Bicycle Stopping Distances

On Nov 7, 11:48*pm, birdbrain wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/art...-evans-silence...

Maybe you should save the Cervelo engineers a lot of embarrassment and
give them a call to straighten them out.

Just keep digging, Sponge Bob.

Dumbass, that's a time trial bike.

Excellent. Your eyes are functioning.
Your point being...what?
That the brakes aren't applied as often? True.
That it's unlikely that someone will be screaming downhill at 100 KPH
on it? Also true.

How does that change things? Any braking force beyond locking up the
wheel is pointless. Do you doubt that the brake mounted in that
position would lock up the front wheel?

Massengill stated an absolute, and he's absolutely full of ****. I
am performing my civic duty by pointing this out.

You're welcome.

R

On Nov 7, 9:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:48*pm, birdbrain wrote:

On Nov 7, 7:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/art...-evans-silence....

Maybe you should save the Cervelo engineers a lot of embarrassment and
give them a call to straighten them out.

Just keep digging, Sponge Bob.

Dumbass, that's a time trial bike.

Excellent. *Your eyes are functioning.
Your point being...what?
That the brakes aren't applied as often? *True.
That it's unlikely that someone will be screaming downhill at 100 KPH
on it? *Also true.


So you're admitting that front mounted front brakes are superior?

On Nov 8, 1:27*am, birdbrain wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:48*pm, birdbrain wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/art...-evans-silence...

Maybe you should save the Cervelo engineers a lot of embarrassment and
give them a call to straighten them out.

Just keep digging, Sponge Bob.

Dumbass, that's a time trial bike.

Excellent. *Your eyes are functioning.
Your point being...what?
That the brakes aren't applied as often? *True.
That it's unlikely that someone will be screaming downhill at 100 KPH
on it? *Also true.

So you're admitting that front mounted front brakes are superior?

Dear amateur troll,
I was simply trying to surmise your objection. Do you have something
to add or were you just stating the obvious?

R

On Nov 7, 10:35*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 8, 1:27*am, birdbrain wrote:



On Nov 7, 9:26*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:48*pm, birdbrain wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/art...-evans-silence...

Maybe you should save the Cervelo engineers a lot of embarrassment and
give them a call to straighten them out.

Just keep digging, Sponge Bob.

Dumbass, that's a time trial bike.

Excellent. *Your eyes are functioning.
Your point being...what?
That the brakes aren't applied as often? *True.
That it's unlikely that someone will be screaming downhill at 100 KPH
on it? *Also true.

So you're admitting that front mounted front brakes are superior?

Dear amateur troll,
I was simply trying to surmise your objection. *Do you have something
to add or were you just stating the obvious?

R

Monkey boy told you to talk to an engineer or a frame builder
and you posted a link to a TT bike. I'm surprised they even have
front brakes on a TT bike, must be UCI rule.

I was pointing out your post was irrelevant.

On Nov 7, 7:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

No, it does matter. *The front brake transfer most of its force to the face of the FORK that
mates with the calipers. *The rear brake, the forces are transferred only to the nut threads
and the end of the bolt that holds the brake calipers. *The front brake has more lateral
stability because the brake caliper is being pressed super-hard against the frame whereas the
rear brake is being pulled away from the frame and held onto the bike only by the threads on
the nut. *The caliper moves less on the front brake under maximum load. *The rear brake
design can't away with it because the loads are less than on the front brake by a factor of 3
and the rear brake design - even with the mounting deficiency - is still sufficient to lock
up the wheel. *But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

ENGLISH PLEASE.

Where does the force go after it's transferred
to the rear brake bolt and nut? It doesn't magically
leak out into the air before being transferred to the
seat stay brake bridge.

The nut is plenty strong enough. If those nuts weren't
strong enough, front brakes would come flying off of
forks all the time. In fact, this reminds me that you
have it backwards. The front brake bolt is under
tension and is held on by the nut, while the rear
brake is compressed against the seat stays.
You can argue all you want about whether bolts and
nuts are stronger in compression or tension, I don't
care, as both are clearly strong enough in use.

I don't even remember why you started this pointless
argument about brakes, and you don't remember enough
to be consistent in the arguments you're making.

Ben

On Nov 8, 2:13*am, birdbrain wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:35*pm, RicodJour wrote:

Dear amateur troll,
I was simply trying to surmise your objection. *Do you have something
to add or were you just stating the obvious?


Monkey boy told you to talk to an engineer or a frame builder
and you posted a link to a TT bike. *I'm surprised they even have
front brakes on a TT bike, must be UCI rule.

I was pointing out your post was irrelevant.

Nothing to add, got it.

R

On Nov 8, 4:12*am, "
wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

No, it does matter. *The front brake transfer most of its force to the face of the FORK that
mates with the calipers. *The rear brake, the forces are transferred only to the nut threads
and the end of the bolt that holds the brake calipers. *The front brake has more lateral
stability because the brake caliper is being pressed super-hard against the frame whereas the
rear brake is being pulled away from the frame and held onto the bike only by the threads on
the nut. *The caliper moves less on the front brake under maximum load. *The rear brake
design can't away with it because the loads are less than on the front brake by a factor of 3
and the rear brake design - even with the mounting deficiency - is still sufficient to lock
up the wheel. *But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

ENGLISH PLEASE.

Where does the force go after it's transferred
to the rear brake bolt and nut? *It doesn't magically
leak out into the air before being transferred to the
seat stay brake bridge.

The nut is plenty strong enough. *If those nuts weren't
strong enough, front brakes would come flying off of
forks all the time. *In fact, this reminds me that you
have it backwards. *The front brake bolt is under
tension and is held on by the nut, while the rear
brake is compressed against the seat stays.
You can argue all you want about whether bolts and
nuts are stronger in compression or tension, I don't
care, as both are clearly strong enough in use.

