New Colnago V1R

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5619
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Franklin wrote:...
The real question is: does this miniscule gain outweigh reduced funtionality?


You have to ask? Answer is a big fat NO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Franklin
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:09 am

by Franklin

Calnago wrote:You have to ask? Answer is a big fat NO.
You are very outspoken, but actually I have read from mechanics and riders with experience that:

1. It's not that hard to maintain
2. It's actually not dirtier than the old position

It's not my prefered position for a brake, but reading the reactions on Velocipedesalon (and those guys are no dunces)It's not the drama you make it out to be.

by Weenie


User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5619
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Ok... Is it workable? Yes. A lot of things are.
Is it ideal? In my opinion, not nearly as ideal as leaving it where it's always been.
Am I being a bit dramatic? Ha, probably. But much less so than most of the marketing spin I read. There needs to be a voice of reason coming in at some point. You are free to disagree.

I see zero real world advantage to placing a rear brake there, but I see numerous disadvantages, especially when you start getting into using wheels of different widths etc. And again... Look at what the cable needs to go through to even get to the brake. Every bend and short change of direction adds friction which decreases the "feel" of the braking action before the brake even gets a chance to do its thing.

So, in sum, I do work on my share of high end stuff and appreciate good design from both a performance aspect and a usability aspect, which includes simplicity of operation and ease of setup and maintenance. I think the behind/under bottom bracket brake placement is a step backwards on all these fronts.

Kind of departed from the general nature of the thread, but since they chose to go with this "me too" design, it's fair game for discussion, good or bad.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

Geoff
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:25 am
Location: Canada

by Geoff

Dunno. I guess I'm not as critical as some. I think it looks ok.

On the direct-mount brakes, the fork should be stiffer than the brake arms, so that's a good thing. The rear, honestly who cares about the rear brake? It would be stiff as hell on the chainstays, but since you have so little braking at the rear already, what good will it do? The whole set-up will be lighter, so that is a plus.

User avatar
stella-azzurra
Posts: 5072
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Location: New York

by stella-azzurra

On the fixed gear I only have the front brake. Although on the fixed gear some of the braking is done by the cranks.
But yes the back brake doesn't do most of the braking and if you know how to brake you really don't need a rear brake on the road bike.
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

FIJIGabe
Posts: 1384
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

DartanianX wrote:Just to clarify, I am a trek sponsored athlete.


I want to chime in on this. I'm not a Trek sponsored athlete. I'm my own mechanic, and I wash my own bikes (when time allows). That being said, having the brake mounted under the BB is barely a chore, or inconvenience, and the aero benefits far outweigh any inconvenience. Actually, I have noticed that the brake stays cleaner than when it was mounted in the "traditional" mounting location, on the seatstays. The reason for this conclusion is that the brake is shielded from debris for most of the wheel's rotation (from the point of contact between the tire and the ground, the tire makes a 200deg revoltion (appx) before encountering the rear brake when in the traditional location, versus almost 300deg. when the brake is under the BB - the wheel almost makes a complete revolution). The only time I've encountered a problem is when I have had a flat, and sealant is spraying out. They're also protected from debris picked up by the front wheel because the Trek design places the brake far enough back on the BB that the angle of attack for the debris that could hit the brake is very small.

Now, are there drawbacks to the design? Yes. When I'm riding, I can't easily see if there's any rubbing going on with the pad. Also, changing brake pads isn't as easy (it also isn't THAT hard, just remove the pad holder, swap out the pads on the bench, and mount them back up - turns a 2 minute job into a 4 minute job). However, opening up the brake release is now MUCH easier, since it's located on the headtube, rather than on the brake itself. I can see where my hand is, rather than guess that my hand is reaching the correct spot.
Madone 9 https://goo.gl/7UwZpV
Crockett https://goo.gl/f5PdCN
Madone 5 https://goo.gl/cMdyFo

Madone 4, Cobia. I own a lot of Treks.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 5619
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

FIJIGabe wrote:... Actually, I have noticed that the brake stays cleaner than when it was mounted in the "traditional" mounting location, on the seatstays. The reason for this conclusion is that the brake is shielded from debris for most of the wheel's rotation (from the point of contact between the tire and the ground, the tire makes a 200deg revoltion (appx) before encountering the rear brake when in the traditional location, versus almost 300deg. when the brake is under the BB - the wheel almost makes a complete revolution). ...


Uh... you must never ride in the rain then. Your conclusion above is quite sound, as long as you're riding a unicycle. How clean are your feet when you've finished a two hour ride in the pouring rain? Where do you think all that dirt and grime is coming from. It's not the rear wheel. it's from the front. By the same analogy as you point out above, the rear brake is now even closer to a direct spray from the ground being thrown at it from the front wheel.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

KWalker
Posts: 5837
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

Colnagos are for MAMIL's, but even there they're losing relevance. The last time they had any sort of edge was when other companies were turning out fairly bad carbon bikes and tube-to-tube construction was superior.

Disclaimer: Yes, I have ridden several Colnagos. Nothing special really. Nice paint though.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

fatchance1973
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:35 pm

by fatchance1973

I agree with Calnago on all his points, but I'm not going to damn the design without actually riding or wrenching on it. To draw on an automobile parallel , the 911 should be a right shit performance car with the engine in the wrong place, but clever engineering has made a beetle into a world class car. If the bike rides like Colnago, is slightly more aero , lighter , cheaper thna a C60 and the rear brakes don't totally suck, what's not to like?

Franklin
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:09 am

by Franklin

I read similar reports claim by users that indeed the new position does not get more dirty in the rain. I'm very cautious to claim these people do not ride in the rain or that it's a certainty it will get more dirty.

FIJIGabe
Posts: 1384
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Location: The Lone Star State

by FIJIGabe

Calnago wrote: Uh... you must never ride in the rain then. Your conclusion above is quite sound, as long as you're riding a unicycle. How clean are your feet when you've finished a two hour ride in the pouring rain? Where do you think all that dirt and grime is coming from. It's not the rear wheel. it's from the front. By the same analogy as you point out above, the rear brake is now even closer to a direct spray from the ground being thrown at it from the front wheel.


I don't ride in downpours as often now as I used to (S. Florida vs. S. Texas). That being said, I have quite a bit of experience riding in the rain (even on carbon clinchers), and I prep my bike as if I will be riding in the rain (waterproof bearing grease in my BB bearings, for example). I stand by my prior statement, the rear brake stays cleaner (comparing my bike to my wife's bike, on the same ride).
Madone 9 https://goo.gl/7UwZpV
Crockett https://goo.gl/f5PdCN
Madone 5 https://goo.gl/cMdyFo

Madone 4, Cobia. I own a lot of Treks.

TedStriker
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:17 am

by TedStriker

I like it. The direct mounts are textbook cycle salesman rubbish, tho IMO they do look, well, cleaner

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post