Re: [CR] Were Campy brakes so superior?


Example: Framebuilders:Chris Pauley
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 08:51:19 -0800
From: "Kurt Sperry" <haxixe@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Were Campy brakes so superior?
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <47AB2B2C.6030906@uoregon.edu>
References: <47AB2B2C.6030906@uoregon.edu>


The eccentric cam QR, the flats in the center bolt to center with a cone wrench and the tire guides were all useful and unique innovations at the time Campy SPs were introduced if I remember correctly. Beborex, CLB and LAM made some brakes nearly as pretty as Campys in the '50s but by the dawn of the bike boom all else I remember as available were frankly pretty cheesy looking compared to the Campy brakes.

As for stopping you, yeah those cheesy looking and inexpensive brakes seemed to work just fine to me once set up properly.

Kurt Sperry Bellingham WA USA

On Feb 7, 2008 8:00 AM, Jack Fortune <jfortune@uoregon.edu> wrote:
> > In his top 5 component list, Dan Artley mentioned:
> >
> > "...Campy sidepull brakes as revolutionizing good braking and control.
> > A brake that unlike the Mafacs didn't need dedicated pivot posts on the
> > frame.
>
> While many Rene Herse and Alex Singer bicycles featured brazed-on mounting posts
> for Mafacs, I wasn't aware that many of the racing makers used these. They
> certainly aren't required - I have two vintage bicycles with Mafac brakes and
> both of them use a standard center-bold mount.
>
> Furthermore, I find the vintage mafac brakes to function extremely well - Jan,
> you want to chime in here? - I'm dubious that the Campagnolo brakes offered any
> improvement in braking performance, surely nothing "revolutionary". Of course,
> the Campy brakes can hardly be matched for aesthetic appeal.
>
> regards,
>
> Jack Fortune
> Eugene, Oregon USA