Short reach vs. long reach brakes?

[paulh]

Forgive my ignorance. What are the differences/measurements in short and long reach brakes? I've had recent Campy Record groups on standard road frames where I've never known or specified the brakes. being short or long reach. I've used 700c wheels with 23 tires and it's the right fit. Anyone?

[old_school]

Reach refers to the length of the caliper arms. At present (I believe) Campy only makes "short reach" calipers. As usual, Sheldon Brown has plenty to say

here (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/brake-calipers.html)
and here (http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ra-e.html#reach)

[Ray]

Nope, Campy doesn't offer them - they're strictly 'racing' gear, regardless of what all they're used for. Shimano makes a nice long reach (used to be called 'standard reach' and what's standard today was called 'short reach') - I think two levels of 'em. Tektro makes one too, maybe others?

I don't see ANY reason to spec a frame for short reach if you have a choice. Pretty much any racing frame you buy today is built for short reach. I don't have any short reach compatible frames in my stable and one of my bikes is as racy as its rider would want it to be. There's just no downside to longer reach. The upsides are greater clearance for fatter tires and/or fenders. There's no loss of stopping power. I suppose there's a smal weight penalty for the slightly longer arms, but if that bothers you, you better be an elite pro racer. My racier frame doesn't often see fenders, but it could. And I can stick 27s or even 32s on it if I want to. Rarely happens, but why not give yourself the option?

-Ray

[vaxn8r]

Nope, Campy doesn't offer them - they're strictly 'racing' gear, regardless of what all they're used for. Shimano makes a nice long reach (used to be called 'standard reach' and what's standard today was called 'short reach') - I think two levels of 'em. Tektro makes one too, maybe others?

I don't see ANY reason to spec a frame for short reach if you have a choice. Pretty much any racing frame you buy today is built for short reach. I don't have any short reach compatible frames in my stable and one of my bikes is as racy as its rider would want it to be. There's just no downside to longer reach. The upsides are greater clearance for fatter tires and/or fenders. There's no loss of stopping power. I suppose there's a smal weight penalty for the slightly longer arms, but if that bothers you, you better be an elite pro racer. My racier frame doesn't often see fenders, but it could. And I can stick 27s or even 32s on it if I want to. Rarely happens, but why not give yourself the option?

-Ray
I agree. Other than a racier look, is there any reason we need frames fit for 23 c tires to be nearly touching the seat tube? You can't make a race bike with a few more mm here and there for weather contingencies? I'd love to be able to slap a set of $40 fenders on my race bike for a few months over the current alternatives which basically mean a dedicated winter bike.

Frame builders: how did we get to this place?

[GoJavs]

I've got 11 road frames sitting around in my house and just recently I decided I wanted one of them to wear 32s for a while. To my surprise, only one (!) of them can and that's a 1960s Falcon relic. ***!!!!!!!! :crap:

[old_school]

Frame builders: how did we get to this place?

I am not a frame builder, but a shorter reach probably cuts a few grams off the stated weight (thus making the guys over at weight weenies happy), esthetics may play a role, one size cuts down on manufacturing costs, and, of course demand may also have something to do with it (bike forum members aside, I suspect the average road rider is not out in the pouring rain, snow, etc.) Oh, yea, and what do you see on the pro bikes? 'Cuz everyone knows, if you want to be a real cyclist, you've got to have a bike like Lance and the boys.

[tv_vt]

Agree with the long reach folks. They just give you so much more versality. I have a Jamis Aurora that has long reach brakes. Got a pair of Shimanos - about Ultegra or maybe 105 quality. The great thing is that I can run 70x35 KNOBBIES with them! Amazing. Or I can run 23's.
If you are getting a custom frame and have that option, I'd consider it.

Unless you run Campy, I guess.

[Ray]

I agree. Other than a racier look, is there any reason we need frames fit for 23 c tires to be nearly touching the seat tube?
I don't even think there's a racier look. My main road bike, fenderless and usually with skinny tires isn't visually different for having long reach brakes. Nobody on a group ride has ever noticed it unless I mention it (and then most of them have no idea what I'm talking about).

-Ray

[FierteTi52]

Long reach brakes Rock! There is no reason not to go with them if your doing a custom frame with a steel fork.
Jeff

[Ti Designs]

It's starting to sound like a bunch of SUV drivers agreeing that there's no point to sports cars...

