| |
Main
Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:50:37
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Back to the future!!
|
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 19:26:05
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 7, 2:09 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> Michael Warner wrote:
> >>> I ride with someone who hasn't fixed a creaking bottom bracket because
> >>> (so he claims) if it's not creaking he knows he's not working hard enough.
> >>> It's a training aid!
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >> Does he positively, absolutely know,
> >> exactly why it creaks?
> >> Some creaks signal imminent fracture.
> Chalo wrote:
> > That's true; some things creak while they are in the process of
> > growing a crack. In my long experience of breaking stuff, my
> > observation is that most things that break don't make noticeable noise
> > before they snap off. But some do.
>
> > However, I have found a myriad of things that can and do creak at any
> > time whatsoever. For me, the most likely culprit is a sprung saddle.
> > Drops of oil banish these creaks for only a frustratingly short time.
> > Mostly I just live with them.
>
> > Second most likely is a steel-to-aluminum interface at the bottom
> > bracket shell. When I hear this sort of ticking or creaking, I know
> > it's time to disassemble, inspect, grease, tighten all fasteners, and
> > reinstall. It's during such service that I often find a worn
> > cartridge bearing before it gets noisy or sloppy.
>
> > After those two sources of creaks are eliminated, I find that any
> > remaining creaking or ticking could be _anything on the bike_, with no
> > clear order of probability. Pedal spindles, pedal cages, stem quill
> > or clamp, luggage rack, crack in the frame, cracked headset crown
> > race, rim joint, saddle clamp, dry seatpost... just about anything.
> > Worst of all, the sound can seem to come from an area of the bike
> > that's nowhere near the problem part. I hate that.
>
> So true. And yet customers expect noises diagnosed and rectified right
> now. 'and do you mind if I watch/help/kibitz/interfere?'
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm the LBS types are getting cranky!
you guise try the earplugs, forehead on tube or water pipescope on
forehead with plugs approach?
rumblerumblerumblesquweekrumblerumble...
relax! the cold fall rains will soon fall.
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 19:50:12
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
BOONEN LAST SEEN RIDING OFF CLIFF
a reminder to never look back
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 23:04:54
From: DirtRoadie
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 3:33 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> > "Universal 61" or "Mafac Racers" are examples of the centerpull
> > brakes back then. The "U-brake" was merely a later (and not-very-good)
> > variation of the same thing.
> The foible of the Universal centerpull was its center bolt and pivot
> arch. That made it almost as floppy as the single-pivots of the day.
> The foible of the Mafac brake was the whole stinking brake. Boy, did
> those brakes suck.
>
> Stud-mounted U-brakes were (and are) good brakes, which is why they
> never went away on freestyle bikes. The only problem with them on
> MTBs was sticking them down in the muck under the chainstays. Add
> full fenders, and even that isn't a problem.
>
> http://www.danscomp.com/products.php?cat=PARTS&show=Brakes
After seeing this-
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/features/specialized_tarmac_launch07/Specialized_S-Works_Transition_rear_brake
I recognize that the "new" Specialized brake does, in fact, have
strong similarities to a "U" brake not found in older road
centerpulls . Most notable are the under-chainstay mounting and fixed
mounting studs.
DR
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 05:12:51
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Carl Fogel wrote:
>
> Dear Chalo,
>
> Riders like you often hate and fear small things that squeak:
>
> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/tricycle/eletri1a.jpg
>
> :)
I showed that to my wife and she immediately noticed the resemblance,
right down to the unorthodox three-wheeler comparable to the ones in
my shed.
I think that this picture is also relevant to the discussion we were
just having about tire diameter, contact patches and tire casing
deflection.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 23:51:10
From:
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 05:12:51 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Carl Fogel wrote:
>>
>> Dear Chalo,
>>
>> Riders like you often hate and fear small things that squeak:
>>
>> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/tricycle/eletri1a.jpg
>>
>> :)
>
>I showed that to my wife and she immediately noticed the resemblance,
>right down to the unorthodox three-wheeler comparable to the ones in
>my shed.
>
>I think that this picture is also relevant to the discussion we were
>just having about tire diameter, contact patches and tire casing
>deflection.
>
>Chalo
Dear Chalo,
Well . . .
A mature small-eared Asian elephant weighs around three to five tons.
