Bicycle Stopping Distances

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.

--
Bill Asher

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

RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 6, 8:04*am, 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.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

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. *

That is not why a front brake is mounted in front of the fork.

What this does is cause the
brake caliper assembly to be pushed into the frame during the entire braking event.

That's not what's happening on the front brake, or the rear brake if
you move it to the front of the frame.

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.

If there is a single mounting bolt, the same thing is happening
wherever the brake is located.

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.

No, they won't tell you that - at least not for the reasons you
state. Your numbers are wrong, your theory is wrong, and your logic
curiously absent.

Stick to the dodging and weaving. It's what you do best.

R

You are totally wrong. I have yet to meet a single frame builder who would disagree with
what I wrote and I have had that conversation with several of them. Ask Lennard Zinn and I
am sure he will tell you what I told you.

You guys are seriously out of the loop.

Magilla

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...707038_IMG.JPG
http://www.campyonly.com/images/modb...8/bike%201.jpg

Magilla

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.

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 bearing
s
for the plasma couplers to the antimatter chamber (in contrast to
earlier designs where the caliper arms were behind the neutronium
struts, which l
ed
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.

Yeah, well the stuff above was a test to see if you knew what you were
talking about because if you did, you would have asked which antimatter
chamber I was talking about, the regenerative amplification antimatter
chamber or the intertial subspace containment antimatter chamber. It makes
a difference. Or at least that's what I've heard. Around. You know.

--
Bill Asher

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.

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.

On Nov 6, 7:58*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:

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.

All of his arguments for the past week have been, at best, stupid.
It's time for a change in meds or some better weed, dude.

Hey Margaret, do me a favor, run this thread by RBT and let's see what
they have to day about you contention.

R

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.