I got these spread out today about as far as possible, while still keeping enough post through the eyebolt for good secure fastening. Working with the geometry that Sheldon Brown put up at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cantilever-geometry.html#ca, I have maximized the Cantilever angle, and minimized the Yoke angle, for highest mechanical advantage. The brakes feel quite good, better than before certainly. I'll get in a longer ride tomorrow and test them further. The other change on the bike is from Shimano aero Tiagra levers to some non-aero Shimano 600s, which has relaxed the cable routing overall.
Alas, a consequence of minimized Yoke angle is loss of fender clearance, as these images show. In order to fit my redwood fenders, which are dead-flat across, I'll need to get the yoke up higher. http://diesel.smugmug.com/Bici/Rivendell-Quickbeam/19788258_S28rgW#1602306663_wxf3fb8 (and yes, I know the cable ends in the images are too long, and not finished off properly. I've taped them out of the way until I settle on final adjustments). - Andrew, Berkeley On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Andrew Johnson <ashtab...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do the simple Shimano CT91-style cantilevers work better with the pads in > tight to the arms, or with the pads as far away from the arms as possible? > It seems in the latter case, the arms are sticking further out, for a > higher profile - but perhaps at expense of more squeal, since the pads are > wobbling about on the ends of the studs. > > I'm going to test both ways, just wondering if anyone has figured this out > before. I'll be experimenting with hanger yoke height, too. > > - Andrew, Berkeley > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
