Better Braking?

[Tom Kunich]

I've been looking only at the advertisements for direct mount brakes.

Looking at them it appears a bit strange to me. The cables appear to come in at a 90 degree angle to the frame and while I can see the cable guide, I can't see where the inner cable is affixed. I suppose that it is obvious if you have a set in your hands but it isn't at all obvious in the pictures of them I've seen.

I will go with the idea that since they are connected on both sides instead of through a center bolt that they are stiffer and have a more "direct" feel it seems a little ridiculous that you have to have a frame specifically built to take the new kind of brakes. Though the same can be said of disk brakes.

I rode in the rain yesterday and while I was being careful I was taken somewhat aback by the amount of time it took the wheel to go around a full revolution to clean the rims of water so that the rim brakes would work. This was worrying enough that I continued to put them on time after time to keep the rims clear of water as much as possible. But all it took was not putting the brakes on for a quarter of a mile and "Look Ma, no brakes". These were carbon rims with special carbon brake pads. I don't remember this much trouble with aluminum rims but then what do I remember?

Since it requires the same amount of time for a wheel to make one revolution and clean a disk off just like a rim brake I'm wondering why they make the claim that disk brakes work better in the rain. If you jump on the brakes in the rain the disks allow you to somewhat break the water layer with sheer force. But as soon at the disk makes a full revolution doesn't it greatly increase the braking force? The only time this occurred to me was going down a hill and hitting a bump which jerked the disk brakes on and locking the wheel up and throwing me off the bike in a very uncomfortable manner.

[Tim McNamara]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 17:30:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been looking only at the advertisements for direct mount brakes.
>
> Looking at them it appears a bit strange to me. The cables appear to
> come in at a 90 degree angle to the frame and while I can see the
> cable guide, I can't see where the inner cable is affixed. I suppose
> that it is obvious if you have a set in your hands but it isn't at all
> obvious in the pictures of them I've seen.

The pictures I have seen show the cable entering the brake exactly like
a sidepull brake, but the pivots are reminiscent of Mafac Racers with
brazed-on posts.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/are-direct-mount-brakes-the-future-193731

I have Mafacs with braze-on posts on my randonneuse and they work
excellently with very good modulation and power; the Racers are paired
with modern Campy Record brake levers and it is a good combination for
me. The centerpulls offer excellent clearance for fenders and
moderately fat tires (700 x 31). The design also allows the brake pads
to have some clearance from the rims in case the wheel gets slightly out
of true.

I've not tried the direct mount brakes, but they do remove the straddle
wire from the equation. That ought to improve efficiency, if greater
flexibility wasn't created in the brake arms.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I haven't used those but I did put old school Alivio V-brakes on my dropbar MTB with Tecktro dropbar V-brake levers and I find the braking FAR superior to what I had with my cantilever brakes. This is even more so in snow or rain.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

I have direct mount brakes on my Trek Emonda SLR -- great bike, nice OE brakes, although I'm not crazy about the cable routing. They need some Koolstop pads and are rim-lathes in wet weather, like all rim brakes.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 2:18:31 PM UTC-8, Tim McNamara wrote:

I was looking at the one's mounted on various bikes that hadn't the cable mounted yet and they looked really strange. So I today looked at the advertised versions and they look like normal brakes to me except they are mounted at the sides which reduce the flexing which causes brake shudder.

[Tom Kunich]

I'm in total agreement. The TRP 9.0 V-brakes I put on my Ridley Xbow worked every bit as well as a disk brake.

[Tom Kunich]

I am using the carbon rim specific brake pads and they work well on aluminum rims too. They are not showing rapid wear. Of course they also aren't the sort of brake that I would slam on. I usually feather the brakes to slow wherever necessary.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/30/2020 5:18 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 17:30:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've been looking only at the advertisements for direct mount brakes.

...

>
> The pictures I have seen show the cable entering the brake exactly like
> a sidepull brake, but the pivots are reminiscent of Mafac Racers with
> brazed-on posts.
>
> https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/are-direct-mount-brakes-the-future-193731
>
> I have Mafacs with braze-on posts on my randonneuse and they work
> excellently with very good modulation and power; the Racers are paired
> with modern Campy Record brake levers and it is a good combination for
> me. The centerpulls offer excellent clearance for fenders and
> moderately fat tires (700 x 31). The design also allows the brake pads
> to have some clearance from the rims in case the wheel gets slightly out
> of true.

I first heard of centerpulls with brazed on posts about 40 years ago. I
considered them when modifying the frame of my old Raleigh, but went
with cantilever bosses instead. But I suspect the braze-on centerpulls
would have worked about as well.

> I've not tried the direct mount brakes, but they do remove the straddle
> wire from the equation. That ought to improve efficiency, if greater
> flexibility wasn't created in the brake arms.

The straddle cable isn't a source of flexibility (if that's what you're
implying) if you shape it ahead of time to run in a straight line from
the saddle to each brake arm. Most of the lost motion occurs because
straddle cables are naturally straight, and when installed, are bent
into a curve to reach from brake arm to saddle to brake arm. If there's
no curve, there's negligible lost motion.

Somewhere, I've seen photos of rigid links used to replace the straddle
cable. I suppose that might be even better, but I don't know of a
supplier. They might not be hard to fabricate, if you're into that thing.

Another source of flexibility with center pulls or classic cantilever
brakes is the hanger that stops the brake housing. Especially on front
brakes, that's often a thin steel or aluminum stamping that flexes a
lot. A rigid hanger greatly improves the brake's feel, IME.

About the website linked above, I have some agreements and some
disagreements. I agree that the chainstays are a terrible place to mount
any brake. Like the guys quoted, I don't doubt that some of the other
purported benefits (aero, rigidity) exist, but I think the differences
are likely negligible. Especially, there are other ways to get rigidity.

But I strongly agree with the statement near the end: "However, we think
many brands that fit direct-mount brakes at the chainstay are doing it
for trend or marketing reasons."

Because, fashion! Fashion is weird and powerful.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I've installed center pull, cantilever, single pivot caliper, double
pivot caliper and vee brakes on the same bike at one time or another
and it seems to me that the determining factor, brake pad composition
aside, in braking power is the ratio between the brake arm, pivot to
cable attachment, and the arm on which the brake pad is mounted,
pivot to pad mounting, i.e,, the mechanical advantage of the brake,
and in reality nothing else seems to matter. The most powerful brakes
I ever had on that bike were cheap old vee brakes which, mounted on
the previous canti lever studs, had the brake pad at the lowest
possible position on the brake arms and thus the highest mechanical
advantage between the cable attachment and the pad.

Note that brake arm length and ratio also effect the cable pull
necessary to apply the brakes and I am talking about only the
effectiveness of the brake itself. And the brake levers themselves
have a mechanical advantage that will also effect braking.

While I never installed disc brakes on that bike I have brake tested
bikes with discs and if the ability to stop the wheel from turning is
a measurement of braking efficiency then any of the more efficient rim
brakes were equal in braking efficiency to the discs.
--
cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

If you pull the lever hard and observe, you'll see the
greatest loss in a CP is the brake plate- the aluminum thing
which connects the two arm pivots. Pivot bolts will visibly
move outward with even moderate lever pressure. That's
minimized with brazed posts and the other losses are
negligible by comparison.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

I agree that the flex you're describing exists. Whether or not it's
the greatest source of flex depends how bad things are in the rest
of the system. My first "ten speed" (in 1972) came with Ballilla
center pull brakes. As I recall, the entire system had the rigidity
of aluminum foil.

One of my bikes came (years ago) came with a thin, stamped steel
cable housing stop, the kind with a ring that takes the place of a
threaded headset's washer, and a long arm that hung down in front.
When I squeezed the brakes, I could see it flex downward, and could
feel the brake lever move as it did.

The straightening of the straddle cable I mentioned is a bit
different, in that almost all of that slack is taken up before
significant brake force is applied. There's still a bit of give as
brake force increases from moderate to heavy (which, I think,
affects "progressiveness" during braking). But most of that
slack instead causes lost motion before much force is applied.

Returning to the pivot spread: There was a time when some companies
sold plates to connect the front end of a (front) cantilever's pivot
screws, to prevent that motion. I don't remember such a thing being
sold for center pull brakes back when they were popular, but it
would probably be more useful on that type of brake.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tosspot]

This exactly my experience as well over various brakes. You have to go
some way to get bad braking, it's usually the setup. Well setup rim
brakes work as well as discs, but imho, there are other reasons for
moving to discs. Half of my bikes are disc, the other half lack bosses
or they would be, but not for reasons of braking power except may be in
wet, and definitely in ice, but I don't cycle in icing conditions much.

