> picky about modulation (I don't use the bike on long twisty mountain
> descents). So it sounds like the mechanical advantage of the R556 is a
> little less than I *want* but it probably meets my *needs*.
A Tektro Vee *might* also work, they usually have quite a bit of
adjustment room. Depends on where your studs are on the frame of
course. You'd need a Vee specific drop bar lever to go with them like
the RL520. Under $60 for both ends plus levers if you shop around.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
I have always dislikes the cosine error of V-brakes, cantilever and
lastly the short arm side of the dual pivot brake after the days of
experiencing center-pulls. As brake pads of these brakes wear, their
position of the pad contact on the rim changes, either rising into the
tire or moving to pop under the rim, never to return.
The single pivot caliper brake does not have this flaw and can wear
brake pads to the bottom with effectively no position error. This is
important when riding in wet weather where brake pads (and rims) wear
rapidly from road grit. I consistently wear brake pads to a nubbin
without changing their vertical position and believe that is what one
should expect from good brakes.
Jobst Brandt
Clive George
news:48ada914$0$17200$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>The single pivot caliper brake does not have this flaw and can wear
>brake pads to the bottom with effectively no position error. This is
>important when riding in wet weather where brake pads (and rims) wear
>rapidly from road grit. I consistently wear brake pads to a nubbin
>without changing their vertical position and believe that is what one
>should expect from good brakes.
Don't parallel-push and arch-rival V's also do this?
Maguras or course do it very well :-)
landotter
You obviously make the mistake of not rotating your brake pads every
three months!
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> The single pivot caliper brake does not have this flaw and can wear
>> brake pads to the bottom with effectively no position error. This
>> is important when riding in wet weather where brake pads (and rims)
>> wear rapidly from road grit. I consistently wear brake pads to a
>> nubbin without changing their vertical position and believe that is
>> what one should expect from good brakes.
> Don't parallel-push and arch-rival V's also do this?
No, in a word, they only keep the face of the brake pad from rotating
as it sweeps an arc identical to other brakes mounted on the same
posts. That brake design is a deception, as you prove by your
question. To make up for that, they offer no advantage and do so with
greater complexity and susceptibility to road grit infestation.
> Maguras of course do it very well :-)
We is talking about mechanical rim brakes. Hydraulic and non-rim
brakes are a different subject. besides, I've never had any loss of
fluid from my Campagnolo Record brakes.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>>> I have the R556 on a Surly Cross-Check that is set up as a
>>>>> commuter bike. They replaced a set of Avid Shorty 6 cantilever
>>>>> brakes that would not stop squealing. I had to slightly modify
>>>>> the frame because the bike was designed only for cantis. The
>>>>> Tektros work like a brake should; they stop the bike quickly,
>>>>> with no squealing, and they don't need the constant fiddling
>>>>> that cantis always seem to need. The stock pads aren't very
>>>>> good (picked up grit pretty quickly), so I replaced them with
>>>>> Kool-Stops and everything is great. I haven't noticed any flex,
>>>>> but they also don't launch me over the bars unless I'm really
>>>>> trying. Maybe this would be improved by using less reach. I'd
>>>>> say that they are definitely worth a try.
>>>> Thanks! This is exactly the type of info I wanted. I'd *like*
>>>> the brakes to launch me over the bars without huge effort, and
>>>> I'm not incredibly picky about modulation (I don't use the bike
>>>> on long twisty mountain descents). So it sounds like the
>>>> mechanical advantage of the R556 is a little less than I *want*
>>>> but it probably meets my *needs*.
>>> A Tektro Vee *might* also work, they usually have quite a bit of
>>> adjustment room. Depends on where your studs are on the frame of
>>> course. You'd need a Vee specific drop bar lever to go with them
>>> like the RL520. Under $60 for both ends plus levers if you shop
>>> around.
>> I have always disliked the cosine error of V-brakes, cantilever and
>> lastly the short arm side of the dual pivot brake after the days of
>> experiencing center-pulls. As brake pads of these brakes wear,
>> their position of the pad contact on the rim changes, either rising
>> into the tire or moving to pop under the rim, never to return.
> You obviously make the mistake of not rotating your brake pads every
> three months!
What ritual are you describing and what is its advantage? My brake
pads last for about 20000 miles without maintenance. Meanwhile I
lubricate the caliper pivot and haul-back spring contact. I replace
the brake cable more often than brake pads.
Jobst Brandt
Clive George
news:48adb9ca$0$17230$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>>> The single pivot caliper brake does not have this flaw and can wear
>>> brake pads to the bottom with effectively no position error. This
>>> is important when riding in wet weather where brake pads (and rims)
>>> wear rapidly from road grit. I consistently wear brake pads to a
>>> nubbin without changing their vertical position and believe that is
>>> what one should expect from good brakes.
>
>> Don't parallel-push and arch-rival V's also do this?
>
> No, in a word, they only keep the face of the brake pad from rotating
> as it sweeps an arc identical to other brakes mounted on the same
> posts. That brake design is a deception, as you prove by your
> question. To make up for that, they offer no advantage and do so with
> greater complexity and susceptibility to road grit infestation.
Ok. I don't have any of them anyway. I do appreciate the way caliper brakes
are so much easier to maintain than either cantis or Vs (though see below
for my preferred option :-) ). My favourite non-hydraulic brakes are a set
of long reach tektros - possibly even the ones in the thread title.
>> Maguras of course do it very well :-)
>
> We is talking about mechanical rim brakes.
Oh, I know - hence the smiley.
> Hydraulic and non-rim
> brakes are a different subject. besides, I've never had any loss of
> fluid from my Campagnolo Record brakes.
I've never had any loss of fluid from my maguras either. Neither have I ever
had to change fluid (> 10 years now), change a cable, had a cable snap, had
any bits seize up, had to do maintenance to prevent bits seizing up, etc
etc. And changing pads is insanely easy. And they don't have the problems
cable brakes have with long runs (which is the original reason I bought
them - they live on the tandems). And they can cope with massive tyres. In
short, they're great.
OTOH they aren't STI/ergo compatible, and could well be heavier than your CR
brakes - good thing different markets have different equipment isn't it.
Dave Lehnen
Not true about parallelogram-linkage V-brakes like Shimano's XTR. Each
point on the brake pad swings in an arc of the same radius as that of
the upper pivot point on the brake arm, but displaced from it by the
horizontal and (small) vertical distance from that pivot to the
particular point, not in a concentric arc. When the upper pivot is
directly above the main pivot, there is zero cosine error, and only
small error when it is not quite above. In contrast, non-linkage
V-brakes have severe cosine error all through their range of motion,
since all points swing in an arc around the main (only) pivot, and that
pivot is not directly under the pad's contact points.
The problem I've had with XTR V's, aside from their cost, is that the
play in the pivots makes them nearly impossible to keep from squealing.
But they do fix the cosine error problem, as well as keeping the pad
from rotating. Go to a bike store and squeeze the lever on both types,
and the difference will be very obvious.
From a picture of the Avid Arch Rival brakes, they would have reduced
cosine error compared to a non-link V-brake; more than an XTR but less
than an old single-pivot caliper like original Campagnolo Records, due
to the height of the arch linkage. I have no personal experience with
Arch Rivals and don't know if they have the XTR squealing problem.
Dave Lehnen
Tom Sherman
> Brakes and going over the bars:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
>
Trek 6000 (despite the knobby tires). The fork does have to compress
before the rear wheel lifts.
The only times when I have ever gone off the front of the bike are when
I have mis-timed getting the front wheel up over an obstacle and when I
hit a tree when traversing a ravine with about a 2H: 1V slope.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> The single pivot caliper brake does not have this flaw and can
>>>> wear brake pads to the bottom with effectively no position error.
>>>> This is important when riding in wet weather where brake pads
>>>> (and rims) wear rapidly from road grit. I consistently wear
>>>> brake pads to a nubbin without changing their vertical position
>>>> and believe that is what one should expect from good brakes.
>>> Don't parallel-push and arch-rival V's also do this?
>> No, in a word, they only keep the face of the brake pad from
>> rotating as it sweeps an arc identical to other brakes mounted on
>> the same posts. That brake design is a deception, as you prove by
>> your question. To make up for that, they offer no advantage and do
>> so with greater complexity and susceptibility to road grit
>> infestation.
>> We is talking about mechanical rim brakes. Hydraulic and non-rim
>> brakes are a different subject. besides, I've never had any loss of
>> fluid from my Campagnolo Record brakes.
> Not true about parallelogram-linkage V-brakes like Shimano's XTR.
> Each point on the brake pad swings in an arc of the same radius as
> that of the upper pivot point on the brake arm, but displaced from
> it by the horizontal and (small) vertical distance from that pivot
> to the particular point, not in a concentric arc. When the upper
> pivot is directly above the main pivot, there is zero cosine error,
> and only small error when it is not quite above. In contrast,
> non-linkage V-brakes have severe cosine error all through their
> range of motion, since all points swing in an arc around the main
> (only) pivot, and that pivot is not directly under the pad's contact
> points.
That's a lot of text that boils down to that the face of the brake pad
sweeps about the same pivot point other cantilever and V-brakes do
except that the rotation of the brake pad is zero. That is to say it
faces the same way it would if it were on a linear slide but sweeps in
an arc defined by the location of the brake pivot post. Just the
same, its body moves in a circular arc with major cosine error and
therefore is a deception to the casual observer. The linkage has no
effect on the sweep of the brake pad. It only remains facing the same
way as it sweeps through its arc of cosine error.
> The problem I've had with XTR V's, aside from their cost, is that
> the play in the pivots makes them nearly impossible to keep from
> squealing. But they do fix the cosine error problem, as well as
> keeping the pad from rotating. Go to a bike store and squeeze the
> lever on both types, and the difference will be very obvious.
That's a side effect of its useless rotational linkage feature.
> From a picture of the Avid Arch Rival brakes, they would have
> reduced cosine error compared to a non-link V-brake; more than an
> XTR but less than an old single-pivot caliper like original
> Campagnolo Records, due to the height of the arch linkage. I have
> no personal experience with Arch Rivals and don't know if they have
> the XTR squealing problem.
It boils down to geometry and fails to deliver what it passes of as
reduced cosine error.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Brakes and going over the bars:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
> I can easily lift the rear wheel as I come to a stop from braking on
> my Trek 6000 (despite the knobby tires). The fork does have to
> compress before the rear wheel lifts.
Sorry for generalizing. I didn't include suspension bicycles that
don't have a BMW anti-dive feature. A diving front end is the start
of an endo. You get what you paid for.
> The only times when I have ever gone off the front of the bike are
> when I have mis-timed getting the front wheel up over an obstacle
> and when I hit a tree when traversing a ravine with about a 2H: 1V
> slope.
In most cases, people who "go over the bars" are those who don't brake
hard but also don't brace against braking forces with their arms and,
as described in that FAQ item, overturn their bicycle when their
thighs strike the handlebars.
Jobst Brandt
Tom Sherman
>
>>> Brakes and going over the bars:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
>
>> I can easily lift the rear wheel as I come to a stop from braking on
>> my Trek 6000 (despite the knobby tires). The fork does have to
>> compress before the rear wheel lifts.
>
> Sorry for generalizing. I didn't include suspension bicycles that
> don't have a BMW anti-dive feature. A diving front end is the start
> of an endo. You get what you paid for.
>
"USA" is not a bad deal. "Diving" from fork compression is a small price
to pay for the added control and comfort in the rough stuff.
jim beam
eh???? yes they do - the pivot causes the pad to swing through an arc,
so by definition the angle changes.
> and can wear
> brake pads to the bottom with effectively no position error.
ah, the great jobstian fudge - "effectively". being wrong is ok then!
> This is
> important when riding in wet weather where brake pads (and rims) wear
> rapidly from road grit. I consistently wear brake pads to a nubbin
> without changing their vertical position
of course you do jobst!
> and believe that is what one
> should expect from good brakes.
so, define "good" then jobst. brakes that stop you, or brakes that
allow you to maintain the aesthetics of symmetric pad wear?
jim beam
come on dude - jobst isn't being realistic in his assessment - he made
up his mind 50 years ago, and dammit, nothing like reality is going to
change it again!
fact is, you're exactly right, hydraulics are much more reliable and
offer superior mechanics. that's why they dominate on cars and cable
brakes have been abandoned.
jim beam
so jobst, how exactly is it that a single pivot caliper manages to not
swing through an arc and not change angle?
jim beam
of course. we believe you. like your bike wheels that have lasted
300,000 miles. except for the rims, spokes and hubs that have been
changed of course.
> Meanwhile I
> lubricate the caliper pivot and haul-back spring contact.
odd how no "grinding paste" would seem to affect you like it does
everybody else jobst.
> I replace
> the brake cable more often than brake pads.
and you wouldn't even do that on hydraulics.
jim beam
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> Brakes and going over the bars:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
>
>> I can easily lift the rear wheel as I come to a stop from braking on
>> my Trek 6000 (despite the knobby tires). The fork does have to
>> compress before the rear wheel lifts.
