# Vintage Parts Mods



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

Was looking at nighhtshade_rider's Trailmaster again, and the "Suntour VX derailleur modified for use on oversize seattube" got me thinking....

I'm guessing there were lots of cool mods that preceded the "off the shelf" stuff we can get today...were there any other "common" mods from back in the day?

I think I have an XTR front derailleur that has a custom clamp for a Manitou somewhere in my pile of stuff...


What do you guys have/remember that you can share?



Steve


----------



## zygote2k (Jun 5, 2011)

I know that we used to drill out presta rims to fit schraders all the time back in the day because presta rims were cheaper.
That's the only mod I ever remember.


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

Acquired a rear Hope GT floating brake and Big Un off a Gt Lobo.










Used some of the parts to make a floating brake for a San Andreas w. modular front mount to experiment with pivot location.










Which eventually morphed into this.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Mafac cantilever brake arms didn't swing open wide enough to admit an inflated 2.125 tire. You could cut a half inch or so off the back end of the front pads, and you had to file a bevel into the aluminum holders for the rear brake blocks.

You will find that treatment on any of the original Ritchey MountainBikes.

Magura motorcycle brake levers did not connect naturally to Mafac bicycle brakes. The motorcycle cables are much thicker. With a small lead melting pot and some brass ends, I made a lot of brake cables.

The first thumbshifters only came in the right hand variety, so one would be used backwards on the left side, creating an asymmetric look.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

Repack Rider said:


> Mafac cantilever brake arms didn't swing open wide enough to admit an inflated 2.125 tire. You could cut a half inch or so off the back end of the front pads, and you had to file a bevel into the aluminum holders for the rear brake blocks.
> 
> You will find that treatment on any of the original Ritchey MountainBikes.
> 
> ...


That's what I'm talking about...cool stuff RR....Thanks for sharing.

Stdve


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)




----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

i drilled a hole in the bottom of the legs on my Manitou 1 forks so that they didnt go into hydraulic lockout....dang air would come out but wouldnt go back in and they would get stuck in the bottomed out position....I tapped my fork and added a loose fitting plastic screw that worked great and stopped debris from entering the tubes.


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

Balance tube between the air valves on Mags so the pressure in both legs remained the same.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

DFA said:


> Balance tube between the air valves on Mags so the pressure in both legs remained the same.


Sounds cool...pics?

Steve


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Not fair, Rumphy.

Everything on a Cunningham has been modified.

Couple more. Joe Breeze made an adapter block that let you use a 4-wire Brooks saddle with a Campy micro-adjusting seatpost. On Breezer #2 he made a shim to fit the motorcycle handlebars to the bicycle stem.

How about the old shingle on a Blackburn rack for a rear mudguard? BMX number plate zip tied under the down tube for a front mud deflector?

One night I watched Gary Fisher use an Xacto knife to shave down and re-shape the knobs on a Uniroyal Nobby tire. He gave the tread more bite, and he saved the trimmings to see how much weight he had taken off.


----------



## bikefat (Nov 13, 2013)

Love yer posts. I'm so new-school! Apparently...


----------



## -Anomie- (Jan 16, 2005)

I know Suntour made brake levers with "integrated" thumb shifters (IE bolted on), but I've never seen these anywhere else. Maybe CK can shed some light on them, although he's seen the bike they're on in person and I don't remember him knowing anything about their origins.


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Why did links appear in my post above? How can we get rid of them?


----------



## bikefat (Nov 13, 2013)

I don't see any links in your post, so you must mean the viglink crap. You can shut those off in your profile. 

http://forums.mtbr.com/profile.php?do=editprofile

Change "show inserted links" to "no". Folks set to "yes" will still see them, which is yet another reason I hate viglink on forums... so you'll also want to set to "no" the box for "allow inserted links in my posts".


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

Thanks for the tip on the links...proved to be a good mod


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

I get a "403 - Forbidden" error when I try to make that change to my profile.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DFA said:


> Balance tube between the air valves on Mags so the pressure in both legs remained the same.


what would be the purpose of that?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

Repack Rider said:


> Not fair, Rumphy.
> 
> Everything on a Cunningham has been modified.
> 
> ...


Would love to see that tire! Any pics? That's one tire that could have really used some more and sharper edges!


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> what would be the purpose of that?