[Tosspot]

These things?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bicycle+brake+booster+plates

[jbeattie]

Yup. http://www.velo-pages.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=25927&g2_serialNumber=2 The Spence Wolf Cuptertino Bike Shrine version that was popular in the late '70s early '80s. With Scott/Mathauser brake shoes/pads. All these kludges were intended to produce braking as good as a Campy NR, begging the question of why one didn't buy NR -- or even the Shimano equivalent.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes, those are the ones. I wonder why they were never marketed for
things like the 1970s Weinmann center pull brakes?

One possibility is that mountain bikers were frequently in situations
where they applied lots of brake force, and noticed the "spread" of the
bosses.

Another way of putting that is, despite the tales of various heroes,
most road bikers never brake really hard. So they wouldn't have made
much practical difference on road bikes.

Of course, those Weinmann brakes were used mostly back in the day when
you squeezed the levers, you came to a stop, and figured that was good.
We're now in days where every aspect of a bike's controls must exhibit
the grace and sensitivity of a fine violin. :-/


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Huh! I hadn't seen those.

> With Scott/Mathauser brake shoes/pads. All these kludges were intended to produce braking as good as a Campy NR, begging the question of why one didn't buy NR -- or even the Shimano equivalent.

Well, then as now, people bought the brakes that were attached to the
bike when they saw it on the showroom floor.

Most people are not connoisseurs. They're more affected by advertising
copy than by finely perceived differences in performance.

(That's true even of most who claim to be connoisseurs.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

What advertising copy? If you were buying custom-modified Mafac brakes from Spence Wolf's shop, you were a connoisseur -- albeit one who marched to a different drummer. Spence was also responsible for launching Phil Wood and one of my favorite bikes of the era, Caylor. He then went with a lot of the PNW builders -- Merz, Rodriguez, Erickson -- and Lighthouse bikes by Tim Neenan of Santa Cruz who brought us the original Stumpjumper. Spence was kind of the Gertrude Stein of bike shop owners. I don't know if he had anything on the showroom floor that was an OTC bike.

These days, just to get advertising copy, you have to be a little bit of a connoisseur and subscribe to Bicycling or VeloNews or some other bicycle publication. The only way I know about bikes is because of my son and friends who are in the business. It is much less common to buy a bare frame these days and you are tied to a lot of OE equipment -- often proprietary -- for better or mostly worse. A lot of parts are also fit only for the showroom, like wheels. They are just bike stands on mid-fi bikes and even somewhat high-end bikes. Back in the day, a nice bike had nice wheels. You can spend $4K on a bike that has disposable wheels.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

"What advertising copy?" Sheesh! The advertising copy that got them to
look at the Trek, or Giant, or whatever bike they lusted after in the shop!

IOW, you missed my point entirely. First, most people did not go into
shops looking for customized Mafac brakes. Most people never heard of
Mafac brakes. Most people (assuming they wanted something fancier than a
Huffy) went into a Schwinn shop, and the sophisticated ones went into a
Raleigh shop. They looked at the in-store catalogs and saw "Powerful
centerpull brakes!" and thought "Gosh, those centerpull brakes sure are
powerful." A few of them even wandered in here and said "Centerpull
brakes are more powerful than sidepulls" and got reamed by Jobst. Remember?

By and large, people buy what they're told to buy. Today people are told
"disc brakes are SO much safer!" in part because manufacturers are
putting disc brakes on so many bikes. So people who never had a problem
with any caliper brake won't buy a bike without disc brakes.

But the industry survives on churning. Perhaps the next churn will be
direct mount brakes. Maybe _Buycycling_ reviews (ghost-written by
manufacturers?) will begin saying "Direct mounts stop just as well and
are lighter and more aerodynamic." Maybe articles will snark about noise
and short disc pad life and bent rotors. Maybe touring articles will
talk about being stranded in the Himalayas and having to re-bleed discs
using only yak spit. And manufacturer's catalogs will say "Sleek,
aerodynamic direct pull brakes!"

If that's the way it goes, people will wander into shops and say "You
mean _all_ your bikes have _discs_?? This is 2023!!!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

Makes sense for a few reasons. One, there is no straddle wire. Two,
the mechanical advantage is greater than almost all if not all
cantilevers (close to that of centerpulls). Three, the cable approach
to the brake is smooth with wide radius bends. Four, unlike cantis the
brake arms don't jut out from the frame quite so much.

Downside is that many V-brakes don't open wide enough to permit a fully
inflated large tire past the brake pads. And the placement of the pads
relative to the pivot and the cable pulling points results in the pads
having to be very close to the rim to operate, a downside in muddy
conditions and if the rim gets bent. Also, one needs to have- as you
do- dropbar brake levers designed for the required cable pull, which is
much greater than road brakes or cantis.

Everything is trade-offs.

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 09:31:04 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

>
> Spence was kind of the Gertrude Stein of bike shop owners.

OM effing' G, that was frickin' hilarious!

[Tom Kunich]

Jay likes to fly with the best equipment. Anything wrong with that? I felt disk brakes to be dangerously strong in that you could unknowingly put them on FAR too hard and got over the top of the bike. So I'm not wild about them.

I think originally it was an attempt to improve braking for the pro's but it sure as hell didn't and it had a lot of added drag and weight. They seemed to have improved that with the 140 mm disks and the flat mounts for the actuators but the only thing I believe them to be good for is prolonging the life of the wheel rims.

Since the pro's get a new bike or 5 every year I don't know that it matters how long the wheels last. They are bought new every year if you don't have a wheel sponsor.

One of the things I didn't like is that you had to set the rim brakes up with a slight forward bias so that when you applied the brakes the bending of the mounting shaft would bring the brake shoes into direct flat contact.

With the direct mount brakes there isn't hardly any flex so you can mount the brakes so they start with a full brake shoe contact on the rims. No shudder and no excessive wear on the brake path on the rim from that shuttering.

BUT in either case if you buy up you have to get special brakes one way or the other. And it won't be long before all of the over-the-counter bikes have one type or the other and the center-mounts will disappear.

[John B.]

Probably true. But isn't this true of nearly everything that one
buys... at least to some extent. Did anyone try all manufactured
calculators before settling on their Brigs and Spencer reverse osmoses
calculator? Does one try every known breakfast cereal before settling
on Super Chocky Strawberry Nuggets?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 09:45:58 +0100, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

A friend bought a second hand bicycle solely as transportation in a
very large yacht marina - he does mechanical maintenance on yachts -
and tells me one day that "I'll never buy another disc brake bicycle!"
I, having read all the users extolling discs on this site say, "How
come?" He says, "Cause they squeak all the time."
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/31/2020 5:31 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:11:15 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
> <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 30 January 2020 17:18:31 UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>
>>> I've not tried the direct mount brakes, but they do remove the
>>> straddle wire from the equation. That ought to improve efficiency,
>>> if greater flexibility wasn't created in the brake arms.
>>
>> I haven't used those but I did put old school Alivio V-brakes on my
>> dropbar MTB with Tecktro dropbar V-brake levers and I find the braking
>> FAR superior to what I had with my cantilever brakes. This is even
>> more so in snow or rain.
>
> Makes sense for a few reasons. One, there is no straddle wire. Two,
> the mechanical advantage is greater than almost all if not all
> cantilevers (close to that of centerpulls). Three, the cable approach
> to the brake is smooth with wide radius bends. Four, unlike cantis the
> brake arms don't jut out from the frame quite so much.

I'm not sure what Sir meant by "braking FAR superior..." to cantilever
brakes - or for that matter, to other brakes. "Good braking" seems
nebulously defined.

And I'm not sure what Tim meant when characterizing the lack of a
straddle wire as a benefit. I don't see any great detriment in a
straddle wire, especially if it's set up correctly.

I think a lot of people perceive "better braking" to mean "more
deceleration from a given hand squeeze on the lever." OK, let's examine
that. The bulk of it is simple mechanical advantage - that of the lever
plus that of the brake itself.

Is more mechanical advantage better? Not necessarily. It comes with the
built-in disadvantage of less pad or shoe travel, meaning it can
tolerate less crookedness in the rim, disc, drum or whatever. IOW you
pay for it when your disc squeaks or your rim brake scrapes when JRA.
Tim mentioned this.