I don't even remember why you started this pointless
argument about brakes, and you don't remember enough
to be consistent in the arguments you're making.

I'm suprised Myra didn't convince you with "The front brake has more
lateral stability because the brake caliper is being pressed super-
hard against the frame". Can't you read?! SUPER-hard!*

R

* The ball is lobbed high in the air, and...

thirty-six wrote:

On 8 Nov, 02:25, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Use Phil grease, not oil.
I use a combination of cacium grease which is loaded when the need
arises with cycle oil. Works well. Saves having to dissasemble each
year. I think its ten years(at least) since taking apart my bottom
bracket. Still running sweet.


Don't make mistakes. *That what Lance tells his mechanic. *You need to treat yourself like Lance's treats his mechnic and
you'll be fine. *Don't be a pussy.


The quicker I can perform a service item the more reliable it's going
to be. I'm always looking for shortcuts. Fewer steps reduce the
likelyhood of tripping up.

You sound like a mechanic who works for Alaska Airlines in 2000. Let me give some advice...if the directions that came with
the part tells you to lube the jackscrew every 2,000 hours, lube the ****ing jackscrew. Don't give me any of this jazz about
how many steps there are. Just do it.

In here, you keep your mouth shut and your eyes and your ears open. You do that and you'll be fine. Start questioning me,
and you'll wind up on the asphalt like your buddies.

Magilla

RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 7, 4:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:44*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Correct, but when it's pulling away from the stays, the only thing keeping it there is
the mounting bolt. * All the stress of the braking is transfered through the mounting
bolt and nut. The bolt itself bends and is not inelastic. And the hold that the bolt
goes through is not perfectly flush with the bolt. *But on the front brake, the entire
brake caliper assembly is being forced into the frame which is for the most part
immovable and thus gives better stability.

I get a ****ing headache every time I read that. I don't have my
stupid-to-English translator engaged, so tell me this, Batbuoy, are
you arguing that a loose brake bolt is what makes the difference? If
not, and the braking force is the same, as it must be, and all braking
force is transmitted to the frame, as it must be, where does this
extra braking force come from? The bolt, submitted to the same force
in either mounting position, will deflect the same amount as the
difference in geometry is negligible. Much like your argument.

No no no no. The front brake transfers most of the force through the mating surface of the
caliper to the FORK. The front bolt transfers probably 30% of the force. On the rear brake,
the bolt transfers nearly 100% of the force. It is true that all the force is ultimately
absorbed by the frame. But the design of the front bake via its placement on the front of the
FORK makes it a more stable design under high loads and high speeds. Ask any frame
builder/engineer.

Harry Havnoonian is a frame builder AND mechanical engineer (degree from Drexel). He mounts
the rear brake in front of the seat stays for this very reason and has been doing it for over
20 years. Give him a call and he'll tell you why:

http://www.hhracinggroup.com/page6.html






Talk to any frame builder or any engineer at Shimano or Campy or SRAM and they will all
tell you this. * Most good mechanics know this too.

Here's the deal, you work up a free body force diagram and post it,
and I'll get on the horn and talk to Campy. I'll spare your other
little Mr. Softy - you don't even have to plug in numbers, just show
the arrows for the force vectors.

Why can't you just envision it - this is not a hard test.....Call Harry and ask him:

http://www.hhracinggroup.com/page6.html






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.

Again with the loose terminology - it's deflecting, and the amount is
truly miniscule.

Correct, except in your front brake, most of the force is transfered into the frame
which is for the most part an immovable object. *On the rear brake, the brake caliper is
being pulled into the air away from the frame.

That doesn't matter as long as it doesn't get pulled off
the frame. *It's still transferring the force to the frame.

Correct. But remember what we're arguing here....I'm only saying the front brake is a more
STABLE design and can take higher loads before it fails. The rear brake is a less stable
design (due to where it's mounted) and will fail earlier and offer less stability under maximum
load. Your rear brake will not feel as tight as your front brake if you do a max brake effort
from 55 mph going downhill. It matters more in tandems where the brakes must take double the
normal load over along period of time. And it's also more important for heavy riders,
especially if they go down major descents and need to stop fast.



Brake bolts are sufficiently large diameter (M6) that they
don't bend significantly in normal use. *This is good,
because if *your brake bolt bends repeatedly when
you apply the brakes normally, it will eventually fail from
metal fatigue, and then you will be up monkey **** creek.

Bent brake bolts happen, but mostly from poor
maintenance, like beater bikes that people ride
around with the bolt loose and sticking out so there's
a bigger lever arm on it. *Fortunately people who
ride these bikes (undergrads, DUI guys etc) rarely
go fast enough to do full on panic stops and snap
the bolt.

(snip MG drivel)

If you have a problem with braking like this, that isn't going
to help, because if you brake enough to plastically bend the
bolt, let alone pull it away from the frame, you're in trouble.
What you need in those circumstances, and what some
tandem riders use, is a third brake (rear drum).

Only a faggot would ride a bike with a drum brake on it.

Magilla

RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 7, 9:42*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:

But the front brake...it is essential that it is mounted to the front of the
fork.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gallery/art...n-17438?img=16

Maybe you should save the Cervelo engineers a lot of embarrassment and
give them a call to straighten them out.

Just keep digging, Sponge Bob.

R

What the **** is this - some kind of cheap trick?

On a TT bike aerodynamics takes priority. No TT course has a 55 mph descent that requires maximum
braking, so that design is fine for a TT-bike. Don't be a dickhead.


Magilla