It's an old moto trick from when air forks were de rigeur. The valves on the forks were connected with a single filler valve. It balanced the pressure out between the forks so you would have even pressure in both legs. Seen it done on Mags before. MBA featured it as a Mag hop-up at one point.

The infamous "tach 'n speedo" forks off a 76 Yamaha YZ. The canisters on the tops of the forks had a floating piston in them, and both the top and fork legs had separate valves (you can see the second balance tube to the forks in the pic). You ran low pressure in the forks and high(er) pressure in the top of the canisters, effectively giving you crude 2 stage damping.


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

MOMBAT: 1994 Crosstrac Sonoma


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Those crosstrac's were are cool bikes. The fork has me puzzled. Looks familiar. Brand?


DoubleCentury said:


> View attachment 849017
> 
> 
> MOMBAT: 1994 Crosstrac Sonoma


----------



## Shayne (Jan 14, 2004)

Crosstrac


----------



## syklystt (Mar 31, 2010)

I sure would love to have a crosstrac in my collection....never seen one...but they were way ahead of their time (them and FOES) in terms of suspension travel.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Doh!!!


Shayne said:


> Crosstrac


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

DoubleCentury said:


> View attachment 849017
> 
> 
> MOMBAT: 1994 Crosstrac Sonoma


Does brakepads are backwards or no...!?


----------



## IF52 (Jan 10, 2004)

Thinking back now I'm not sure what the point was, and I do recall seeing it around more than just in our shop or area. 

Anyway, prior to short cage versions being available we would swap short cages off broken Shimano road derailleurs onto XT rear derailleurs. 88 or so maybe? Why we didn't just run 105s or 600s on our mtn bikes is beyond me at this point, probably because we had the parts laying around and figure why not. And for cool factor or something since nobody else had short cage XT derailleurs at that time unless they did this trick.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

No, the brake is behind the fork, the pad is mounted backwards to the brake but its correct with the rotation of the wheel. I think I just confused myself


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

chefmiguel said:


> No, the brake is behind the fork, the pad is mounted backwards to the brake but its correct with the rotation of the wheel. I think I just confused myself


That was kind of my point that the "long" part of the brake pad is pointing forward when is suppose to be on the trailing edge..


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

patineto said:


> That was kind of my point that the "long" part of the brake pad is pointing forward when is suppose to be on the trailing edge..


Forward is the trailing edge.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

DFA said:


> Forward is the trailing edge.


Exactly the shorty part is suppose to be the leading edge..


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

patineto said:


> Exactly the shorty part is suppose to be the leading edge..


:skep:

And that's exactly how the pads are set up. I think you're confusing leading edge. It's the part of the pad that makes contact with the braking surface (discounting toe in on bicycle brakes) in the direction of rotation.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

DFA said:


> :skep:
> 
> And that's exactly how the pads are set up. I think you're confusing leading edge. It's the part of the pad that makes contact with the braking surface (discounting toe in on bicycle brakes) in the direction of rotation.


Maybe I'm mistaken on the brake pads but for sure on the crosstrac the front brakes where located on the back side of the forks..

Something like this.


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

patineto said:


> Maybe I'm mistaken on the brake pads but for sure on the crosstrac the front brakes where located on the back side of the forks.


Yes. And the short side of the pads is mounted towards the rear, which is the leading edge of the pad, which is correct (for the fronts).


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

Remembered I had something modded that makes me smile....



Steve


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DFA said:


> It's an old moto trick from when air forks were de rigeur. The valves on the forks were connected with a single filler valve. It balanced the pressure out between the forks so you would have even pressure in both legs. Seen it done on Mags before. MBA featured it as a Mag hop-up at one point.
> 
> The infamous "tach 'n speedo" forks off a 76 Yamaha YZ. The canisters on the tops of the forks had a floating piston in them, and both the top and fork legs had separate valves (you can see the second balance tube to the forks in the pic). You ran low pressure in the forks and high(er) pressure in the top of the canisters, effectively giving you crude 2 stage damping.


Yeah, I just don't get why they'd need to be even. The forks now house the spring in one leg and the damping in the other, so a big imbalance, but because they're connected via the axle, arch, and crown it doesn't matter.

