Re: [CR] Were Campy brakes so superior?


Example: Events:Cirque du Cyclisme:2004

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:12:24 -0800
From: "Don Williams" <donwilliamsjr@gmail.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR] Were Campy brakes so superior?
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAMKJhSaQX/JKkmOpPiKS9HTCgAAAEAAAAKVaH1+OFrpGqDUnVmvMmYgBAAAAAA==@yahoo.com>
References: <c19.2e2d55ae.34dc13e8@aol.com>


I rode super 68s for many years. One trick I did to upgrade was to use the Campy cables. The cables internal not the jacket. They didn't strech as much as the standard replacement cables. REALLY improved brake feel. Less spongy. I remember using several other harder pads too, but I can't remember what they were.

Don Williams Woodinville WA

On Feb 7, 2008 4:59 AM, Edward Brooks <eriwinecom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob,
> Back in the day I remember that to me one of the distinct advantages of
> Campy brakes versus the Universal Super 68s or Weinmann 500's was that the
> Campy caliper arms were beefier and did not flex like the others, and they
> seemed to stop much quicker and were easier to modulate. This was also
> probably due to the compound they used for their rubber blocks which also
> seemed superior, and perhaps that the machining tolerances were closer and
> more exacting. I also liked the Universals and Weinmanns which were actually
> lighter than the Campys but my assessment was that the Campys just worked
> better. Aesthetically of course the Campy brakes were finished very nicely
> as well...
> Edward Brooks
> Chicago, Illinois
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
> [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of
> Stronglight49@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 1:57 AM
> To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: [CR] Were Campy brakes so superior?
>
> In his top 5 component list, Dan Artley mentioned:
>
> "...Campy sidepull brakes as revolutionizing good braking and control.
> A brake that unlike the Mafacs didn't need dedicated pivot posts on the
> frame. It may not be the best now, but at the time they came out,
> nothing else came close. ...
> Dan Artley in Parkton, MD "
>
> First of all, I do not mean to contest his choice at all, but this does
> raise an interesting question in my mind.
>
> Why were Campy brakes really that revolutionary?
>
> Yes, like all Campy products were very well made, highly promoted,
> fairly quickly accepted by the pro teams, but were they revolutionary
> or significantly superior in design or effectiveness to other
> side-pull brakes of the late 1960s.
>
> The Universal Super 68 comes to mind. Yes, those still had the sliding
> arm quick release linkage dating from 1950, and Campy's beautifully
> simple cam quick release lever was a significant improvement to other
> systems which come to mind. But, otherwise I can't see anything else
> unique about the Campy brake design which might distinguish it from perhaps
> the lowly Weinmann 500 series or probably a few other rather simple
> side-pull
> calipers already in use on lower range bikes which might account for
> improved
> overall performance. Let me qualify that by adding: "if compared using
> identical
> brake pads."
>
> Campy was always extremely successful at promoting their products
> through their racing team sponsorships. Their products were indeed very
> beautifully finished. But, why did they command a fee of $50 as an option
> on a $350 Paramount? Were they really worth what might compare to
> a $500+ brake "option" if added to a high quality production bike today?
>
> Could someone please explain just how these were significantly
> superior in design? Honestly folks, I'm not meaning to be argumentative,
> I'm just ignorant about these things and sincerely would like to know.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Still perfectly content with my Universal mod. 61...
>
> BOB HANSON, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA
>
>
>
>
> **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
> (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp0030000

> 00025

> 48)