Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Who is making SRAM components.....?
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Randall
Feb 21, 2012, 2:21:23 AM2/21/12
to
Who is making SRAM components.....?
The brakes look at lot like the old Modolo SLK brakes. Modolo has been
OEMing brakes for various companies over the years for Mavic. I would
not surprised if Stronglight was making their cranks as well. Not
certain if the Huret division is still making parts.
I can't believe that Sachs shut down the Maillard division. When
Sachs acquired Maillard they were the number #1 hub manufacturer in
the world. The Normandy hubs were standard on most of the bikes until
the late 80's. Today the consumers have live with these junky Joytech
hubs that are rough because the hub flanges are not parallel.
The brakes look at lot like the old Modolo SLK brakes. Modolo has been
OEMing brakes for various companies over the years for Mavic. I would
not surprised if Stronglight was making their cranks as well. Not
certain if the Huret division is still making parts.
I can't believe that Sachs shut down the Maillard division. When
Sachs acquired Maillard they were the number #1 hub manufacturer in
the world. The Normandy hubs were standard on most of the bikes until
the late 80's. Today the consumers have live with these junky Joytech
hubs that are rough because the hub flanges are not parallel.
Ryan Cousineau
Feb 22, 2012, 12:09:37 PM2/22/12
to
On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who is making SRAM components.....?
China, probably.
> Who is making SRAM components.....?
> The brakes look at lot like the old Modolo SLK brakes. Modolo has been
> OEMing brakes for various companies over the years for Mavic. I would
> not surprised if Stronglight was making their cranks as well. Not
certain if the Huret division is still making parts.
specialists Truvativ.
> I can't believe that Sachs shut down the Maillard division. When
> Sachs acquired Maillard they were the number #1 hub manufacturer in
> the world. The Normandy hubs were standard on most of the bikes until
> the late 80's. Today the consumers have live with these junky Joytech
> hubs that are rough because the hub flanges are not parallel.
Maillard hubs, though usually all you hear about is their notorious
Helicomatic freehub.
I think the who and where of manufacturing, though interesting as a
business-process question, ends up being a lot less important than
design and process control. So Campagnolo was able to make both very
good and very bad equipment in Italy, and Shimano could make good
stuff in Malaysia.
Randall
Feb 22, 2012, 5:09:11 PM2/22/12
to
On Feb 22, 9:09 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who is making SRAM components.....?
>
> China, probably.
>
Possibly but I have not seen that level of quailty parts come from
> On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who is making SRAM components.....?
>
> China, probably.
>
china yet.Po
> > The brakes look at lot like the old Modolo SLK brakes. Modolo has been
> > OEMing brakes for various companies over the years for Mavic. I would
> > not surprised if Stronglight was making their cranks as well. Not
>
> certain if the Huret division is still making parts.
>
> SRAM has a lot of in-house component experience, and owns crank
> specialists Truvativ.
>
> > I can't believe that Sachs shut down the Maillard division. When
> > Sachs acquired Maillard they were the number #1 hub manufacturer in
> > the world. The Normandy hubs were standard on most of the bikes until
> > the late 80's. Today the consumers have live with these junky Joytech
> > hubs that are rough because the hub flanges are not parallel.
ball bearing hubs made. The seal were great. You would open up the
hubs and the grease looked like they had been repacked. The only real
issue is that the axles broke. They used a.chromoly axle. So seems.kin
of strange.
>
> I think you're the first person I've heard say anything nice about
> Maillard hubs, though usually all you hear about is their notorious
> Helicomatic freehub.
> j
> I think you're the first person I've heard say anything nice about
> Maillard hubs, though usually all you hear about is their notorious
> Helicomatic freehub.