Presumably our example is a highly-trained TDF sort of elephant,
mostly lean muscle mass and on the light side for better performance
on long climbs, so we're entitled to assume a svelte 6,000-pound beast
loading the three tires of the tricycle.
A wild guess suggests motorcycle rims with tires at least 3 inches
wide, possibly 4--let's settle for the spurious precision of 3.5
inches for the width.
Six thousand pounds is about 2,000 pounds per wheel. The rear tires
are probably more heavily loaded than the front, but let's not fuss
too much--a ton per 3.5-inch wide tire seems reasonable.
Elephants rarely ride sidecar trials (at least I never saw one), so we
can safely say that they shun 4 psi inflations and prefer higher
street-style tire pressures. Sixty psi is higher than I recall anyone
using on ordinary motorycycle tires, so let's plug that in and see
what we get . . .
6,000 pounds / 3 tires = 2,000 pounds per tire
2,000 pounds per tire / 60 psi = 33.3 square inches per tire
33.3 square inches / 3.5 inches wide = ~10 inch contact patch
It's hard to tell how much the tires are flattened, since they're
partly hidden by the wrinkling of the heavy cloth, but a 10-inch long
contact patch seems plausible:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/tricycle/eletri1a.jpg
Alas, we just don't have enough data to see what's going on here. If
the elephant is mid-size 4-ton model, then we get:
8,000 lbs / 3 tires = 2,667 lbs / tire
2,667 pounds / 60 psi = 44.5 square inches per tire
44.5 square inches / 3.5 inches wide = 12.7 inch contact patch
Still plausible, but almost 30% longer.
I'm afraid that this leaves us in the dark until we learn more about
what tire widths and pressures pro elephants prefer. Such mysteries
are common--it's very hard to find out how many pros are riding
tubulars versus clinchers in the Tour, much less what pressure they
use.
As a technical aside, trial motorcycle tires are not strictly similar
to 700c road bicycle tires. The bicycle tires are pretty much round,
while the trials tread motorcycle tires have hefty square blocks that
stick off the round carcass to form an almost flat surface. The outer
rubber blocks effectively raise and brace the lower curve of the round
carcass, making the sidewall "spring" shorter and perhaps stiffer.
The periods below are meant to show the curve of the inflated carcass,
propped on either side by high rubber blocks:
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 00:10:52
From:
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 23:51:10 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
[snip]
And speaking of wives and tricycles, I just stumbled over this 1907
photo while looking for elephants on bicycles:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/bobhope/images/vcvg43.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 01:31:04
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Michael Press wrote:
>
> Michael Warner wrote:
> >
> > I ride with someone who hasn't fixed a creaking bottom bracket because
> > (so he claims) if it's not creaking he knows he's not working hard enough.
> > It's a training aid!
>
> Does he positively, absolutely know,
> exactly why it creaks?
> Some creaks signal imminent fracture.
That's true; some things creak while they are in the process of
growing a crack. In my long experience of breaking stuff, my
observation is that most things that break don't make noticeable noise
before they snap off. But some do.
However, I have found a myriad of things that can and do creak at any
time whatsoever. For me, the most likely culprit is a sprung saddle.
Drops of oil banish these creaks for only a frustratingly short time.
Mostly I just live with them.
Second most likely is a steel-to-aluminum interface at the bottom
bracket shell. When I hear this sort of ticking or creaking, I know
it's time to disassemble, inspect, grease, tighten all fasteners, and
reinstall. It's during such service that I often find a worn
cartridge bearing before it gets noisy or sloppy.
After those two sources of creaks are eliminated, I find that any
remaining creaking or ticking could be _anything on the bike_, with no
clear order of probability. Pedal spindles, pedal cages, stem quill
or clamp, luggage rack, crack in the frame, cracked headset crown
race, rim joint, saddle clamp, dry seatpost... just about anything.
Worst of all, the sound can seem to come from an area of the bike
that's nowhere near the problem part. I hate that.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 01:09:38
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
>> Michael Warner wrote:
>>> I ride with someone who hasn't fixed a creaking bottom bracket because
>>> (so he claims) if it's not creaking he knows he's not working hard enough.
>>> It's a training aid!
> Michael Press wrote:
>> Does he positively, absolutely know,
>> exactly why it creaks?
>> Some creaks signal imminent fracture.