Are those old moto forks really air sprung? I don't know my 70s moto stuff, but I'd have guessed coil springs in those old forks. They've had air bleeder valves on them for the past 20+ yrs and as of last year some of the motocross bikes are now running air forks. Some of the top pros are liking them, some are sticking with coils.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DFA said:


> Yes. And the short side of the pads is mounted towards the rear, which is the leading edge of the pad, which is correct (for the fronts).


Pads look backwards to me. You don't run them that way on the rear wheel which is the same orientation.

I owned a crosstrack fork in mid 90s for a DH bike and it was great for the big hits but not so good in the chop. No negative spring to combat the weird air spring curve, but they were low pressure so it wasn't awful.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Pads look backwards to me. You don't run them that way on the rear wheel which is the same orientation.


Thanks for the reaffirmation, I was starting to wonder if I was going senile..


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

Fillet-brazed said:


> Pads look backwards to me. *You don't run them that way on the rear wheel which is the same orientation*.


Exactly. Look at the pic of M900 brakes below. Short arm (top in pic) are rears. Long side of pad goes to the rear (leading edge). Long arm (bottom in pic) are fronts. Short side of pad goes to the rear (leading edge). That is the correct set-up. If you run the fronts on forks like a Crosstrak, Pace, or IRD TL5 that mount the brakes on the back side of the fork you have to swap the pads between sides to run them in the correct direction.












patineto said:


> Thanks for the reaffirmation, I was starting to wonder if I was going senile..


See above pic. Not senile, just ignorant of the correct way the asymmetrical pads are set up on M900 front and rear brakes.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

DFA said:


> See above pic. Not senile, just ignorant of the correct way the asymmetrical pads are set up on M900 front and rear brakes.


Okay two birds with one stone...

Here are some pictures of one of my many projects, not exactly VRC but at least the are "Cantilever" brakes.

Notice the way the pads are mount it (the cartridge even has a arrow pointing forward, plus the "Release" pin goes in the back of the pads)








I chop them off because I was running them on my Empella cross bike with STI road bike levers and I don't like "travel agents".


----------



## phoenixbikes (Sep 24, 2010)

Here are a couple cranksets I modified to mount a cassette cog as a granny ring. The Suntour crank has an 18t granny and the Cooks crankset has a 17t granny. Both have 28t rings that were 74mm bcd, I modified them to 94mm bcd. 

The cogs are held onto the cranksets by short sections of freehub bodies, with external threads. I used bottom bracket lockrings and cogs drilled to 56/58mm to hold the freehub bodies onto the cranks. The 'granny gear' cogs are then slid on, and tightened in place with lockrings. I've been riding these setups for years and they work pretty well. This is sort of my home-made alternative to the Mtn Tamer Triple and the White Industries Limbo Spiders.


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

patineto said:


> Okay two birds with one stone...
> 
> Here are some pictures of one of my many projects, not exactly VRC but at least the are "Cantilever" brakes.
> 
> ...


We're not talking about XT brakes w. cartridge pads, though. With the M900 brakes and the asymmetrical M900 pads _shown in the pic on the Crosstrak fork_* the orientation is correct.* It is the way they were designed and the way Shimano recommends them to be set up. Exen the Shimano XTR group photos show the pad orientation to be long side facing forward on the front, long side facing rearward on the rears.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

Again not exactly VRC but a fun project none the less..

So the fork on one of my cross bikes was to short to fit the cable hanger, so what to do...!?!?

Well mount a rollamagic to the stem.








I use one of the frame cable stop for V-brakes that fit the stem almost perfectly, also made a small stop so the rollamagic will not rotate when braking.








It has works perfectly for the last 4 years with out a single issue.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DFA said:


> long side facing rearward on the rears.


Yes, opposite of the Crosstrac photo. :|


----------



## AKamp (Jan 26, 2004)

IF52 said:


> Thinking back now I'm not sure what the point was, and I do recall seeing it around more than just in our shop or area.
> 
> Anyway, prior to short cage versions being available we would swap short cages off broken Shimano road derailleurs onto XT rear derailleurs. 88 or so maybe? Why we didn't just run 105s or 600s on our mtn bikes is beyond me at this point, probably because we had the parts laying around and figure why not. And for cool factor or something since nobody else had short cage XT derailleurs at that time unless they did this trick.


My son is currently running a Dura Ace cage on a m900 rear on his road bike. Shifts like a champ


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

DFA said:


> long side facing rearward on the rears.





