Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Trek brake cable design

Started by Bill X · · Last activity · 7 posts · 422 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
19 September 2004
Last activity
19 September 2004
Original author
Bill X
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
422
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the brake
    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons) where
    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking when they made this design??? I own an 97
    Aluminum Trek that's seen 10 times the miles and abuse and its original
    brake cable is still intact. Only difference is brake housing on older bike
    is continuous preventing metal contact with the frame. Is this a game of
    shaving grams off a bike's weight or built in obsolecence?

  2. Meant to write "own an 87 Trek"... not 97

    "Bill X" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the


    brake

    Quoted message said:

    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons)


    where

    Quoted message said:

    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking when they made this design??? I own an 97
    Aluminum Trek that's seen 10 times the miles and abuse and its original
    brake cable is still intact. Only difference is brake housing on older


    bike

    Quoted message said:

    is continuous preventing metal contact with the frame. Is this a game of
    shaving grams off a bike's weight or built in obsolecence?

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Bill X said:

    Meant to write "own an 87 Trek"... not 97

    "Bill X" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the


    brake

    Quoted message said:

    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons)


    where

    Quoted message said:

    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking when they made this design??? I own an 97
    Aluminum Trek that's seen 10 times the miles and abuse and its original
    brake cable is still intact. Only difference is brake housing on older


    bike

    Quoted message said:

    is continuous preventing metal contact with the frame. Is this a game of
    shaving grams off a bike's weight or built in obsolecence?

    Without attempting to answer the rhetorical questions directed at Trek,
    I would direct your attention to the existence of plastic ferrules.
    Those may solve your problem.

    But as long as the bike's paint holds up, this shouldn't be an issue.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
    Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

  4. On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:31:54 -0400, "Bill X" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the brake
    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons) where
    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking when they made this design??? I own an 97
    Aluminum Trek that's seen 10 times the miles and abuse and its original
    brake cable is still intact. Only difference is brake housing on older bike
    is continuous preventing metal contact with the frame. Is this a game of
    shaving grams off a bike's weight or built in obsolecence?

    I like the brake cable housing stops under the top tube of my 2300.
    Sure, it saves a few grams of housing compared to full length housing,
    but the part I like is that I can slip the housing out of the stops
    (they're slotted) and lube the cable or pack the bike for shipping.
    With that much slack I can avoid unfastening the rear brake cable to
    package the bars.

    I've also noticed the metal ferrules getting stuck in the stops. I
    just leave them off. When I'm feeling anal I file or grind the housing
    ends flat.

  5. Perhaps this is done because nearly eveyone else does it this way, too.
    Well, perhaps they put the cables on top rahter than under the tube,
    but still...

    Put some grease on the the ferrules, or leave the off completely.

    Bill X said:

    I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the brake
    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons) where
    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking when they made this design??? I own an 97
    Aluminum Trek that's seen 10 times the miles and abuse and its original
    brake cable is still intact. Only difference is brake housing on older bike
    is continuous preventing metal contact with the frame. Is this a game of
    shaving grams off a bike's weight or built in obsolecence?

  6. ibrunning-<< I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the brake
    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons) where
    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking >><BR><BR>

    Better brake action, less friction. A bit of maintenance and good ferrules,
    greased lightly as they are installed would prevent any problems.

    Peter Chisholm
    Vecchio's Bicicletteria
    1833 Pearl St.
    Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535
    http://www.vecchios.com
    "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

  7. Bill X said:

    I bought a Trek 2300 road bike last year and had to take it in for
    maintenance because the rear brake cable had totally corroded and the brake
    housing was frozen to the aluminum frame. Trek designed the cable to run
    under the top tube without housing so there are two points (braze ons) where
    the metal ferrals of the housing come in direct contact with the aluminum
    frame. What was Trek thinking when they made this design??? I own an 97
    Aluminum Trek that's seen 10 times the miles and abuse and its original
    brake cable is still intact. Only difference is brake housing on older bike
    is continuous preventing metal contact with the frame. Is this a game of
    shaving grams off a bike's weight or built in obsolecence?

    Grease, ideally anti-seize, is your friend. This is the best way to run
    cable because top tubes are rather less compressible than an extra 2' of
    cable housing. If the stops are designed for ferrules (some old ones
    aren't), you should use them.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.