Touring - Traditional canti's vs newer design canti's (V's)

OK, I see the same old "canti's vs V-brakes" thing all the time, so I thought I would show a side by side comparison to better illustrate their similarities and differences.

First thing you will notice is their similarities, they work very much the same way. Cable pulls lever, lever pivots in the same point, brake pad is in the same place, only the orientation and length of the lever arm is different.

Second thing you will notice is how much longer the lever arm is on V-brakes and that lever arm length does not change as you apply the brakes. The canti's lever arm is much shorter and the cable that pulls these arms is angled up lessening the leverage even more. As you apply the brakes the yoke cable's angle increases up, additionally decreasing leverage. That is why they tell you to shorten the yoke to get better braking.

The longer the lever arm the more braking power there is and the more cable that has to be pulled to make them work, that is why V-brakes need different levers that canti's.


What's my point?

On a heavy loaded touring bike you need strong brakes, this is a major safety issue and function should over-ride the style or fashion of the brake design.

Better clarify my position a little.

I'm not advocating everyone go out and convert their canti's to V-brakes (although it's not a bad idea). I'm suggesting that we don't miss-inform people coming to this forum asking advise about touring bikes and components. Again, safety should over-ride fashion.

I have read threads where someone here advocated removal of v-brakes and replace them with canti's on a brand new bike, this is bad advise.

If you prefer cant's over V-brakes, for what ever reason, fine, (Choice is good) just don't lead newbies down that road without letting them know it's a personal preference and you understand the compromises.

I'm sorry, that's just not true and I think your post is misleading! The only thing you can state is that the leverage for v-brake arms is greater, but that most certainly does not equate to more braking power. Simply put, you are not considering the "strength" of the cable pull.

Thinking of braking like a black box function, at one end, you have someone pulling consistently with the same force on a brake lever; at the other end, you have the resultant braking action. You can't create extra power in that black box, merely just be more efficient to transfer or modify the resulting effects to your liking for the output.

The fact is that a well setup canti or v-brake can be just as effective when touring, though I give a slight nod to the v-brake for being more efficient and hence transferring more stopping "power". However, the difference in well setup examples of both brakes is not enough (at least for me) to say that one should be used over the other. I'd personally prefer cantis for touring when using road bars as there are more choices for levers, and the modulation is usually nicer (just personal opinion here). If I had straight mtb bars, I'd prefer v-brakes because (again) of the greater variety of brake levers. For either brake type, I don't think it's clear cut there is a best solution -I believe setup, component quality and compatibility make for greater factors.

By the way, converting your bike to v-brakes from cantis using road bars can be a bad idea -it involves the expense of changing the levers to levers that have adequate pull (and by the way if you research the forums you'll find reports of cable friction issues on long pull road brake levers) or using travel agents which can be finickety to setup (haven't done it, but that's based on a first hand account from my friend who has and then subsequently changed back to cantis) and introduces more cable friction again.

So I do agree with you on one thing -it's a good idea not to misinform.



OK, I see the same old "canti's vs V-brakes" thing all the time, so I thought I would show a side by side comparison to better illustrate their similarities and differences.

First thing you will notice is their similarities, they work very much the same way. Cable pulls lever, lever pivots in the same point, brake pad is in the same place, only the orientation and length of the lever arm is different.

Second thing you will notice is how much longer the lever arm is on V-brakes and that lever arm length does not change as you apply the brakes. The canti's lever arm is much shorter and the cable that pulls these arms is angled up lessening the leverage even more. As you apply the brakes the yoke cable's angle increases up, additionally decreasing leverage. That is why they tell you to shorten the yoke to get better braking.

The longer the lever arm the more braking power there is and the more cable that has to be pulled to make them work, that is why V-brakes need different levers that canti's.


What's my point?

On a heavy loaded touring bike you need strong brakes, this is a major safety issue and function should over-ride the style or fashion of the brake design.

I'm sorry, that's just not true and I think your post is misleading! The only thing you can state is that the leverage for v-brake arms is greater, but that most certainly does not equate to more braking power. Simply put, you are not considering the "strength" of the cable pull.

Thinking of braking like a black box function, at one end, you have someone pulling consistently with the same force on a brake lever; at the other end, you have the resultant braking action. You can't create extra power in that black box, merely just be more efficient to transfer or modify the resulting effects to your liking for the output.

The fact is that a well setup canti or v-brake can be just as effective when touring, though I give a slight nod to the v-brake for being more efficient and hence transferring more stopping "power". However, the difference in well setup examples of both brakes is not enough (at least for me) to say that one should be used over the other. I'd personally prefer cantis for touring when using road bars as there are more choices for levers, and the modulation is usually nicer (just personal opinion here). If I had straight mtb bars, I'd prefer v-brakes because (again) of the greater variety of brake levers. For either brake type, I don't think it's clear cut there is a best solution -I believe setup, component quality and compatibility make for greater factors.

