Hi Sheldon,
Great to see you here! Hope I wasn't too tough on your stuff, but I
tend to just call things how I see them.
Your elaborations here of what you had on your website are quite
valid, of course; it's just that maybe some of those elaborations
could perhaps make it onto the web page. I only read the pertinent
section on brake extensions, though, so it's just possible there was
some context I missed that may have put a slightly different spin on it.
Some more comments below.
Sheldon Brown said:Hey, did somebody mention my name?
David Trudgett said:I don't think "suicide levers" is a fair way to describe well-made
brake extensions. Poorly made, lots of things could be a recipe for
suicide on a bicycle.
I agree, and I have never made a habit of using that term, but it is in
my Bicycle Glossary because others use it.
Sure, I guess so, but the way you had it made it sound like you were
endorsing those terms as accurate/reasonable descriptions of brake
extensions (when, in fact, they would only be accurate for some, or
even the most common type in North America).
Quoted message said:
"Well made" extension levers do exist (though no longer in production.)
However, they're very uncommon, at least in the U.S. Might be
different in Oz. Up north, the crummy Dia-Compe units originally
designed as an add-on to Weinmann brake levers were ubiquitous in the
late '70s and early '80s.
I've no idea how common they are in Oz (ones that are "well made",
that is). As you say, I doubt that they are still in production.
Also, the ones I have at least don't appear to be "add-ons" (in the
sense of after-market).
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
I have a 70s vintage bicycle that I ride all the time (read: on a
daily basis nearly) and it has reasonable quality brake extensions on
it (reasonable compared to the quality of the rest of it!).
I should stress that the quality of these things is "reasonable". I
don't think I'd get someone to trade campag stuff for them... ;-) They
do the job! Also, I don't have any reason to believe that the ones I
have are *terribly* unusual from typical fare here in Australia in the
70's and 80's, but they could be, I'm no expert on the subject. It's
entirely possible that other designs are death traps. The thing is,
though, that your page seemed to be making a pretty universal claim,
which didn't seem to be warranted in my experience. On the plus side,
you did mention particular brand names, which is good! It just seemed
that you were extrapolating from those to all others.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
Looking at Sheldon's gripes, this is how the situation pans out with
this particular bike (plus some more general comments):
1. The extension lever partially applied the main brake lever,
reducing the available lever travel.
Rubbish! I don't want lots of travel, just the opposite. If your
levers are traveling the full possible distance, then they are way
out of adjustment and dangerous. Don't forget that we are talking a
reduced travel distance of about 2 or 3 mm. This point of Sheldon's
is just irrational, full stop.
Actually the reduced travel is probably twice that at least. These
Perhaps on the ones you have experience with. Certainly on mine (I
just looked), the distance is no more than 3mm. This shows, of course,
that we are definitely talking apples and oranges here with regards to
experience. I've seen a few of those extensions over the years (mostly
in the 80's), and (given memory is imperfect) I certainly don't recall
any with reduced travel of 6 mm or more. That would be quite
noticeable.
In any case, on my particular bike (which I don't think is a K-Mart
special, but probably more like what you would have found on the cheap
end in a bike shop) the braking action is not adversely affected at
all. Maximum braking pressure under any conditions comes way before
there is any risk of coming up against the bars.
But let's be clear that I'm not saying my experience is universal
either, but merely that just on statistical principles, it's likely to
be *average* for the era we're talking about.
Quoted message said:levers were most often used on bikes with centerpull calipers, which
require a fair amount of cable travel. When adjusted to clear less
than perfectly true wheels, it was not unusual for the lever to bottom
out against the handlebar. Once the lever hits the handlebar, it
doesn't matter how much harder you squeeze it.
Given the typical level of maintenance these bikes received, coupled
with the (yuck!) steel rims,
:-) yeah.
Quoted message said:the result was very often brakes that
barely worked dry, and became utterly useless in the wet.
Quite. Mine are pretty much like that, which is why I'm extremely
cautious if I occasionally have to ride (short distances) in those
conditions. The old steel rims are definitely death traps in wet
weather, brake extensions or not! :-)
Quoted message said:
There is actually a fix for this even with the Dia Compes. You see it
sometimes on early 80s bikes, made toward the end of the popularity of
these add-on levers. The trick is to cut a notch in the lower front
edge of the lever body, allowing the tab of the extension lever to fit
into the recess, and thus allowing the main lever to retract fully when
released, as it was originally designed to.
Good to know if I ever encounter one in the wild! Obviously, though,
you're talking about something I've never ever seen! :-) Possibly they
didn't make it to Oz, but I'm not the one to ask about that. Has
anyone else here in Oz seen this type of setup?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
2. The attachment hardware precluded the use of the top of the brake
lever hood as a comfortable riding position.
I use this position most of the time, and it's perfectly
comfortable. I do use riding gloves, of course, which makes it even
more comfortable. Perhaps Sheldon is talking about really badly
designed extensions? Who knows?
Yes, Dia-Compe and the like. The Shimano units were much better, and
permitted installation of rubber hoods on the levers.
