Cycling UK Forum

Used them a lot, the BBB Multibar version at about 570-580mm wide, very comfortable in most circumstances. I had them setup with open side facing me and the controls on there at the most 'sit up and beg' position. This made the most comfortable riding position the sides, the fronts were too far for regular use. The rear controls were ok but not great on steep downhills which was the reason I finally ditched them. But have mused about how I would setup some bars to replicate my favoured position, with controls from there, and negate the downside of butterflies.

Obvious and cheapest way would be wide, 600ish, flat/gentle sweep bars with bar ends. Fit are/bar end brake levers to the bars ends and wrap them in tape and use cross top levers on the flats with some ergo style grips. That deals with braking from both positions and for gears there are a variety of choices, the easiest being barend/thumbies mounted in two positions, with cable doublers things, for maximum versatility.

I've also been having musings around a Rohloff setup incorporating these ideas so this bar in the 640mm:-

https://www.sim.works/collections/handl ... 6530945987

Basically a wide bullhorn but with 22mm clamp size. Throw on bar end clamp style brake levers like these:-

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brake-lever ... amp-right/

a set of cross tops and then a third set of brake levers converted to use as Rohloff shifters in conjunction with a Gebla Rohbox bit of kit:-

https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/brake-lever ... amp-black/

Finish it all with a combination of foam tubular grips and wrapped in bar tape. In theory you then have braking and gear changes available from the flats or the sides.

reohn2 wrote:

MacBludgeon wrote:Agree stopping power with BB7s is fine, benefit of hydraulics to me would be that both pads move and the lack of a need to manually adjust for wear. I don't find adjusting the BB7s any hardship and you can also get mechanical discs with twin pad movement via TRP now. I have no experience of the TRPs but reviews seem positive.

On the rear brake I found setup was critical for the BB7s. The frames I've built up have always used Goodridge compressionless outer cable, no problems. On a bike I bought secondhand with BB7s I got the front brake working fine but couldn't do the same with the rear until I changed the cable outer. I also dremel the ends of the cable outers after cutting to get them as flat/square as possible.

IME(TPR Spykes fitted to my Genesis Longitude,now swopped for BB7's due to the Spykes squealing so much)the twin pad movement didn't add anything to braking power,BB7's are just as good if set up right and kept reasonably adjusted.
I can see a situation where the static inner pad could cause problems if there were too much clearance between it and rotor allowing the rotor to scrape the caliper body by the active outer pad pushing it over into it,but it would need the inner pad to be backed way off and the active outer pad almost touching the rotor for that to happen.Which would amount to really bad adjustment anyway though.

I have compressionless outers on one bike as it came like that from new,the other three (two Vayas and the Cannondale tandem)have ordinary spiral wound outers,I can't say I notice much difference.
The BB7 cable disc brakes on all four bikes are exceptional.

Interesting on the Spykes thanks, and agree that BB7s work fine with normal outers but I like them adjusted quite close, very little lever pull to begin actual contact. I couldn't achieve this with normal outers on the rear but the setup was second hand so no idea of mileage. Maybe a switch to any new outer would have done but I only have a big reel box of Goodridge.

fenmanctc wrote:Thank you all for your highly entertaining and mostly helpful replies. I am a somewhat grouchy but enthusiastic bike nut (MTB, Airborne tourer, Raleigh Randonneur tourer and my workhorse Trek Soho. The latter has cable disc brakes, the front one being effective, the rear one defying all my efforts to make it work properly. I have tried new cable, pads and adjustment but nothing seems to improve it. My Trek 6300 MTB has Avid hydrulic brakes which are pretty damn good, hence my steer towards hydraulics. But being a stubborn old sod and a competent amateur bike mechanic I will have one last go and try low-friction cable, organic pads and a complete strip-down. I will keep you lovely people posted.

Agree stopping power with BB7s is fine, benefit of hydraulics to me would be that both pads move and the lack of a need to manually adjust for wear. I don't find adjusting the BB7s any hardship and you can also get mechanical discs with twin pad movement via TRP now. I have no experience of the TRPs but reviews seem positive.

On the rear brake I found setup was critical for the BB7s. The frames I've built up have always used Goodridge compressionless outer cable, no problems. On a bike I bought secondhand with BB7s I got the front brake working fine but couldn't do the same with the rear until I changed the cable outer. I also dremel the ends of the cable outers after cutting to get them as flat/square as possible.

Fair point, rotors can take a knock some people dismount them for flying etc but you're also in the hire business. People do tend to treat hire items rather worse, or at least carelessly, in comparison to their own things. I suppose the ultimate would be some sort of sealed unit, drum brake style. But the cynic in me says that development funds won't be directed towards things with genuine longevity.

Though the point still remains that disc brakes allow for varying rims that rim brakes never could.

Always a fascinating subject and interesting to see how things change over time. One of the things that is often missed is the upsurge of disc brakes meaning different wheel sizes can be run. As long as you don't mind the appearance of big clearances and skinny tyres. This is even more so now with the rise of the 650b. When comparing 700c and 26" the ability to interchange wheels was fairly narrow before geometry could be compromised...not so much between 700c and 650b. It's possible to envisage a frame that ran 700c up to about 700x40 for road use and wider 650b rubber for more offroad or heavily laden touring. Get stuck somewhere and whack in a cheap 26" wheel to get you to where your normal wheel can be repaired or replaced.

My first option would always be to consider 'fit for purpose' and that doesn't mean does it do what others claim but rather does it do what I need. Can the gears get me up what I want to ride?, can the wheels/tyres cope with what I want to ride and give me the comfort level I desire?, can the frame accommodate the luggage I want?, etc, etc.

