# new tektro cx brakes



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

https://www.tektro.com/02products/10992ag.php










Looks like some nice features that maybe the spooky/frogglegg brakes might not offer....?
For example, toe in using standard cartridge-style pads, w/o having to bend the brake posts manually w/ pliers. Also, adjustable spring tension on each side. Weight not to shabby either! 121 grams / wheel 

I have not used these yet, nor do I know how much they cost. But if they are priced comparably lower, similar to their Oryx brakes, I would imagine that there is quite a good value here.


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

Hmmm interesting. All I really know of Tektro is I hate their disc brakes, but I'd love to see what people think of these.


----------



## Crank-a-Roo (Mar 21, 2003)

I have no problem with my oryx brakes. They are strong enough to stop me. I would be interested to give these new brakes a try. Besides, I am going to save a few ounces with them.


----------



## cx_fan (Jul 30, 2004)

QBP part numbers are:
Silver - BR7460
Black- BR7462

(my bad....they can be used for front or rear)

Retail is around 40 dollars a wheel. Weight is about 120 grams a wheel. They come in silver only

They wont be in stock until mid August though.


----------



## iamandy (Jun 20, 2003)

QBP has a black model listed also. 8/13 in stock date.

As long as the braking power is there, these seem like the way to go.


----------



## single1x1 (Mar 26, 2005)

*Comming stock on new Norco CX bikes*



CDB said:


> https://www.tektro.com/02products/10992ag.php
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Norco bikes had a tent with some mt bikes and two cross bikes at MT bike race a couple of weeks ago in Bellingham WA- just south of Canada. Those new brakes were comming stock on both of there cross bikes- one 105 group and one with tiara mix group. I didn't get a chance to ride the bikes but they have a very nice lever feel with the sti levers. They also look like a very nice paul copy-even nice looking coil springs, similar looking to pauls. I havn't had really good luck with their v-brakes, or levers, but these look more promising, wheather they stay adjusted well, and keep even spring tention over time like pauls remains to be seen, but at a much lower price point it might be worth it to try if new brakes were needed, and if they came stock on a bike they appear to be as good or better then many of the other OE brakes out there.


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

I had some brakes a while ago with the V-brake style of pad, very similar design as well. To be honest, they pretty much sucked. 

Looked cool and were easy to adjust, but they didn't have enough power to take advantage of that type of pad. I found I really had to pull hard on the levers to get them to do much of anything. V-brake pads seem to be much harder than cani pads, so take that into consideration. I even tried the softer red Ritchey pads, which helped, but in the end, they were much worse than I had hoped, so off they came.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

one_speed said:


> I had some brakes a while ago with the V-brake style of pad, very similar design as well. To be honest, they pretty much sucked.
> 
> Looked cool and were easy to adjust, but they didn't have enough power to take advantage of that type of pad. I found I really had to pull hard on the levers to get them to do much of anything. V-brake pads seem to be much harder than cani pads, so take that into consideration. I even tried the softer red Ritchey pads, which helped, but in the end, they were much worse than I had hoped, so off they came.


The removable cartridge style pad isn't exclusive to v-brakes. They are the same pad compound, depending on the brand and work in both canti's as well as linear pull (v) brakes. The difference is that w/ the removeable style, you can slide in a new insert and be good to go for less setup work. The hardness varies between manufacturers, and also depending on if they are intended for regular or ceramic rims (ceramic pads are much harder and will kill a standard rim very fast).


----------



## Vegancx (Jan 22, 2004)

Anyone remember the Radius cantis that looked like they would work great but didn't?

These Tektros remind me an awful lot of the Radius brakes.

Shudder (literally)

If they work well, it'd be awesome, but we'll have to wait until someone has ridden them.


----------



## turbomatic73 (Jan 22, 2004)

*Tektro also makes these...*

Saw these Tektro brakes on velo-orange the other day...MAFAC knock-offs to a t. Anyone tried them? they look cool!




http://velo-orange.com/temacabr.html


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

Vegancx said:


> Anyone remember the Radius cantis that looked like they would work great but didn't?


