Hi Paul, As for the Touring Canti's having less braking power than the Neo-Retro's, the math doesn't seem to bear that out. To get more mechanical advantage from my Neo-Retro's, I would need to lower my straddle cable to about 5cm's higher than the pivots, placing the cable just above the rim, in the middle of my tire, and this just won't work with my 55mm Ant' Hill tires. The Touring Canti's will give me the power I need even with the straddle cable 10-11cm's higher than the brake pivots. This also clears my Nitto front rack fork crown support which will keep the straddle cable from snagging knobby tires if my brake cable snaps. The Neo-Retro's might give someone with a strong grip enough braking power, but what if I need to brake my loaded Hunqapillar with two fingers on a steep, bumpy, paved road? Here in Berkeley, we have some really steep streets, and some really scary bad drivers, and combining those has me looking for some better braking on my front wheel.
And yes, you're right, futzing with the brake pad spacers won't fix this problem. John On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 12:41:48 PM UTC-7 Paul Brodek wrote: > Not to be automatically contrarian, but from a foot/heel clearance > standpoint, usual usage is low-profile Touring in the rear to maximize heel > clearance, with the Neo-Retros up front, where clearance isn't an issue. > Plus the Neo-Retros in front look much cooler. > > I think the low-profile cantis were generally designed to maximize heel > clearance, not for performance reasons. In fact, on Paul's website the > Touring is described thusly: > "The Touring Canti is a powerful cantilever brake with a similar design to > the Neo-Retro <http://paulcomp.com//shop/components/neo-retro/>, but with > the arms angled upward. This gives the brake a much narrower profile > without significantly reducing stopping power." > > As for the shoe/arm spacing, isn't that also somewhat dependent on the > boss-boss spacing? Relatively narrow boss placement means the wide spacers > may not work at all behind the shoes, while relatively wide boss spacing > may require using the wider spacers to avoid the arms diving under the rims > during braking. > > Or am I missing something? > > Paul Brodek > Hillsdale, NJ USA > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 4:24:59 PM UTC-4, lconley wrote: >> >> My understanding of the math is that the shorter and straighter the >> transverse cable, the more mechanical advantage for both wide angle >> (Neo-Retro) and medium angle (Touring) cantilevers, just more so for the >> medium angle, but it still helps the wide angle. If you have both, put the >> Touring cantilevers on the front where most of the braking is done and >> the Neo-Retros on the rear. >> >> The distance between the arm and the pad is also important, make sure >> that the narrow spacers are on the inside between the pad and arm and the >> wide spacers are on the outside of the arm, I believe that this is more >> important on the Neo-Retro wide angle models. This rotates the wide angle >> arm up so that its geometry is ever so slightly closer to the medium angle >> arm geometry. >> >> Laing >> Delray Beach FL >> >> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2bd26f03-3427-44bd-95bc-f4372552bcbdn%40googlegroups.com.
