cuda2k

I have a 1986 Schwinn Passage equipped with DiaCompe 981 cantilever brakes seen here:



The rear brake is suffering from inequal spring tension which is causing the pads to be inequally positioned from the rim. I have already discovered that modern V-brakes do not mount to the older style posts properly and am wondering if there are any Cantilever brakes out there that will work.

grolby

Yeah, those brakes suck. I had 'em on my old Miyata 210, had the same problem with v-brakes not mounting correctly. I was able to get a pair of cheap, smooth-post Tektros to work. I'm talking lower level than the Oryx, just very basic low-profile cantis. Your LBS will have something that works. Pretty much any cantis that use smooth posts can be made to work, too, so you can probably go for something nicer if you can find them. I would be very cautious about brakes that use v-brake pads, as you probably won't be able to get them in tight enough to the brake arms, even if you remove a bunch of washers. Even with smooth posties, the clearance can be pretty tight. Those old cantilever posts are a real drag, pretty much the only brakes that really mount perfectly on them are the Dia-Compe 981's, and those are just crappy brakes.

brokenrobot

Those cheap tektros mentioned above are also sold as Nashbar's house brand; last pair I bought I got for $5 for a bike's worth. Not the easiest to adjust or the best performing I've ever used - but the price is right!

cs1

How are the posts different? I was under the impression that canti's and V-brakes used the same mounting posts. Anyone have a pic?

Tim

Drakonchik

I have an 80s Schwinn Passage also, set up as cyclocross. I tried those 981s and they are complete crap, no matter the pads.

The problem with setting up cantis on the Passage is the single pin-hole on the brazon, it limits the range of spring tension you can set up. But the XT cantilever brakes have an internal adjustment that makes it possible to compensate.

A second problem with my Passage braze-ons was that the left rear braze-on was welded off-true. This made setting up the brakes a little trickier.

But the bottom line is that the XT cantis now work just great. Of course I also used Salmon Kools Stop Thin-Lines available from Harris cyclery.

cuda2k

Drakonchik,

Thanks for the info! I've got a set of KoolStop black Eagle2 pads on those 981's at the moment and they are ok stopping power, but the off-center rear issue is preventing me from running the pads close enough to the rim to get full power out of it. I'll keep my eye open for some older Shimano cantis and give them a try.

cuda2k

cs1, the biggest problem I found with trying to use V-brakes is that the distance between the bosses were much shorter than on mtbs that they were designed for. Thus I couldn't set up the brakes without hitting the rim far too soon.

grolby

The older canti posts, at least on bikes that used Dia-Compe 981s, are mounted too close to the rim to use v-brakes. There's just not enough clearance before they hit the rim. Also, the posts are a bit short (I had to use the mounting bolts that came with the 981s, new bolts with the new brakes were too long) and they only have one pinhole instead of three to adjust spring tension. Not so good, considering that there's no adjustment for spring tension on the 981s.

cuda2k

Which is what has brought me to this exact point of "well damn" I am at now.

So what I'm getting from this is that most Cantilevers should work pretty well, and to double look for some that have some sort of internal spring adjustment to counter wierd brazing offsets and the like. I think I can live with that. After returning from Hotter 'n Hell this weekend, let the ebay browsing begin!

Grand Bois

I suggest Suntour XC with the Scott Pedersen Design self-enegizing rear brake. They're awesome brakes and very adjustable. Ignore what Jobst Brandt has to say about them. He's wrong.

https://community.webshots.com/photo/...68014369psuMax
https://community.webshots.com/photo/...68014369lJIVOx

Drakonchik

Here're my Shimano XT canti BR-M732 brakes, which work great on my Passage. The internal spring adjustment increases spring tension, making up for the spring pin holes absent on the braze-on. Without that extra tension you either have not enough push-back and therefore the pads rub on the rims, or alternatively you back off the pads to stop the rub and then your brake levers bottom out on your handlebars. I tried othere cantis, incl. low-profile and the wider ones, none were satisfactory.

I think I read that only XT and XTR cantis have the internal adjustment. But don't quote me, I did this thing three years ago.

BTW I also tried Avid Single-Digit v-brakes with cable accelerator but a huge pain in the @ss and results only "so-so."

Anyway, the XT cantis as set up here work great, my Shimano Sora brake levers still have 1-2cm of space without bottoming out.

BColeKid

Hey - You might have gotten rid of this Passage a long time ago but was this your final canti decision? I am looking for a replacement for the Passage Dia Compes as well. Thanks,
Brian

fietsbob

9 years ago I Hope so

cantilever post to axle distance is pretty standard take a Pick or have a shop do the work if you are not so mechanical


even a V brake conversion can be attempted .