[old_school]

It's starting to sound like a bunch of SUV drivers agreeing that there's no point to sports cars...
Ed, you run long reach or short on that unicycle? :)

[bcm119]

I don't know if all frames need to be long-reach compatible, but I sure as hell would like to see more availability of sensical frames for long reach brakes. As it stands you have the high-end/custom option like Comotion nor'wester and IF club racer, and then the super-budget Somas and Surlys. Not much in between. It doesn't seem like too much to ask to have a few more options for road riding during the 8 months of the year that its wet.

[72gmc]

I'd say it's like a bunch of sports car drivers saying rally cars look like fun.

[SoCalSteve]

It's starting to sound like a bunch of SUV drivers agreeing that there's no point to sports cars...

Maybe because its January and that 4 x 4 SUV will come in handy...We should have this conversation in July when everyone wants the top down.

[Ray]

It's starting to sound like a bunch of SUV drivers agreeing that there's no point to sports cars...
No, I don't think so. You can have a 'sports car' of a bike with long reach brakes and not change the sportiness of it except by maybe a few grams. Doesn't do a damn thing to the geometry, ride, handling, or anything else when you want to have your sports car wheels on it. It just gives you more versatility for when you want it. My first Spectrum is a pure bred sports car of a bike. I probably haven't taken advantage of the extra capacity of the long reach brakes more than ten times in the two years I've owned it. And if there'd been a tradeoff to having them, I'd have short reach because that's the way I ride that bike 99% of the time. But there was no downside, so now I can stick slightly fatter tires on it when I know I'm gonna be riding dirt roads. And I can put fenders on it so I can ride it in the winter without worrying about getting a lot of salty run-off all over the bike.

I'd buy your analogy if having long reach brakes made the bike any less sporty, but they don't.

-Ray

[mike p]

Short reach= less weight+less flex+less clearence
Long reach=more weight+more flex+more tire clearence

Mike

[Frankwurst]

It's starting to sound like a bunch of SUV drivers agreeing that there's no point to sports cars...

Don't sports cars have wide tires? :beer:

[RPS]

Don't sports cars have wide tires? :beer:Sure, but if taken to an extreme, you're talking about Big Foot or a swamp buggy.

Normal brakes when set for about 45 MM (mid point) can accommodate most 700 tires the vast majority of riders would want. If closer to the 49-50 MM upper range, you can fit even large tires. Fenders are another issue.

[sg8357]

Short reach= less weight+less flex+less clearence
Long reach=more weight+more flex+more tire clearence

Mike

Good point, for best performance brazed on center pulls.
CP brakes have an even shorter pivot to pad distance than short reach brakes.
Paul Racers, a bit lighter than 57mm reach brakes and adjustable brake feel.
I say 57mm brakes because Tektro has an even longer reach brake out now.

Once you get some tire clearance try the Gran Bois 31mm tires, very nice.

Scott G.

[michael white]

My take is that sidepulls were really flexible a few decades ago, even the best of them, and so when the industry began using tricks like recessed brakes and shorter arms it made a difference. (I remember when campy nr seemed to me to work really well.) But now that brake manufacturers aren't so limited in the forgings, and can make brake arms any length, there's all this momentum behind short/normal, and you can't just turn the river the other direction. All my road bikes are short reach, all my brakes are short, and I have learned to live with that, even though the truth is that if I could run fenders and 25's, I would love to--but it isn't worth the cost of a new frame. I just muddle along with Raceblade fenders that work (sort of) on any frame.

A Kirk with long-reach brakes would be the bomb.

[vaxn8r]

No, I don't think so. You can have a 'sports car' of a bike with long reach brakes and not change the sportiness of it except by maybe a few grams. Doesn't do a damn thing to the geometry, ride, handling, or anything else when you want to have your sports car wheels on it. It just gives you more versatility for when you want it. My first Spectrum is a pure bred sports car of a bike. I probably haven't taken advantage of the extra capacity of the long reach brakes more than ten times in the two years I've owned it. And if there'd been a tradeoff to having them, I'd have short reach because that's the way I ride that bike 99% of the time. But there was no downside, so now I can stick slightly fatter tires on it when I know I'm gonna be riding dirt roads. And I can put fenders on it so I can ride it in the winter without worrying about getting a lot of salty run-off all over the bike.

I'd buy your analogy if having long reach brakes made the bike any less sporty, but they don't.

-Ray

+1...+1

[xcandrew]

I agree that there is no performance advantage to short reach brakes.