By the way, converting your bike to v-brakes from cantis using road bars can be a bad idea -it involves the expense of changing the levers to levers that have adequate pull (and by the way if you research the forums you'll find reports of cable friction issues on long pull road brake levers) or using travel agents which can be finickety to setup (haven't done it, but that's based on a first hand account from my friend who has and then subsequently changed back to cantis) and introduces more cable friction again.

So I do agree with you on one thing -it's a good idea not to misinform.

I agree with you on every single point. A properly set up cantilever does just a good a job of braking as a properly set up V or disc. The key is the properly set up part. Brakes are seldom the problem when it comes to stopping ability...with some exceptions. When I hear someone complain about the brakes on their bikes, it usually boils down to a brake that hasn't been set up properly or hasn't been maintained properly. Another issue is improper braking technique.

I've mountain biked, road biked and toured for years (both road and off-road) and never really seen the need for each new 'improvement' to brakes that comes along. The cantis on my first mountain bike (and on the next 10) worked just fine. I've never run off a trail because the brakes failed to stop me. But I never followed the advice of the idiots at Mountain Bike Action who have always suggested that everyone run their brakes so that the pads don't engage until half of the lever pull:eek: My brakes have always been set so that I can skid the rear tire at about 1/4 lever pull. Sure it means that you have to keep your wheels straight but you should do that anyway.

I also live in a state with lots of uppy-downy bits and I learned a long time ago that you don't ride the brakes if you want to have brakes when you really need them...on a bike or in a car! It's better to brake hard, scrub speed and get off the brake then try to slow your bike by dragging the brake for minutes or hours. Additionally, again from mountain biking, I learned that weight transfer is important. If you want to squeeze more out of your brakes, push your center of gravity back on the bike to put more weight over the rear wheel. If you want to do a nose wheelie or skid the rear tire, slide forward but if you need to get the most out of the brake system, slide off the saddle.

As for setting up V brakes with Travel Agents...don't. It a royal pain and you end up with brakes that are mooshier than a badly set up canti. I'd say they are almost as bad as a set of Weinmann center pulls:eek:

I was just, this afternoon wondering whether to keep the cant's or swap to v's on the bike I am re-building. I have defiately leaned towards v's but there is definatly a bias for canti's on touring bikes. Is this fashion? or is it because they are so much more adjustable and able to be set up for different levers? Maybe mudguard clearance

My own personal opinion is that maybe the v's I've used come out on top. but what I like the best is that there is just the one cable to route and set up.

But the new touring bikes I've looked at online more often have canti's, now I know that they are not superior to v's in their braking power, so what are the reasons that they are fitted to new touring bikes over v's?

I've endo'd on cantis, but vbrakes are generally quite a bit stronger in my experience. They are easier to set up, and easier to adjust, and have more mechanical advantage.

That said, they are ugly, and dia compe 287V's are uncomfortable. Much prettier and more comfortable are most other levers, and canti's are far more attractive.

Well apart from the fact they're adequate for touring needs, I'd guess the biggest reason is that most touring bikes come with road bars, and the majority of brake levers for road bars are usually short pull. Since there is more choice of road brake levers (road bikes use dual pivot caliper brakes that operate on short cable pull as well), when it comes to speccing out the bike for the bean counters the short pull levers are probably going to give you more room to keep costs down. The relative scarcity of long pull road brake levers means that unit costs are probably greater -I think only DiaCompe makes a long pull road brake lever (though there might well be others such as Tektro, there can't be too many more) and I'd imagine that would reduce the chance of getting a competitive price combined with that higher unit cost. And I can't see manufacturers using travel agents either; why add cost to a bike?

Having said that, if a touring bike came with trekking bars or flat bars, I'd guess v-brakes would be used then -again, more choice of brake levers to keep costs down with. I think I'd start with what kind of bars do you want on your touring bike and work from there to see the options and costs to choose one over the other.


But the new touring bikes I've looked at online more often have canti's, now I know that they are not superior to v's in their braking power, so what are the reasons that they are fitted to new touring bikes over v's?

OK, let’s try this a different way.

You start with a bike with caliper brakes (calipers came before cantilever). Now you want use this bike for touring and there are some problems to overcome.
1. Need more stopping power for the added weight.
2. Need clearance for wider tires and fenders
What do you do? Well the designers decided to stay with a standardized brake lever, one that moves the cable a short distance, but high force. OK if the lever does not change, how to accomplish your goals. Well the cantilever design does both by rearranging the lever arms on the brake itself, they are longer and orientated to accommodate wide tires and fenders. Their limiting factor is what the hand levers provide. They could lengthen the lever arm at the brake, but only so much before there was not enough brake pad travel to be practical.

