[wedge]

I vaguely remember that design a long time ago but what was the thinking behind that?

 

[Rumpfy]

Quite a few of us here have bikes with chain stay mounted U or Roller Cam brakes.

I don't quite recall the thinking behind why. Chain stays stiffer than seat stays?

 

[Tracerboy]

I do remember.The under-stay u-brakes were located there because this area was stiffer than the traditional seat-stays. I guess that's why wish-bone rear stays appeared soon after,to stiffen up this area for the rear brakes.

 

[shiggy]

I vaguely remember that design a long time ago but what was the thinking behind that?

Chainstays were (are) stiffer than the seatstays. The cable run was straighter and less housing required. All together it could make for better performance (until it got muddy).

 

[Fillet-brazed]

I vaguely remember that design a long time ago but what was the thinking behind that?

Its stiffer down there. To have really powerful brakes you need a stiff mounting place otherwise you end up with brake lever mushiness.

The monostay might add a slight bit of stiffness to the seatstays (a brake bridge serves almost the same purpose braking-wise), but it lessens the torsional rigidity of the frame for singlespeeding type of loads. Especially on a Bontrager with that 1/2" or 5/8" diamter mono tube.

 

[mtber3737]

This was the cat's meow at one time....

Chain stays stiffer than seat stays?

According to Ross (Mr Salsa), the chain stays offerred a much stiffer mounting and would not flex under heavy braking.... unfortunately tended to clog up with mud in the wetter climates... we all can't live in SoCal!

OMR...
SoCal

 

[Rumpfy]

Chain stays stiffer than seat stays?

According to Ross (Mr Salsa), the chain stays offerred a much stiffer mounting and would not flex under heavy braking.... unfortunately tended to clog up with mud in the wetter climates... we all can't live in SoCal!

OMR...
SoCal

Speaking of which!

 

[Boy named SSue]

I vaguely remember that design a long time ago but what was the thinking behind that?

to make bikes from the late 80's easier to date.

 

[mtber3737]

Unfair....unfair!!!!

Rumpfy: speaking of which!

Ahhh man, that's like pouring salt in an open wound...och! It's like looking at your former wife in somebody else's bedroom :eekster:

The old girl still looks pretty good, although that stem is a bit much

Best,

OMR...
SoCal

 

[Rumpfy]

Ahhh man, that's like pouring salt in an open wound...och! It's like looking at your former wife in somebody else's bedroom :eekster:

The old girl still looks pretty good, although that stem is a bit much

Best,

OMR...
SoCal

Haha!
I didn't mean to pour salt. Its in a state of flux currently.

The stem is a Cunningham fit finder stem as I'm trying to find a comfortable fit for running dirt drops for it as an option. I'll have to have a custom stem made for it.

 

[Boy named SSue]

Ahhh man, that's like pouring salt in an open wound...och! It's like looking at your former wife in somebody else's bedroom :eekster:

The old girl still looks pretty good, although that stem is a bit much

Best,

OMR...
SoCal

That is the one that was set up ss in another thread. Damn, I always liked that Salsa. One of the nicest of the breed.

 

[azjeff]

You could at least cover up the rest of your stash. Man rft:

 

[hollister]

You could at least cover up the rest of your stash. Man rft:[/QUOTE]
but then i couldnt stare at all the stuff in the backround.........

 

[majura]

Please no flaming, but I believe MBA had an article about it way back, which was then re -published a few issues ago.

As you've all said, it was believed that it was stiffer on the chainstays and hence would provide better braking. However, according to MBA the cable routing for the brake resulted in un-even contact with the rim (or something... as I vaguely recall). In which manufactures went back to the seat stay due to safety issues?? Not entirely sure... maybe someone with the copy on them (all my copies are back home and not in my dorm room) could straighten it out?

 

[Rumpfy]

[/QUOTE]

You could at least cover up the rest of your stash. Man :prft:[/QUOTE]

Nothing good, just broken frames and unfinished projects. :cool:

 

[Fillet-brazed]

Please no flaming, but I believe MBA had an article about it way back, which was then re -published a few issues ago.

As you've all said, it was believed that it was stiffer on the chainstays and hence would provide better braking. However, according to MBA the cable routing for the brake resulted in un-even contact with the rim (or something... as I vaguely recall). In which manufactures went back to the seat stay due to safety issues?? Not entirely sure... maybe someone with the copy on them (all my copies are back home and not in my dorm room) could straighten it out?

dorm room? I thought MBA was for 7th grade and under?

 

[Bigwheel]

Not sure who was the first of the old schoolers to put their brakes on the chainstays but for sure it was someone from CA. The big problem was that it became a "fad" and all the companies were quick madman: ) to jump on the bandwagon and there was a model year there in I believe 89' when you couldn't hardly find a storebought bike without that feature. I think that GT did theirs, albeit with U-brakes on the seatstays, and Bridgestone was the only brand that actually used rear canti's and they sold out before June. To those that lived and had to sell bikes in parts of the country that had mud to deal with it was a major problem. I know it affected me at the time at least.

 

[Rumpfy]

Not sure who was the first of the old schoolers to put their brakes on the chainstays but for sure it was someone from CA. The big problem was that it became a "fad" and all the companies were quick madman: ) to jump on the bandwagon and there was a model year there in I believe 89' when you couldn't hardly find a storebought bike without that feature. I think that GT did theirs, albeit with U-brakes on the seatstays, and Bridgestone was the only brand that actually used rear canti's and they sold out before June. To those that lived and had to sell bikes in parts of the country that had mud to deal with it was a major problem. I know it affected me at the time at least.

I don't think I've seen or know of any Yeti's or Slingshots that went the U brake under chain stay route...

But yeah, more bikes than I thought I'd ever own are U or Canti mount.

 

[MendonCycleSmith]

I vaguely remember that design a long time ago but what was the thinking behind that?

To sell more brakes, due to all the bouncing off logs and rocks they were prone to doing

 

[Bertleman]

It's because the roller cam was so powerful it would flex the seat stays, but not so much on the chain stays. As for the so called mud problem I had no issues with my chain stay mounted roller cam while living in Eugene Oregon. If it was muddy enough (and it was) to clog my chain stays my buddies cantis would be cloged as well, plus my roller cam always worked smooth as butter because of the grease ports. The real reason it the clean lines and not snagging on the top tube mounted cable stops.