The irony is that there is probably even a (miniscule) aerodynamic advantage to long reach brakes that might more than offset the extra few grams. I remember reading about aero forks and the wheel/fork interface in regards to aerodynamic drag. Modern aero forks have wider spacing between fork legs than aero forks from the past because the extra space reduces rotational aero drag of the wheel. I would expect that extra spacing at the top should also help.

[ergott]

Maybe I have a crappy pair, but my long reach brakes don't have the sensitivity and stopping power of my standard ones. They are both attached to Campy brake levers. I put on long reach because I put 700c wheels on a 27" bike. I don't ride that bike as aggressively so I don't mind much, but for braking performance, short reach are better IMO

[xcandrew]

You have a crappy pair.

[FierteTi52]

After being spoiled my Shimano Dura Ace 7800 brakes,I was concerned about the stopping power of long reach brakes when I decide to use them for my Kirk. The other choice was cantis. The bottom line is the long reach brake stop better than I expected, and much nicer than Cantis. Trust me there is no downside to running long reach brakes, they work fine and fit larger tires.
Jeff

[Ray]

Maybe I have a crappy pair, but my long reach brakes don't have the sensitivity and stopping power of my standard ones. They are both attached to Campy brake levers. I put on long reach because I put 700c wheels on a 27" bike. I don't ride that bike as aggressively so I don't mind much, but for braking performance, short reach are better IMO
What kind of long reach brakes are you using? I've used all manner of Shimano and Campy (and Suntour) short reach brakes and the Shimano long reach brakes I currently have on a couple of bikes stop every bit as well as any of 'em. I have a Tektro long reach on the front of my fixie and it's got a bit of flex in it and isn't as confidence inspiring as the Shimano brakes, but the Shimanos are indistinguishable from their short reach brakes.

I think Michael's explanation of the evolution of short reach brakes back in the day when brakes were pretty flexy makes sense. But I just don't think there's a difference you could feel in today's brakes. No reason not to turn that river around.

-Ray

[Ken Robb]

Maybe I have a crappy pair, but my long reach brakes don't have the sensitivity and stopping power of my standard ones. They are both attached to Campy brake levers. I put on long reach because I put 700c wheels on a 27" bike. I don't ride that bike as aggressively so I don't mind much, but for braking performance, short reach are better IMO

You've got the cheapies from Nashbar with crappy pads. Swap them and see how good they can really be. If you have already swapped them I'm wrong agiain :rolleyes: .

[trophyoftexas]

I never gave the "short reach-long reach" thing much thought, I always figured that was more a concern of those of you that worry about fenders, mud flaps, that sort of thing.
But in building up the Mercian I picked up I discovered that it was built with 27" wheels in mind and then discovered that those really neat 50th Anniversary brakes I was wanting to use didn't make the reach to the braking surface on the rear wheel....front was ok but in the back the pads are doing a good job of rubbing on the sidewalls of my Ruffy Tuffy....not good!
Was told about the Campy drop bolt by my lbs wrench and picked one up here on the forum....installing it today! Interesting little piece of add-on equipment and very "Campy" like.....why bother to invest in making longer reach brakes when you can offer this little ditty, reduce production cost on the brakes, and still sell something Campy!.....but, alas, I guess it didn't make enough cashola for Pappa C as they are no longer in production! I like it, makes for another interesting bike story! In the end I could have gone to longer reach brakes but they didn't make the 50th in anything but short reach so there you go!

[ergott]

I'll go for new pads first and see if that's it. If not, then the Nashies are gone.

[Ray]

I'll go for new pads first and see if that's it. If not, then the Nashies are gone.
I could be wrong, but I think those Nashbar brakes are the same brake as the Tektro's I mentioned above. If so, they actually stop fine once you get decent pads on them, but you can still feel a bit of flex and slop through the lever. The Shimanos don't have this problem.

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

I agree that there is no performance advantage to short reach brakes.


Let's stop looking at the brakes for a second and look at the real limitation on tire clearence, right behind the bottom bracket. On a race bike you want short chainstays (within reason - I'm not going to get back into that argument), large diameter chainstays and a somewhat tight Q factor (depending on the rider). It's easy enough to make room for larger tires by adding length to the chainstays or running a triple, but then we start talking about performance disadvantages.

In racing, the speed you can get into or out of a turn counts as a huge advantage or disadvantage. One of my riders won the women's Cat 3 Tour de Toona because the finish of the crit was very technical, and she had the bike and the skills. In contrast, in the old Putney road race I would show up with my DelMundo tubulars and attack on the dirt road section to form the break. Performance advantages or disadvantages take on many forms...