OK, now we are at the Mountain bike revolution. Again you want to increase the braking power of the current brake (cantilever brake) and keep the clearance for fatter tires. So you look at the cantilever brake to determine it’s limiting factor. To increase the braking of a cantilever brake, you have to either increase the strength of cable pull or increase the lever arm of the brake itself. The only way to do either of these is to modify the hand lever. To increase the strength of the cable pull you have to increase the leverage at the hand lever, but that is maxed out already, any less cable travel and the brake pad clearance will be too small, no good. OK then let’s increase the lever arm at the brake, to do that you need to increase the cable travel pull at the hand lever, bingo, this is easy to do.
If you increase the lever arm (at the brake) on a cantilever brake it will stick out too far and smack trees, so you just change the direction of the arm up and have the two arms pull together. WOW this did two things, it keeps the lever arms out of the trees and solves the problem of the yoke cable changing angle which lessens it’s braking ability as you pull, great.

That’s how we got to v-brakes and why they are better than canti’s.

So where do disc brakes fit in?

Somebody had to say it.

Do a search on this forum for "disc brakes", I think you'll find plenty of threads to read.


So where do disc brakes fit in?

Somebody had to say it.

Well apart from the fact they're adequate for touring needs, I'd guess the biggest reason is that most touring bikes come with road bars, and the majority of brake levers for road bars are usually short pull. Since there is more choice of road brake levers (road bikes use dual pivot caliper brakes that operate on short cable pull as well), when it comes to speccing out the bike for the bean counters the short pull levers are probably going to give you more room to keep costs down.

Also w/ 'regular' cantis (vs linear i.e. V-brakes) your clearance of tires and fenders is essentially unlimited. You can put cantis on a pugsley (26 x 4.0 tires). Also no trouble with, for instance, 2.0 tires w/ full fenders.

So where do disc brakes fit in?

Somebody had to say it.

Disc brakes actually go backward in design, sort of. Remember when I said above;

"To increase the braking of a cantilever brake, you have to either increase the strength of cable pull or increase the lever arm of the brake itself."

Well they couldn't increase the strength of the cable pull because of the limiting factor of brake pad travel, but on a disc brake that limit is gone or at least a lot less. Disk brakes have very close tolerances, the brake pads there move very little to achieve their stopping power. So your back to short cable travel with much increased strength.

Right now the best place to look for touring bike improvement is in the mountain bike technologies. FWIW, I don't own a mountain bike.

nice factual post, I think I'll put the v's on, the canti's have some very aesthetic machining, is not an easy choice

I agree that it makes no sense to tell someone to replace their V's with cantis just for the sake of doing it.

But, to me the whole issue is kind of moot since I greatly prefer STI. That means cantis are the only logical choice unless I want the added complexity of travel agents (no thanks).

If I had a bike that had levers suited to V-brakes and wanted to continue to use them I would stick with V-brakes.

If I were building from scratch it would be STI and cantis for drop bars and V-brakes for flat or trekking bars. I personally would only choose the latter for offroad touring if even then though.

OK, let’s try this a different way.
That’s how we got to v-brakes and why they are better than canti’s.

Interesting, but that's not how I understood the story; could be wrong, but I seem to recall the main 'problem' resulting in the development of v-brakes was the advent of suspension, first front/then f/r, on mountainbikes. Trad. cantis just don't work very well when the brakes are in motion relative to the cable stops.

I agree that it makes no sense to tell someone to replace their V's with cantis just for the sake of doing it.

But, to me the whole issue is kind of moot since I greatly prefer STI. That means cantis are the only logical choice unless I want the added complexity of travel agents (no thanks).

If I had a bike that had levers suited to V-brakes and wanted to continue to use them I would stick with V-brakes.

If I were building from scratch it would be STI and cantis for drop bars and V-brakes for flat or trekking bars. I personally would only choose the latter for offroad touring if even then though.

Agreed. When it comes to STI, you have to compromise. The bike industry has touring bike advancements low on the totem pole. I have not tried "travel Agents" with road levers so I can't comment on their performance.

I don't think a V-brake would even fit on the rear of my Sherpa. It would be in the way of the tubus rack.
And personally, I think they are one of the uglier braking designs.

I'm surprised that an obvious -- almost critical factor favoring cantis over V's has not already been mentioned. V brake pads are typically thinner, often offering 2 mm of effective braking. Cantis are often much thicker, needing replacement much less frequently. That makes sense. Mountain bikes, ridden off road, typically don't see the mileage associated with daily touring.

