On Jun 15, 2:42 pm, Jeff Liebermann <
je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
> For some odd reason, this problem bugs me. I can easily trade cable
> pull distance for lever travel distance. The problem is that if the
> lever travel distance were (for example) cut in half, then the hand
> force required to stop might be doubled. It should be possible to
> produce a variable force system, where the initial required lever
> force is fairly high, but which is reduced as the lever approaches the
> handlebar. Something like a compound bow, where the initial pull
> requires substantial force, but once fully extended, requires much
> less force. I'm thinking in terms of replacing the approximately
> 8-10mm (???) pivot pin, with an adjustable and off-center bushing, and
> a much smaller diameter pivot pin. I'll play with the kinematics on
> the computah and see if anything interesting appears.
Like most things in bicycling, this has been done before. One scheme
is to use a linkage mechanism to vary mechanical advantage through the
lever's motion. The example that's been discussed most here, in the
past, is the Campy Delta brake, with it's parallelogram linkage.
The problems seem to be that the effect is a bit unpredictable, due to
the flex in the system and the wear on the brake pads. A rider gets
used to a certain mechanical advantage at a certain lever position,
but worn pads or more slippery rims will cause different mechanical
advantage, making braking less predictable. It's kind of similar to
having Vise Grips adjusted to strongly grip a 1" diameter bar, then
using them to grip a bar that's 1/16" different in diameter.
Another mechanism that's been designed is one that changes mechanical
advantage as a step function, rather than a continuous function. I
remember such a thing being designed and described in the second
edition of _Bicycling Science_ by David G. Wilson. Low mechanical
advantage moved the brake shoes a long way until the rim was
contacted; then the resistance force on the shoes caused the brake
mechanism to switch to a higher mechanical advantage. The author
(with whom I've corresponded) seemed quite proud of the design, but no
manufacturers were willing to produce it. I wonder if the mechanism
might be less than suitably reliable - for example, not reliably
"switching gears" when wet, or something similar.
Anyway, before designing something like this, it's usually a good idea
to research prior work. Check out Wilson's book. Bicycling Science,
2nd edition, p. 209 and fig. 8.10. (Discussion of that design seems
to be absent in the 3rd edition.)
- Frank Krygowski