View Single Post
Old 12-10-07, 09:22 AM
  #14  
mrmw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 601

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Super Sport S/P, 1984 Miyata 610, 1985 Panasonic LX 1000, Centurion Pro Tour 15 1983

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar
It doesn't matter, but if you look at the literature issued by Dia-Compe, Weinmann and Mafac, they show the yoke/cable carrier with the lip facing away from the frame and the cable routed on the same side as the lip (i.e. same as the Schwinn pic posted by Bob). This method certainly provides a neater appearance, but I always did the exact opposite, simply because I found it easier. When the cable is routed on the side away from the frame there is also less chance of the cable scratching the frame if the fork flops, particularly if the cable has been bent per common practice, the end cap is missing and the cable is frayed. Admittedly, this is a minor point.

In Kossimsar89's case, the cable is routed on the opposite side of the lip. In this case the cable anchor is offeset and not located directly over the straddle cable. Theoretically, this is not the optimum set-up for smooth operation and maximum transfer of energy, though in practice the difference is almost certainly imperceptible.
I have learned so much from T-Mar, and alanbikehouston, it pains me to say that during my most recent round of messing with centerpulls (caliper and cantilevers) I have to side with Kommisar89's method of routing the lip facing away from the frame and the cable facing the frame. With well maintained cables and casing operation is smooth and clean. With the lip facing the headtube, its a snap to engage and disengage the straddle carrier from the straddle cable.
mrmw is offline