Further, brake technology has reached the point that the most robust brakes, mounted on all but the most robust frames, can induce frame member torsion. We're braking at the limits of what the frame can sustain.

Set the brakes up right (I like them to engage quickly, and prefer to keep my wheels true), keep braking surfaces clean and in most cases, junk the stock pads and you're good to go either way.

Personal preference, the simple elegance, easy set-up, long lasting pads and generous fender clearance of cantis.

Well that's interesting; mountain bike technologies have long embraced disc brakes over v-brakes for quite a few years now. As someone who uses disc brakes on my primary touring bike, I can say that all things being equal in terms of quality of components and appropriate setup, they outperform all the v-brakes and cantis I've used (though I still wouldn't recommend them based on cost versus performance ratio). I really like them though, excellent combination of modulation and power.

But I still believe you're mixing/confusing your brake science. Please read Sheldon's site on braking to explain this -"To increase the braking of a cantilever brake, you have to either increase the strength of cable pull or increase the lever arm of the brake itself." is just not correct without taking into account other variables such as cable pull length and how far the pads will move relative to the rim, assuming the brake lever moves a set distance.



Disc brakes actually go backward in design, sort of. Remember when I said above;

"To increase the braking of a cantilever brake, you have to either increase the strength of cable pull or increase the lever arm of the brake itself."

Well they couldn't increase the strength of the cable pull because of the limiting factor of brake pad travel, but on a disc brake that limit is gone or at least a lot less. Disk brakes have very close tolerances, the brake pads there move very little to achieve their stopping power. So your back to short cable travel with much increased strength.

Right now the best place to look for touring bike improvement is in the mountain bike technologies. FWIW, I don't own a mountain bike.

Sure with cantis the yoke angle changes when the arm rotates, causing leverage to decrease a bit. What you simply do is pull a bit harder on the lever and you're fine.
With V-brakes, the leverage actually increases a bit as the arm rotates, since the cable comes closer to a 90 degree angle to the arm. The result is a lesser modulation. You'll notice the rear wheel locks quite easily, hence perhaps the impression of "more power". Not a big deal, just saying there's always a trade-off when you change something.

Honestly I don't think "tree clearance" is important. Your bars, legs, head etc will get in the way before the canti brake arms. And actually cantis have equal tire clearance to v-brakes, and perhaps more, although you will need to move the yoke up.

Finally, V-brakes are not a modern invention. Like most things in cycling, they existed a long time ago. The pictures aren't great but Mike Barry mentions it here (http://bicyclespecialties.blogspot.com/2008/02/old-bike-old-gears.html).

Edit: I'll add too that as the pad of the canti hits the rim, it starts to become the pivot point, thus cancelling a bit the effect of the increased yoke angle.

There are cantis and cantis and they are not the same. If you want the maximum bite and firmness without having to pull too hard then Tektro have copied the old Mavic cyclo-cross cantis and brought them up to date by including a "toe-in" adjustment and the ability to trim the centring. Tektro CR520 will work well with road levers even although this remains a compromise.

Ah, in real life, the differences between different kinds bicycle brakes isn't an issue. I've heard all kinds of crazy reasons why one kind of brake is better than another and they are pretty much moot in any real world application. It's all completely goofy bike shop talk.

Then I again, I happen to love goofy bike shop talk....so carry on.

Goofy or not I switched my front canti to a V brake with a travel agent, easy and fast to do. Bottom line it stops much better. I was originally a little concerned with the travel agent due to the tight cable bend but after going across the country twice it looks and works fine.

Oh, I don't doubt you, teamcompi--- I've seen lots of good DIY brake upgrades. But I don't think it's the vbrakes and travel agent that upgraded you brakes...YOU upgraded your brakes. It's quite possible to get your bike brakes working better in a number of different ways. Good bike shop wrenches know a lot of them. You picked a real life solution that works for you. I have no doubt that the ablity to find non-tradtional solutions helps you on tour.

The bottom line is that after all the talk, all the theory, all the prejustice.....there's the part of actually getting down to working on the bike. At this point, it's all about what works. What you have done is simply found a solution that works for you on your bike. It is that easy.

As far a posting wide sweeping statements like, *Traditional canti's are better than newer design canti's (V's)*... that's just crazy bike shop talk. In real life, bikes are much more complex.

The common wisdom is that Vs work better than cantis overall, and I won't argue with that, however, I will say that the better cantilevers I've gotten, (not more expensive, just better,) work just as well as Vs.

Oddly enough, the best pair of cantilevers I've ever had is what I run on my LHT right now, and they were cheap as heck from Nashbar. They are super-stiff and look good. I know what people mean by "adjustment issues" with cantis, but it's honestly like anything else in cycling, once you've messed with it a few times you figure it out and it's easy.