Bicycle Stopping Distances

Fred Fredburger wrote:

thirty-six wrote:
On 6 Nov, 23:25, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 6, 6:10 pm, William Asher wrote:



Fred Fredburger wrote:
William Asher wrote:
And you always claimed skills learned in rbt would never be
applicable anywhere else.
RBT? I thought he was channeling old Star Trek episodes. The
"negative servo" and "inverse servo" are things that should be
said just prior to "reversing the polarity". Does Scotty hang out
in RBT?
Scotty never really went in for techno-babble, that was more of a
TNG thing. So Geordi LaForge might have said something about the
warp core stability drive having an inverse servo coupling because
the caliper arms were mounting in front of the neutronium struts
holding the axial bearings for the plasma couplers to the
antimatter chamber (in contrast to earlier designs where the
caliper arms were behind the neutronium struts, which led to the
less stable positive servo coupling, even with mudguards), Scotty
would just have said "Aye Captain, but the engines are going to
overheat." Or so I've heard anyway, I never watched either show.
Don't admit **** like that in public, you anti-geek geek. I find
it...fascinating, that you know Geordi's name, and the correct
spelling, but you've never watched the show. Uh huh - no,
seriously, I'll pull out, you don't have to worry because the check
is in the mail and I've never lied in my life and I've never felt
like this before unless you count last week.

The algorithm is as such - three words strung together. Plasma
induction coil, or dilithium concentrator coupling. Three words -
two words just makes you sound stupid.

R

Huh? If anything you want the aluminium front caliper behind the
ferrous carbon crown so that with typical aluminium section rims
which have a slight flare to their extremity the retarding elastomer
controllers will move towards the central travellator bearing so
providing a more controllable inverse servo coupling. The negative
servo effect already exists with the rear retarding device and the
consequences of a diving rear brake, with the caliper jamming the
air- filled elastic bearings, are likely of little concern. Water
repelling covers will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.

I preferred my first go.

Your second attempt has the advantage of including the word "retard".
But they're both very impressive.


You know, retard is to usenet what bacon is to food.

--
Bill Asher

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:13Â*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:11Â*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Those 2 cyclists who ran into Dr. Thompson are ****ing spazzes.

You mean Mrs. New Bitch Thompson.


I love how you talk up a big game about "justice" and then laugh about
prison rape. Â*And then you think this makes you look intelligent.

Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world,
Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world,
Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I
was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.
- Elwood P. Dowd

I do not think a little prison time is adequate for Dr. PLEASE Use
Some Lube Thompson. I think having his hemorrhoids hammered would
knock some sense into him, and leave him with some scars - that's
justice. I'm more biblical, and slightly more twisted, than most -
and just honest about it, with which you seem to have some difficulty.

See this is what you get when you protect children.
Let them eat dirt. Let them mix it up with the other
little psychopaths to see what being a little
psychopath gets you, while they are still so close
to the ground that a few falls do not maim the little
psychopaths, and still not strong enough to inflict
permanent injury.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

" wrote:

On Nov 4, 5:29Â*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
" wrote:

BTW, the 0.6 g number isn't magical, it's just based
on the angle from your center of mass to the front
contact patch. Â*If the center of mass is around your
belly button, then (on my bike) the height off the ground
is about 1.2 m and the horizontal distance to the
contact patch is about 0.75 m. Â*The geometry of the
opposing torques from deceleration and gravity means
that the bike starts to endo when the deceleration is
more than (0.75/1.2) ~ 0.63 g. Â*All fairly approximate.

Ben

Hey dumbo,

In a maximum braking effort, you transfer your weight as far back and as low as
possible. Â*You bury your head into your stem...you even your pedals so no leg is
higher than it has to be....you push your entire center of mass down into your
top tube. Â*All of this is done instinctually and in a fraction of a second. Â*So
all your numbers are wrong.

What you are talking about is the physics of how a ****ing Cat. 5 girl brakes her
bike on the Saulsalito Kenny Pap Smear group ride and then crashes into 6 riders
in front of her while claiming she "couldn't stop in time."