Brad Anders
Feb 23, 2012, 9:07:54 AM2/23/12
to
No idea of who is making SRAM, but I don't yearn for the equipment of
the '70's and '80's at all. Crappy shifting, bearings that constantly
had to be repacked, headsets that required regular fiddling, heavy
steel frames that fatigue cracked, weak brakes, cables that snapped
regularly, flimsy tubular rims that dented and broke easily.
the '70's and '80's at all. Crappy shifting, bearings that constantly
had to be repacked, headsets that required regular fiddling, heavy
steel frames that fatigue cracked, weak brakes, cables that snapped
regularly, flimsy tubular rims that dented and broke easily.
A. Dumas
Feb 23, 2012, 9:23:39 AM2/23/12
to
On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
> equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-but-will-they-work/
> equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-but-will-they-work/
Fred Flintstein
Feb 23, 2012, 10:20:23 AM2/23/12
to
If you subtract out utility bikes, road bikes are rapidly
becoming a niche market consisting of older riders. How
many sets of disc brakes would you have to sell to fatty
masters (who are generally looking for *lighter* stuff,
not heavier) to justify the lawsuit risk?
F
Ryan Cousineau
Feb 23, 2012, 12:32:48 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 7:20 am, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
wrote:
touring). The CX crowd wants them because they ride through mud and
wreck their rims and brakes, and discs are a clear advantage for them
in many situations.
In the commuter market, it doesn't matter in a lot of places, but in
Vancouver I'd say that discs are almost a default choice for serious
commuter bikes (I don't have one on my bike, but I'm considering the
retrofit). Again, same deal: better wet-weather braking, less rain
fouling, no rim wear.
As for the weight, UCI legal road bikes now have weight to burn. The
6.8 kg minimum is relatively easy for high-end bikes to hit (and I
mean high-end as in stuff that sits on the showroom floor of
mainstream road bike shops, not "optimized" nonsense from boutique
companies). That's not really a good reason for road racing bikes to
use discs, but it means that barring aero issues, they can be used
without an effective weight penalty.
The poor sucker in the bikerumor article was the subject of an
implementation that even my arts-major brain can see was really
stupid: road bikes have the potential to put far higher stress on
their braking systems than wussy MTBers, since speed=energy, and
brakes are for dissipating energy. For some reason, his bike had the
airiest lowest-area (Ashima) disc I have ever seen on a bike. As he
suspects, maybe a plausible CX design, but I'm going to claim post hoc
that had I seen such a rotor on a purported road bike, I would have
immediately identified it as a grave design flaw.
Non-ridiculous disc brake systems can be made to work on the road. The
most obvious advantage I see is not wearing out rims through brake
usage, which means you can run fancy rims on wet days without thinking
about the cost (maybe of some use to semi-cheapskate roadies, of
massive use to semi-cheapskate CXers and rainforest-dwelling commuters
such as myself, where rim wear is a notable operating cost).
I don't know if plausible implementations of a road bike disc system
(weight-competitive, doesn't brake, doesn't have micro-discs that try
to kill the rider on descents) will offer performance advantages over
rim brakes. The potential to run closer tolerances than you can get
away with on rim systems suggests you can get the same kinds of
leverage and modulation advantages that drove MTBers to discs, but
road bike rim braking is not an obvious limitation on road bike
performance right now. Like I say, it might be nice to have a bit
better braking (if that happens), and the rim wear advantages are
compelling at some level, but I'm not rushing out to buy a disc system
for my race bike. (OTOH, I have not yet upgraded from 9-speed on my
race bike, so I'm already a retrogrouch of sorts).
Regarding the fatty master market for road bikes, as long as you don't
make imbecilic rotors like that Ashima (drillium kills, kids), or
commit the other basic errors that are pretty much identified by the
manufeacturer reps the reporter interviewed, fatty masters will not be
endangered or entorted (that's a word, right lawyers?) by discs.
That's not to say they'll buy them.
wrote:
> On 2/23/2012 8:23 AM, A. Dumas wrote:
>
> > On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
> >> equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
>
> >http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-...
>
> > On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
> >> equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
>
>
> Good lord!!
