Going for Speed
Ok, before you inundate me with crazed religious bullshit, read the entire paragraph. I don't think kb is the son of god, or even a suitable object of worship. I do think that some thick-headed people take a few lines of what he says and use it bolster their own ignorant positions. This is eerily similar to the way various people try to "interpret" the words of Jesus to prove that he either a) hated queers, b)tolerated queers, or c) was queer himself. (note, used as an example only. the author takes no position on the sexuality of the son of god)
For example, in another rant, the fictional character David Bloke is mentioned. Mr Bloke stated unequivocally that keith thinks your weight should be further forward on the bike, and that's why bontragers have steeper seat angles than fishers. Notwithstanding the fact this bontragers do not, as a rule, have steeper seat angles than fishers, Mr Bloke fails to note that Keith said this years ago, when many mountain bikes had more laid-back seat angles, and when seatposts with lotsa setback (even crazy setback) were the norm. Nowadays, most bikes have seat angles in the 73-74 degree range and many seatposts have little if any setback. That is to say, most mountain bikes position you fairly far forward in comparison to obsolete bikes. In my own opinion (I have no idea what kb thinks on this topic) this is to get sufficient weight on the front wheel, get the front shock to do it's thing with a greater percentage of the rider's weight, and position the rider more comfortably when climbing (since that's what we do the most of when sitting. The most important part is kb never said anything that resembled "bontragers have steeper seat angles and more forward positioning than fishers, " yet mr Bloke tried to invoke the power of kb to make his point. Just like the charlatans that claim "jesus hates queers", Bloke pretty much just looked like an ignoramus.
Another example: A rec.bicycles.off-road type, for anonymity's sake we'll call him Vincent Chong, wrote what we will anonymously refer to as an mtb FUQ (frequently uncorrect questions). In his FUQ he has a section on V-brakes, in which he states:
The fact is that most people will probably have aneasier time with them when it comes to adjusting, but if you want to savea few bucks and still get the same performance, cantis will do the trickjust fine. I perfer cantis, and once you get good at adjusting them, youcan adjust them better than most v's in about 10 minutes. -mr Chong
Now if you've used V-brakes much, you probably think this paragraph is full of shit. You are right in my opinion. It's a known engineering fact, probably even to clowns like Jobst Brundt (not his real name), that canti's have a regressive leverage ratio, whereas v-brakes have a linear leverage ratio. I pointed this out to mr. Chong, who invoked the mighty Keith (and also Jobst) upon me to try to convince me. I hope the humour of talking about Keith and Jobst in the same sentence is not lost on my readers. (Well, I guess in a sentence like "jobst is a pompous, granstanding fool, but keith is not." it would be ok).
Now I've used alot of bontrager products, and he usually seems to know what he's talking about. I wondered if he could possibly say something that would support Chong's position. It's not quite as clear as Chong would like. To Chong's extreme credit, he provides a link to kb's original article. I doubt he'll provide one to my work, but you never know. Keith's article on the subject appears at http://www.bontrager.com (go to the rants). In the spirit of credibility, I suggest you read this article for yourself, rather than take my word for it. One of the first things kb says is you can "Make standard brakes have the same kind of stopping power as V brakes." This is a radically different statement than saying you can adjust them better than v-brakes. He also says:
The leverage in the modified cantilever brakes is more sensitive to small changes in the set up due to wear. As the pads wear the system loses a little leverage. You'll have to maintain the brakes, especially the overall cable and pad adjustment, to keep the leverage high. -kbNow we're getting somewhere. In riding around the sierras, i've found that you can get plenty enough wear in one ride to degrade the performance of your canti's. I personally don't want to mess with my brakes that much. If you ask me, paying attention to my brakes frequently to make them work means they don't perform as well as v-brakes.
Keith has another interesting quote that goes right to the heart of the issue:
As you might have divined by now, I am not completely sold on the basic advantages of the more powerful brakes, V brake or cantilever. I can ride as well either way I think. Braking traction is generally limited by the tires, not my hand strength. Sometimes the extra leverage makes the brake overly sensitive and too easy to lock. Of course, the cantilever brakes can be adjusted so that they have leverage anywhere inbetween the maximum and the standard amounts. If I were doing 50mph downhills with constant hard braking, for a living, I would probably change my tune about powerful brakes, but the standard cantilevers, adjusted properly, suit my needs very well. -kb
For many people who ride long, rocky downhills, there is no such thing as too much brake power. I'm not going any 50 mph, but i have to do plenty of hard, constant braking. My hand used to hurt (even with the recommended canti setup), now they don't. My brakes continue to stop even as the pads wear down to little nublets of rubber. For where I ride v-brakes just plain rule. I admit that they may not be necessary for more pedestrian terrain.
So if you read the whole article, it becomes clear (to me, anyway) that kb likes canti's not because they're better, but just because he already has some, and what he has works fine. He admits that making cantis work optimally takes more time than making v-brakes work optimally. He doesn't really address the issue of pad clearance at the rim, and possible brake scrub, but I surmise these might end up being issues for the ordinary joe who tries to get max performance from canti's. When I read the article I see a curmudgeonly character defending his retro equipment and resisting the onslaught of "new" technology. What i don't see is someone saying canti's are better than v-brakes.
This article is not ended to try to stir up controversy about v-brakes. For almost all racers and back-country enthusiasts that issue is permanently settled in favor of V's. It's merely intended to point out that you should read for yourself, rather than taking someone's word for something keith or jesus or anyone else said. Furthermore, you should read all the words, not just the captions to the pictures.
Back to Rants