Mine are probably not as good as I imagine Shimano would be, I
think. As I say, they do the job, and that's all.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:3. They encouraged the practice of riding with the hands on the top,
middle section of the bar, which is a position that doesn't give
very secure control, especially on bumpy surfaces, because the
hands are too close together.
This is really a silly thing to say, too. If it were true, then why
don't *I* ride with my hands perched on the top all the time?
All generalisations are false.
Indeed! ;-)
Quoted message said:
These levers were _most_often_ used as a palliative for casual cyclists
OK, OK, I give up! :-) You're probably right about that. You should
mention it on the site, though. Perhaps there were a class of cyclists
who used to overly depend on the extensions. I don't know, however, if the
extensions can be blamed for that, _per_se_. About the only thing *I*
would say about it is that the extensions didn't *discourage* the
practice. The real problem here is not the extensions, I think you'll
agree, but the fact that for these cyclists, drop bars were not the
way to go.
Quoted message said:who really didn't belong on drop handlebars, at least not without a
tall handlebar stem.
Occasional, casual cyclists are not usually comfortable in an
aggressive, forward leaning posture. Back in the '70s Bike Boom, a
great many neophytes bought drop bar 10 speeds because they were a hot
fashion accessory, but these bikes don't fit the riding style of
occasional, low-intensity cyclists.
True, but part of it would have been that they just didn't have much
of a clue. Resting on the hoods can be just as comfortable if the bike
is the right fit (*I* find it that way anyway, and, as you know, I'm
not a racer by any stretch of the imagination -- I'm not the sort of
casual cyclist you're talking about either, though... averaging 36
km/hr over 5 km to the train station when I'm in a hurry, including a
half decent hill climb and a set of traffic lights! :-) Who could beat
that??? I ask you. [That's good for a couple dozen follow ups, at
least...]).
Quoted message said:
It is not uncommon for such cyclists to _never_ ride in the drops.
That is a sure sign that something is wrong with the fit.
Possibly. I know a guy who rides into work every day who never uses
the drops. So much so that one day he cut off the drops and turned the
bars up for a more mountain-bikey sort of grip. Go figure! I suppose
it works for him, but I like to be a bit more streamlined when I'm
doing a bit of speed (like downhill! ;-)).
Quoted message said:
Many of these people would have been better served by a Raleigh three
speed, back in the day, but that wasn't trendy enough. Most of these
folks either gave up cycling altogether, or bought mountain bikes in
the late '80s because they were so uncomfortable on their Bike Boom 10
speeds.
Quoted message said:Answer: I'm not an idiot, but Sheldon is apparently assuming that
bicycle riders with brake extensions are idiots.
No, not idiots,
OK, I was being a bit harsh there. But you see the impression that
your comments gave?
Quoted message said:but not hard-core cyclists either. The target customer
for these was the occasional weekend bike rider. That's not to say
that _everybody_ who uses or likes them falls into that category, but
like many stereotypes it has a grain of truth.
Certainly there is some truth in that, regarding the occasional
weekend rider. I obviously didn't see where you were referring to that
bit of history and subculture, if it's there somewhere.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Extensions do not
*encourage* overuse of the tops, but do make it *possible*
to use the tops safely in more situations. This is the point of
them. An idiot will use the tops, brakes or no brakes.
If the handlebars are properly adjusted, the rider will use a range of
positions according to prevailing conditions.
Not if they're of the type we were just discussing. This sort of
person (I'm thinking of one or two now) is rather timid and would
stick to a top grip. They would also avoid the top of the hoods
because of lack of strength and fear of not being able to brake. We
get back to what we were talking about above.
Quoted message said:When you see someone
who _always_ rides on the tops, it's evident that that person's bike is
not propperly fitted/equpped for his/her riding style.
Such a person probably needs a mountain bike style setup.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:What Sheldon is really implying is that people can't be trusted to
make wise use of convenience and safety features,
I am?
Sure you are! ;-) Didn't you know?? :-)
Seriously, though, I was only going by what I read. If you were
talking about a particular stereotype of rider in a particular time
period, then obviously my conclusion is invalid. The fault consists in
my interpreting your comments to be pertinent to present-day users of
such equipment (an idea that I jumped to as a result of someone's
referring to your page is if it had anything to do with the present
day).
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:noting that
convenience is directly related to safety when it comes to braking
(and gear changing, too, for that matter). He is also ignoring one
of the big benefits of drop bars: the variety of hand positions
possible on them, which is important in reducing fatigue.
Au contraire, it's the folks who ride all the time on the tops who are
ignoring that benefit, usually because their bikes are not properly
fitted.
No argument there, except that I think it was a matter of psychology as
much as "fitting".
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:What he
is in fact saying, is "Don't use the tops because there are no
brake levers there," which is a silly thing to say, when there
*can* be levers there, and they *can* be safe.
That would be a silly thing to say, if I actually said it. You're
putting words into my mouth.
Certainly am, good chap! Sorry about that! :-) It follows as a result
of previous misunderstanding, however.
Quoted message said:
I would say that the top-centre position should not be used more than,
say, 30% of riding time, and should generally be avoided on bumpy
surfaces.
Good advice! I also use the drop position, particularly going downhill,
because it seems to give even greater control (in addition to less drag).