On the adventure touring side I find the remoteness less and less of a persuasion for specific choices. Cable discs aren't much different to rim brakes, you can easily carry spare cable and pads and even a spare caliper. Spokes, if you're going that remote you should have spares with you. If you're remote enough then no spares will be available whatever you run. After that internet ordering, or packages you've left behind, can be sent pretty much anywhere. I've read plenty of journals where 26" wheel users were unable to get spares/repairs and had to order online.

For me I'd use a 29er setup with a Rohloff and SON, disc brakes and steel frame with full braze-ons and long chainstays...what I have actually. Tyres I'd give serious thought to tubeless, so many punctures are the result of thorns or those little bits of radial wires. Always the option to revert back to tubes, also you can always use 26" tubes if need be. Bars, again use what suits, I like swept flat bars with outboard and inboard bar ends, or Jones Loop.

Having floated the idea of a dedicated trekking bike with front suspension I feel a little guilty as it wouldn't be my choice. Looking just at the Rose range I'd have opted for:-

http://www.rosebikes.co.uk/bike/rose-bl ... aid:830994

it comes with 700x50 Marathon Supreme tires which means you have room up front to run large enough tires, at low enough pressure, to provide the sorts of benefits you'd see with roadish front suspension. You'd also not have the drawbacks of suspension forks in weight and complexity....less to go wrong.

However that particular bike wouldn't be my choice either I've only linked as an example as I do like the European idea of a complete package. Dynamo, lights, mudguards, rack, etc...all of which can be expensive after market additions. But we are seeing an increase in allround capable bikes, often under the gravel grinder name, appearing.

If you carry out the extensive changes/experiments listed here you still may not end up with something that works. Plus it could end up costing quite a bit. If you have the storage space then it might be little difference, cost wise, to buy a second bike. A look on some of the German websites will show a wide range of trekking/touring bikes with flat bars that come with front suspension and often a lot of other bits, like racks and dynamo lighting.

I'd guess at cable seating being the problem, though as others have mentioned it's only the upper two yellow marks that align not the locking one.

Re the cable seating have you routed it correctly at the hub itself, I only have the A8 but with that it is possible to re-seat the cable and fail to get it over/under the correct tabs. As the length of cable from locking point to cable stop is the precise measurement that controls shifting, if it isn't seated correctly then it can easily throw you off by a couple of mm.

Nothing to add other than AWESOME efforts guys and so many thanks from the crowd

32x18 and 40x21 are pretty close it's the input ratio that matters so 1.78 versus 1.9

The two forks linked to have an AtoC difference of 20mm, this will equate to about a 1 degree variance in ST and HT angles. The longer fork will also lift the BB higher and vice versa. I don't know the specs of the previous suspension fork but would guess that it rode longer than 420mm a lot of the time. Say for example it rode at 440mm then your switch to the new fork will have rotated the whole bike around the BB from back to front so:-

your BB would have been lowered a bit
your bars would have dropped by 15-20mm
your saddle would be about 8-10mm further forward in relation to the BB/pedals
both ST and HT angles would have increased by 1 degree

As a result of the lower bars you will be bending further from the waist and so more weight would go onto your hands. To counteract that extra bend you would normally scoot your bum back a bit however you've actually scooted it forward which makes the weight change even more pronounced.

As others have mentioned the key part is keeping the saddle to BB/pedal relationship that works for you, then adjust other parts of the fit as required. It could be as above and a 20mm longer fork will restore your contact points and weight distribution. Certainly if you already have the forks then that would be a cheapish solution. But if you want to stick with the new forks then I'd guess that you'd need to move the saddle back by about 15mm and raise the bars by similar to give you a starting point.

well I have what came with the shifter and the cassette joint is the 820. The shift cable outer that comes with the shifter has the standard push fit plastic cap at the shift unit end but at the cassette joint end it has a fitted metal ferrule. This fits very snugly into the slotted receiver in the 820 cassette joint.

Brucey wrote:is it not part #44 here?

http://bike.shimano.com/media/techdocs/content/cycle/EV/bikecomponents/SG/EV-SG-S700-3092_v1_m56577569830729562.pdf

Or have I misunderstood?

cheers

That's for the 11 speed hub which is different, or at least the shift cable from the 8 speed doesn't fit in the 11 speed cassette joint. Looking at the same diagram for the 8 speed hub that part isn't listed.

Brucey wrote:re ferrules; they are available but not readily available. Shimano do some and so do Jagwire. I'm sure there are others, too.

They come in some cable kits, but are not often easily sourced otherwise. If I knew of a good source for them I'd say so, but I don't, sadly.

cheers

thanks, my searches have brought up nothing I don't already have, ie the plastic sealed ones Shimano sell. The Gore ride-On ones are under product recall and their website says they've stopped production as of eo Dec 2012.

I'm surprised that you can't buy a cable kit for an Alfine, if they consider it important enough to put the fancy metal end cap on during production then I'd have assumed it was still important for a future cable outer change. I'll mooch around I bet I can find a spare somewhere.

Brucey, when you mention sealed ferrules are these easily available, just asking as there may be someone 'I know' that may have accidentally cut the wrong end of the outer cable that comes with an Alfine shifter. Having done this 'my friend' noticed that the end that would be most exposed to the elements has a fitted metal ferrule that looks well sealed. He also noted that the instructions mentioned trimming the cable from the other end. He can't seem to find the cable outer for sale with the pre-prepared sealed ferrule.