[Ray]

Let's stop looking at the brakes for a second and look at the real limitation on tire clearence, right behind the bottom bracket. On a race bike you want short chainstays (within reason - I'm not going to get back into that argument), large diameter chainstays and a somewhat tight Q factor (depending on the rider). It's easy enough to make room for larger tires by adding length to the chainstays or running a triple, but then we start talking about performance disadvantages.

In racing, the speed you can get into or out of a turn counts as a huge advantage or disadvantage. One of my riders won the women's Cat 3 Tour de Toona because the finish of the crit was very technical, and she had the bike and the skills. In contrast, in the old Putney road race I would show up with my DelMundo tubulars and attack on the dirt road section to form the break. Performance advantages or disadvantages take on many forms...
Agreed, there are design tradeoffs associated with being able to use fatter tires and/or fenders. But assuming a 72-74 degree seat angle, how long do the stays have to be to allow a 32 mm tire to fit rather than just a 23? I once had a Specialized racing bike that wouldn't even take a Michelin 25 in back, and it was all brake clearance. There was enough room behind the seat-tube and plenty between the stays for a 28 or even fatter, but they'd hit the underside of the rear brake. I believe the stays were shorter than 41 on that bike, but I couldn't swear to it. The seat tube was a pretty standard 73 degrees. OTOH, I had an RB-1 with 40.9 cm stays and a 72.5 seat angle and it fit 28s easily, even with the short reach brakes. No room for fenders though.

I'm sure that at the extreme edge of crit-bike design, the brakes wouldn't be the limiting factor (you and ATMO can argue about proper crit bike design - I can't), but on just about any other road bike, I bet they are.

-Ray

[michael white]

it's interesting to me how much difference seat angle makes. On a steep bike, 41 seems long for the chainstays, and you can fit just about anything, as long as you can get the saddle setback you need. But I've had bikes with 41 stays where you had to deflate 23's to get the wheel off--more than one bike like that.

And sometimes it's one or both bridges, the fork crown, lots of places the clearance can be tight. But what I'd like to have is the ability to run practical training tires. like 25 with fenders, so my friends can ride behind me in a light drizzle. My lower-end training bike, which I bought partly because it has eyelets (I bought it thinking, fender bike), is a Jamis Quest with 41.5 stays and short reach brakes. It's a bit too tight to accept fenders with practical tires. The brakes are the problem there.

[RPS]

I once had a Specialized racing bike that wouldn't even take a Michelin 25 in back, and it was all brake clearance. There was enough room behind the seat-tube and plenty between the stays for a 28 or even fatter, but they'd hit the underside of the rear brake.
-RayRay, isn't this a problem with the placement of the brake bridge being too close to the wheel/axle?

I just tested a 33-MM wide tire on my tandem with Ultegra 9-speed calipers and it cleared OK; just a little tight. A 28 MM is no problem.

[michael white]

I don't think there's a rule for brake bridge placement. I think builders have preferences . . . I would assume most might try to stick it in the center of the range for short reach, but not necessarily.

[Ray]

Ray, isn't this a problem with the placement of the brake bridge being too close to the wheel/axle?

I just tested a 33-MM wide tire on my tandem with Ultegra 9-speed calipers and it cleared OK; just a little tight. A 28 MM is no problem.
Yeah, it was a problem with brake bridge placement. The bridge was lower than it had to be by a good bit. On the other end of the extreme, I had a Rivendell that I recently sold that was designed for short-reach brakes (there weren't any good NEW long reach brakes available back in '97) but the bridge was placed so that you'd get the maximum reach possible out of a short reach brake. Which allowed skinny fenders with Michelin 23s with modern dual pivots and up to about 27s with old single pivot brakes. I think the prevailing mentality with production bikes is to aim for a mid slot placement of the brake pads to allow for the most slop in quality control and still end up with a useable bike. With and hand-built like that Riv, the emphasis was on clearance and they made sure the QC was there to squeeze every last mm out of a short reach brake. On their first run of Rambouillets (by which time, Shimano had their long reach back in production), they actually went a mm or so too far in the direction of clearance, had a QC problem, and a lot of us had to file out another mm or so in our brake arm slots to get the pad down onto the rim and off of the tire.

Clearance is possible with short reach, but considerably more is possible with long reach, and it's a no brainer to get enough for a 27-28mm tire and fenders with a long reach where it's almost impossible with short reach.

