Kurt and all,
I did find a vintage example of this spacing on the front fork of a 1984-85 Schwinn Voyageur SP.
The reason that this becomes problematic are at least dual: First, Cantilever brakes are usually manufactured in a way that has the pivot triangulated with the cable connect and the brake shoe mount. This forces the shoe far forward/inward of the pivot point, not leaving enough clearance for the rim itself when the calipers are properly set. Only a few calipers are set in a way that has the pad face itself sitting just atop the pivot pint and I'm experimenting with one of those today (the Dia Compe 981). The other glaring problem is that once the pad is positioned above the pivot, your space for adjustibility, up and down, becomes extraordinarily cramped, especially since pad placement in that position becomes critical for proper mechanical advantage. The aforementioned Dia Compe caliper has very little available pad movement in the vertical plane and is going to be a tough set-up; I can tell just by eyeing it.
To help myself worry a bit less, I bought a second set of 981's last night, so that I can freely modify the calipers without delaying the build for too long, should I spiff the calipers that is.....
I'll update you all after the brakes are functioning as they're supposed too (or cannot).
Danny GonzalezLenox Hil Manhattan NYC NY USA
>>>From: "Kurt Sperry"
I don't see any reason in theory why having the canti bosses mounted unconventionally inboard should compromise brake performance all else being equal. The further in the pivots are, the less of a sweeping down motion the pads should make relative to the rim allowing easier squarer contact between pad and rim.<<<<<<
--
Want an e-mail address like mine?
Get a free e-mail account today at http://www.mail.com!