But the other disadvantage is hypersensitivity. People do crash from
over-braking, and ISTM the less lever force required, the easier that
mistake is. I prefer to have to squeeze moderately hard to decelerate
moderately hard. For mountain biking where long super-steep descents are
common, super-low lever force may be nice; but otherwise, perhaps not.

Different brake designs do have different mechanical advantages, but
people sometimes guess wrong about those MAs. I haven't run the numbers
for a long, long time (I once gave those as a project to a student
wanting some advanced credit for a course) but ISTR Jobst pointing out
that, contrary to myth, centerpulls don't have more MA than normal
sidepulls. (We can discuss.) Shimano upped the MA with dual pivot, but
that did require truer wheels. They upped it again with V-brakes, and
had to compensate by reducing the MA of the levers, making almost all
levers incompatible, as Tim said. (I sometimes think Shimano has a very
large Department of Incompatibility.)

I'll admit, though, that high MA in the brake itself may confer a couple
of secondary advantages. It means less tension in the cable, and less
tension means less friction loss. I think it was also Shimano that
started the practice of return springs in the lever as well as the
caliper. That allows a lighter caliper spring (since the caliper's not
dragging the cable) and a little less hand squeeze. But I think those
benefits are very small, unless a person has really cruddy cables.

Another factor affecting braking force from a given lever squeeze is the
choice of shoe or pad material. Are there rim brake pads better than the
Salmon ones? If I had brake problems and didn't use Salmon pads, that's
the first thing I'd check.

There are other secondary or detail considerations. I agree, I don't
like the fact that classic L-shaped cantilevers protrude so much. I've
switched to low profile ones except on my mountain bike, where that
doesn't matter.

I think one big reason for direct pull V-brakes taking over from other
cantilevers is that they don't require a cable stop on the frame. That
cable stop required some real kludging when mountain bikes switched to
suspension forks. Direct pulls solved that handily. Other than that, I
don't see significant differences in cable routing (or bends) between
the two. Actually, a flat-bar bike gets about 90 degree bend for a
normal canti, vs. about 180 degrees for a direct pull.

> Everything is trade-offs.

That's certainly true. But aside from weirdnesses like Campy Delta or
Roller Cams, these non-hydraulic things are just lever systems.
Designers just dial in the desired MA, try to reduce flex and friction,
and keep things out of the way.

BTW, it's fun to browse through The Data Book and other historical
documents to see what's been done with brakes. There's been lots of
tinkering over the decades. And I'm sure that every design is better
than every other design - at least, in someone's eyes.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm pretty sure you're supposed to toe in direct mount brake pads.
Perhaps less than others, but there's still a bit of toe-in.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

You're right, this is true of almost everything for almost all people.
But we're supposed to be different here. We're supposed to have
technical discussions about the advantages and disadvantages.

If there's a BreakfastCereals.Tech group, I bet they do the same there:
Which is the crunchiest? Do you even WANT crunchiness? What size spoon
is best? And the Milk Wars - whole milk vs. 2% vs. 1/2%. I bet it gets
brutal!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 23:01:22 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Really? The ongoing "discussion" of bicycle lights for example? Where
overwhelmingly it appears that the criteria for "best light" is "my
light is better than anybody's"?

>If there's a BreakfastCereals.Tech group, I bet they do the same there:
>Which is the crunchiest? Do you even WANT crunchiness? What size spoon
>is best? And the Milk Wars - whole milk vs. 2% vs. 1/2%. I bet it gets
>brutal!

Well, obviously MY breakfast cereal is better than anybody's... if you
don't believe, just ask me :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

No, no, no, Franki-boy. You don't understand human psychology and you never will because you're now too old to learn anything. The biggest marketers with the biggest, most professionally operated advertising budgets, don't care about people like you: they're going to scoop you up anyway in the second or third phase simply by excluding all their competitors in what you're pleased to call your mind. They spend millions on PR and advertising to gain some critical mass of *opinion formers*. Then they spend tens of millions to show people like you a celebrity endorsing their product. But the main job is done with the first few million. The rest, the tens and hundreds of millions, is spent on repetition to people like you, who need everything hammered into their heads a hundred times before they grasp it.

Almost everything that is on your butt and in your fridge, house and garage, and definitely everything that you aspire to, I or someone I trained, or someone just like us, put there. I know we're in your mind, and that you know we're there, because you keep telling us smugly how modestly you live, how you try to resist the consumer society, starting with your small house. Unfortunately for you, all that back to basics, resist the big spenders crap, all of that too was generated by my people. Resistance is futile: we get you coming or going but we get you. One more point: there's nothing humble about the way you live (and that your personality betrays every day): it's just another idea a set of opinion formers (the Catholic Church, masters of manipulation) put out there for losers like you to pick up and run with as if it were their own idea.

Ande Jute
I dunno why I bother explaining (now watch the tenth-raters make their cheap cracks about my sig line)

[Andre Jute]

You're confusing Franki-boy with an historical sequence. BTW, I agree with you, there's so much pseudshit in writing about bikes today, even an old advertising man is embarrassed by the supine vapidity of it. -- AJ

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

Never toed in any brake pads. Losen bolts squeeze brake lever and tighten bolts. Done.

Lou

[jbeattie]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 2:47:47 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
<snip>

> Jay likes to fly with the best equipment. Anything wrong with that? I felt disk brakes to be dangerously strong in that you could unknowingly put them on FAR too hard and got over the top of the bike. So I'm not wild about them.

I usually buy mid-fi equipment, Ultegra and lower, including BR-RS785 discs that you got. Technically, that was a non-series disc brake that was bundled with 105 and Ultegra (IIRC, before the current Ultegra hydro group). It's my daily driver and a great brake for my purposes.

Like it or not, discs are taking over, at least in the PNW. I am amazed at the number of disc bikes on the road and in the racks at work. I wouldn't bother with them in Florida, but they are great in a wet climate for any all in one, year-round bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

They're taking over here too, based on what I see for sale in the few
shops we have. The last shop I was in had discs outnumbering rim brakes.
But this is just proof that people buy what they're told to buy. We have
far less rain than the PNW; and more important, we have a far, far
smaller percentage of riders who will ride in the rain. (Most of our
club's rides get canceled if it's likely to rain.)

But shops are stocking up on disc brake bikes, and people (even long
time avid riders) can be heard saying "Oooh, I want a bike with disc
brakes."

I suspect if you ask them why, the answer will be "Because they're
better." Or maybe "... safer."

And I know if you ask them "Have you had trouble with your rim brakes?"
they'll say "Well, no..."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

That's odd. A bit of toe in has been considered normal for decades.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO77mbB8w7I at 3:40, or
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5cRzvw5r7M at 3:00, or dozens of other
sources.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

You suspect? Why not just ask them? The usual response around here is that they stop better, particularly in the rain, and that they don't eat rims and allow for large tires and fenders. The racers like them because of stopping power and because they eliminate the usual braking problems with carbon rims. I would not use carbon wheels with rim brakes unless the wheel has a aluminum brake track like the Dura-Ace wheels.

My rim brakes have eaten up my Dura-Ace C35 brake track, and I'm looking at an expensive replacement. I wish I had gone with the discs on my new Emonda. I'm going to see if my son can get me a super-duper S-Works disc Tarmac from the scratch and dent bin at work, although I really, really like the Emonda and don't need any more bikes. I suppose I should just buy another C35 rim if they still make them.

As an aside, my son works with a guy who is whole hog into the scratch and dent bin and has 34 -- count 'em -- 34 Specialized bikes. He has multiple bikes of the same model, varying only by component groups and wheels. Incroyable. He should have his own bike hoarder show. I find it hard to justify the bikes I own and that goes double for skis, some of which are mighty close to others. And now that I think of it, I have way too many over-lapping bike tools.

-- Jay Beattie.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

I know but why should I toe in my brake pads and how long do you thing the toe in will last?

Lou

[AMuzi]

In theory the slight angle gives a leading-edge effect (like
auto drum brake shoes) to reduce harmonic vibration. The
arm flexes (to some greater or lesser extent depending on
brake) such that once your pad is fully engaged to the rim,
the entire pad should contact evenly.

In practice, some riders try to eliminate brake noise from
other sources by excessively toeing the pads. Besides not
solving the original problem, the result is soft brake feel
and uneven pad wear.

If your brake stops well and quietly with no toe, don't
overthink this, go ride.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

It was recommended to reduce squeal on cantilever brakes. Doesn’t seem to
happen on my recent bikes so I don’t bother.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/1/2020 12:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> But shops are stocking up on disc brake bikes, and people (even long
>> time avid riders) can be heard saying "Oooh, I want a bike with disc
>> brakes."
>>
>> I suspect if you ask them why, the answer will be "Because they're
>> better." Or maybe "... safer."
>
> You suspect? Why not just ask them?