>
> If you subtract out utility bikes, road bikes are rapidly
> becoming a niche market consisting of older riders. How
> many sets of disc brakes would you have to sell to fatty
> masters (who are generally looking for *lighter* stuff,
> not heavier) to justify the lawsuit risk?
The gateway for "road" discs is cyclocross and commuting (maybe
> Good lord!!
>
> If you subtract out utility bikes, road bikes are rapidly
> becoming a niche market consisting of older riders. How
> many sets of disc brakes would you have to sell to fatty
> masters (who are generally looking for *lighter* stuff,
> not heavier) to justify the lawsuit risk?
touring). The CX crowd wants them because they ride through mud and
wreck their rims and brakes, and discs are a clear advantage for them
in many situations.
In the commuter market, it doesn't matter in a lot of places, but in
Vancouver I'd say that discs are almost a default choice for serious
commuter bikes (I don't have one on my bike, but I'm considering the
retrofit). Again, same deal: better wet-weather braking, less rain
fouling, no rim wear.
As for the weight, UCI legal road bikes now have weight to burn. The
6.8 kg minimum is relatively easy for high-end bikes to hit (and I
mean high-end as in stuff that sits on the showroom floor of
mainstream road bike shops, not "optimized" nonsense from boutique
companies). That's not really a good reason for road racing bikes to
use discs, but it means that barring aero issues, they can be used
without an effective weight penalty.
The poor sucker in the bikerumor article was the subject of an
implementation that even my arts-major brain can see was really
stupid: road bikes have the potential to put far higher stress on
their braking systems than wussy MTBers, since speed=energy, and
brakes are for dissipating energy. For some reason, his bike had the
airiest lowest-area (Ashima) disc I have ever seen on a bike. As he
suspects, maybe a plausible CX design, but I'm going to claim post hoc
that had I seen such a rotor on a purported road bike, I would have
immediately identified it as a grave design flaw.
Non-ridiculous disc brake systems can be made to work on the road. The
most obvious advantage I see is not wearing out rims through brake
usage, which means you can run fancy rims on wet days without thinking
about the cost (maybe of some use to semi-cheapskate roadies, of
massive use to semi-cheapskate CXers and rainforest-dwelling commuters
such as myself, where rim wear is a notable operating cost).
I don't know if plausible implementations of a road bike disc system
(weight-competitive, doesn't brake, doesn't have micro-discs that try
to kill the rider on descents) will offer performance advantages over
rim brakes. The potential to run closer tolerances than you can get
away with on rim systems suggests you can get the same kinds of
leverage and modulation advantages that drove MTBers to discs, but
road bike rim braking is not an obvious limitation on road bike
performance right now. Like I say, it might be nice to have a bit
better braking (if that happens), and the rim wear advantages are
compelling at some level, but I'm not rushing out to buy a disc system
for my race bike. (OTOH, I have not yet upgraded from 9-speed on my
race bike, so I'm already a retrogrouch of sorts).
Regarding the fatty master market for road bikes, as long as you don't
make imbecilic rotors like that Ashima (drillium kills, kids), or
commit the other basic errors that are pretty much identified by the
manufeacturer reps the reporter interviewed, fatty masters will not be
endangered or entorted (that's a word, right lawyers?) by discs.
That's not to say they'll buy them.
Fred Flintstein
Feb 23, 2012, 5:14:39 PM2/23/12
to
On 2/23/2012 11:32 AM, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> On Feb 23, 7:20 am, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 8:23 AM, A. Dumas wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>> equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
>>
>>> http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-...
>>
>> Good lord!!
>>
>> If you subtract out utility bikes, road bikes are rapidly
>> becoming a niche market consisting of older riders. How
>> many sets of disc brakes would you have to sell to fatty
>> masters (who are generally looking for *lighter* stuff,
>> not heavier) to justify the lawsuit risk?
>
> The gateway for "road" discs is cyclocross and commuting (maybe
> touring). The CX crowd wants them because they ride through mud and
> wreck their rims and brakes, and discs are a clear advantage for them
> in many situations.