-Ray

[RPS]

Ray, to me it comes down mostly to whether one needs fenders, because regardless of how I look at this, a longer (i.e. – bigger) caliper has to be heavier and/or less stiff; so I see it as a performance penalty. Whether the weight penalty is significant for the average rider is another subject, but there has to be a weight penalty for size. For some an extra ¼-pound doesn’t matter, but for many it would.

Michael, with Shimano being 39 to 49 and Campy 40 to 50 (Tektro and others with similar range for road applications), there are very few reasons I can think of for a manufacturer not to place the bridge towards the center of the range, thus aiming for about 45 MM. For a 25 MM tire to rub, it suggests to me that it was closer than needed. And as Ray stated, it may be a quality control issue – like on my Cannondale tandem which has too much difference between front and rear placement of brake bosses.

[xcandrew]

Ray, to me it comes down mostly to whether one needs fenders, because regardless of how I look at this, a longer (i.e. – bigger) caliper has to be heavier and/or less stiff; so I see it as a performance penalty. Whether the weight penalty is significant for the average rider is another subject, but there has to be a weight penalty for size. For some an extra ¼-pound doesn’t matter, but for many it would.


The weight difference between a pair like short and standard reach Shimano calipers is 24g (for the BR-1050, based on my standard reach vs. weight listed in the Rinard weights list for short reach), which is, oh, about 5x less than a quarter pound. That weight advantage is pretty much in the theoretical/noise range, and probably more than offset by theoretical aerodynamic advantages of the longer reach that everyone overlooks. If you want to compare my $35 single pivot 105 brakes with something like a ZG, OK, you win, but those stupid light makers would be making light long/standard reach brakes if race bike design was fully rational.

On a race bike you want short chainstays (within reason - I'm not going to get back into that argument)


You don't have to argue back then, but if your length "within reason" means chainstays shorter than the range that could accommodate tires that fit under standard reach brakes, say 41.5-42 cm, I'd say that there is no advantage. The weigh difference between stays of 40.5 cm vs. 42cm is a few grams (negligible in performance for anyone, even weight weenies), but you gain handling advantages. The stiffness difference is probably close to nilch. Chainstays are loaded in lateral bending - you can get away with a larger lateral cross section (for example, crimp vs. no crimp) on longer stays because they ease clearance issues. There is better chainline - micro-efficiency gains there.

Longer chainstays probably handle better for most people. Even in a crit, the turn radiuses are many times the wheelbase of a bike. You are not going to be able to a turn bit faster because your wheelbase is 99 cm vs. 101 cm. Balance on the bike is more of an issue in regards to handling, so shorter stays really only make sense for short people. Taller people need longer stays to get good handling. Here's the usual Jobst cornering photo, on a bike with chainstays long enough to fit a Silca pump behind the seatube and still have a few cm clearance tire to pump and pump to seat tube:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html


Here's some good stuff from Divorced White Female a few years ago on a mailing list:

400mm stays with 73-STA equals seat tube interference on a bike with a
28.6mm seattube, 80mm of drop, & 23mm tires in "real life". No road bike
needs stays that short anyway unless the bike has a very steep STA to
balance the rider over the wheels or the rider is very small. Most folks
will realize a performance benefit from longer chainstays instead of
shorter
ones. I consider anything shorter than about 415 to 420mm as short for a
road bike for average size riders though I've built TT frames with 370's.
Ultimately, chainstay length should be a product of balancing the rider's
CG
on the bike, not fashion.

Cheers!
(DWF)

snipped:
"Most folks will realize a performance benefit from longer chainstays
instead of shorter ones. I consider anything shorter than about 415 to
420mm as short for a road bike for average size riders..."

me too.
attaboy!
Cheers!
e-RICHIE

[RPS]

The weight difference between a pair like short and standard reach Shimano calipers is 24g (for the BR-1050, based on my standard reach vs. weight listed in the Rinard weights list for short reach), which is, oh, about 5x less than a quarter pound. That weight advantage is pretty much in the theoretical/noise range, and probably more than offset by theoretical aerodynamic advantages of the longer reach that everyone overlooks. If you want to compare my $35 single pivot 105 brakes with something like a ZG, OK, you win, but those stupid light makers would be making light long/standard reach brakes if race bike design was fully rational.