Largely because the club riders that recently bought new bikes are
almost all on a group vacation in Florida. I suppose I can ask them when
they get back.

> The usual response around here is that they stop better, particularly in the rain, and that they don't eat rims and allow for large tires and fenders.

Right! Exactly what all the publicity says! "They stop better,
especially in the rain!" My point is, I can't recall anyone here ever
saying "Damn, I wish my [rim] brakes stopped better in the rain!"

It's kind of like "Damn, I wish you couldn't see the headset on this
bike!" Or "Damn, I've got ten cogs in the back, but I'd kill for 11!"
Like so many other bike "innovations," the product came first. The
justification came later.

> The racers like them because of stopping power and because they eliminate the usual braking problems with carbon rims.

Yeah, I could see that if I used carbon rims. But again, neither I nor
anyone I remember ever told me "These metal rims are really slowing me
down." Of course, the racers I ride with all have "ex-" before their title.

> I would not use carbon wheels with rim brakes unless the wheel has a aluminum brake track like the Dura-Ace wheels.

That sounds pretty reasonable.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

It was also standard procedure to toe-in brake shoes at all the bicycle shops I ever worked at. Those brakes included side-pull ones as well as cantilever ones.

IIRC, it was also a standard procedure in just about every bicycling book printed in the 1980s.

Perhaps as brake calipers got better and more rigid toe-in isn't needed as much?

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

It lasts precisely 687.2 km. Then you adjust them again.

> It was recommended to reduce squeal on cantilever brakes. Doesn’t seem to
> happen on my recent bikes so I don’t bother.

It was also recommended for many caliper brakes. Still is, from what I
see online. Even direct mount.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

Maybe. I’d go with Andrew’s recommendation and if the brakes work well and
don’t squeal, forget about it and go ride.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

Can't remember any calipers squeal on my road bikes that need toe in of the brake pads. Started my 'career' with Shimano 600 brakes. The only squealing brakes were V brakes on my first ATB. Those XT V brakes had that stupid linkage design with all the pivots that developed play. That squeal didn't get solved by toe in of the pads. The other V brakes that squealed were Sram Ultimates after I replaced the suspension fork with a rigid one. That squeal also wasn't solved with a toe in. It was solved by choosing another brake pad compound.

Lou

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

That twice a month.

Lou

[Mark J.]

Heresy, Jay! You can never have too many bike tools.

Mark J.

[John B.]

I've noticed that lately the bikes in the department stores here,
i.e., the very cheap, U,S. $100, 7 speed ones, are more and more
equipped with cable disc brakes. which leads me to believe that there
is a financial advantage to the maker for using them. At least I doubt
that the buyers of such brakes are experienced, knowledgeable, bike
gurus and are buying based largely on price.

Perhaps that might be an advertising point for the shops selling
expensive bikes... "You mean that you want disc brakes? Like those
Walmart bikes?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

The last brakes that I had that problem with were the dia compe cantis on
my ~90 Bianchi Volpe. Neither Tarmac has had this problem.

[John B.]

I have, for years, used a Chinese brake pad that looks very much like
a "cool stop" and used to fuss about with toe in until one day I was
in a hurry and didn't bother and there was no squeal and have never
bothered since. As someone else mentioned, mount the pads, squeeze the
brakes against the rim and tighten the pad mounting screw and ride
away.
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 1:47:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/1/2020 12:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> But shops are stocking up on disc brake bikes, and people (even long
> >> time avid riders) can be heard saying "Oooh, I want a bike with disc
> >> brakes."
> >>
> >> I suspect if you ask them why, the answer will be "Because they're
> >> better." Or maybe "... safer."
> >
> > You suspect? Why not just ask them?
>
> Largely because the club riders that recently bought new bikes are
> almost all on a group vacation in Florida. I suppose I can ask them when
> they get back.
>
> > The usual response around here is that they stop better, particularly in the rain, and that they don't eat rims and allow for large tires and fenders.
>
> Right! Exactly what all the publicity says! "They stop better,
> especially in the rain!" My point is, I can't recall anyone here ever
> saying "Damn, I wish my [rim] brakes stopped better in the rain!"

Uh (raising hand), I have. That's one reason why I bought my first disc CX bike. I also wanted better fender clearance so I could run bigger tires. My prior commuter was a 1985 Cannondale Black Lightning that literally fell apart while I was riding home, so I needed a replacement and the disc CX bike fit the bill.

>
> It's kind of like "Damn, I wish you couldn't see the headset on this
> bike!" Or "Damn, I've got ten cogs in the back, but I'd kill for 11!"
> Like so many other bike "innovations," the product came first. The
> justification came later.

I don't get why you hate things that work better. I like all my gears. I like my discs, and I love STI. Threadless is way easier to work on, and quills don't get stuck.

I'm not an early adopter, but when things break or get stolen or wear out, I'll upgrade. There are some proprietary things I don't like, and I could have stayed with threaded BBs, but I'm fine with the press-in formats on my newer bikes. I don't know a single person who upgraded one cog at a time like your imaginary racer-consumers.

Time marches on! Go jump on a modern bike with discs and lots of gears and even electronic shifting. See what you think.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:54:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/31/2020 5:31 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 15:11:15 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
>> <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 30 January 2020 17:18:31 UTC-5, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've not tried the direct mount brakes, but they do remove the
>>>> straddle wire from the equation. That ought to improve efficiency,
>>>> if greater flexibility wasn't created in the brake arms.
>>>
>>> I haven't used those but I did put old school Alivio V-brakes on my
>>> dropbar MTB with Tecktro dropbar V-brake levers and I find the
>>> braking FAR superior to what I had with my cantilever brakes. This
>>> is even more so in snow or rain.
>>
>> Makes sense for a few reasons. One, there is no straddle wire. Two,
>> the mechanical advantage is greater than almost all if not all
>> cantilevers (close to that of centerpulls). Three, the cable
>> approach to the brake is smooth with wide radius bends. Four, unlike
>> cantis the brake arms don't jut out from the frame quite so much.
>
> I'm not sure what Sir meant by "braking FAR superior..." to cantilever
> brakes - or for that matter, to other brakes. "Good braking" seems
> nebulously defined.
>
> And I'm not sure what Tim meant when characterizing the lack of a
> straddle wire as a benefit. I don't see any great detriment in a
> straddle wire, especially if it's set up correctly.

Straddle wires aren't usually set up correctly, from my observation.
This results in wasted lever motion taking up the slack befor eeffective
pressure is applied to the rim.

> Different brake designs do have different mechanical advantages, but
> people sometimes guess wrong about those MAs. I haven't run the numbers
> for a long, long time (I once gave those as a project to a student
> wanting some advanced credit for a course) but ISTR Jobst pointing out
> that, contrary to myth, centerpulls don't have more MA than normal
> sidepulls. (We can discuss.)

Well, ultimately the total mechanical advantage of the system is the
ratio of lever travel to pad travel. There's a practical limit to
minimum and maximum pad travel, probably averaging about 2 mm clearance
on my rim brakes. There are also limits on lever travel in terms of
average hand size dictating lever design (ignoring outliers with
unusually large or small hands, but of course with the latter we are
risking excluding women and children in particular from consideration).

> Shimano upped the MA with dual pivot, but that did require truer
> wheels. They upped it again with V-brakes, and had to compensate by
> reducing the MA of the levers, making almost all levers incompatible,
> as Tim said. (I sometimes think Shimano has a very large Department of
> Incompatibility.)

I think V brakes were mainly invented to solve cable routing problems on
mountain bikes with suspension and reduce labor for bike manufacturers
and bike shops. 10 minutes saved on each bike times millions of bikes
ends up being real money.

> I'll admit, though, that high MA in the brake itself may confer a couple
> of secondary advantages. It means less tension in the cable, and less
> tension means less friction loss. I think it was also Shimano that
> started the practice of return springs in the lever as well as the
> caliper. That allows a lighter caliper spring (since the caliper's not
> dragging the cable) and a little less hand squeeze. But I think those
> benefits are very small, unless a person has really cruddy cables.

Right, the reduced tension results in a lighter lever feel. Also, the
radius of cable housing bends also affects friction. Where the
mechanical advantage is (brake vs. lever) affect the feel of the system.
I suspect that the "I have power brakes" feeling of light lever action
is considered "better" braking by most riders- at least by me!