>
> In the commuter market, it doesn't matter in a lot of places, but in
> Vancouver I'd say that discs are almost a default choice for serious
> commuter bikes (I don't have one on my bike, but I'm considering the
> retrofit). Again, same deal: better wet-weather braking, less rain
> fouling, no rim wear.
CX? Sure. Absolutely. We are not far from having the majority of
> On Feb 23, 7:20 am, Fred Flintstein<bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2012 8:23 AM, A. Dumas wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
>>>> equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
>>
>>> http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-...
>>
>> Good lord!!
>>
>> If you subtract out utility bikes, road bikes are rapidly
>> becoming a niche market consisting of older riders. How
>> many sets of disc brakes would you have to sell to fatty
>> masters (who are generally looking for *lighter* stuff,
>> not heavier) to justify the lawsuit risk?
>
> The gateway for "road" discs is cyclocross and commuting (maybe
> touring). The CX crowd wants them because they ride through mud and
> wreck their rims and brakes, and discs are a clear advantage for them
> in many situations.
>
> In the commuter market, it doesn't matter in a lot of places, but in
> Vancouver I'd say that discs are almost a default choice for serious
> commuter bikes (I don't have one on my bike, but I'm considering the
> retrofit). Again, same deal: better wet-weather braking, less rain
> fouling, no rim wear.
CX bikes coming with disc brakes.
Commuters? You're correct there too. Outside of the rain forest
it doesn't matter. I'll bet the numbers of riders with extended
descents far outnumbers the ones in the rainforest.
> As for the weight, UCI legal road bikes now have weight to burn. The
> 6.8 kg minimum is relatively easy for high-end bikes to hit (and I
> mean high-end as in stuff that sits on the showroom floor of
> mainstream road bike shops, not "optimized" nonsense from boutique
> companies). That's not really a good reason for road racing bikes to
> use discs, but it means that barring aero issues, they can be used
> without an effective weight penalty.
don't fall under UCI rules. No one is going to pay extra(*) for
something that is heavier and less reliable to solve problems
that don't exist outside of the rainforest.
F
(*) Unless they make them out of carbon fiber and charge way too
much. That's how Arse-Sys wheels hit the market even though every
prior attempt at carbon fiber spokes had failed.
Brad Anders
Feb 23, 2012, 7:19:24 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 7:23 am, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
>
> http://www.bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/road-bike-disc-brakes-are-coming-...
> On 23/02/2012 15:07, Brad Anders wrote:
>
> > equipment of the '70's and '80's [...] weak brakes
>
Can't really see the advantage here of disc brakes. Heavier, more
complex, more prone to fading, etc. Stetina also said you won't be
able to reduce road bike rim weights appreciably to offset the weight
of the rotor without compromising strength.
IMO, the dual-pivot brake was a gigantic improvement in braking over
the previous single-pivot and centerpull designs. You went from a
brake that either had zero stopping power (e.g. Mafac centerpull) or
required high effort (e.g. Campy/others single-pivot sidepull) to a
brake which has good feel and modulation, along with low effort and
light weight.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Feb 23, 2012, 10:22:18 PM2/23/12
to
On Feb 23, 3:14 pm, Fred Flintstein <bob.schwa...@sbcremoveglobal.net>
wrote:
going to pay more for something that is heavier and
less reliable to solve problems they don't have!
As long as it is shiny (or carbon-y) and new and they
need to buy it to keep up with the guy who always
shows up on Saturday with the latest awesome thing,
it will sell like ... like donuts at a fatty masters picnic,
that's what it will sell like.
Arse-Sys wheels are hardly the only example. Remember
Spinergys? Rev-X? Goddamn those things were annoying.
Boutique clacky freehubs? And on and on.
Years ago, they used to have flamewars in r.b.tech about
disk brakes levering front wheels out of fork dropouts.
I had the impression that the MTB world eventually conceded
that as a possible design flaw if you used a wimpy (road) skewer,
but maybe I'm wrong. Was this ever settled before they
started putting disc brakes on road bikes?