Chalo wrote:
> That's true; some things creak while they are in the process of
> growing a crack. In my long experience of breaking stuff, my
> observation is that most things that break don't make noticeable noise
> before they snap off. But some do.
>
> However, I have found a myriad of things that can and do creak at any
> time whatsoever. For me, the most likely culprit is a sprung saddle.
> Drops of oil banish these creaks for only a frustratingly short time.
> Mostly I just live with them.
>
> Second most likely is a steel-to-aluminum interface at the bottom
> bracket shell. When I hear this sort of ticking or creaking, I know
> it's time to disassemble, inspect, grease, tighten all fasteners, and
> reinstall. It's during such service that I often find a worn
> cartridge bearing before it gets noisy or sloppy.
>
> After those two sources of creaks are eliminated, I find that any
> remaining creaking or ticking could be _anything on the bike_, with no
> clear order of probability. Pedal spindles, pedal cages, stem quill
> or clamp, luggage rack, crack in the frame, cracked headset crown
> race, rim joint, saddle clamp, dry seatpost... just about anything.
> Worst of all, the sound can seem to come from an area of the bike
> that's nowhere near the problem part. I hate that.
So true. And yet customers expect noises diagnosed and rectified right
now. 'and do you mind if I watch/help/kibitz/interfere?'
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:55:33
From:
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 01:31:04 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> Michael Warner wrote:
>> >
>> > I ride with someone who hasn't fixed a creaking bottom bracket because
>> > (so he claims) if it's not creaking he knows he's not working hard enough.
>> > It's a training aid!
>>
>> Does he positively, absolutely know,
>> exactly why it creaks?
>> Some creaks signal imminent fracture.
>
>That's true; some things creak while they are in the process of
>growing a crack. In my long experience of breaking stuff, my
>observation is that most things that break don't make noticeable noise
>before they snap off. But some do.
>
>However, I have found a myriad of things that can and do creak at any
>time whatsoever. For me, the most likely culprit is a sprung saddle.
>Drops of oil banish these creaks for only a frustratingly short time.
>Mostly I just live with them.
>
>Second most likely is a steel-to-aluminum interface at the bottom
>bracket shell. When I hear this sort of ticking or creaking, I know
>it's time to disassemble, inspect, grease, tighten all fasteners, and
>reinstall. It's during such service that I often find a worn
>cartridge bearing before it gets noisy or sloppy.
>
>After those two sources of creaks are eliminated, I find that any
>remaining creaking or ticking could be _anything on the bike_, with no
>clear order of probability. Pedal spindles, pedal cages, stem quill
>or clamp, luggage rack, crack in the frame, cracked headset crown
>race, rim joint, saddle clamp, dry seatpost... just about anything.
>Worst of all, the sound can seem to come from an area of the bike
>that's nowhere near the problem part. I hate that.
>
>Chalo
Dear Chalo,
Riders like you often hate and fear small things that squeak:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/tricycle/eletri1a.jpg
:)
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:37:32
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
> 50 years ago?
That's not proprietary as in "protected by defensible patents", it's
proprietary as in "doesn't fit on anybody else's bike frame".
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:07:48
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article <1183757852.253201.192500@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design
> > from 50 years ago?
>
> That's not proprietary as in "protected by defensible patents", it's
> proprietary as in "doesn't fit on anybody else's bike frame".
An important distinction!
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:33:20
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> "Universal 61" or "Mafac Racers" are examples of the centerpull
> brakes back then. The "U-brake" was merely a later (and not-very-good)
> variation of the same thing.
The foible of the Universal centerpull was its center bolt and pivot
arch. That made it almost as floppy as the single-pivots of the day.
The foible of the Mafac brake was the whole stinking brake. Boy, did
those brakes suck.
Stud-mounted U-brakes were (and are) good brakes, which is why they
never went away on freestyle bikes. The only problem with them on
MTBs was sticking them down in the muck under the chainstays. Add
full fenders, and even that isn't a problem.
http://www.danscomp.com/products.php?cat=PARTS&show=Brakes
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:09:38
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article <1183757600.556718.183900@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com > wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:
> >
> > "Universal 61" or "Mafac Racers" are examples of the centerpull
> > brakes back then. The "U-brake" was merely a later (and
> > not-very-good) variation of the same thing.
>
> The foible of the Universal centerpull was its center bolt and pivot
> arch. That made it almost as floppy as the single-pivots of the day.
