Under the chain stay brake mounting

I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. Gets road grime from both wheels too.

Why did manufactures put the brakes there? I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

On Mar 19, 2:01*pm, Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. *It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. *Gets road grime from both wheels too.

Why did manufactures put the brakes there? *I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

They did it because it looked different. The reason given was
something about stiffness. And it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't
for those narrow roller cam brakes. Mainly--it was for selling.

On Mar 19, 2:01*pm, Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. *It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. *Gets road grime from both wheels too.

Why did manufactures put the brakes there? *I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

landotter is right -- "...it was for selling". It's a bad location
for a brake -- the reason this fad passed so quickly.

Sergio Moretti

In article
,
Rick wrote:

I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. Gets road grime from both wheels too.

Why did manufactures put the brakes there? I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

This location has been used for years- many rod-braked bikes have the
brake stirrup located here.

Charlie Cunningham of WTB mounted roller cam brakes down there, IIRC,
because the bigger, thicker chainstays would move less than seatstay
mounted pivots and this would improve braking power. For a long time in
MTB design, where Charlie led others followed (except for using a 24"
rear wheel and a 26" front, which he tried on at least one bike.
However, probably due to patent issues, the roller cam was replaced with
the inferior U brake resulting in (1) deficient braking and (2) a great
place to accumulate tons of crap which just made (1) even worse.

If you MTB in a mainly dry area, that location might not be too bad.
But if you live somewhere wet it's pretty awful.

--
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain

On Mar 19, 3:43*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,

*Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. *It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. *Gets road grime from both wheels too.

Why did manufactures put the brakes there? *I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

This location has been used for years- many rod-braked bikes have the
brake stirrup located here.

Yup. That's where practicality dictates it be on a rod activated
setup. My DL1 shares the same hassle of late 80s mtbs with having rear
brakes that are a royal PITA to service without a work stand.

Charlie Cunningham of WTB mounted roller cam brakes down there, IIRC,
because the bigger, thicker chainstays would move less than seatstay
mounted pivots and this would improve braking power. *For a long time in
MTB design, where Charlie led others followed (except for using a 24"
rear wheel and a 26" front, which he tried on at least one bike. *
However, probably due to patent issues, the roller cam was replaced with
the inferior U brake resulting in (1) deficient braking and (2) a great
place to accumulate tons of crap which just made (1) even worse.

If you MTB in a mainly dry area, that location might not be too bad. *
But if you live somewhere wet it's pretty awful.

I've built a few mid quality mtbs from that era into heavy duty
touring bikes, and the hidden brake plays nice with bags and weird
loads. That's the best application for such vintage frames. And the
oval chainrings are just gravy. ;-)

Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. Gets road grime from both wheels too.
Why did manufactures put the brakes there? I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

Give any bike with cantilevers a good hard pull on the rear
brake lever. The pivot bolts visibly move apart as the stays
flex.

This flex was once considered a "major problem". feh.

p.s. the U-Brake has found a happy home in 20", where they
work just fine. The "inaccessible" aspect which annoys you
is appreciated by grinders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

landotter wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:43 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,

Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. Gets road grime from both wheels too.
Why did manufactures put the brakes there? I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.
This location has been used for years- many rod-braked bikes have the
brake stirrup located here.

Yup. That's where practicality dictates it be on a rod activated
setup. My DL1 shares the same hassle of late 80s mtbs with having rear
brakes that are a royal PITA to service without a work stand.
Charlie Cunningham of WTB mounted roller cam brakes down there, IIRC,
because the bigger, thicker chainstays would move less than seatstay
mounted pivots and this would improve braking power. For a long time in
MTB design, where Charlie led others followed (except for using a 24"
rear wheel and a 26" front, which he tried on at least one bike.
However, probably due to patent issues, the roller cam was replaced with
the inferior U brake resulting in (1) deficient braking and (2) a great
place to accumulate tons of crap which just made (1) even worse.

If you MTB in a mainly dry area, that location might not be too bad.
But if you live somewhere wet it's pretty awful.