(Surely that issue must have been settled for CX disc bikes,
since you do need a QR skewer for quick wheel changes.)
Fredmaster Ben
brakes are for slowing, not stopping
wrote:
>
> I forget, you're from Canuckistan. In the US, fatty master races
> don't fall under UCI rules. No one is going to pay extra(*) for
> something that is heavier and less reliable to solve problems
> that don't exist outside of the rainforest.
>
> F
>
> (*) Unless they make them out of carbon fiber and charge way too
> much. That's how Arse-Sys wheels hit the market even though every
> prior attempt at carbon fiber spokes had failed.
Do you even ride a bike? Of course fatty masters are
> I forget, you're from Canuckistan. In the US, fatty master races
> don't fall under UCI rules. No one is going to pay extra(*) for
> something that is heavier and less reliable to solve problems
> that don't exist outside of the rainforest.
>
> F
>
> (*) Unless they make them out of carbon fiber and charge way too
> much. That's how Arse-Sys wheels hit the market even though every
> prior attempt at carbon fiber spokes had failed.
going to pay more for something that is heavier and
less reliable to solve problems they don't have!
As long as it is shiny (or carbon-y) and new and they
need to buy it to keep up with the guy who always
shows up on Saturday with the latest awesome thing,
it will sell like ... like donuts at a fatty masters picnic,
that's what it will sell like.
Arse-Sys wheels are hardly the only example. Remember
Spinergys? Rev-X? Goddamn those things were annoying.
Boutique clacky freehubs? And on and on.
Years ago, they used to have flamewars in r.b.tech about
disk brakes levering front wheels out of fork dropouts.
I had the impression that the MTB world eventually conceded
that as a possible design flaw if you used a wimpy (road) skewer,
but maybe I'm wrong. Was this ever settled before they
started putting disc brakes on road bikes?
(Surely that issue must have been settled for CX disc bikes,
since you do need a QR skewer for quick wheel changes.)
Fredmaster Ben
brakes are for slowing, not stopping
Randall
Feb 24, 2012, 1:55:32 AM2/24/12
to
SRAM was originally owned by SACH's. Not sure, but I think SR now owns
SRAM. Sachs automotive still makes motorcycle chains. So I would not
be surprised if SACHS is still OEMing chains for SRAM.
SRAM. Sachs automotive still makes motorcycle chains. So I would not
be surprised if SACHS is still OEMing chains for SRAM.
DirtRoadie
Feb 24, 2012, 8:00:03 AM2/24/12
to
On Feb 23, 11:55 pm, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> SRAM was originally owned by SACH's. Not sure, but I think SR now owns
> SRAM. Sachs automotive still makes motorcycle chains. So I would not
> be surprised if SACHS is still OEMing chains for SRAM.
>
SRAM acquired Sachs.
> SRAM was originally owned by SACH's. Not sure, but I think SR now owns
> SRAM. Sachs automotive still makes motorcycle chains. So I would not
> be surprised if SACHS is still OEMing chains for SRAM.
>
And before the chains were Sachs they were Sedis.
http://www.sedis.fr/en/sedis_group/history.htm
http://www.bikepro.com/products/chains/sachs-sedis.html
Also:
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/SRAM-Corporation-company-History.html
http://velobase.com/ViewBrand.aspx?BrandID=23fa0def-0716-4f81-b7f8-3ff079fe6a27&From=T
DR
Simply Fred
Feb 24, 2012, 9:11:55 AM2/24/12
to
DirtRoadie wrote:
> SRAM acquired Sachs.
> And before the chains were Sachs they were Sedis.
Sounds like a chain of custody.
> SRAM acquired Sachs.
> And before the chains were Sachs they were Sedis.
Randall
Feb 24, 2012, 10:25:49 PM2/24/12
to
When Sachs was making components they were using Weinmann. Weinmann
looks as though they have been acquired and only the rims exist now.
looks as though they have been acquired and only the rims exist now.