> The foible of the Mafac brake was the whole stinking brake. Boy, did
> those brakes suck.
Mafac Racers and the like are very good if you mount them on brazed-on
studs. Smoothly progressive and very powerful- a much better brake feel
than either dual pivots or sidepulls IMHO.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:24:05
From: DirtRoadie
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 9:23 am, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"
<russellseat...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
> both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
> Maybe that is the proprietary part.
Huh? They have cloned the mechanics of a classic centerpull brake.
[From Cyclingnews:]
> "Specialized also incorporates a proprietary braking system ...
>(think old U-brake) ..."
No, think farther back - to the road bikes which existed before the
"mountain bikes" of the last 20 years or so (Keeping in mind that the
earliest bikes were not really "road" bikes in the present sense of
being used on pavement.
"Universal 61" or "Mafac Racers" are examples of the centerpull
brakes back then. The "U-brake" was merely a later (and not-very-good)
variation of the same thing.
DR
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:05:15
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:23 am, "russellseat...@yahoo.com"
> <russellseat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
>> both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
>> Maybe that is the proprietary part.
>
> Huh? They have cloned the mechanics of a classic centerpull brake.
>
> [From Cyclingnews:]
>> "Specialized also incorporates a proprietary braking system ...
>> (think old U-brake) ..."
>
> No, think farther back - to the road bikes which existed before the
> "mountain bikes" of the last 20 years or so (Keeping in mind that the
> earliest bikes were not really "road" bikes in the present sense of
> being used on pavement.
>
> "Universal 61" or "Mafac Racers" are examples of the centerpull
> brakes back then. The "U-brake" was merely a later (and not-very-good)
> variation of the same thing.
>
> DR
>
This is a Weinmann 753 inspired design: bolt on brakeblocks, solid bars
instead of a v-cable
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 09:31:14
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 5:50 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
IIRC people were hoarding old U-brakes, AX and Delta brakes for their
TT bikes anyway -- particularly after Lance used AX on his TT bike.
This just looks like some OEM is making them new -- which saves
Specialized from having to fish them out of dumpsters or off eBay. If
this brake creeps in to the road line up, then I will wonder what's
going on. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 08:23:22
From: russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1183726237.312512.23...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
> > h/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
>
> "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
> 50 years ago?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/specialized_tarmac_launch07
Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
Maybe that is the proprietary part.
"Specialized also incorporates a proprietary braking system for the
new Transition which uses a more aerodynamic center-pull dual-pivot
configuration (think old U-brake) and aero-sculpted calipers."
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:35:49
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article <1183735402.473502.56540@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
"russellseaton1@yahoo.com" <russellseaton1@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <1183726237.312512.23...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/phot
> > >os...
> > > h/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
> >
> > "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design
> > from 50 years ago?
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/specialized_
> tarmac_l aunch07
There's an amazing amount of technobullshit on that page. It makes me
think that the cyclingnews.com people are quite gullible or that they
like to parrot whatever their sponsors tell them.
> Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
> both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
> Maybe that is the proprietary part.
>
> "Specialized also incorporates a proprietary braking system for the
> new Transition which uses a more aerodynamic center-pull dual-pivot
> configuration (think old U-brake) and aero-sculpted calipers."
Look at it. It's damn near a copy of a Mafac center pull just with the
arms bent upwards a bit to shorten the straddle wire, which appears to
be a pair of solid rods rather than a cable. The pivot location looks
exactly the same as the Mafac. Don't get me wrong, I like centerpull
brakes, I just see nothing new with this design.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:38:57
From: futrino
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <1183726237.312512.23...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
>>>h/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
>>
>>"Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
>>50 years ago?
>
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/specialized_tarmac_launch07
>
> Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
> both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
> Maybe that is the proprietary part.
>
> "Specialized also incorporates a proprietary braking system for the
> new Transition which uses a more aerodynamic center-pull dual-pivot
> configuration (think old U-brake) and aero-sculpted calipers."
>
I am going to make some of these for my bike
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/features/specialized_tarmac_launch07/Specialized_S-Works_Transition_speed_gussets
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xsnyk
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:14:58
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> In article <1183726237.312512.23...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
>>> h/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
>> "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
>> 50 years ago?
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/specialized_tarmac_launch07
>
> Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
> both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
> Maybe that is the proprietary part.
>
Nothing new, center pulls have dual-pivots.
Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org
Le Petite Dejeuner au Tour de Farce:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6131132
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54
From: none
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> In article <1183726237.312512.23...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
>>> h/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
>> "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
>> 50 years ago?
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2007/features/specialized_tarmac_launch07
>
> Based on the description in the link above, they have incorporated
> both the dual pivot mechanism and center pull into the same brake.
> Maybe that is the proprietary part.
>
> "Specialized also incorporates a proprietary braking system for the
> new Transition which uses a more aerodynamic center-pull dual-pivot
> configuration (think old U-brake) and aero-sculpted calipers."
>
I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although I'm
pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two out there.
Marcus
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:54:25
From: still me
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54 -0400, none <none@none.xxx > wrote:
>
>I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although I'm
>pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two out there.
I'm having problems visualizing that.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:36:29
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article <itss839oemkp1mfksqdobmc178tc1ham0q@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54 -0400, none <none@none.xxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although
> >I'm pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two out
> >there.
>
> I'm having problems visualizing that.
Me, too. Maybe you have to be a cyclops.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 13:20:53
From: Marcus Coles
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
still me wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54 -0400, none <none@none.xxx> wrote:
>
>> I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although I'm
>> pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two out there.
>
> I'm having problems visualizing that.
Try to picture a cable operated pair of pliers or rim grabbing tongs.
Maybe Mr. Fogel knows of a example, my cybervoyage to Joel Metz'
collection http://www.blackbirdsf.org/brake_obscura/ failed to turn up
anything.
Marcus
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:56:23
From: John Thompson
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On 2007-07-06, Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca > wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54 -0400, none <none@none.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although I'm
>>> pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two out there.
>>
>> I'm having problems visualizing that.
> Try to picture a cable operated pair of pliers or rim grabbing tongs.
>
>
> Maybe Mr. Fogel knows of a example, my cybervoyage to Joel Metz'
> collection http://www.blackbirdsf.org/brake_obscura/ failed to turn up
> anything.
Maybe this:
http://www.blackbirdsf.org/brake_obscura/images/road/campy_delta2.jpg
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 13:32:53
From:
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:20:53 -0400, Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca >
wrote:
>still me wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54 -0400, none <none@none.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although I'm
>>> pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two out there.
>>
>> I'm having problems visualizing that.
>
>
>Try to picture a cable operated pair of pliers or rim grabbing tongs.
>
>
>Maybe Mr. Fogel knows of a example, my cybervoyage to Joel Metz'
>collection http://www.blackbirdsf.org/brake_obscura/ failed to turn up
>anything.
>
>
>Marcus
Dear Marcus,
Page 75, "The Data Book," 1947, single-pivot center-pull brake:
http://i12.tinypic.com/6gss5d2.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:49:03
From: Marcus Coles
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Carl,
Thanks, did you dig back or forward six decades?
I seems almost anything one can think of has been attached to a bicycle.
Marcus
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:50:29
From:
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:49:03 -0400, Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca >
wrote:
>Carl,
>
>Thanks, did you dig back or forward six decades?
>It seems almost anything one can think of has been attached to a bicycle.
>
>Marcus
Dear Marcus,
I leafed backward, but the book ends in 1959, so it was only a dozen
years back to 1947. This 1952 brake on p. 160 struck me as even
stranger:
http://i12.tinypic.com/6evvs51.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 01:15:01
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca >> wrote:
>> Thanks, did you dig back or forward six decades?
>> It seems almost anything one can think of has been attached to a bicycle.
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I leafed backward, but the book ends in 1959, so it was only a dozen
> years back to 1947. This 1952 brake on p. 160 struck me as even
> stranger:
> http://i12.tinypic.com/6evvs51.jpg
A BeboLuxe! They also had a bolt-on model.
The parallels to Deltas are creepy, eh?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:38:15
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article <h36t8397t20e7jsthls06cvj7nv3rr2c8o@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:20:53 -0400, Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >still me wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:37:54 -0400, none <none@none.xxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've never seen a center-pull brake without dual pivots, although
> >>> I'm pretty sure there must be a single pivot center-pull or two
> >>> out there.
> >>
> >> I'm having problems visualizing that.
> >
> >
> >Try to picture a cable operated pair of pliers or rim grabbing
> >tongs.
