Used Mtn Bike

Mark said:

I just seen a older Mtn bike (no noticable brand name) at a local 2nd
store. The bike is in relatively good shape, tires have no cracks (rear
rim needs trueing), hold air, the gears, brakes work, but need some
minor adjusting. Another point is the bike is extremely light (no
suspension at all!!) for a mtn bike

All in all it is not too bad, I figure with an hour or so of work, the
bike can tuned up and ready to be rode.

The bike is equipped with Shimanno Deore shifters and derailleurs, what
is the quality on this components. I am not too worried about them as I
can replace if needed. If I decide to replace these components, what
would be a suitable replacement considering cost vs performance and
reliability without breaking the pocketbook.

Thanks,
Mark

Deore is mid-level, which is pretty good since even Shimano's
low-level is pretty good. When buying replacement parts, Deore is a
nice choice for that cost/peerformance level. Anything 'higher' in
Shimano's hierarchy is primarily less weight; improvements in function
are minor for the extra money. Lower levels will also work fine, and
sometimes a 'lower' part has desirable qualities that Shimano has
dropped from 'higher' parts.

Starting at the top, Shimano's hierarchy of MTB parts-

http://bike.shimano.com/mtb/index.asp

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good policy with a large hunk of
Shimano's parts.

Dan Daniel said:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:31:57 GMT, Mark <[email hidden]> wrote:

Deore is mid-level, which is pretty good since even Shimano's
low-level is pretty good. When buying replacement parts, Deore is a
nice choice for that cost/peerformance level. Anything 'higher' in
Shimano's hierarchy is primarily less weight; improvements in function
are minor for the extra money. Lower levels will also work fine, and
sometimes a 'lower' part has desirable qualities that Shimano has
dropped from 'higher' parts.

Starting at the top, Shimano's hierarchy of MTB parts-

http://bike.shimano.com/mtb/index.asp

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, is a good policy with a large hunk of
Shimano's parts.

One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
before. My concerns would be keeping the brake components free of
debris, water etc. Also there are no mounting points on the rear top
stay to move the brakes to even if I wanted to.

Anyone have any comments on these bottom mounted brake setups.

Thanks
Mark

Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:46:27 GMT, <DV_ad.728789$gE.717782@pd7tw3no>, Mark

Quoted message said:

One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
before. My concerns would be keeping the brake components free of
debris, water etc. Also there are no mounting points on the rear top
stay to move the brakes to even if I wanted to.

It sounds like a U-Brake.
Sheldon Brown says:

"A form of cantilever brake that works like a centerpull caliper. The
"L"-shaped arms cross over above the tire, so the left brake shoe is
operated by the right side of the transverse cable. A U-brake uses
studs that are above the rim, rather than below the it, as with
conventional cantilevers. They use the same type and placement of
studs as rollercam brakes do.

In 1986-88 there was a fad for equipping mountain bikes with U-brakes
mounted underneath the chain stays. This provided a nice clean look to
the seat stay area of the bicycle, and provided a somewhat simpler
cable routing. In addition, since the chain stays are larger and more
rigid than typical seat stays, the "problem" of flexing of the studs
under load was reduced. Conventional cantileves cannot be mounted on
the chainstays, because the cantilevers would get in the way of the
cranks.

Although U-brakes were cool looking and powerful, the fad died quite
abruptly when people actually started using the bikes that were sold
with chainstay- mounted U-brakes. They had several serious drawbacks:

The inaccessible location made it very difficult to service or adjust
the brakes.
They complicated the process of wheel removal.
They tended to get clogged with mud.
Due to the high-mounted studs, if you didn't monitor the brake shoe
wear carefully, as they would wear, they would hit higher and higher
on the rim. Eventually, they would overshoot the rim and start rubbing
on the tire sidewall. This is one of the fastest known ways to destroy
a tire.

In recent years U-brakes have been making a bit of a comeback on
freestyle bikes."
--
zk

Zoot Katz said:

Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:46:27 GMT, <DV_ad.728789$gE.717782@pd7tw3no>, Mark

Quoted message said:

One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
before. My concerns would be keeping the brake components free of
debris, water etc. Also there are no mounting points on the rear top
stay to move the brakes to even if I wanted to.

It sounds like a U-Brake.
Sheldon Brown says:

Thanks for the info, it is appreciated.

Mark

"Mark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news😄V_ad.728789$gE.717782@pd7tw3no...

Quoted message said:

One thing I forgot to mention in my original post. The back brake is
mounted down at the bottom bracket. I have not seen this type of setup
before.

The bike is from the 80s. Still might be a fun bike. The U-brakes
worked fine, even if they were in a silly location. I'll guess the bike
has a 6-speed rear end. Freewheel instead of cassette? Cassettes
are much better, but freewheels were OK too.

BTW, my Deore equipped 80s fully rigid bike weighed about as much
as the full-suspension bike I bought many years later (80s bike lasted
longer though), and more than either of the front-suspension equipped
hardtails I've had.