Frederick the Great
Feb 24, 2012, 11:51:51 PM2/24/12
to
In article
<bc26cf5e-16c3-4454...@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> since speed=energy,
Bzzzzzzzt!
--
Old Fritz
<bc26cf5e-16c3-4454...@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> since speed=energy,
Bzzzzzzzt!
--
Old Fritz
A. Dumas
Feb 25, 2012, 1:21:33 PM2/25/12
to
On 25/02/2012 05:51, Frederick the Great wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> since speed=energy,
>
> Bzzzzzzzt!
Fatty masters know that mass = energy.
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> since speed=energy,
>
> Bzzzzzzzt!
Fatty masters know that mass = energy.
dave a
Feb 25, 2012, 10:36:26 PM2/25/12
to
Ryan Cousineau
Feb 27, 2012, 3:32:44 PM2/27/12
to
On Feb 24, 8:51 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <bc26cf5e-16c3-4454-987e-7be49e468...@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > since speed=energy,
>
> Bzzzzzzzt!
We barely regret the oversimplification. Ek=1/2(mv^2); m is not
varying much here, and v is varying a lot. So v ("speed"; who cares
which direction your vector is pointing) is dictating the kinetic
energy changes in this model.
> In article
> <bc26cf5e-16c3-4454-987e-7be49e468...@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > since speed=energy,
>
> Bzzzzzzzt!
We barely regret the oversimplification. Ek=1/2(mv^2); m is not
varying much here, and v is varying a lot. So v ("speed"; who cares
which direction your vector is pointing) is dictating the kinetic
energy changes in this model.
Frederick the Great
Feb 29, 2012, 4:40:26 AM2/29/12
to
In article
<5f15dc2b-37b4-48e8...@y17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Kinetic energy is not proportional to speed.
--
Old Fritz
<5f15dc2b-37b4-48e8...@y17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
--
Old Fritz
Ryan Cousineau
Feb 29, 2012, 12:58:54 PM2/29/12
to
> <5f15dc2b-37b4-48e8-a182-c647c23f1...@y17g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
kinetic energy changes in this model. I barely regret the
oversimplification. Indeed, I understated the case for my claim: "road
comparison of "road bikes" and "MTBers.")
So, anyway, as your speed goes up, your kinetic energy goes up very
rapidly, and that largely dictates the amount of energy your brake
discs have to dissipate, so road bikes may need surprisingly big discs.
> Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:51 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bc26cf5e-16c3-4454-987e-7be49e468...@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > since speed=energy,
>
> > > Bzzzzzzzt!
>
> > We barely regret the oversimplification. Ek=1/2(mv^2); m is not
> > varying much here, and v is varying a lot. So v ("speed"; who cares
> > which direction your vector is pointing) is dictating the kinetic
> > energy changes in this model.
>
> Kinetic energy is not proportional to speed.
I am aware of the implications of "Ek=1/2(mv^2)". v is dictating the
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:51 pm, Frederick the Great <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bc26cf5e-16c3-4454-987e-7be49e468...@ub4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > since speed=energy,
>
> > > Bzzzzzzzt!
>
> > We barely regret the oversimplification. Ek=1/2(mv^2); m is not
> > varying much here, and v is varying a lot. So v ("speed"; who cares
> > which direction your vector is pointing) is dictating the kinetic
> > energy changes in this model.
>
> Kinetic energy is not proportional to speed.
kinetic energy changes in this model. I barely regret the
oversimplification. Indeed, I understated the case for my claim: "road
bikes have the potential to put far higher stress on
their braking systems than wussy MTBers." (I do regret the awkward
comparison of "road bikes" and "MTBers.")
So, anyway, as your speed goes up, your kinetic energy goes up very
rapidly, and that largely dictates the amount of energy your brake
discs have to dissipate, so road bikes may need surprisingly big discs.
Anton Berlin
Mar 1, 2012, 9:15:13 PM3/1/12
to
Then again I rode a lot more then.
0 new messages