> >
> >
> >Maybe Mr. Fogel knows of a example, my cybervoyage to Joel Metz'
> >collection http://www.blackbirdsf.org/brake_obscura/ failed to turn
> >up anything.
>
> Dear Marcus,
>
> Page 75, "The Data Book," 1947, single-pivot center-pull brake:
>
> http://i12.tinypic.com/6gss5d2.jpg
Monsieur Rebour to the rescue, aided by the inimitable Mr. Fogel.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:38:33
From: still me
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:32:53 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>Dear Marcus,
>
>Page 75, "The Data Book," 1947, single-pivot center-pull brake:
>
>http://i12.tinypic.com/6gss5d2.jpg
Thanks boys, the tong-factor completed the visualization for me.
Looks like my Weinmann centerpulls are back in fashion though! Just
like those old ties, if I wait long enough, they all come back in
fashion.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 08:16:51
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 7:50 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
Aero, light, whaever--it's red and very handsome! I've been keeping my
eye out for a set of vintage Dia-Compe center pulls for a while. I
love the way they look, and the braking's not bad as well. I
reluctantly gave away a weathered set yesterday with an old frame.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 09:35:24
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article <1183726237.312512.23590@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos/2007/tec
> h/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
"Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
50 years ago?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 11:28:06
From: none
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> "Proprietary" brake? What's proprietary about a retreaded design from
> 50 years ago?
Probably non-standard mounting studs or spacing.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 13:58:07
From: Bruce Gilbert
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1183726237.312512.23590@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos/2007/tech/features/tour_boonen_transition07/Boonen_Transition_front_brake
>
Looks like we are back to the '60's brake designs. Just like the old
Weinmann brakes of the period when we had square limestone wheels. You know,
just before the pyramids went up...
All of this started when they re-introduced those wool jerseys. What will
be next, corduroy knickers?
Those new brakes are definitely anodized red. That should make them a lot
faster and prolong the life of the pads. One easy addition would be a small
air scoop whistle that could signal the aero advantage threshold speed so
the rider could get definitive data as to when the brakes were working at
peak efficiency. That could eliminate the entire need for computers. Since
they are unreliable, run on batteries and complicated to boot. Just ride
fast enough to hear the sound of winning and hold it there... The perfect
gift for under $100!
Bruce
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 14:37:10
From: Helmut Springer
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Bruce Gilbert <bgilbertREMOVE@hal-pc.org > wrote:
> addition would be a small air scoop whistle that could signal the
> aero advantage threshold speed so the rider could get definitive
> data as to when the brakes were working at peak efficiency. That
> could eliminate the entire need for computers. Since they are
> unreliable, run on batteries and complicated to boot. Just ride
> fast enough to hear the sound of winning and hold it there... The
> perfect gift for under $100!
It would even make head wind an advantage...
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 23:44:08
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:58:07 GMT, Bruce Gilbert wrote:
> Those new brakes are definitely anodized red. That should make them a lot
> faster and prolong the life of the pads. One easy addition would be a small
> air scoop whistle that could signal the aero advantage threshold speed so
> the rider could get definitive data as to when the brakes were working at
> peak efficiency.
I ride with someone who hasn't fixed a creaking bottom bracket because
(so he claims) if it's not creaking he knows he's not working hard enough.
It's a training aid!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:14:25
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
In article
<3n46jad9gr6o.c5ube1shgxi3$.dlg@40tude.net >,
Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:58:07 GMT, Bruce Gilbert wrote:
>
> > Those new brakes are definitely anodized red. That should make them a lot
> > faster and prolong the life of the pads. One easy addition would be a small
> > air scoop whistle that could signal the aero advantage threshold speed so
> > the rider could get definitive data as to when the brakes were working at
> > peak efficiency.
>
> I ride with someone who hasn't fixed a creaking bottom bracket because
> (so he claims) if it's not creaking he knows he's not working hard enough.
> It's a training aid!
Does he positively, absolutely know,
exactly why it creaks?
Some creaks signal imminent fracture.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2007 11:41:07
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:14:25 -0700, Michael Press wrote:
> Does he positively, absolutely know,
> exactly why it creaks?
> Some creaks signal imminent fracture.
Good point. I should tell him it's dangerous so I don't have to put up
with the noise anymore :-)
I'd happily fix it for him, assuming it's the BB, but I don't have the
right tool.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 06:50:36
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 8:43 am, "Fixed" <gibilaatdit...@senselan.ch > wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> schreef in berichtnews:1183728435.338653.177350@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 6, 8:11 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> > Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
> >> > and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>
> >> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
>
> > That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
> > droids for quite some time.