Quoted message said:
Modern "aero" brake levers make the top-of-the-hoods position the main
cruising position for most riders. A little-known advantage of modern
"aero" levers is that, due to a different location of the pivot point,
they permit you to actually _stop_ from the hood position.
I certainly didn't know about that one. Although I have enough
strength to stop quite quickly from the top of the hoods hand position
(on my decidedly non-modern levers), it's not all that easy.
Quoted message said:This was
generally not possible with the old-style levers with exposed cables,
except for lightweight riders with very strong hands.
That must be me. Is 64kg light? Don't know about the strong hands,
though... just average.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
4. The hardware that held the extension levers to the main levers
was prone to fall off.
El cheapo brakes could be dangerous, period. Nothing surprising
about that. It's interesting to note, though, that the brakes on my
70s bike have never failed or fallen apart, even though they *are*
el cheapo-ish.
I guess that's proof. If yours never fell off, nobodys' could ever
have fallen off. ;-)
Oh, yes! ;-)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Sheldon doesn't directly address the issue of power. With the
extensions, it is possible to apply maximum dry-weather braking power
more easily than from the top lever position.
That was true for the old-style levers with exposed cables, but is not
true for modern "aero" levers. See above.
Interesting. How modern is modern, by the way? Just in case I'm in the
market for a second hand bike.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:In that regard, the
extensions are safer than the levers (even from the drop
position). It's true that there is less steering control from the
tops, but in emergency braking, one must generally stop in a straight
line anyhow. The main point is, however, that if one is *going* to use
the tops (i.e., take full advantage of the bars) at all, then one
should be able to brake from that position, too.
There are recently introduced "interrupter levers" a.k.a. "cyclocross
levers" that give you the best of both.
http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/brake-levers-drop.html#cross
Yes, interesting. I can't see how they work, though! Perhaps I'm not a
mechanical genius! :-) (Definitely not!)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:In wet weather, with steel rims, things can get interesting.
Indeed!
Quoted message said:Obviously, extreme caution is required (not to mention avoidance of
riding in these conditions where possible
It never rains in Australia, does it? ;-)
Only in the parts that don't need it so much... ;-)
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:-- I like my V brakes on
aluminium rims, too! ;-)). In this situation, I more often use the
drops, because I can squeeze the proverbial out of the caliper brakes
if necessary, which can't quite be matched on the extensions (and
certainly not from the weak top lever position).
Try some of the modern brake levers, you'll be amazed how well they
work from the hoods.
No doubt I will, one day! But I wouldn't put them on my junk heap for
two reasons: (1) they'd cost me more than the bike did; and (2) I only
ride the junk heap so I can leave it in high risk possies, and not
even bother locking it a lot of the time (it's better than it looks,
though, which is the secret! ;-)).
Occasionally, I commute 30km each way (used to do it two or three days
a week, but I've been too lazy lately). I use my MTB with slicks for
that. Slow, but comfy: font suspension and thicker, more shock
absorbent tyres. (When I say slow, it is, however, still a smidgen
faster than the train!) Sometimes I wonder how a decent road bike would
compare. I imagine that the ride would be a lot harder, but obviously
speed wise would be like chalk and cheese. Unfortunately, even if I
wanted to spend the money, expensive bikes don't make practical
commuters without secure parking.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:It is my belief that road racing cyclists who use the tops without
braking available there are putting themselves and others in an
unnecessarily dangerous position, and I posit that more accidents
would be caused by that practice than from the use of extensions
(uncool and unhip as they may be).
Racing cyclists generally use the top-middle position primarily as a
"time trial" position, in conditions that don't commonly require sudden
braking. It is also used for climbing, another situation where
instant access to the brakes is not such a major concern.
Quoted message said:
Note also that I use bicycles for transportation, not sport.
Me too!
Right on! (I think that's American! ;-))
Quoted message said:
Sheldon "Purveyor Of Silly Irrational Rubbish" Brown
See, I was right about that "irrational" crack! ;-) I just think the
bit I read needs to be clearer, given your explanations here. A couple
of little qualifications here and there? :-)
By the way, I read your (front brake) braking advice quite some time
ago, and found it interesting. You're still around, so it can't be too
bad! ;-) For me, I'm always happier applying both brakes in every
stop, but in emergency stops most (nearly all?) of the pressure goes
on the front brake. I naturally squeeze the front brake harder the
faster I need to stop. It also seems to be the case that I can get the
back wheel of the 70s 10 speed lifting off the ground a fair bit
easier than on the MTB (a recent model).
Happy cycling!
David
P.S. I liked your home-made kiddy tandems! I wish I had that sort of
mechanical ability!
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Either we have hope within us or we don't, it is a dimension of
the soul, and it's not essentially dependent on some particular
observation of the world or estimate of the situation... Hope,
in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things
are going well or willingness to invest in enterprises that are
obviously headed for early success, but rather, an ability to work
for something because it is good, not just because it stands a
chance to succeed... Hope is definitely not the same thing as
optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out
well, but the certainty that something makes sense no matter
how it turns out.
-- Vaclav Havel
