Mike, I have ridden very steep technical terrain off road. A very non- Rivendellish, full body armor free-ride type MTB period in my life...but I don't bounce very well any more.
Perhaps we are defining "power" differently. By power if you mean how much lever effort it takes to lock a wheel, I agree that front brake that requires more effort to lock is a good idea. If power is the ability of a brake to stop the bike (absorb energy) then I definitely want more powerful front brakes. As far as brake power absorption goes, weight transfer to the front gives you more front traction allowing you to apply more stopping power to the front brake (up until the point you go over the bars). Take a look at brakes on racing motorcycles, two big disks up front, one smaller disk in the back. Cars also use larger brakes on the front, I have an old mid-engined Lotus that I am restoring that has moderate sized disks on the front and small drum brakes on the back, and 60% of the weight of the car is over the rear wheels. Angus On Feb 20, 9:35 am, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > