Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:15 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:31 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7305
Location: Hove
I don't know why your discussion of your excellent 1992 bike has been moved from the forum designed for the discussion of members' 1992 bikes, but there it is. Authority is often blind, but free men fight on regardless. :wink:

My assessment would be that you have a superb frame there, and it's great that you are still using it to the full. The only things that strike me as slightly jarring to the eye are the modern cranks and rear derailleur, which don't suit the frame at all. I appreciate that they give you gears that 1992 kit doesn't have, but mid-90s XT with a 11-32 or 12-32 cassette would give you almost the same range and look much better.

The other thing I notice is that there is very little bottom bracket drop, which suggests that the fork is too long for the frame, unsurprising in a 1992 frame not designed for suspension. If you like the handling, there's no problem, but if you would prefer it more lively then there's what causes it. A shorter stem, preferably with some rise, would solve the problem.

I wouldn't have thought the brakes were a problem at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:28 pm 
The Guv'nor
The Guv'nor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 23175
Location: Retrobike HQ
Anthony wrote:
I don't know why your discussion of your excellent 1992 bike has been moved from the forum designed for the discussion of members' 1992 bikes, but there it is. Authority is often blind, but free men fight on regardless. :wink:



Yo Chuck D, Fight The Power!

It was moved because readers bike it for discussing, er, readers bikes which clearly implies a complete build. Not readers brakes.


As others have said don't sweat the vs unless you intend to return it to complete period correct. Some of the other more modern bits are more jarring than the vs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:10 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:05 pm
Posts: 264
Location: Lancashire
Quote:
Yo Chuck D, Fight The Power!


LOL :lol: .

This site has a lot to answer for - I now have a hankering for a 5 arm crankset and square-taper BB, especially as I'm thinking of buying a modern XC full-susser...

Thanks alot guys :evil: .

( :lol: ).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:33 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:16 pm
Posts: 8658
Probably being a bit thick here but did someone say vee brake levers would give feeble canti brake performance :shock:

I thought Vee brake levers pulled more cable than canti levers and thus should increase power, possibly to dangerous levels, to canti brakes :?

I'm also sure this debate has happened before.

If you wish to stick to your 9 speed combined brake/gear pods then stick to Vee's. No point taking a retrograde step with your stopping power just for aesthetic value :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:29 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 5782
Location: Lost in Translation
velomaniac wrote:
Probably being a bit thick here but did someone say vee brake levers would give feeble canti brake performance :shock:

I thought Vee brake levers pulled more cable than canti levers and thus should increase power, possibly to dangerous levels, to canti brakes :?

Force x Distance = Constant

so the more cable the lever pulls, the less force it applies.

The longer arm of the V-brake compensates for the lower cable tension provided by the V-brake lever. A V-brake lever used with a canti brake gives more travel but less force at the pad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:30 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 7:05 pm
Posts: 264
Location: Lancashire
An excellent explanation sir, thankyou :).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:25 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
Quote:
there is very little bottom bracket drop, which suggests that the fork is too long for the frame, unsurprising in a 1992 frame not designed for suspension


I wouldn't sweat it. The fork is contemporaneous with the frame - pretty much nothing was "suspension corrected" when the RC35 came out, everyone put them on frames not designed for bouncy forks. It only had <50mm of travel anyway, and won't do much harm :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 12:55 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:35 am
Posts: 673
Location: Melbourne, Australia
what about some period Magura stoppers? Pretty cheap these days and offer pretty decent halting prowess.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlackCat, Thias and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group