I've built a few mid quality mtbs from that era into heavy duty
touring bikes, and the hidden brake plays nice with bags and weird
loads. That's the best application for such vintage frames. And the
oval chainrings are just gravy. ;-)


At the risk of offending Jobst, a DLI rear brake adjustment
is quick upside down.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mar 19, 5:35*pm, AMuzi wrote:
landotter wrote:
On Mar 19, 3:43 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,

*Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. *It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. *Gets road grime from both wheels too..
Why did manufactures put the brakes there? *I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.
This location has been used for years- many rod-braked bikes have the
brake stirrup located here.

Yup. That's where practicality dictates it be on a rod activated
setup. My DL1 shares the same hassle of late 80s mtbs with having rear
brakes that are a royal PITA to service without a work stand.
Charlie Cunningham of WTB mounted roller cam brakes down there, IIRC,
because the bigger, thicker chainstays would move less than seatstay
mounted pivots and this would improve braking power. *For a long time in
MTB design, where Charlie led others followed (except for using a 24"
rear wheel and a 26" front, which he tried on at least one bike. *
However, probably due to patent issues, the roller cam was replaced with
the inferior U brake resulting in (1) deficient braking and (2) a great
place to accumulate tons of crap which just made (1) even worse.

If you MTB in a mainly dry area, that location might not be too bad. *
But if you live somewhere wet it's pretty awful.

I've built a few mid quality mtbs from that era into heavy duty
touring bikes, and the hidden brake plays nice with bags and weird
loads. That's the best application for such vintage frames. And the
oval chainrings are just gravy. ;-)

At the risk of offending Jobst, a DLI rear brake adjustment
is quick upside down.

I can never get the toe set right before all the blood rushes to my
head.

On Mar 19, 1:43*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:

*Rick wrote:
I have a 1986 or 1987 specialized rockhopper that has the rear brake
mounted under the chainstays. *It's a bit a pain to adjust and
disconnect for wheel removal. *Gets road grime from both wheels too.

Why did manufactures put the brakes there? *I've seen other brands
with this same brake setup.

This location has been used for years- many rod-braked bikes have the
brake stirrup located here.

Charlie Cunningham of WTB mounted roller cam brakes down there, IIRC,
because the bigger, thicker chainstays would move less than seatstay
mounted pivots and this would improve braking power. *For a long time in
MTB design, where Charlie led others followed (except for using a 24"
rear wheel and a 26" front, which he tried on at least one bike. *
However, probably due to patent issues, the roller cam was replaced with
the inferior U brake resulting in (1) deficient braking and (2) a great
place to accumulate tons of crap which just made (1) even worse.

If you MTB in a mainly dry area, that location might not be too bad. *
But if you live somewhere wet it's pretty awful.

Rollercams are theoretically better but practically,
a pain in the ass. U-brakes are better. I replaced
the under-the-chainstay Suntour rollercams on my
old Bridgestone MB-2 with U-brakes and was pleased.
I actually used to race that bike, but the timing of our
spring race season in Norcal meant I rarely had to ride
it in mud.

If you care about why rollercams stunk, it's because they
would go out of adjustment, were a pain to adjust, had a
tedious QR based on freeing the cam, and
didn't open wide enough to remove the rear wheel unless
the tire was deflated. Good U-brakes worked as well
as a typical strong caliper brake (since that's what they
are), which was more than good enough, especially for
a rear brake.

These MTBs with under-the-chainstay brakes can and
should be repurposed as city/commuter bikes - they
have relaxed geometry for it, typically good frames, and
in an unintended consequence, moving the brake off the
seatstays can make mounting a rack easier.

Ben

Per bjw:
These MTBs with under-the-chainstay brakes can and
should be repurposed as city/commuter bikes - they
have relaxed geometry for it, typically good frames, and
in an unintended consequence, moving the brake off the
seatstays can make mounting a rack easier.

When I first read about a frame with such brake mounts I faulted
Surly for not putting them on my 1x1 - but now I understand why
they put them up there out of dirt's way.
--
PeteCresswell