Those are the ones I was speaking of, couldn't remember the name. We'll see who takes the leap and reports back.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

total frogleg ripoffs... 

yeah, I remember those radius things and was remineded of them... upon closer inspection they looked really cheap. are those skinny arms gonna flex?


----------



## Albino (Mar 24, 2007)

I almost picked these up at a swap meet very cheap. They are way too heavy and didn't seem very smooth. The arms are double wide and sturdy no flexing.

I'm going with the new Tektro canti's when they come out.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

I like em, think they look retro cool. remind me of these a little:


----------



## bchuang (Sep 28, 2006)

Got the new Tektros today and just finished installing them. These replaced the Oryx brakes on the front of my Felt. I was kind of worried when the label said 161g/wheel but that weight includes all the hardware. The spring is separate from the arms so they'll be easy to replace if you need to. I rode them for a few minutes on the road and they seem to stop ok. 

One question. Do I have the straddle cable set up right? I'm not sure if I've got it too high.


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

You generally want the cable higher with this type of brake. Looks good to me. If they're still not doing quite what you'd like, you can try a pad with a softer compound.


----------



## dyg2001 (Sep 23, 2004)

cx_fan said:


> QBP part numbers are:
> Silver - BR7460
> Black- BR7462
> 
> ...



Wow, AEBike has them for $23. 
That's cheap!


----------



## bchuang (Sep 28, 2006)

dyg2001 said:


> Wow, AEBike has them for $23.
> That's cheap!


That explains a lot. I was expecting $40 from my LBS when I picked them up, but I ended up paying less than what AEBike would be with shipping to my house.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

bchuang said:


> Got the new Tektros today and just finished installing them. These replaced the Oryx brakes on the front of my Felt. I was kind of worried when the label said 161g/wheel but that weight includes all the hardware. The spring is separate from the arms so they'll be easy to replace if you need to. I rode them for a few minutes on the road and they seem to stop ok.
> 
> One question. Do I have the straddle cable set up right? I'm not sure if I've got it too high.


I don't know much about setup of those types of brakes. But I did take your photo and superimpose the Oryx brakes over the top of the CR720's to compare... 










I lined up the brake bosses and pads and they seem to be pretty much the same scale. Then I superimposed another trialign yoke further down to a position where I personally like to set my brakes up. This lower angle seems to give me more braking power w/ less hand force.

I drew three different colored lines. 

1. The magenta pink one represents where I'd personally set up the brakes for the Oryx ones. That height is also very similar to the stock yoke that comes w/ the Avid Shorty brakes. I added a pic of that below.

2. The turquoise blue line represents where the straddle cable would go if you used that low yoke position w/ the CR720's. Interestingly, you can see that where that blue line intersects w/ the Oryx brake arms. My guess is that your new brakes would give you poor leverage w/ that low position because it effectively makes the Oryx arms very short. I think the higher yoke is better.

3. In order to get the same leverage out of the CR720's w/ the low yoke position, the arms would need to be as wide as the yellow line illustrates! Since that wouldn't be good either, I think the high yoke position as shown in your original picture is best. A secondary item of interest is that the path that the cable takes between the CR720 arm and the yoke contact point intersects at the same point as where the Oryx arms are. That tells me that the leverage is quite similar between the two brakes. But maybe I am missing something here that someone else might notice. ? Anyone else have comments about yoke height w/ this style brake?

Those new brakes really do seem like a good design. I'd like to try them out. Do you notice that you have more rim clearance w/ the 720's vs. the Oryx?

CDB

My Avids:


----------



## roseyscot (Jan 30, 2005)

i'm particularly interested in a comparison of these new tektros to either the oryx or the paul's. my b bike has oryx which seem quite good, especially for the money. the downside is mud clearance with the oryx. my a bike has neo-retros that are starting to corrode and could use new springs. instead of new springs, i was thinking of going with these new tektros. any feedback in 'cross application yet?


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

Ok, this is a challenge to all other elite level racers... I dare you to get more geeky than me! :blush2: 

Using CAD to study the movements, I graphically compared the "low yoke w/ Oryx" brake against the "high yoke w/ CR720" determined that while pulling a constant length of cable above the yoke, each brake moved a different amount.