> Another factor affecting braking force from a given lever squeeze is
> the choice of shoe or pad material. Are there rim brake pads better
> than the Salmon ones? If I had brake problems and didn't use Salmon
> pads, that's the first thing I'd check.

They work great on aluminim and chromed steel rims (I have them on my
Raleigh Sports 3 speed, but that bike is getting aluminum rims this
winter to replace the rusty, poor-seating Westrick rims it has).

<snip>

[Tosspot]

On 02/02/2020 01:18, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> I have, for years, used a Chinese brake pad that looks very much
> like a "cool stop" and used to fuss about with toe in until one day I
> was in a hurry and didn't bother and there was no squeal and have
> never bothered since. As someone else mentioned, mount the pads,
> squeeze the brakes against the rim and tighten the pad mounting screw
> and ride away. -- cheers,

Got a link for those?

[Tosspot]

Those things are an abortion, offering all the drawbacks of cable with
none of the advantages of discs. If I had to go cable again, I'd stick
with direct pull rim brakes and Kool Stop Salmons.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 2:05:05 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 1:47:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/1/2020 12:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>
> > >> But shops are stocking up on disc brake bikes, and people (even long
> > >> time avid riders) can be heard saying "Oooh, I want a bike with disc
> > >> brakes."
> > >>
> > >> I suspect if you ask them why, the answer will be "Because they're
> > >> better." Or maybe "... safer."
> > >
> > > You suspect? Why not just ask them?
> >
> > Largely because the club riders that recently bought new bikes are
> > almost all on a group vacation in Florida. I suppose I can ask them when
> > they get back.
> >
> > > The usual response around here is that they stop better, particularly in the rain, and that they don't eat rims and allow for large tires and fenders.
> >
> > Right! Exactly what all the publicity says! "They stop better,
> > especially in the rain!" My point is, I can't recall anyone here ever
> > saying "Damn, I wish my [rim] brakes stopped better in the rain!"
>
> Uh (raising hand), I have. That's one reason why I bought my first disc CX bike. I also wanted better fender clearance so I could run bigger tires. My prior commuter was a 1985 Cannondale Black Lightning that literally fell apart while I was riding home, so I needed a replacement and the disc CX bike fit the bill.
>
> >
> > It's kind of like "Damn, I wish you couldn't see the headset on this
> > bike!" Or "Damn, I've got ten cogs in the back, but I'd kill for 11!"
> > Like so many other bike "innovations," the product came first. The
> > justification came later.
>
> I don't get why you hate things that work better.

Really Jay, don't you figured that out by now? Let me remind you. Frank thinks that all the new stuff make cycling unnecessary complicated, expensive and unreliable and it is all forced upon us by marketing (duh...) and he has the uncontrollable urge to warn/protect us from that. He knows this not from own experience but from his ignorant clubmembers who ended up with the wrong bike or one of his good friends that also ended up with something too complicated for them despite they all happen to have a degree in math, electronics, software or worse they are a poet or musician (WTF?).
If you mention that discbrakes are superior in the wet in combination with CF rims which we all know is a fact then the 'discussion' starts:
Frank:'why do you need CF rims?',
Jay: 'because high profile CF rims are more aero without the weight penalty',
Frank: 'does it make you faster?',
Jay: 'Yes',
Frank: 'do you have numbers',
Jay: 'it is measured several times in TOUR magazin, you can look them up',
Frank: 'the numbers are insignifant for most of us and not worth the trouble or cost',
Jay gives up......

If you start a conversation with Frank enthusiastic mentioning your new bike you get depressed within minutes.

Lou

[Sir Ridesalot]

+1000! EXCELLENT! Fantastic accurate summary.

Cheers

[Duane]

So there is a simple solution...

[Andre Jute]

Heh-heh! Frank-boy generates enough negativity to power a very large generator. One has to wonder why he has hub generator on his bike. He could just put a wire from the bicycle lamp in his mouth and see like the poor little BUMM lamp has suddenly turned into the bank of Cibies across the front of my rally Porsche.

Andre Jute
Standing by with my trusty 3000V ex-Army AVO voltmeter
https://richardsears.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/dscf1088.jpg

[Tom Kunich]

> > Jay likes to fly with the best equipment. Anything wrong with that? I felt disk brakes to be dangerously strong in that you could unknowingly put them on FAR too hard and got over the top of the bike. So I'm not wild about them.
> >

> > I think originally it was an attempt to improve braking for the pro's but it sure as hell didn't and it had a lot of added drag and weight. They seemed to have improved that with the 140 mm disks and the flat mounts for the actuators but the only thing I believe them to be good for is prolonging the life of the wheel rims.
> >
> > Since the pro's get a new bike or 5 every year I don't know that it matters how long the wheels last. They are bought new every year if you don't have a wheel sponsor.
> >
> > One of the things I didn't like is that you had to set the rim brakes up with a slight forward bias so that when you applied the brakes the bending of the mounting shaft would bring the brake shoes into direct flat contact.
> >
> > With the direct mount brakes there isn't hardly any flex so you can mount the brakes so they start with a full brake shoe contact on the rims. No shudder and no excessive wear on the brake path on the rim from that shuttering.
>
> I'm pretty sure you're supposed to toe in direct mount brake pads.
> Perhaps less than others, but there's still a bit of toe-in.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Well, I'll see soon enough. But there had to be a pretty strong reason for them to change to direct mount brakes.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:05:04 +0100, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No I don't. I came across them in some shop or another and bought them
and they seemed to work very well so bought some spares and have
continued to use them.

Note: I don't remember the price but I do remember that I thought that
they were "expensive" so perhaps kool stops from Amazon at $12 a set
would be equal. Or depending on your brakes kool stop inserts, if they
would fit.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:09:17 +0100, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Do you mean cable disc's or "walmart bikes"? A friend bought a second
hand bike with cable discs to use for a work bike. I only rode it
once, to check new wheel bearings that I had fitted for him, but it
seemed to stop all right.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

My Emonda was just delivered and that will be my last bike. I'll keep the Lemond and the Colnago and all the rest go. I am REALLY impressed with the Emonda. Finding the components is going to be a pain in the butt though because it seems like there no used 11 speeds stuff around.

[Tom Kunich]

The leverage on the direct mount brakes is pretty low so I don't think that they will need any toe-in. With my Campy Record Skeleton brakes they only need about 1-2 mm anyway.

[John B. Slocomb]

But the "pretty strong reason" may not be that they provide "better"
braking :-) Perhaps the reason is that it simplified frame making or
that they were cheaper in wholesale lots or that buyers thought that
they were "cool" or that they could advertise a bike that incorporated
them as being "NEW!", or even (Horrors) that a bike with direct
mounted brakes could be sold for more money :-(
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Merriman]

My Gravel bike has cable disks, they lack power vs my MTB’s even with the
same rotor but they don’t loose it like rim brakes once wet roads, steep
off road descents are now less of a squeaky bum moments.

The main issue is unlike hydraulic systems they don’t self adjust etc, not
found they need any more maintenance bar adjustment of pads.

Compared to Canti no contest really, much closer with dual Pivot in the dry
too close to call, but as it gets wetter and dirtier the gap widens, rather
depends on where and how you ride.

I see lots of folks on a nice Sunday with very nice rim road bikes, but
much less commuter and such! Which makes sense as road disks has been
public lead rather than pro or manufacture lead, unlike say 27.5 MTB wheels
etc.

Roger Merriman

[jbeattie]

The OE direct mount brakes on my Trek stop well enough but have a slightly different feel than Ultegra dual pivot. Their reason for being is aerodynamics and light weight. They were the brakes spec'd on my bike, and I got the bike because it was among the pro deal offerings I could get from Trek. I certainly didn't buy the bike because of the brakes, and Trek has clearly moved on to discs.

I don't know which model frame TK purchased, but the Emonda is a great bike -- a very straight forward road racing bike -- but not hyper-racy with the H2 fit. I'm not going to get into road feel, because that causes apoplexy for some or is considered wishful thinking or voodoo, but I will say that it has a just right road feel for me -- not too stiff, not too limber. It rides straight and rails on descents.

Oddities include BB90 and the Trek seat mast, but no other proprietary designs requiring special components. In fact, BB90 (like BB86) is meant for 24mm OD crank spindles. Go buy a Shimano group and throw it on. Use CF paste on the seat mast and some foam cover for the internal cables so they don't rattle. My bike came built, but it does have internal cables, so be prepared to fish wires.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:11:32 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Different strokes for different folks :-)

But from what you wrote you bought a new bicycle and than felt that a
changed to a different BB, apparently to a "better" model, and some
sort of special "stuff" to keep the seat tube from slipping and
stuffing the tubes full of foam because the internal cables rattle is
necessary...