>
> I'm missing the pointy "aero" hoods on the bolts
>
Be patient. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 06:27:15
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 8:11 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
> > and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>
> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
droids for quite some time.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:01:49
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:27:15 -0700, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote:
>On Jul 6, 8:11 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
>> > and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>>
>> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
>
>That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
>droids for quite some time.
Ozark, can you post a picture of your bike, ideally with you on it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:04:56
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
>> > and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>>
>> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
>
> That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
> droids for quite some time.
No matter how much it might make sense (for the rider doing a 40k TT, or
even just a long solo ride just for fun), Aero doesn't sell on the sales
floor. It doesn't even always sell where it *should* sell. The initial
Madone was produced only in an "aero" version, complete with tailfin (a seat
tube that flared to the bike, that I always thought looked pretty cool) and
a funny-shaped downtube that windtunnel testing showed made quite a
difference. But those features added 50 grams to the weight of the bike, as
well as some extra cost. And then Lance got into the act. He wanted a
superlight climbing machine, and didn't see the point to those extra 50
grams. Even though he was shown the data to prove its worth (at the speeds
he rides, it definitely would have been a worthwhile trade during those
times he'd be at the front). So the tailfin and downtube go bye-bye on his
bike, and subsequently bye-bye throughout the rest of the line as well.
Shaped tubes do sell, when they're essentially stylized elements of the
frame. We actually see a lot of bikes out there that are the opposite of
aero, giving up efficiency in the name of what looks cool.
It's just not an easy thing for a bike product guy to figure out. But in
general, customers want something they can measure on a scale, not in a wind
tunnel.
-
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 23:28:07
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:27:15 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
>>> and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>>
>> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
>
> That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
> droids for quite some time.
True, but why? I can think of some reasons:
- It's much easier for the average person to understand and verify
differences in weight than in aero resistance.
- Many aero components make riding in crosswinds and cornering harder.
While light components may break more easily, that's only a possible
problem, not an immediate one :-)
- For recreational riders, a lighter bike will improve climbing speed, if
only slightly, whereas a more aero bike won't cause any noticeable
improvement in a typical flat group ride unless you're doing very long
pulls on the front on a very long ride.
But I know recreational riders who've chosen heavier aero frames and
parts over light ones - they tend to be good pullers and sprinters on the
flat rather than climbers, so they think the bike supports their strengths.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 23:25:58
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:27:15 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
>>> and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>>
>> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
>
> That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
> droids for quite some time.
True, but why? I can think of some reasons:
- It's much easier for the average person to understand and verify
differences in weight than in aero resistance.
- Many aero components make riding in crosswinds and cornering harder.
While light components may break more easily, that's only a possible
problem, not an immediate one :-)
- For recreational riders, a lighter bike will improve climbing speed, if
only slightly, whereas a more aero bike won't cause any noticeable
improvement in a typical flat group ride unless you're doing very long
pulls on the front on a very long ride.
But I know recreational riders who've chosen heavier aero frames and
parts over light ones - they tend to be good pullers and sprinters on the
flat rather than climbers, so they think the bike supports their strengths.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:51:40
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> - Many aero components make riding in crosswinds and cornering harder.
> While light components may break more easily, that's only a possible
> problem, not an immediate one :-)
It's not a problem at all, it's another sale when the guy has to replace it.
--
David L. Johnson
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:43:30
From: Fixed
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
"Ozark Bicycle" <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com > schreef in bericht
news:1183728435.338653.177350@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 6, 8:11 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
>> > and the beginning of another "aero" era?
>>
>> It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
>
> That has *not* been the emphasis of the marketeers and the LBS sales
> droids for quite some time.
I'm missing the pointy "aero" hoods on the bolts
Taeke
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Jul 6, 7:50 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/index.php?id=/photos...
Can you say "Para-Pull"?
Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
and the beginning of another "aero" era?
"Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose" - Jacques Meoff, famous
veteran cyclist
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 22:41:28
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Back to the future!!
|
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:04:56 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Does this signal the tail-end of the current "what's it weigh?" era
> and the beginning of another "aero" era?
It's always been "aero" era in flat stages.
|
|