You don't have to argue back then, but if your length "within reason" means chainstays shorter than the range that could accommodate tires that fit under standard reach brakes, say 41.5-42 cm, I'd say that there is no advantage. The weigh difference between stays of 40.5 cm vs. 42cm is a few grams (negligible in performance for anyone, even weight weenies), but you gain handling advantages. The stiffness difference is probably close to nilch. Chainstays are loaded in lateral bending - you can get away with a larger lateral cross section (for example, crimp vs. no crimp) on longer stays because they ease clearance issues. There is better chainline - micro-efficiency gains there.

Longer chainstays probably handle better for most people. Even in a crit, the turn radiuses are many times the wheelbase of a bike. You are not going to be able to a turn bit faster because your wheelbase is 99 cm vs. 101 cm. Balance on the bike is more of an issue in regards to handling, so shorter stays really only make sense for short people. Taller people need longer stays to get good handling. Here's the usual Jobst cornering photo, on a bike with chainstays long enough to fit a Silca pump behind the seatube and still have a few cm clearance tire to pump and pump to seat tube:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

http://www.bikecult.com/works/archive/04bicycles/pjohnsonJB04.html


Here's some good stuff from Divorced White Female a few years ago on a mailing list:

400mm stays with 73-STA equals seat tube interference on a bike with a
28.6mm seattube, 80mm of drop, & 23mm tires in "real life". No road bike
needs stays that short anyway unless the bike has a very steep STA to
balance the rider over the wheels or the rider is very small. Most folks
will realize a performance benefit from longer chainstays instead of
shorter
ones. I consider anything shorter than about 415 to 420mm as short for a
road bike for average size riders though I've built TT frames with 370's.
Ultimately, chainstay length should be a product of balancing the rider's
CG
on the bike, not fashion.

Cheers!
(DWF)

snipped:
"Most folks will realize a performance benefit from longer chainstays
instead of shorter ones. I consider anything shorter than about 415 to
420mm as short for a road bike for average size riders..."

me too.
attaboy!
Cheers!
e-RICHIESorry, but I don't see too many buying $3,000 to $5,000 framesets and installing $35 brakes on them. Also, I got the weights right off the manufacturers' WEB sites or their catalogs, so I'm confident that high-end buyers would be penalized about 100 grams or more if they went with true "long-reach" calipers to clear fenders. If your goal is to use fatter road tires, then Shimano 57 MM reach BR-R600s at 380 grams will probably work fine.

As to your comments on chainstay lengths, I don't disagree except for two points: the perception that longer stays are slower exist whether we agree or not; and that weight distribution in and by itself is as important as you imply.

Personally, I would love it if everyone wanted 42.5 to 43 CM stays like many of the racing frames of the 70s, but that's not what people want to buy today.

[xcandrew]

That 100g would be zero if you are talking about races done under the UCI weight limit. I realize that doesn't include most races under in US, but just for the sake of argument, if you are talking big spenders and $3000+ frames, 100g extra in brake calipers isn't going to make a difference because if you can easily get a bike to 6.8 kg anyway. There are plenty of bike well under 6.7 kg on the web to prove that. By the way, my 105s are 348g, more than an ounce lighter than the DP new stuff. Works great, Sheldon Brown uses them on his tandem...

I know that there is a perception that short chainstays are faster, both in a "short stays=race bike because that is what everyone says" way and even on-bike perception. Short stays can make a bike seem like they have more jump. You can get that feeling even at very low power outputs, which gives a clue to where that feeling comes from. It's not lack of frame flex, it's from the location of your center of mass being closer to the contact patch of the rear tire. It's basically the wheelie effect lightening the front end, making the bike lively and seemingly just wanting to GO. Obvious, that is not something that translates into a real speed advantage. Besides messing with balance/general handling, that unweighting can be disadvantage and annoyance on steep hills because you have to adjust your position to keep the front wheel down. It becomes more of a problem the taller the rider, shorter the stays, and steeper the hill...

[Ray]

If your goal is to use fatter road tires, then Shimano 57 MM reach BR-R600s at 380 grams will probably work fine.
Those are the brakes we're talking about here. They used to be considered 'standard' reach and short reach were called short reach. These days, short reach are considered standard and the 47-57 are considered long reach. What were you looking at - the really really really long reach brakes recently introduced by Tektro to fit 38mm 650b tires? That's an entirely different animal. The 47-57 mm Shimanos will, if the frame is designed for it, easily fit 25-28mm tires with fenders and 32-35s without.

