Compass Parts vs. MUSA

[dogrange]

Ive wondered his same thing a few times, but I think the Compass stuff is well thought out and not needlessly retro.

The cranks and brakes are forged rather than cnc parts like the Paul stuff and consequently looks much more refined and the cranks are much lighter than the cnc WI. I had a rando bike built a few years ago with what I thought were smart updates to shimano disc hydro stuff and if I could do it again, I would just go all Compass with the compass centerpulls. With experience it turns out that the disc hydro stuff adds a ton of weight and unwanted stiffness to my frame/fork and the function is not all that. As I have ridden this stuff more, I can see that the old French stuff was really well thought out and battle tested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by dogrange

not needlessly retro.

it is a small detail, and a nitpick for sure, but one thing that bothers me is the use of hex bolts for mounting.

when i'm on the road, i carry a multitool with 4/5/6 allen keys. i'm not carrying wrenches with me, period. their use of regular bolts as opposed to choosing metric allen stuff is an example of, IMO, needlessly retro.

[dogrange]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

it is a small detail, and a nitpick for sure, but one thing that bothers me is the use of hex bolts for mounting.



when i'm on the road, i carry a multitool with 4/5/6 allen keys. i'm not carrying wrenches with me, period. their use of regular bolts as opposed to choosing metric allen stuff is an example of, IMO, needlessly retro.

Supposedly the hex head bolt are there to ease rack attachment on the same studs as the brakes. Nitpicking aside, the BASIC DESIGN of much of their stuff is well thought out, even if we want to nitpick little details like this, and even here, there is a method to the madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tall]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

when i'm on the road, i carry a multitool with 4/5/6 allen keys. i'm not carrying wrenches with me, period. their use of regular bolts as opposed to choosing metric allen stuff is an example of, IMO, needlessly retro.

I think the argument is (marginal) weight savings. Regarding tools: You can carry one of these:

But yeah, I remember the panicked message from a friend who just got his custom with the Compass centerpulls and tried to find a set of the right wrenches to take on a tour.

[El Chaba]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

it is a small detail, and a nitpick for sure, but one thing that bothers me is the use of hex bolts for mounting.

when i'm on the road, i carry a multitool with 4/5/6 allen keys. i'm not carrying wrenches with me, period. their use of regular bolts as opposed to choosing metric allen stuff is an example of, IMO, needlessly retro.

For re-enactment brakes, you need a re-enactment toolkit....The pouch will accommodate the addition of 4,5,6 mm allen wrenches...... What's in your wallet?

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by dogrange

Nitpicking aside, the BASIC DESIGN of much of their stuff is well thought out,

i agree, and i absolutely support what they are doing - especially with regard to the tires they have developed.

[dogrange]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i agree, and i absolutely support what they are doing - especially with regard to the tires they have developed.

Totally love the tires. Haven’t used most of the other stuff, but would love to do up another rando bike, rim brake this time, to try it all out for myself!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[choke]

Originally Posted by Tall

But yeah, I remember the panicked message from a friend who just got his custom with the Compass centerpulls and tried to find a set of the right wrenches to take on a tour.

This might not be retro enough but it's what I carry on a ride....

[Jan Heine]

I think the biggest advantage of our Compass centerpulls is their profile: Shaped to fit over a 44 mm tire with fender. And when you release the straddle cable, they open wide enough to let the tire through without deflating.

The main reason we at Compass can do this is because our arms are forged (and hence smaller, lighter and stronger). Also, they were designed from the outset as centerpulls. When Paul designed his centerpulls (I was involved in the desig, this was long before Compass existed), there was no market. Instead of starting from scratch, Paul adapted his cantilever design, which has very large pivots, because it doesn't matter for cantis (the pivots sit further outward and don't get in the way of the tire), and because back in the day, cheap mountain bikes often had ovalized bosses from overheating. Back when Paul first designed his brakes, he just slipped his own, larger, and more precise boss over the crummy ones that were already on the frame. With modern custom bikes, ovalized posts aren't an issue any longer, but once you have a design that is perceived as superior, you stick with it...

The American cottage industry companies are the last of the mountain bike pioneers, and that is a very cool story, backed with some really good marketing. As Paul himself told me: "It used to be that everybody with a CNC-mill was making purple parts. Now we are the only ones left." I agree that is pretty cool - having worked with Joe Breeze and many of the other pioneers back in the day, I have a soft spot for Repack, Crested Butte and all those stories. And some parts, like hubs and headsets, are CNC-machined anyhow, so you don't need huge machinery to compete with the best.

When compared to the mountain bike pioneers, Paris-Brest-Paris, the Concours de Machines - all that took place on another continent, and the protagonists, while equally cool, aren't as accessible. Few people have had a beer with Roger Baumann, the guy who first won PBP and rode the Raid Pyreneen... I did, and he told me how he got goosebumps when he crested the Tourmalet at midnight. Having been there (at 2 a.m.), I can relate to that, too.