The Oryx pad rotated 7 degrees around the boss, and the CR720 rotated 9 degrees. That's 28.5% more movement. This means that for the same amount of cable pull, you get more brake movement w/ the wide brake. Or, another way to look at it is you have to pull less cable to move the CR720 brake the same amount as the Oryx. I also calculated that graphically and with the CR720's, it requires only 79.2% of the cable pull needed to move the Oryx brakes the same amount.


----------



## winstonc (Nov 18, 2002)

CDB said:


> Ok, this is a challenge to all other elite level racers... I dare you to get more geeky than me!


Wow, impressively geeky. One thing I wonder though: with the way the pictures are superimposed, it doesn't look like there's any space for the post washers on the superimposed Oryx brake. If you add them, it would widen the brakes a little bit. Would that make a noticeable difference in cable pull ratios?

If only they made road brake levers to pull more cable, we'd be able to use V's and not worry about all this stuff...


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

Oh boy, wait until some get ahold of this. I've read too many posts of guys dissing the Vs for cross due to clearance. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. They'd be wider than your fork or seat stays. Generally, anyway.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

winstonc said:


> Wow, impressively geeky. One thing I wonder though: with the way the pictures are superimposed, it doesn't look like there's any space for the post washers on the superimposed Oryx brake. If you add them, it would widen the brakes a little bit. Would that make a noticeable difference in cable pull ratios?
> 
> If only they made road brake levers to pull more cable, we'd be able to use V's and not worry about all this stuff...


I utilized this photo (taken from above) for the overlayed image stuff. They have the same distance from pad to brake arm and the washer scenario seems identical... so, no, I don't think that is a factor. And no, if the washer setup was different, it would not change the cable pull ratio. The brake would still need to travel the same distance along the radius, center of rotation being the boss. It might be a minute difference (if any) but may as well consider it a non-factor. The main point illustrated was that the different brakes require different ratio's of cable pull, thus give a different "brake power" feel at the brake lever.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

one_speed said:


> Oh boy, wait until some get ahold of this. I've read too many posts of guys dissing the Vs for cross due to clearance. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. They'd be wider than your fork or seat stays. Generally, anyway.


I think it's a small handful of reasons that contribute to the hesitation. Weight, bulk, adapters, aesthetics, clearance for mud, etc... But I agree, maybe not a big deal. Adam Craig doesn't have any problem racing w/ V brakes and Clincher tires too! I've ridden Avid canti's for the past 6 years in a lot of sticky mud and distance to the rim has never been a huge issue. I think braking power has more of an impact - the more grip at the rim relative to the leverage of your hand gripping force is the more important variable to consider. I was feeling the tektro "v" brakes that come stock on this fall's S-Works cx bikes and they felt pretty darn good. No adapter either.

This whole issue of the "clearance to the pad from the rim while not braking" needs to be discussed. (I just put on my serious face here... be prepared  ) Is it really that big of a deal? Whether my brake pad sits 2mm or 4mm or 6mm from the rim when I'm not grabbing the brakes, does that really matter while in the mud? That drag? When you're not braking, some of the muck gets picked up from the bottom of the wheel at the ground and it gunks up everything as it flings all over the place. Your eyes, downtube, drivetrain, etc. It's dirty and messy. Some of that ends up mucking up around the pad and sticking to the rim braking surface. How thick of a layer at the rim depends on how far away your pad sits to scrape the extra off. The bigger the gap, the thicker the layer of mud. The extra stuff that sticks to your pads will have to rub off first before you get good braking control. That factor is present w/ all brake systems. With a wider gap to the pad, that just means a thicker layer of goo can accumulate before needing to get scraped off by the pad when clamping down. The closer the pad sits to the rim while racing in muddy conditions means that you have that much more pad to wear down before the brake lever hits the bar and you are w/o any stopping power. Generally, I would say 2-4 mm is plenty of space.