-Ray

[RPS]

That 100g would be zero if you are talking about races done under the UCI weight limit. I realize that doesn't include most races under in US, but just for the sake of argument, if you are talking big spenders and $3000+ frames, 100g extra in brake calipers isn't going to make a difference because if you can easily get a bike to 6.8 kg anyway. There are plenty of bike well under 6.7 kg on the web to prove that. By the way, my 105s are 348g, more than an ounce lighter than the DP new stuff. Works great, Sheldon Brown uses them on his tandem...

I know that there is a perception that short chainstays are faster, both in a "short stays=race bike because that is what everyone says" way and even on-bike perception. Short stays can make a bike seem like they have more jump. You can get that feeling even at very low power outputs, which gives a clue to where that feeling comes from. It's not lack of frame flex, it's from the location of your center of mass being closer to the contact patch of the rear tire. It's basically the wheelie effect lightening the front end, making the bike lively and seemingly just wanting to GO. Obvious, that is not something that translates into a real speed advantage. Besides messing with balance/general handling, that unweighting can be disadvantage and annoyance on steep hills because you have to adjust your position to keep the front wheel down. It becomes more of a problem the taller the rider, shorter the stays, and steeper the hill...
I’m not sure why we are discussing weight, but you are right in that I compared standard Shimano BR-R600 at 380 grams to new Campy Record at 279 grams to get an “approximate” ¼-pound of weight savings. Obviously if we compared extremes by looking at Tektro beach-cruiser long-long-long reach versus Zero Gravity racing brakes, the difference would be closer to a pound, but I don’t see this as relevant in any case. The markets for these are totally different.

I’ll agree with you on the “perception” of long chainstays being faster, but will respectfully disagree with short stays feeling quicker because of the weight transfer you attribute it to. When differences are in the order of 1 or 2 percent (roughly based on 1 to 2 CM difference in stay length compared to about 100 CM wheelbase), the additional wheelie effect (particularly tires inflated to 100+ PSI) can’t possibly be felt by a rider IMHO.

Because of an unrelated project (unrelated to brakes), I’ve had the good fortune to test ride two near-identical bikes with considerably different chainstay lengths. Because my very first Calfee prototype was made to accommodate all types of rear brakes (including the pre-2007 Campy style), the chainstays were made longer than a standard Calfee. The second frame was made with dual brake capability – either disc or under the BBKT – in order to maintain “standard” stay lengths.

Other than chainstay lengths, the frame size, geometry, and materials are identical. Even weights were very similar due to differences in components. And I can assure you than when jumping from one bike to the other and back, the shorter chainstay bike didn’t feel quicker due to weight transfer or any other reason. If anything, the longer-stay bike “felt” quicker to me due to being a little stiffer. Differences due to stay lengths are very minor. On that we can probably agree.

[palincss]

I’m not sure why we are discussing weight, but you are right in that I compared standard Shimano BR-R600 at 380 grams to new Campy Record at 279 grams to get an “approximate” ¼-pound of weight savings.



Hardly a proper comparison, atmo. A fair comparison would be with the Ultegra short reach brake. And, according to http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ for the new, improved, "lighter than their predecessors and featur[ing] improved stopping power," Shimano Ultegra 10 Spd 6600 Brakes, Weight: 334g, that difference is 46 grams, or 1.6 oz. That's a far cry from approximately 1/4 pound!

And if anybody thinks an ounce and a half, more or less, of weight is going to be that significant, even at the elite professional level, atmo they ought to consider Brazilian bikini waxes.

[RPS]

Hardly a proper comparison, atmo. A fair comparison would be with the Ultegra short reach brake. And, according to http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ for the new, improved, "lighter than their predecessors and featur[ing] improved stopping power," Shimano Ultegra 10 Spd 6600 Brakes, Weight: 334g, that difference is 46 grams, or 1.6 oz. That's a far cry from approximately 1/4 pound!

And if anybody thinks an ounce and a half, more or less, of weight is going to be that significant, even at the elite professional level, atmo they ought to consider Brazilian bikini waxes.I'm not a weight weenie, so it's hard for me to argue this point; but I do think it is a fair comparison. Limiting the comparison to the lightest available mid-reach caliper against a middle-of-the-pack equivalent is hardly optimum IMHO (albeit they are almost identical). If the argument made by others that there is a performance penalty is to be challenged, then we should compare lightest to lightest within reason -- like commonly used equipment which is what I looked at.

Everything else being equal, a smaller caliper will be lighter and/or stiffer. To many riders that signifies a performance advantage – it’s only a matter of magnitude.