I smile when I hear that our parts are perceived as old-fashioned, when they are just functional. I remember when the Trek Y-Foil was the 'frame of the future,' but these days, even the latest offering from Open and other cutting-edge brands use 'old-fashioned' diamond frames. I smile, too, when I hear that tan sidewall tires are innovative. (They are, but that is another story.)

At Compass, we pride ourselves of being ahead of the industry.

Since we introduced the small-BCD, 3-arm René Herse cranks, the industry has already followed suit, going from 5 to 4 arms, and abandoning huge BCDs. Modern Shimano cranks are all 'compact,' and if you want a 53-42, you just put the bigger rings on the same arms. It makes sense. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, you end up with three arms and a tiny BCD.

But the industry has to go in steps, otherwise, their new parts are too far out for the majority of customers. When 9-speed came out, we in the industry all knew that 10-speed was next. But imagine the engineers saying, "Let's skip 9-speed and do 10-speed right away!" The marketing guys would have said: "Let's do 9 first. Easier to sell, and then we already have the next 'innovation' planned out."

The same applies to brakes. When dual pivots came out, they put one pivot on the side, because the old sidepulls, which pivoted around the centerbolt, flexed too much. Putting the other pivot on the outside, too, made sense, and they finally did that a decade later, and finally ended up with brakes that are centerpulls for all practical purposes. (What is important is where the arms pivot, not how you move those arms above the pivot, because the forces above the pivot are very small.)

Why doesn't Shimano use a straddle cable, when it's so much lighter and more elegant than the levers they use to actuate the arms?

Think of the OEM bike assemblers in Asia. Setting up a centerpull takes time and skill. A sidepull, you just insert the pre-cut cable, pull it tight and screw in the bolt. Done! (Remember how Shimano redesigned their canti straddle cables so that the setup was the same as a sidepull, for the same reason?)

At Compass, we are lucky that we don't have to worry about OEM, so we can make no-compromise parts that may take a little more to set up, but work much better in the long run.

And if you don't like the hex bolts on the brake pivots, you can get Allen-key ones in any bike shop. (We use the hex bolts, because they allow a forward extension onto which you can mount a rack more securely than if you sandwich rack and brake on the same bolt.)

Sorry this was so long, but explaining the reasoning behind the decisions we make isn't a thing of five minutes. A lot of thought goes into even the smallest details. We obsess about them, because when you crest the Tourmalet at 2 a.m., the last thing you want to think about is your bike!

Cheers,
Jan Heine
Founder
Compass Cycles
www.compasscycle.com

[AngryScientist]

Thanks for the reply Jan, I appreciate your input here; and all you guys do at Conpass.

[merckx]

Originally Posted by El Chaba

For re-enactment brakes, you need a re-enactment toolkit....The pouch will accommodate the addition of 4,5,6 mm allen wrenches...... What's in your wallet?

Like

[merckx]

Another "Like" for Jan Heine's post.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Jan Heine

The same applies to brakes. When dual pivots came out, they put one pivot on the side, because the old sidepulls, which pivoted around the centerbolt, flexed too much. Putting the other pivot on the outside, too, made sense, and they finally did that a decade later, and finally ended up with brakes that are centerpulls for all practical purposes. (What is important is where the arms pivot, not how you move those arms above the pivot, because the forces above the pivot are very small.

Reducing the caliper arm length from rim to pad is certainly advantageous for increasing stiffness, but that is not the main design feature of dual pivot brakes. The purpose of using separate, offset pivots for each arm is it allowed the creation of a multi-element linkage between the caliper arms. This does two things: 1) it increases the mechanical advantage of the caliper; and 2) it guarantees the caliper arms move in unison. Due to the geometry of direct mount brakes, they have roughly double the mechanical advantage of centerpull brakes. And because the linked arms move in unison, a dual pivot brake may be set with small pad clearances (as required for high leverage brakes) without the possibility of uneven arm retraction allowing a pad to rub.

[muz]

I appreciate Jan's reply, but am not fully convinced. I have Paul's centerpulls (braze-on) on my commuter and they just work. I have Mafac's (again, on brazed on posts) on a vintage Jack Taylor and on a Toei.

I think the weakest point of the design is the smooth post brake pad holders. They are hard to adjust toe-in -- even with the latest Compass washers. And after a few hundred to few thousand miles (if you're lucky), they start squealing again. Back to the grinder to shape the pads, clean the brake track, maybe even cold-set the brake arms. And you need three hands to align the pads so they contact the rim just right. In contrast, the threaded holders with conical washers adjust in seconds -- loosen the bolt, squeeze the levers, tighten.

[charliedid]

Dogrange and Jan both mentioned this: (We use the hex bolts, because they allow a forward extension onto which you can mount a rack more securely than if you sandwich rack and brake on the same bolt.)

I'm feeling dumb, would someone explain this further?

Maybe with pictures, please