ChEMizzou79

I'm in the same boat - '87 Schwinn Passage that I'm trying to rejuvenate. I don't like having to depend on the nearly 30 yr. old exposed springs on the cantis, so before I buy any other replacement parts I want to see if I can replace the brakes. I've been looking online at Shimano CX70 cantilevers, but would likely have to replace the pads because they seem to extend too far out from the brake's pad arm. Were you able to find anything? Thanks. Ralph

hyakuyen

Hey Ralph, I think you'll find that brake post spacing on your front fork (probably around 65mm) will be too narrow for the CX70, but probably would be okay on the back (~80mm). Most, if not all, modern model cantis and Vs need greater distance between rim and brake ie. more widely spaced brake posts than is on your front. I've tried a lot of different models and found that old LX cantis work best, and I'd recommend the M560 or M565 with Koolstop salmon pads. Old STX cantis are also good, but the M560s will work best with the narrow spacing.

ChEMizzou79

Thanks for your input. The canti boss spacing is 60mm on the forks, and 65mm on the seat stays. I bought a single set of Shimano CX50 brakes (cheaper version of CX70) to try out. The spring retention pin is not long enough to reach into the boss pinhole sufficiently to be reliable. The rest of the brake seems to work fine. If I use the thinnest pad spacer that came with the brakes (3 different pairs of spacers of different widths) I have sufficient spacing between pads to accommodate my 27x1-1/4 in. tire (remember - '87 bike). But the pin is barely inside the boss hole, and I'm not confident it will stay there. I'm looking now at Velo Orange Grand Cru Mk3 cantilever brakes, which have an external spring coil.

bikemig 

Finding canti brakes to work on an old bike where the spacing is narrower is a real problem. I have a 1983 Trek 720 that I've put off rebuilding in part because I don't really want to deal with finding canti brakes that will work.

ChEMizzou79

Well my solution to the old canti's was to make new springs myself. The existing springs were made of 0.065" wire, so I bought some spring temper wire on Amazon and "wound my own". Seems to have worked out pretty well.

cs1

How about some pictures. Since I posted originally, years ago, I have a set of 980 cantilevers with the craziest looking springs I've ever seen.

ChEMizzou79

I'll try to explain each of the photos. First, it's important to use the existing springs as guides for making the new ones. I measured the wire diameter to be 0.065", and ordered 60 in. of 0.065", spring temper, precision tolerance, ASTM A313 stainless steel wire through Amazon. There were several types of wire available at a wide price range. The wire I bought was about $24. I used about 8 in. for each spring, then trimmed any excess.

IMPORTANT - Use gloves and safety glasses when bending the wire. It can spring back and cause injury if you're not careful.

NOTE: Click on a thumbnail image to open a larger view and see the filename in the lower right corner, which is what I use below to identify the picture.

Pic: Original-1 - Picture of the original 2 springs for either front or rear brakes. The springs are mirror images of each other, since each sits on opposite sides of the tire. The ends pointing toward each other fit into the pinholes on the cantilever bosses. My bike ('87 Schwinn Passage) only has one pinhole vs. 3 on current bikes.

Pic: Original-2 - Another view. The portion after the coiled section wraps around the post holding the brake pad to the caliper (see Pic New Spring-1).

Pic: New Coil - Picture of the new wire after coiling and before bending the portion that wraps around the caliper post. First step is to bend the portion that will fit in the pinhole on the boss. I did this in a bench vise, bending the wire by hand and then tapping with a claw hammer to get a good right-angle bend, or even a slightly acute angle bend.

Pic: Winding Coil-1 - You have to find something to use as a mandrel to wrap the wire around. I used a drill bit smaller than the diameter of the brake boss. The coils will expand slightly after you wrap the wire around the mandrel, which is why I used a smaller diameter bit/mandrel than the boss diameter. I also used a vice-grip to hold the wire against the mandrel. The bent portion that is going into the boss pinhole can sit in a "valley" of the vice-grip's teeth, and stays in place as you wrap the wire.

Pic: Winding Coil-2 - Closer view. Be sure to examine the original spring in order to know whether you need to wrap the wire clockwise or counter-clockwise around the mandrel. For this spring, I was wrapping counter-clockwise when looking down from above. Also, how many coil loops to make.

Pic: Winding Coil-3 - You also have to examine the original coil to understand where to stop winding the coil. In this photo, the pinhole end that's anchored by the vice-grips to the mandrel is located at the 6 o-clock position, and based on the original coil I made 2 complete loops and stopped at about the 2 o-clock position on the 3rd loop. Again, I'm winding counter-clockwise. Also, depending on whether your original springs are too loose or too tight, adjust where you stop winding.

Pic: New Spring-1 - The spring is mounted into the canti boss pinhole, and the coil wraps around the boss. The other end extends up straight and contacts the groove made by the caliper body and the nut holding the pad mounting post. I then wrapped the wire around the groove so that it will stay in place when I tightened the nut. The remainder of the wire is then simply bent to mimic the original and prevent the end from grabbing onto something.

Pic: New Spring-2 - Photo looking straight down, showing the end that fits in the canti boss pinhole. The brake transverse cable has been removed for photographic clarity, which also opens the brake pad wider than it is with the transverse cable installed.

I haven't ridden the bike yet (upgrading other parts), but I was able to adjust the brake pads so they're close to the rims and will grip solidly with reasonable lever pull. I hope this helps, and will be glad to answer any questions if I can.