That's not how I stop my bike if I need to dig deep into the pro suitcase of
courage.

In fact, I would say a good proportion of maximum braking effort comes not from
how hard or quick you pull on the brake levers, but how quickly, how low, and how
rearward you shift your weight.

Your equation treats one of the most important aspects of maximum braking (i.e.
the lowering and shifting of center of mass rearward) as being a constant instead
of a rather large variable. Â*That's the fundamental mistake of your equation.

You wrote the equation for how Liz Hatch stops her bike, and not for how the
monkey stops his bike.

QID.

Christ, man, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
This is so lame the Union of Face-Ripping Chimps
Internationale is thinking of kicking you out because they've
finally figured out you're just a soft-fingered human.

Putting your head down is for sprinting into giant
Coke cans, not for maximum braking. Any extra
braking effect is purely psychological, like closing
your eyes as you're about to hit a bump. Throwing your
weight back actually momentarily pushes the bike
forward. For ****'s sake, even George Hincapie knows
that - it's how he won Gent-Wevelgem by a fractional
tire width, throwing the bike in the sprint.

Go play your tuba and ride over Cat 5 girls' necks
with your stopping technique.

Ben
My new stopping technique is unstoppable.

No asswipe. Putting your head down lowers your center of gravity, and shifting your
weight rearward helps put more weight over your rear tire and allows for your front
brake to be gabbed harder before it will flip you. It also helps make your rear brake
more effective.

It's a physics equation, jackass. Has nothing to do with my opinion. Where did you
go to college with that kind of attitude?

Sproing clang crunch zzzzzz ting a ling a ling a linga ling.
You owe me for a perfectly good irony meter.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

thirty-six wrote:

On 6 Nov, 13:04, MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear brake, you
should mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays, which is how your front
brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the rim. Â*What this does is cause the
brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.
But in standard rear brake mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the
mounting bolt and the caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.

Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high speed
braking stability by a couple percent. Â*The only reason it's not done like that for
most riders is because of aesthetics. Â*Any mechanic or frame builder will tell you it's
not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people mount it.

Magilla

Huh? If anything you want the front brake behind the mounting so
that with typical rims which have a slight flare to their extremity
the brake pads will move towards the hubs so providing a more
controllable inverse servo. The negative servo effect already exists
with the rear brake and the consequences of a diving rear brake, with
the caliper jamming the tyre, are likely of little concern. Mudguards
will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.

Jackass.

Shut up and listen.

In a typical rear brake mount, the directional rotation of the rear wheel pulls the brake
caliper away from the seat stays/frame via the mounting bolt during braking. If you mount
it on the opposite side, the rotational force of the rim (during braking) will cause the
caliper to be pushed into the frame, giving better stability.

Your front brake is mounted 'correctly' but the rear brake is opposite and only done that
way for aesthetics.

I can see you've never had any technical conversations with mechanics and frame builders. I
have yet to meet one that doesn't know this...And some do it. Here is one framebuilder who
does it (notice the rear brake caliper mounted on the front of the seat stays...this is the
same way your front bake is mounted on your fork and provides better stability)

http://i.pbase.com/o4/68/71868/1/554...707038_IMG.JPG
http://www.campyonly.com/images/modb...8/bike%201.jpg

Mounting the rear brake on the seat stay bridge on the side where
the rotating wheel carries the brake away from the seat stay bridge
means that the brake pads are carried toward the tire where they
can then scrape the tire and cause a tire blow out.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

Having your weight
rearward is important but your rear brake still doesn't
do much in a panic stop. Grab it anyway, but don't
expect it to do anything as all your weight shifts to
the front.

Which is one of the reasons Campy has a dual pivot brake (clamps hard
for good braking) for the front and a single pivot one for the rear. The rear
doesn't do that much and you simply don't need that much braking power
on the rim in the back.

If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear
brake, youshould mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays,
which is how your front brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the
rim. What this does is cause the brake caliper assembly to be pushed into
the frame during the entire braking event. But in standard rear brake
mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the mounting bolt and the
caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.

Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high
speed braking stability by a couple percent. The only reason it's not done like
that for most riders is because of aesthetics. Any mechanic or frame builder will
tell you it's not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people
mount it.

Mmm, I think if you look at a bike and the direction the wheel is rotating, you'll
see that the rotation is pushing the brake pads toward the stays when the caliper is
mounted on the back, like they almost all are. The caliper isn't being supported any
more by the stays either way it's mounted. Mounted on one side, it's pushing the
stays; mounted on the other, it's pulling them. Either way, it's the same force. The
mounting bolt will bent toward the wheel when it's mounted on the rear of the stay
and bend away from the tire when it's mounted on the front of the stay. A rear
mounted caliper will move the pads down the rim toward the hub if it bends under hard
braking and up the rim if it's front mounted. So a front mounted caliper will show a
very small increase in clamping because the rim is very slightly wedge shaped (a
Mavic Open Pro measures .780" at the outer edge and .769" at the furthest inside edge
of the brake track). But all that is moot because you can easily lock up a rear wheel
under hard braking. Additional brake clamping on the rear is simply unnecessary.
Which is why I pointed out the reason for Campy's differential brake set up.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

thirty-six wrote:
Huh? If anything you want the aluminium front caliper behind the
ferrous carbon crown so that with typical aluminium section rims which
have a slight flare to their extremity the retarding elastomer
controllers will move towards the central travellator bearing so
providing a more controllable inverse servo coupling. The negative
servo effect already exists with the rear retarding device and the
consequences of a diving rear brake, with the caliper jamming the air-
filled elastic bearings, are likely of little concern. Water
repelling covers will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.

That's nice but I'll settle for 6 of 9's breasts.

Michael Press wrote:
Mounting the rear brake on the seat stay bridge on the side where
the rotating wheel carries the brake away from the seat stay bridge
means that the brake pads are carried toward the tire where they
can then scrape the tire and cause a tire blow out.

That's one way of stopping.

RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 5, 9:13*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:11*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Those 2 cyclists who ran into Dr. Thompson are ****ing spazzes.

You mean Mrs. New Bitch Thompson.


I love how you talk up a big game about "justice" and then laugh about
prison rape. *And then you think this makes you look intelligent.

Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world,
Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world,
Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I
was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.
- Elwood P. Dowd

I do not think a little prison time is adequate for Dr. PLEASE Use
Some Lube Thompson. I think having his hemorrhoids hammered would
knock some sense into him, and leave him with some scars - that's
justice. I'm more biblical, and slightly more twisted, than most -
and just honest about it, with which you seem to have some difficulty.

R

Yes, I have a problem with advocating the rape of a guy who stepped on his
brakes to scare some cyclists. Let me ask you something since you're so
erudite...do you think this cop on the Pima County Sherriff's Department
should be raped in prison too:

http://www.velonews.com/article/75311

Riders report that this isn’t the first time that Tucson-area law
enforcement has used these tactics or caused injuries. It’s not difficult
to conclude from the evidence that there’s an underlying departmental
attitude of anti-cyclist bias, with a few officers taking the bias to
extremes, comfortable in the knowledge that no departmental action will be
taken against them. One thing we do know is that this was not one isolated
incident of law-enforcement bias; later that day, the same Pima County
Sheriff’s Deputy who drove head-on at the peloton received a report from
one of the Shoot Out riders that a truck had run the rider off the road as
he was trying to assist another cyclist who had crashed in a separate
incident unrelated to the peloton crash. The Deputy’s response? He was
reported to have had “a friendly chuckle with the driver of the truck”
before sending him on his way.

Magilla

thirty-six wrote:

On 6 Nov, 23:48, MagillaGorilla wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 6 Nov, 13:04, MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear brake, you
should mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays, which is how your front
brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the rim. *What this does is cause the
brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.
But in standard rear brake mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the
mounting bolt and the caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.

Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high speed
braking stability by a couple percent. *The only reason it's not done like that for
most riders is because of aesthetics. *Any mechanic or frame builder will tell you it's
not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people mount it.

Magilla

Huh? * If anything you want the front brake behind the mounting so
that with typical rims which have a slight flare to their extremity
the brake pads will move towards the hubs so providing a more
controllable inverse servo. * The negative servo effect already exists
with the rear brake and the consequences of a diving rear brake, with
the caliper jamming the tyre, are likely of little concern. *Mudguards
will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.

Jackass.

Shut up and listen.

In a typical rear brake mount, the directional rotation of the rear wheel pulls the brake
caliper away from the seat stays/frame via the mounting bolt during braking.

Does it, really?

*If you mount
it on the opposite side, the rotational force of the rim (during braking) will cause the
caliper to be pushed into the frame, giving better stability.

Really?

Your front brake is mounted 'correctly' but the rear brake is opposite and only done that
way for aesthetics.

Servicability!

I can see you've never had any technical conversations with mechanics and frame builders. *I
have yet to meet one that doesn't know this...And some do it. * Here is one framebuilder who
does it (notice the rear brake caliper mounted on the front of the seat stays...this is the
same way your front bake is mounted on your fork and provides better stability)

http://i.pbase.com/o4/68/71868/1/554...8/bike%201.jpg

Magilla

Mechanic/framebuilders use systems that work. I know two quite well
and have spoken to a handful of others over the years although never
about (bicycle) brake calipers. I had more important considerations
than this. Leaving components accessible allows for proper servicing
without frustrating access.

In order to do any meaningful service on a brake caliper, you have to remove it from the frame. Positing it on either
side fo the seat stays will not matter for any minor maintenance that does not require its removal. What's there to
service in a brake caliper while mounted to the frame anyway?

Magilla

Anton Berlin wrote:

On Nov 6, 5:48*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On 6 Nov, 13:04, MagillaGorilla wrote:

If you really want to increase the effectiveness and stability of your rear brake, you
should mount it to the frame on the FRONT of your seat stays, which is how your front
brake is mounted with respect to the rotation of the rim. *What this does is cause the
brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.
But in standard rear brake mounts, the caliper's entire stability is only by the
mounting bolt and the caliper is bring pulled away from the frame.

Mounting your rear calipers to the front of the rear seat stays will aid in high speed
braking stability by a couple percent. *The only reason it's not done like that for
most riders is because of aesthetics. *Any mechanic or frame builder will tell you it's
not as good to mount the brake calipers where 99.99% of the people mount it.

Magilla

Huh? * If anything you want the front brake behind the mounting so
that with typical rims which have a slight flare to their extremity
the brake pads will move towards the hubs so providing a more
controllable inverse servo. * The negative servo effect already exists
with the rear brake and the consequences of a diving rear brake, with
the caliper jamming the tyre, are likely of little concern. *Mudguards
will prevent wheel jamming with brake mount failure.

Jackass.

Shut up and listen.

In a typical rear brake mount, the directional rotation of the rear wheel pulls the brake
caliper away from the seat stays/frame via the mounting bolt during braking. *If you mount
it on the opposite side, the rotational force of the rim (during braking) will cause the
caliper to be pushed into the frame, giving better stability.

Your front brake is mounted 'correctly' but the rear brake is opposite and only done that
way for aesthetics.

I can see you've never had any technical conversations with mechanics and frame builders. *I
have yet to meet one that doesn't know this...And some do it. * Here is one framebuilder who
does it (notice the rear brake caliper mounted on the front of the seat stays...this is the
same way your front bake is mounted on your fork and provides better stability)

http://i.pbase.com/o4/68/71868/1/554...8/bike%201.jpg

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maggie, if you can lock up either wheel and heat isn't a problem this
is a stupid argument to make Who gives a **** if a wheel locks up
by 300 or 303% ?

We all know best braking is just at the level under lock up.

You got a mouth like Ron Peterson before he ran into the back of Dr. Thompson's car. I bet you he thought his brakes
were okay too.

Magilla