>
> Sorry for generalizing. I didn't include suspension bicycles that
> don't have a BMW anti-dive feature. A diving front end is the start
> of an endo. You get what you paid for.
bullshitter. even 100mm of "dive" is /nothing/ compared to the c.o.g.
shift possible from the rider adjusting position. such a statement is
therefore a typical jobstian failure to understand.
Dave Lehnen
Wrong. Each point on the pad moves in an arc, but the center of the arc
is NOT the main pivot point on the fork or seat stay. This is why the
cosine error is greatly reduced. If you would simply look at one of
these brakes and watch the pad travel, it would be obvious. The center
of rotation for any given point on the pad is defined by the
intersection of a line through that point, parallel to the pivots on the
V-brake main arm, and a line through the main pivot, parallel to the
pivots on the upper link which caries the pad. That intersection point
will not be the main pivot point, but will be more nearly directly under
the point, greatly reducing cosine error.
>
>
>>The problem I've had with XTR V's, aside from their cost, is that
>>the play in the pivots makes them nearly impossible to keep from
>>squealing. But they do fix the cosine error problem, as well as
>>keeping the pad from rotating. Go to a bike store and squeeze the
>>lever on both types, and the difference will be very obvious.
>
>
> That's a side effect of its useless rotational linkage feature.
>
>
>>From a picture of the Avid Arch Rival brakes, they would have
>>reduced cosine error compared to a non-link V-brake; more than an
>>XTR but less than an old single-pivot caliper like original
>>Campagnolo Records, due to the height of the arch linkage. I have
>>no personal experience with Arch Rivals and don't know if they have
>>the XTR squealing problem.
>
>
> It boils down to geometry and fails to deliver what it passes of as
> reduced cosine error.
No, you fail to understand simple linkage kinematics. Both designs
greatly reduce cosine error.
>
> Jobst Brandt
Dave Lehnen
Owen Pope
> Owen Pope wrote:
>> I have the R556 on a Surly Cross-Check that is set up as a commuter
>> bike. They replaced a set of Avid Shorty 6 cantilever brakes that
>> would not stop squealing. I had to slightly modify the frame because
>> the bike was designed only for cantis.
>>
>> The Tektros work like a brake should; they stop the bike quickly,
>> with no squealing, and they don't need the constant fiddling that
>> cantis always seem to need. The stock pads aren't very good (picked
>> up grit pretty quickly), so I replaced them with Kool-Stops and
>> everything is great. I haven't noticed any flex, but they also don't
>> launch me over the bars unless I'm really trying. Maybe this would
>> be improved by using less reach.
>>
>> I'd say that they are definitely worth a try.
>
> Thanks! This is exactly the type of info I wanted. I'd *like* the
> brakes to launch me over the bars without huge effort, and I'm not
> incredibly picky about modulation (I don't use the bike on long twisty
> mountain descents). So it sounds like the mechanical advantage of the
> R556 is a little less than I *want* but it probably meets my *needs*.
They DON'T launch me that easily. Might be different with less reach.
Modulation seems nice enough though.
> I also have a Cross-Check, and I could modify that with the R556
> brakes rather than the older Fuji. With cantis, both of these bikes
> can fit my 700x38mm knobbies plus fenders. So the frame and fork
> designs are pretty similar in the area of brakes and tyre clearance.
> Do you know if the caliper brakes or your frame mod reduced the
> clearance for these giant tyres?
The brakes don't seem to be limiting the clearance. I am using
37mm Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires with SKS p45 fenders, and there is
plenty of room left for more tire. The quick-release on these
brakes opens up MUCH more than most brakes and provides about 40 mm
of clearance at the brake pad. Your tires probably won't be a
problem unless the knobs stick way out to the side. I doubt that
the brakes will limit the tire size below 40-45 mm.
> I'd also like a hint about the frame mods required... did you have to
> drill it out for recessed brake nuts? Or was there something else.
> I've read Sheldon's excellent (as usual) commentary on this, and I
> think the recessed brake nuts is a fairly simple matter to overcome.
>
I did indeed have to drill it out for the recessed nuts. The front
was easy. The rear I haven't actually done yet, but shouldn't be tough,
you'll just need those concave (I think that's the term for
them) washers to fit around the brake bridge.