I, on the other hand, went out and bought a 2nd, 3rd, who knows, hand
steel frame bike, cleaned and lubed it and have been riding it for 7
years with no other changes... tell a lie, I changed the handle bar
tape twice because I didn't like the color :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/1/2020 8:05 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 1:47:15 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/1/2020 12:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But shops are stocking up on disc brake bikes, and people (even long
>>>> time avid riders) can be heard saying "Oooh, I want a bike with disc
>>>> brakes."
>>>>
>>>> I suspect if you ask them why, the answer will be "Because they're
>>>> better." Or maybe "... safer."
>>>
>>> You suspect? Why not just ask them?
>>
>> Largely because the club riders that recently bought new bikes are
>> almost all on a group vacation in Florida. I suppose I can ask them when
>> they get back.
>>
>>> The usual response around here is that they stop better, particularly in the rain, and that they don't eat rims and allow for large tires and fenders.
>>
>> Right! Exactly what all the publicity says! "They stop better,
>> especially in the rain!" My point is, I can't recall anyone here ever
>> saying "Damn, I wish my [rim] brakes stopped better in the rain!"
>
> Uh (raising hand), I have. That's one reason why I bought my first disc CX bike. I also wanted better fender clearance so I could run bigger tires. My prior commuter was a 1985 Cannondale Black Lightning that literally fell apart while I was riding home, so I needed a replacement and the disc CX bike fit the bill.

That's fine, and I"ve acknowledged two things repeatedly: Discs do work
better in a few situations, and you, Jay, ride frequently in one or more
of those situations.

Most people never ride in situations where discs are better. Yet tons of
people are buying biked with disc brakes, partly because they're told to
and partly because other choices are constantly getting more uncommon.

>> It's kind of like "Damn, I wish you couldn't see the headset on this
>> bike!" Or "Damn, I've got ten cogs in the back, but I'd kill for 11!"
>> Like so many other bike "innovations," the product came first. The
>> justification came later.
>
> I don't get why you hate things that work better. I like all my gears. I like my discs, and I love STI. Threadless is way easier to work on, and quills don't get stuck.

If you re-read, you'll see I wasn't alluding to threadless headsets
(which are a better system than threaded). I was alluding to integrated
headsets that are buried in the frame, so you don't have to look at that
unsightly thing while you ride. Or maybe so it reduces your aero drag
force by a micropound.

But regarding your gears: Do you love the 11th one so much that you were
pining for it when you had only ten back there? Somehow I doubt it. You
probably thought "Whoa, now I've got 10!" and it was marvelous until
they came out with 11.

It reminds me of the car ads of the 1950s: "Wouldn't you rather have
THIS year's model?" And it's not new. The idea dates to the depression.
https://timeline.com/gm-invented-planned-obsolescence-cc19f207e842
One of the things I loved about bicycling is that it hadn't bought into
that nonsense.

And it's not that I hate things that are "better." I tend to think of
benefits vs. detriments, as opposed to _only_ the supposed benefits. And
I value things like backward compatibility, repairability, long life,
etc. "Better" to me is a net calculation, not ignoring one side of a
balance sheet.

> I'm not an early adopter, but when things break or get stolen or wear out, I'll upgrade. There are some proprietary things I don't like, and I could have stayed with threaded BBs, but I'm fine with the press-in formats on my newer bikes. I don't know a single person who upgraded one cog at a time like your imaginary racer-consumers.

The I know people buy this aren't racers. They are people who want to go
out for social rides with friends. Some of them are even restricting
themselves to MUPs. But if they want something with better quality and
longevity than a *-mart BSO, they pretty much have to get a disc brake,
or spend several days finding a bike without one. They have to get twice
as many rear cogs as they'll ever need, with reduced cog and chain life
to match. Who knows? Depending on the next fashion, they may soon be
restricted to a 1x system, giving them a far smaller overall gear range.
(But it will be more aerodynamic!!!)

> Time marches on! Go jump on a modern bike with discs and lots of gears and even electronic shifting. See what you think.

Discs? I've ridden bikes with discs, and talked to guys riding them.
I've heard squeals, scrapes and odd, difficult to diagnose noises. I
talked to a guy who was left without brakes on a trip when his touring
bike burned through disc pads far sooner than he expected. I felt the
sudden "Whoa!" deceleration that taught me I had to operate the lever as
if I were squeezing a baby's hand. I perceived all those as negatives.
I've never had a friend describe a moment when a disc offered a benefit.
And I didn't experience any benefits - but then, I don't experience
significant detriments with my own brakes.

Lots of gears? My bikes top out at 9 cogs, but I do far more miles on
two bikes that have just 5 cogs. The 9 do not make me dislike the 5.
Maybe I'm just more tolerant of cadence variations. (Heck, I ride a
three speed around town.) And even if I found Di2 to be very snappy, I
can't imagine buying into a bike system that used a computer interface.

To me, riding a bike is a simple joy. I'm really not interested in
complicating my bikes with (say) five different bottom bracket
standards. I don't like the idea of cascading incompatibilities - like
fewer spokes pushing carbon rims requiring disc brakes requiring new
levers and through axles.

All this for what? So I can fly by the scenery 0.3 mph faster? I'd
rather look at the scenery a little longer.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I could see a person getting depressed when they realized the extra 0.2
kph really didn't matter. IOW, that they'd spent all that money and gone
to all that trouble for a negligible benefit.

It would be like "Damn, my car now has an air dam and a new rear wing
and vortex generators and racing stripes, and I still have to drive the
speed limit! And worse, the chicks still don't want to date me!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/2/2020 7:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> The OE direct mount brakes on my Trek stop well enough but have a slightly different feel than Ultegra dual pivot. Their reason for being is aerodynamics and light weight.

And everyone knows how critical aerodynamics are. Why, just look at how
Shimano AX absolutely transformed everyone's riding experience!

And light weight? Yep, pedaling your 180 pound bike+rider weight up a
hill is a completely different experience than pedaling your 179.9 pound
total bike+rider weight. That extra tenth of a pound absolutely sucks!
Thank God for 0.06% improvements!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/1/2020 5:26 PM, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 11:08:31 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:

>> Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 1 February 2020 16:34:06 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
>>>> <lou.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 6:19:05 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2020 3:06 AM, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>>> Never toed in any brake pads. Losen bolts squeeze brake lever and tighten bolts. Done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's odd. A bit of toe in has been considered normal for decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO77mbB8w7I at 3:40, or
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5cRzvw5r7M at 3:00, or dozens of other
>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know but why should I toe in my brake pads and how long do you thing
>>>>> the toe in will last?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was recommended to reduce squeal on cantilever brakes. Doesn’t seem to
>>>> happen on my recent bikes so I don’t bother.
>>>
>>> It was also standard procedure to toe-in brake shoes at all the bicycle
>>> shops I ever worked at. Those brakes included side-pull ones as well as cantilever ones.
>>>
>>> IIRC, it was also a standard procedure in just about every bicycling book
>>> printed in the 1980s.
>>>
>>> Perhaps as brake calipers got better and more rigid toe-in isn't needed as much?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>

>> Maybe. I’d go with Andrew’s recommendation and if the brakes work well and
>> don’t squeal, forget about it and go ride.
>
> Can't remember any calipers squeal on my road bikes that need toe in of the brake pads. Started my 'career' with Shimano 600 brakes. The only squealing brakes were V brakes on my first ATB. Those XT V brakes had that stupid linkage design with all the pivots that developed play. That squeal didn't get solved by toe in of the pads. The other V brakes that squealed were Sram Ultimates after I replaced the suspension fork with a rigid one. That squeal also wasn't solved with a toe in. It was solved by choosing another brake pad compound.

I wonder if the squeal _could_ have been solved with toe-in? Your
phrasing doesn't tell us if you tried.

I agree it might not have helped with the first XT linkage V-brakes. One
friend of mine - a guy with more money than sense - proudly bought a
bike with those. The noise was beyond irritating.

But for a time, those brakes were fashionable! :-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/1/2020 8:55 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 22:54:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> And I'm not sure what Tim meant when characterizing the lack of a
>> straddle wire as a benefit. I don't see any great detriment in a
>> straddle wire, especially if it's set up correctly.
>
> Straddle wires aren't usually set up correctly, from my observation.
> This results in wasted lever motion taking up the slack befor eeffective
> pressure is applied to the rim.