C'mon. I know you're out there. Get out your pocket protectors and tape up the nose bridge on your glasses. NERD ALERT! NERD ALERT! This is a super-sweet topic to discuss! :thumbsup: :yesnod:


----------



## winstonc (Nov 18, 2002)

one_speed said:


> Oh boy, wait until some get ahold of this. I've read too many posts of guys dissing the Vs for cross due to clearance. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. They'd be wider than your fork or seat stays. Generally, anyway.


Well, when combined with normal road brake levers, Vs don't have that much clearance.... but if they made road brake levers pull as much cable as V-brake levers, then there would be enough clearance -- after all, MTB racers used V's for racing, and they have to deal with mud.


----------



## bchuang (Sep 28, 2006)

As far as rim clearance, there is definitely more rim clearance with the new brakes vs the Oryx. So much so that I went back and adjusted them down a bit because I don't think I'm going to need that much.


----------



## GraniteX (Sep 21, 2006)

wonderfully wonky. My head is swirling. Could this all be simplified by coming up with a measurement of brake pad movement:cable pull?

Inother words, something like *1 cm of cable pull (from the lever) = x mm of horizontal pad movement toward the rim.*

Isn't that the critical ratio that determines "leverage?" 

There are a million ways to get there/modify the ratio by tweaking the brake arm geometry, straddle geometry and pad/post position. But *couldn't that ratio give us an objective way to compare brakes?* 

Presumably, each brake design would allow a range of ratios depending on setup. I suspect there would be a lot of overlap among most of the designs, meaning for the most part any brake could be set up for the rider's preferred leverage ratio by tweaking. 

We all probably prefer ratios in a fairly narrow range. Something like using a road lever with v-brakes would give an unacceptablely low ratio (cable pull-to-pad movement is so low that you run out of brake lever travel before pads hit rim). 

Not sure of an example at the other end of the range ... maybe a low-profile canti (like old Shimano LX) with a really high straddle. (cable pull-to-pad movement very high = nice snappy lever feel in shop, but very little braking power during riding)

Now, if we could figure out a good way to measure this, home mechanics could measure it (ie, pad movement-to-cable pull) as they tweaked, so they would have some objective number to shoot for. 

What am I missing.


----------



## GraniteX (Sep 21, 2006)

I actually missed CDB's first CAD post when I made my last reply re: cable pull-to-pad movement. Wow.

Maybe CDB's *cable pull-to-arm rotation ratio* is better than *cable pull-to-pad movement ratio* to compare setups? 

would the same arm-rotation always equal the same pad movement on a given setup?


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

Sheldon Brown's site has a pretty lengthy discussion on cantilever brakes. In particular, the relationship between "yoke angle" and "mechanical advantage". You can pretty much learn all you need to know as far as brake setups go, once you understand the variables at play and what various designs and adjustments can do to brake power and feel.

http://sheldonbrown.com/cantilever-geometry.html

"Feel" vs. Function
With automobile brakes, a nice "hard" pedal feel is a sign that the brakes are in good condition. A soft, "spongy" feel at the brake pedal is a sign of trouble, perhaps air in the hydraulic lines. This is not the case with bicycle brakes. A hard, crisp feel to the brakes on a bicycle may be a sign that the brakes don't have much mechanical advantage. You squeeze them until the brake shoes hit the rim, then they stop. Brakes with a high mechanical advantage will feel "spongy" by comparison, because the large amount of force they deliver to the brake shoes will squash the shoes against the rim, deforming them temporarily under pressure. You can feel this deformation in your fingers. The brakes with the rock-hard feel may seem nice on the work stand or the showroom floor, but when it comes to making the bike actually stop, the spongy set-up will do the job better, with less finger pressure and greater margin for safety in wet conditions.

Since the yoke angle is so critical to the mechanical advantage, the mechanical advantage gets less and less as the brake is engaged, and as the brake shoes wear down. The short transverse cables necessary to get high mechanical advantage from low-profile cantilevers exaggerates this effect, because the yoke angle gets larger for a given amount of upward travel of the yoke. Thus, low-profile cantilevers should be set up with minimum pad clearance if you want to get high mechanical advantage when the brake is actually engaged. 

With a brake set up for maximum mechanical advantage, the shorter transverse cable has a shallower yoke angle. This may make it difficult or impossible to unhook the transverse cable for wheel removal. For some riders, it may be a worthwhile trade-off to give up some braking power for the sake of easier wheel removal.