[palincss]

I'm not a weight weenie, so it's hard for me to argue this point; but I do think it is a fair comparison. Limiting the comparison to the lightest available mid-reach caliper against a middle-of-the-pack equivalent is hardly optimum IMHO (albeit they are almost identical). If the argument made by others that there is a performance penalty is to be challenged, then we should compare lightest to lightest within reason -- like commonly used equipment which is what I looked at.

Everything else being equal, a smaller caliper will be lighter and/or stiffer. To many riders that signifies a performance advantage – it’s only a matter of magnitude.

The comparison I suggested holds all but the reach constant (or, as constant as you can get these days). Of course, the perfect comparison would be the BR600 against the 2005 or 2006 short reach Ultegra brake, but since that's now obsolete I couldn't find the weight.

I will go with you this far: everything else being equal a smaller caliper will be smaller. I can't say it will be lighter, and I can't say it will be stiffer. The larger one could be better designed, more cleverly manufactured. Whether either "lightre" or "stiffer" constitutes an advantage - especially at the levels we're talking about here, I'm not ready to conceed. It is not just a matter of "if the masses believe it, it must be so", atmo. The masses could be totally deluded on a diet of marketing bull****, as we have seen hundreds of times before. To claim a performance advantage, you'll have to demonstrate it. And at the levels of an ounce and a half, it's not there. For that matter, at the level of a quarter pound, it's still not there.

On the other hand, the performance advantages of wider tires and fenders that actually work -- those are immediately obvious, and don't depend on belief in marketing.

[RPS]

On the other hand, the performance advantages of wider tires and fenders that actually work -- those are immediately obvious, and don't depend on belief in marketing.Sorry palincss, I was confused thinking we were discussing brakes.

Personally I would like to see someone make calipers that are even smaller for all the riders who never install tires larger than 23s. But then my needs are quite different than yours.

[michael white]

I don't understand discussing whether or not an extra centimeter of brake arm or 24 gm of nonrotating weight would have a perceptibly different perception in performance etc. . . are y'all totally nuts?????????? ya know don't you that a decent brake pad would make a lot more difference than any of that . . .

[RPS]

I don't understand discussing whether or not an extra centimeter of brake arm or 24 gm of nonrotating weight would have a perceptibly different perception in performance etc. . . are y'all totally nuts?????????? ya know don't you that a decent brake pad would make a lot more difference than any of that . . .Michael, I'm interested in the packaging, not weight; which just happens to be a bonus. The trend has been towards smaller calipers, and whether it continues for some applications is anyone's guess.

[palincss]

Michael, I'm interested in the packaging, not weight; which just happens to be a bonus. The trend has been towards smaller calipers, and whether it continues for some applications is anyone's guess.

For a long time, the trend was to ever-narrower tires, but that seems to have stopped now.

It's been quite a few years since what we call a "road bike" (really road racer or "detuned road racer") stabilized and standardized on 700x23. I haven't seen any mainstream movement towards 700x19; if anything, the tide may have turned the other way: there's been a push on in recent years towards more honesty in tire sizing, and 700x25s have become more, rather than less, prominent in the past couple of years.

So - are brakes going to get shorter in reach? Not likely, atmo. Are tires going to keep getting narrower? I doubt it. Especially not as long as roads are going to continue to get worse.

And after all, why should they? It's no secret that up to a point, wider tires roll faster. What would the point be in continuing to get narrower, if all you get is a harder, slower ride?

[Serpico]

what's the biggest tire you can fit in a campy pre-skeleton chorus caliper? I know I had conti 4season 700x25 in there. will they go to 700x27?

[Ken Robb]

yep, but you may have to deflate the tire to get it in. I'm wondering if the ideal set-up would be Shimano brakes with releases and Campy levers with releases so we could get the fatter tires in without deflating. The brakes all work great.

[Kirk007]

Campy and Shimano long reach, fenders and up to 27 mm tires (or really fat 25s like the avocet) no problem.

[Ken Robb]

Campy and Shimano long reach, fenders and up to 27 mm tires (or really fat 25s like the avocet) no problem.

So having both types of release really does open the calipers extra-wide?

[Kirk007]

That's my impression but I'll take a measure tonight.

[RPS]

Ken, on my Co-Motion tandem I've run tires up to 33 MM wide (actual measurement) with standard Ultegra 9-speed calipers. Note that the pads are very close to the bottom, which was done to allow for wider tires. Also, because the 26 MTB rims are wider than narrow road rims, and because I don't run my pads too close, I can remove the wheels without any problems.