I agree, they usually aren't set up correctly. Maybe its because it
takes a few minutes, so bike shop guys aren't interested. And owners
could easily do it, but probably haven't thought about it. But
pre-shaping for straight line straddle cables does make the brakes feel
better.

>
> Right, the reduced tension results in a lighter lever feel. Also, the
> radius of cable housing bends also affects friction.

I'm not sure the radius of the bend does affect friction. I know that's
counterintuitive, but the relevant equation doesn't have a "radius" term.

The equation is that of a cable sliding over a round friction surface.
That equation is T1 = T2 * e^(f*theta) where T1 is the high tension on
the side you're pulling, T2 is the lower tension the other side of the
friction scraping, f is the coefficient of friction and theta the angle
through which the cable is in contact with the surface. Again, note that
there is no term for the radius of curvature.

Sometimes these fundamental physics equations omit certain
practicalities. I guess one possibility is that the equation above
assumes no stiffness in the cable. But it's not clear to me (without
doing more work than I want to do) how moderate stiffness would change that.

We need to book some time in Fogel Labs!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Ralph Barone]

Of course, the funny thing is that with the slow abolition of front
derailleurs from triples to compact doubles to 1x setups, the number of
gears on bikes has actually been (mostly) going down. Nobody is buying a 27
speed setup nowadays. I feel so unfashionable :-(

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/2/2020 8:41 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> But regarding your gears: Do you love the 11th one so much that you were
>> pining for it when you had only ten back there? Somehow I doubt it. You
>> probably thought "Whoa, now I've got 10!" and it was marvelous until
>> they came out with 11.
>
>
> Of course, the funny thing is that with the slow abolition of front
> derailleurs from triples to compact doubles to 1x setups, the number of
> gears on bikes has actually been (mostly) going down. Nobody is buying a 27
> speed setup nowadays. I feel so unfashionable :-(

We're in this together! (Think how I feel with 15!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Sunday, 2 February 2020 20:41:51 UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
Snipped

>
> Of course, the funny thing is that with the slow abolition of front
> derailleurs from triples to compact doubles to 1x setups, the number of
> gears on bikes has actually been (mostly) going down. Nobody is buying a 27
> speed setup nowadays. I feel so unfashionable :-(

Snipped

Many people thought that way with 15 gears, 18 gears, 21 gear or 24 gears.

I like 27 gears or 18 gears with 9 gears on the rear. With that I can set up my bike as though it was a 21 speed (with triple crank) or 14 gears (with double crank) and use larger cogs on the other gears as bailout gears. To me that's the best of two worlds.

Cassettes and chains of 10, 11, or 12 gears are of no interest to me as I also have no interest in 29ers. that's because after looking at the cost of replacement components I felt the expense was way to high for me.

I was fortunate in that a fellow who lived 5 miles outside of town (he's now deceased) sold refurbished bicycles for $40.00 Canadian and i bought a number of them from him. They had 21 speeds and the components were old-school Deore. I have enough MTB/touring shifters, derailleurs and 7-speed cassettes to last me the rest of my life.

I was even able to get a couple of really nice road bikes from him for very little or free. One bicycle I got for $30.00 Canadian was a Miyata Seven Ten with unmounted brand new tires with the card tags still wrapped around them. He gave me some other dropbar road bicycles because no one wanted them. Everyone wanted hybrids or MTBs to ride because of the rough roads.

Cheers

[jbeattie]

Pfff. My Trek is a 15-16lb bike. It's like riding an eBike compared to my commuter-pig. Can't you tell the difference between light and heavy bikes? Riding blindfolded, I can tell the difference between all my bikes within one or two pedal strokes -- just before crashing. I love my super-light, modern racing bike for fast road riding, hanging in with the other, sputtering old former racers.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tosspot]

It was more that around my way the Salmons disappeared. For the Super
Galaxy I really like them and am needing replacements. They *do* seem
to work better than most. I'll have a Goggle meself.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

Off course I tried because that was considered the solution for squealing brakes. I even bought the Tacx toe-in tool:
https://tacx.com/nl/product/brakeshoe-tuner/

>
> I agree it might not have helped with the first XT linkage V-brakes. One
> friend of mine - a guy with more money than sense - proudly bought a
> bike with those. The noise was beyond irritating.
>
> But for a time, those brakes were fashionable! :-)

Came with my first ATB I bought second hand.

Lou

[Andre Jute]

Doesn't CRC (Chainreactioncycles near Belfast, biggest mail-order cycle-components firm in the world) deliver to wherever you are? They deliver free of postage to me in the Republic of Ireland. --AJ

[John B. Slocomb]

But Frank! It's NEW! and everyone knows that NEW is BETTER.....
O.K., it might cost a tiny bit more but just think, everyone will be
looking at you with envy (Pssst, he's got one of them there new
things...) and think of the bragging rights... "See, I was riding
along on my $3,000 bike there with the new thing on it..."
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

At my LBS you can't even buy a 27 speed... they don't stock them any
more and 30 speed is ONS only.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I'll put in a word for the largest disc brakes it is possible to fit: Magura's Rim Hydraulic Brakes. They operate on a disc almost the size of the rim, 622mm, over 24 inches. They're service- and adjustment-free for life, very economical of pads, in my service anyway (8500km), and stop so well even in their basic form that, to ensure their progressively, I never even fitted the booster (a device for stiffening the fork to extract the last fraction of stopping power from the brakes). Even without the booster, in ten years I have not had an emergency stop they couldn't handle, wet or dry. They don't degrade much in the dry compared to the wet, I believe because of the extremely large area of the braking surface; by the time the rim comes under the pad, the spinning wheel has flung off most of the water.

Yes, I have more normal disc brakes on one of my bikes and hate it for its lack of control: it is an on-off device, and it chews pads and is noisy and -- well, let's just say I hate it for being crude. I also have Shimano's roller brakes in several versions on other bikes, and the newer ones are as strong as a disc in the dry, and stronger in the wet because they're totally enclosed; I like the old ones (serially under -50, the ultra-strong modern ones being -70 and above) better than the modern ones. The most modern roller brakes are great for emergency stops, grand at using your face on the road for extra friction after they throw you over the handlebars; they're not so great for social rides and in service with people who think their machines should serve them, not the other way round. Roller brake service is a constant requirement and a filthy one at that. The Magura hydraulic rim brakes leave them all for dead for controllability, longevity and having over 5000m between service intervals, service consisting of slipping in new brake blocks, a ten minute job front and rear even with the obstructive German lawyers' lips on the fork of my Kranich. The Magura rim hydraulics have no requirement for replacing the brake fluid, are adjustable from the handlebar with clean hands, and don't cost any more than relatively cheap disc and much less than fancy roadie brakes (Magura actually makes rim hydraulics with a different response curve for roadies but I don't know anything else about those).

Andre Jute
Connoisseur

[sms]

On 1/30/2020 2:18 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

<snip>

> I've not tried the direct mount brakes, but they do remove the straddle
> wire from the equation. That ought to improve efficiency, if greater
> flexibility wasn't created in the brake arms.

My first thought was that at a time when even road bikes are moving to
discs, this is a little late. Then I clicked on the article and read
"Direct-mount brakes might be a great idea, but they’re coming at a time
when a lot of their claimed benefits will be trumped by disc brakes."

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, the chicks never wanted to date you. You were the "well, if everything else fails". Welcome to the club.

[Tom Kunich]

Most people don't descend steep twisting roads so they really don't have anything to compare when you talk about high speed descents.

[Tom Kunich]

People that say that a disk brake is good are people that aren't engineers. Disk brakes are put in the weakest part of the bike with absolutely the worst possible leverage. They've even had to make much stronger axles to keep them from A. Failing and B. pulling out of dropouts. Racers can no longer get a quick wheel change and so they change entire bikes.

No one is going to convince me that making the leading edge of the bike wider, is somehow going to make it more aero.

[Tom Kunich]

I have almost no balance so I couldn't even get a full pedal stroke blindfolded before hitting the ground.

[jbeattie]

You have this weird fascination with price. Nobody I ride with buys anything as a status symbol -- and nobody pays OTC price. My Trek was pro-deal because I do work for the company, and most of my friends are in the industry. And even if I did pay full price for my bike, who cares? Why not have a bike that is fun to ride?

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

No Jay, you are being mind controlled by big marketing and you just
think it's fun to ride your bike.

[Frank Krygowski]

Focus, Jay! What are we going to talk about - the effect of a change in
weight, or you distinguishing the "feel" of your bikes?