Fillet-brazed said:


> Yes, opposite of the Crosstrac photo. :|


Yes. The pads are supposed to be run long side rearward on rears and long side forward on fronts *regardless of which side of the fork the brake is mounted on*.


----------



## phoenixbikes (Sep 24, 2010)

*Do It Yourself*

Here's a cheap alternative for wide range gearing. I took a bmx chainring spider and filed it to fit a freehub body. The top 2 'cogs' are 36t, and 42t. The 36t ring has some ramps and some oddly shaped teeth that help with shifting under load.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

Any way you slice it, those pads on that fork are mounted wrong.


----------



## DFA (Jan 26, 2004)

jeff said:


> Any way you slice it, those pads on that fork are mounted wrong.


:madman:


----------



## onlyoyster99 (Jul 14, 2011)

jeff said:


> Any way you slice it, those pads on that fork are mounted wrong.


No. They're not. Just because the brakes are mounted on the rear of the fork, does not mean that the pads will change orientation. You mount the pads 'backwards' because the brakes are 'backwards'.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

At the risk of derailling the "which way should XTR brake pads face?" thread.....

Some Manitou modded derailleurs: (XT and XTR)



Steve


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DFA said:


> Yes. The pads are supposed to be run long side rearward on rears and long side forward on fronts *regardless of which side of the fork the brake is mounted on*.


Well, you're correct in that the pads are run in opposite directions depending on whether on the front or rear, but the short end of the pad is designed to go on the side nearest the frame or fork to allow the brake to open wider when released. So when mounted on the back of a fork this changes and they would need "rear" pads to be consistent with the way Shimano designed them, which is to allow them to open wide and not hang up on the frame or fork when released. In other words, mounted backwards on a fork essentially turns them into a rear brake with the long end of the pad facing rearward. Doesn't mean front pads won't work in this situation, they just might hang up on the fork when released making it tough to get an inflated tire through (not to mention look really weird).


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

Funniest thread in a long time


----------



## DoubleCentury (Nov 12, 2005)

We need that RBI photo showing the proper orientation for XTR brake arms.


----------



## Jak0zilla (May 16, 2010)

First let me apologize in advance if someone else has already mentioned this, I haven't looked at the rest of the thread, but ...

Back in the old days I used to run my brake pads backwards.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

Jak0zilla said:


> First let me apologize in advance if someone else has already mentioned this, I haven't looked at the rest of the thread, but ...
> 
> Back in the old days I used to run my brake pads backwards.


Hahahaha......

Steve


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

eastcoaststeve said:


> At the risk of derailling the "which way should XTR brake pads face?" thread.....


I'm sorry for starting such a controversy..


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

patineto said:


> I'm sorry for starting such a controversy..


Don't apologize...classic VRC fun.

Steve


----------



## girlonbike (Apr 24, 2008)

I actually like this discussion. Who doesn't enjoy bike geekery?


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

DoubleCentury said:


> We need that RBI photo showing the proper orientation for XTR brake arms.


haha. I thought about that, but thought that term (RBI) was a forgotten one. 

Long live RBI.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

eastcoaststeve said:


> Some Manitou modded derailleurs: (XT and XTR)
> 
> 
> 
> Steve


Never quoted myself before, but curious.....I've seen a few of the modded XTR' s like mine and fatchanceti's, but my XT version has a different clamp arrangement...anyone know if they did any other variations?

Steve


----------



## muddybuddy (Jan 31, 2007)

The XT one looks like a standard braze on derailleur with a separate clamp. I don't remember them making an XT for the braze-on mount though.


----------



## goto11 (Jun 12, 2009)

I'm with girlonbike and hollister. This brake pad orientation geek-out is entertaining.

Fillet-brazed is correct. The pads are designed asymmetrically only for the purpose of clearing your seat stays or fork legs. Leading/trailing edge is irrelevant; toe-in can be set properly regardless of if the long edge leads or trails. They are in the wrong orientation on the Crosstrac because they will hit the fork brace, making wheel removal difficult.

What does RBI stand for?


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

muddybuddy said:


> The XT one looks like a standard braze on derailleur with a separate clamp. I don't remember them making an XT for the braze-on mount though.


Better pic...def XT...maybe the braze on mount was a mod too?



Steve


----------

