Chainstay cable housing guide too small--??
10-01-06, 03:56 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Chainstay cable housing guide too small--??
The cable housing guide on my chainstay (the one that holds the housing leading to the RD) is so small that it won't even take the bare cable housing (forget about using a ferrule). I tried peeling off the rubber coating on the housing and sticking it in the guide but that makes a big mess of the housing. Is there some sort of secret to this? How do I get it to look clean? Righ now I have the ferrule just butting up against the outside of the guide and it looks, well, less than good.
10-01-06, 04:26 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656
Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times
in
741 Posts
Are you sure you are using derailleur housing (4 mm diameter) and not brake housing (5 mm diameter)?
10-02-06, 06:39 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 4,454
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
ISeeDeadHuffies is correct. I've got a late-80's Centurion Ironman Expert that has this sort of cable stop. I had a stepdown ferrule sitting around and got the old (normal-width) cable-housing ferrule off by heating it up with a lighter so that the plastic underneath got soft, and I put the stepdown ferrule in its place the same way.
__________________
"c" is not a unit that measures tire width
"c" is not a unit that measures tire width
Last edited by TallRider; 11-21-08 at 10:42 AM.
10-02-06, 06:58 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 33,656
Bikes: '96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '20 Surly Midnight Special, All are 3x10. It is hilly around here!
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2026 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,095 Times
in
741 Posts
I'm surprised that frames from that period won't take normal 4 mm derailleur housing. In my immediate circle I've got an '85 and '86 Bridgestone, and an '83 and '85 and '88 Trek and they all accept derailleur housing with no problems and no need for step-down ferrules.
10-02-06, 07:39 AM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 685
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for the responses. It's not that old. It's from 1995. Never heard of a step-down ferrule but it sounds like that might be the ticket. In fact, once I had the term "step down ferrule" I did a search and found this thread, where it looks like the guy has the exact same issue and this was the answer. Thanks again.
https://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in...p/t-84926.html
https://www.bikeforums.net/archive/in...p/t-84926.html
10-02-06, 05:16 PM
#7
bike rider
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 288
Bikes: 83 Trek 500, 2x 90s Novara Randonee, Zion 737, Specialized Rockhopper, Nishiki Colorado, Univega Specialissima
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HillRider
I'm surprised that frames from that period won't take normal 4 mm derailleur housing. In my immediate circle I've got an '85 and '86 Bridgestone, and an '83 and '85 and '88 Trek and they all accept derailleur housing with no problems and no need for step-down ferrules.