----------



## jukebox (Sep 6, 2005)

winstonc said:


> If only they made road brake levers to pull more cable, we'd be able to use V's and not worry about all this stuff...


Specialized is running sram stuff with v brakes this year because sram has a progressive cable pull so the further the lever travels the more cable is pulled. So they work better for v's

Also I just picked up a set of the new tektros. They set up pretty easily, feel good in the stand, the arms are nice and stiff, but beyond a parking lot ride i haven't played with them off road yet. Ill give a report when i get some saddle time with them


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

*spotted at Eurobike via Velonews...*

Taken from the velonews site:


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

CDB said:


> Taken from the velonews site:


Spotted in my kitchen this week . I have one of those '08 with the new Tektros. Interesting thing was, I had never set up canti's before and the new brakes came without instructions...to make matters more interesting Tekro hasn't posted a tech sheet on their website either. I managed to figure it out though. Still may have to mess around with the rear brake as its stopping power is a little weaker than I'd like.


----------



## one_speed (Jun 30, 2003)

some red ritchey pads may help the brake work a little better.


----------



## FatTireFred (Jan 31, 2005)

one_speed said:


> some red ritchey pads may help the brake work a little better.



or adjust the cable


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

FatTireFred said:


> or adjust the cable


Actually I think I just over-towed the rear brake a bit.


----------



## CDB (Oct 20, 2005)

Now that the season is underway, has anyone raced the new Tektro brakes mentioned in this thread, and if so, any feedback?

I'm tempted back to considering these after having some mud issues w/ my Avids last weekend in Muddy Portland. Maybe I could use some more rim clearance afterall!?!?!


----------



## iamandy (Jun 20, 2003)

I've raced and practiced on them since early September and I have no complaints. The pads are a little crappy but that's to be expected. Tons of clearance and good stopping power and lots of adjust-ability. I'd buy another pair.

- Andy


----------



## xxer (Jun 7, 2005)

I've done two races on them and so far so good. Our conditions are dusty and dry right now but they feel as good as the Pauls that I had been using the last two years. I'm running one campy record lever and one cane creek lever.


----------



## Lord Taipan (Aug 10, 2006)

I wish I had something to compare to as I have only used these but they feel almost as good as my V-Brakes on my mountain bike. 3 races mostly real dry though.


----------



## jukebox (Sep 6, 2005)

I'm liking them. The rear obviously being that wide can hit your calf on level pedal descending, etc. They aren't providing as much modulation as I want(with several different setups) so I think I will switch to swissstop green pads and see if that could make a difference. All in all, a good buy for how cheap they are and how easy it was to set them up.


----------



## Albino (Mar 24, 2007)

BTW, I've just checked QPB online. The black is out of stock, expected to arrive on Oct 4th.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

CDB said:


> https://www.tektro.com/02products/10992ag.php
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just got a set of the originals Tektro copied for $10 on ebay, toe in is a little more dificult. But really, is just a pair of vice grips away.


----------



## jkretsch (Aug 30, 2004)

Old thread but I'll post some real life experience. As mentioned by a couple people already, the Tektro 720s don't have the mechanical advantage of the Oryx brakes. As soon as I mounted the 720s I noticed that I had to squeeze alot harder to get the same amount of braking force. I tried the straddle cable at both extremes (very short, very long) and it didn't make a difference. They just don't have the stopping power. I switched to a pair of Paul Touring copies with the identical brake pads and the difference was night & day. The 720s are going back on eBay.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

Vegancx said:


> Anyone remember the Radius cantis that looked like they would work great but didn't?


I'm using a set now and they work perfect. Now I have to say I use a steel fork and have NEVER had a problem with shudder no matter what the brake is.


----------



## strathconaman (Jul 3, 2003)

I haven't had any problems with my 720's either. Although I switched the back out for the new Avid shorties: I kicked the rear 720 on a re-mount and pushed it under the rim. Cost me 2-3 minutes to get it unstuck...

Brakes are just for modulating speed anyways. Stopping is what your ass is for.


----------