HOWEVER
The other modification was a bit of a hassle (and maybe not a great
idea). The reach from the brake bolt-hole in the fork to the rim of
the wheel (Sun CR-18) was ever-so-slightly too long (less than 2mm),
and the brake pad would hang over the top of the rim. To fix this,
I filed the dropout (near the top) just enough that the brake pad
would remain on the rim throughout its wear life. The tire
clearance wasn't reduced by any significant amount. The rear is
about the same reach, so I'd guess that the same sort of filing
would be needed. Since you have a bike that should work without any
problems, I would measure before putting the brakes on the Surly.
Anyway, the brakes are nice, just make sure they will fit on the
bike.
-Owen
dvt
> dvt <dvt+u...@psu.edu> wrote in news:g8k2m6$195e$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu:
>> Owen Pope wrote:
>>> The Tektros work like a brake should; they stop the bike quickly,
>>> ... I haven't noticed any flex, but they also don't
>>> launch me over the bars unless I'm really trying.
>> Thanks! This is exactly the type of info I wanted. I'd *like* the
>> brakes to launch me over the bars without huge effort, and I'm not
>> incredibly picky about modulation (I don't use the bike on long twisty
>> mountain descents). So it sounds like the mechanical advantage of the
>> R556 is a little less than I *want* but it probably meets my *needs*.
>
> They DON'T launch me that easily. Might be different with less reach.
> Modulation seems nice enough though.
Thanks for all the feedback, Owen. Yes, I understood that your brakes
don't launch you easily. If I could have everything I wanted, these
brakes would be sensitive and strong, and I'm willing to give up some
degree of modulation to achieve that. Sounds like the R556 is not that
kind of brake, so I'll keep that in mind.
> The brakes don't seem to be limiting the clearance. I am using
> 37mm Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires with SKS p45 fenders, and there is
> plenty of room left for more tire. The quick-release on these
> brakes opens up MUCH more than most brakes and provides about 40 mm
> of clearance at the brake pad. Your tires probably won't be a
> problem unless the knobs stick way out to the side. I doubt that
> the brakes will limit the tire size below 40-45 mm.
>> I'd also like a hint about the frame mods required... did you have to
>> drill it out for recessed brake nuts? Or was there something else.
>> I've read Sheldon's excellent (as usual) commentary on this, and I
>> think the recessed brake nuts is a fairly simple matter to overcome.
> I did indeed have to drill it out for the recessed nuts. The front
> was easy. The rear I haven't actually done yet, but shouldn't be tough,
> you'll just need those concave (I think that's the term for
> them) washers to fit around the brake bridge.
Excellent info. Thanks. I do have the concave washers from an old bike,
so I shouldn't need to drill out the rear stays. If I do this, I plan to
follow Sheldon's plan with two front brakes and the concave washers.
> HOWEVER
>
> The other modification was a bit of a hassle (and maybe not a great
> idea). The reach from the brake bolt-hole in the fork to the rim of
> the wheel (Sun CR-18) was ever-so-slightly too long (less than 2mm),
> and the brake pad would hang over the top of the rim. To fix this,
> I filed the dropout (near the top) just enough that the brake pad
> would remain on the rim throughout its wear life. The tire
> clearance wasn't reduced by any significant amount. The rear is
> about the same reach, so I'd guess that the same sort of filing
> would be needed. Since you have a bike that should work without any
> problems, I would measure before putting the brakes on the Surly.
This means you're using the brakes at the extreme end of their reach
(plus a smidge). That, too, is very helpful info. I'll be able to
measure the required reach on my Surly, compare that with the required
reach for my Fuji, and ensure that I have estimated the reach correctly.
It also means that I should have less brake flex and a bit higher
mechanical advantage than you if I can get the pads mounted closer to
the pivots.
You've been a great help, Owen. Thanks for your time and effort.
Hank
> I did indeed have to drill it out for the recessed nuts. The front
> was easy. The rear I haven't actually done yet, but shouldn't be tough,
> you'll just need those concave (I think that's the term for
> them) washers to fit around the brake bridge.
>
Drilling out the rear brake bridge can be VERY difficult, because most
drills won't fit between the stays and the seat tube. Even with a
right-angle drill adapter, you'd need a short bit.
This is why those in the know usually recommend that you buy two front
brakes, and use non-recessed nuts on the one you mount on the rear.
FWIW, I've done it before, twice. The first time was with a Dremel, a
right-angle adapter and a conical reamer bit, and that worked really
well.. The second time was 10 years later and I didn't have the tools
from before, so I used a drill, and I had to do it at an extreme
angle, so while it worked, the hole is kind of ovalized. If I knew
then what I know now, I'd have just done the Two Fronts thing on both
of those bikes.
dvt
> On Aug 24, 12:08 pm, Owen Pope <ofp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I did indeed have to drill it out for the recessed nuts. The front
>> was easy. The rear I haven't actually done yet, but shouldn't be tough,
>> you'll just need those concave (I think that's the term for
>> them) washers to fit around the brake bridge.