I don't doubt you can detect the different "feel" of each bike you own.
I can do that with mine. But it has far more to do with frame geometry,
tire characteristics, center of gravity location, handlebar variations
etc. than it has to do with any weight difference.

A smart high school junior should be capable of understanding the
physical effect of a change of weight. The effects - speed vs power on
uphills, acceleration vs. force on the flat - depend on the percent
change in _total_ bike+rider weight or mass. And since you brought up
the weight savings of direct mount brakes vs. ordinary calipers, that
percent change is microscopic.

Want proof? The weight difference between a Shimano direct mount and a
comparable Shimano single bolt mount is about 56 grams per set. That's
two ounces. So do some blind tests. Have your son duct tape two ounces
of lead out of your sight at the fork crown of your favorite bike. Do
multiple test rides with and without that horrendous extra weight, at
random. I'm betting you couldn't tell when it's present or absent, just
like you can't feel the difference in weight of direct mount brakes.

0.06% is 0.06%, no matter how you advertise it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

We've come to some bizarro world like Marxist theory in
which differing opinions are said to be caused by 'false
consciousness'.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

Focus Frank! I was talking about the effect of riding a bike that is five pounds lighter than my commuter. And yes, there are a multitude of other differences, but weight is a big one.

And what is the problem with a lighter more aero brake? You seem to see it as an offense to humanity. I guarantee you that the direct mount brakes on my Trek kick the living sh** out of any cantilevers I've owned, and that's Shimano, Mafac, Paul, Scott, DiaCompe (and maybe others, I don't recall). The OE dual pivots are good brakes, and they provide more tire clearance than ordinary dual pivots. Where's the crime? Seems like a win-win to me. That .06% added up with all the other .06%s has produce a really light, fun bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

Preferable to being caused by blind stupidity attributed to the person
to whom you have a difference of opinion. At least in my opinion...

[Frank Krygowski]

We weren't talking about any five pound difference. We were talking
about "Better braking" (see it there in the subject line?). And at the
moment, I was responding to your sentence:

"The OE direct mount brakes on my Trek stop well enough but have a
slightly different feel than Ultegra dual pivot. Their reason for being
is aerodynamics and light weight."

Again: "Their reason for being is aerodynamics and light weight." Their
weight difference is about two ounces, or roughly 0.06% of the moving
weight. Their aerodynamic difference is even more negligible.

> And what is the problem with a lighter more aero brake?

No problem, provided there are no detriments that negate those benefits.
But many people seem to hold a mindset in which any benefit is all that
matters, despite how small it may be; and any mention of detriment is
heresy. And the phrase "good enough"? HERESY!

> I guarantee you that the direct mount brakes on my Trek kick the living sh** out of any cantilevers I've owned, and that's Shimano, Mafac, Paul, Scott, DiaCompe (and maybe others, I don't recall).

In what way are they that much better? Lighter lever force? Fine, but
generally irrelevant, unless you have some problem with grip strength.
And with cantilevers, I have adjustable lever force.

We're having a rare sunny, mild day and my wife and I just got back from
a little ride on the tandem. Nothing impressive, max speed only 30 mph
on a couple downhills. But the cantilevers stop well enough I never even
thought about the brakes, despite this discussion. What more do I need?

> The OE dual pivots are good brakes, and they provide more tire clearance than ordinary dual pivots. Where's the crime? Seems like a win-win to me.

But they have less tire clearance than what I'm using, so if you're
going to count that as an advantage, you're losing.

I'm not trying to say anyone should not use those if they choose. But
let's look at both sides of the balance sheet. To go with that
better-than-the-worst tire clearance (whoopee!) and the 0.06% reduction
in weight, you've committed to a bike frame that can't use any other
type of brake - unless, I suppose, someone makes some sort of adapter.
If that brake goes the way of bottom bracket U-brakes or roller cam
brakes, you'll be scrounging 2025 Ebay for parts.

To me, that incompatibility is a disadvantage. But I guess to someone
who is already three product cycles deeper into "No, THIS is the new
incompatible standard, because it's BETTER!!" incompatibility wouldn't
matter. Because "Why wouldn't you want what's BETTER?"

> That .06% added up with all the other .06%s has produce a really light, fun bike.

I took a guess at typical bike+rider weight to compute that 0.06% from
the two ounce (56 gram) differenc. Let's just work with the "five
pounds lighter than your commuter" bike.

You'd need 40 of those tiny weight reductions to drop five pounds; and
that still wouldn't turn your commuter pig into a lithe, snappy sport
bike. Or to turn things around, if you added two ounces to your light,
fun bike you'd never notice the difference. Really, it's just the same
as adding one more rear cog but changing nothing else; it makes
negligible difference.

If you could drop the two ounces or add the cog with no detriments,
sure, why not? But in real life, that's not how it works. So it's more
logical to look at both sides of the balance sheet. How is this not obvious?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

I paid $600 for mine and $58 shipping. One scratch on it that of course was all my friend could see. You have to turn the frame upside down to see it.

It appears by the time I get done with it, it will have cost me about $1,500 total. This will be for a bike that would cost me $5,000+ new. So I'm not complaining.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, direct mount brakes were for improved braking and better aerodynamics on TT bikes. It just turns out that they are lighter. If you don't understand the aerodynamics part you aren't riding fast enough to tell. So it doesn't matter to you. Don't talk about the weight as if that were the sum purpose of the direct mount brakes.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 2:57:09 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Most people don't descend steep twisting roads so they really don't have anything to compare when you talk about high speed descents.

And damn glad I am about it too, or they'd want to come ride on my hills and lanes, crowding out the place.

Andre Jute
Fast descender

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:12:47 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Given that I am retired I think that some pre-occupation with prices
might be wise, but more important is the seeming allegation that one
must have an expensive bike to enjoy riding. You ask, "Why not have a
bike that is fun to ride?" and I might reply, "Why not have fun riding
a bike?"
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

:-) Ah but... "false consciousness" is someone who doesn't agree with
me :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

I'm not saying you have to have an expensive bike to have fun. I'm saying that a stiff 16lb racing bike is a hoot when your racing friends up a climb or to a city limits sign -- or actually racing. You can love your beach-bomber or whatever, but having a bike that takes off when you hit the gas is fun. The price I paid for my Emonda was a blip on the financial radar. I ride with guys who have way more expensive bikes, although none of them paid full price either.

It's also fun having a bike that will bomb down a trail or carry luggage or that you can dump in the racks at work without worry (except for whacking the dyno light). I have a bunch of bikes and all are loved and used. I'm not trying to pry anyone's bike out of their cold dead hands. People can love whatever bike they want, but some bikes are more fun than others. Just like some cars, skis, monkey wrenches and frying pans are more fun than others. I even have a favorite pair of ski poles -- and a favorite dental floss.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

I was quoting Jay about the weight, so complain to him about that.

As to the aerodynamics: The human body on the bike is the source of the
great majority of the drag. Some of that drag is caused by clothing,
which means it's more sensible to get a jacket that fits perfectly than
to get a different front brake.

Rider position varies a lot, and can be improved with no change in
equipment, with benefits far greater than a brake change. Aero bars are
a big help, even if they add a bit of weight.

If you're going to change other hardware on the bike to make it more
aero, wheels are surely the place to start; but going too radical seems
to cause stability problems in crosswinds. After that ... I don't know,
maybe bar and stem?

All the points above can be found in multiple sources. But I've never
seen a source that said "Trying to reduce aero drag? Pay attention to
your brakes!" I'm not convinced the total aero difference between
otherwise comparable single bolt and direct mount brakes is even measurable.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:11:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>

Strange. I have been using tools since I was a sub-teen and I can't
say that I ever had a favorite wrench, other than saying that the
proper size wrench (to fit the nut) was much to be admired. And while
I was a member of the high school ski team I can't remember having a
favorite pair of skis, or ski poles, other than having one pair for
downhill and another for cross country.

I asked my wife about favorite fry pans and she tells me that one uses
the correct pan for what one is doing and she has been cooking for
something like 60 years...

But perhaps we are disadvantaged in being able to enjoy skiing without
multiple sets of ski poles, or repairing things without a favorite
wrench or my wife without a favorite frying pan - I shall not tell her
that she is disadvantaged though as she already has a room full of
pots and pans and might want to buy even more :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

You might be interested in
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jst.12

Which says that on a level course some 90% of the retarding force on a
bicycle is wind resistance and nearly 70% of that 90% is the rider and
that after altering the rider's position the next greatest loss is the
rider's clothing.
--

Cheers,

John B.