> Drilling out the rear brake bridge can be VERY difficult, because most
> drills won't fit between the stays and the seat tube. Even with a
> right-angle drill adapter, you'd need a short bit.
Another bit of useful practical info. If you are reading this and you
have editorial access to Sheldon's site, I think it could be added here:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ra-e.html#recessed
Sheldon didn't suggest drilling out the rear brake bridge, but he didn't
mention why.
Owen Pope
Just remembered why I haven't mounted the rear brake too.
I don't know how your Fuji is, but the hole in the seatstay bridge on the
Surly is way too small for a brake bolt. Since you'd have to drill a
pretty big hole anyway, it might be just as easy to drill straight through
from the rear and work something out from there.
I might just leave mine as is, since i haven't had squealing problems in
the rear.
Good luck,
Owen
A Muzi
>>> I did indeed have to drill it out for the recessed nuts. The front
>>> was easy. The rear I haven't actually done yet, but shouldn't be tough,
>>> you'll just need those concave (I think that's the term for
>>> them) washers to fit around the brake bridge.
> Hank wrote:
>> Drilling out the rear brake bridge can be VERY difficult, because most
>> drills won't fit between the stays and the seat tube. Even with a
>> right-angle drill adapter, you'd need a short bit.
dvt wrote:
> Another bit of useful practical info. If you are reading this and you
> have editorial access to Sheldon's site, I think it could be added here:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ra-e.html#recessed
>
> Sheldon didn't suggest drilling out the rear brake bridge, but he didn't
> mention why.
The reason is not only because it is relatively inaccessible.
When one carves up the back side of a brake bridge to allow an allen
nut, you're left with only a 1mm single thickness of tube to support the
brake, often a mild steel seamed bridge at that. Poor practice although
maybe not always fatal.
A true allen-mount brake bridge gives excellent support through the
length and face of the nut and doesn't twist under braking forces.
Use a 6mm Nylok nut or braze in a cast allen-type bridge.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
dvt
>> Hank wrote:
>>> Drilling out the rear brake bridge can be VERY difficult, because most
>>> drills won't fit between the stays and the seat tube. Even with a
>>> right-angle drill adapter, you'd need a short bit.
> The reason is not only because it is relatively inaccessible.
>
> When one carves up the back side of a brake bridge to allow an allen
> nut, you're left with only a 1mm single thickness of tube to support the
> brake, often a mild steel seamed bridge at that. Poor practice although
> maybe not always fatal.
>
> A true allen-mount brake bridge gives excellent support through the
> length and face of the nut and doesn't twist under braking forces.
>
> Use a 6mm Nylok nut or braze in a cast allen-type bridge.
As always, Muzi the font of knowledge.
On the front brake, Sheldon suggests three options for forks that aren't
drilled for the recessed nut. This one looked questionable to me, and
you might be the one to explain it to me:
"Use the short recessed nut, but don't put it through the back of the
fork. Instead, push it up into the inside of the steerer from the
bottom. You can reach a 5 mm Allen wrench in through the hole in the
back of the fork, and poke the short caliper bolt in from the front.
"You may need to shorten the recessed nut slightly to get it to fit
inside your steerer."
If I understand correctly, this suggestion leads to the front brake
being supported by only the front wall of the fork crown. You (Andy)
suggest this wouldn't be a good idea for a back brake, and I understand
the logic. Why does that logic not apply to the fork? Is the difference
the wall thickness of a fork crown vs a brake bridge?
Supporting the bolt at two points spaced well apart would give it much
better strength and stiffness in at least one direction of interest, as
you suggest when you say "doesn't twist under braking forces." I don't
know if that is important, though. Maybe you've seen a bike with such a
modification, and it's proven to be reliable or unreliable.
I see I wrote far too much on a mere curiosity, since I have no plans to
support either brake from one wall of a tube. I apologize for my
Fogelesque lack of brevity.
A Muzi
Well, on a fork column you've got, what 3mm (butted) to maybe even 5mm
(sleeved) of steel there? Weird maybe but not unsafe. If you do that,
I'd suggest a shaped washer inside and a Nylock nut not an allen sleeve.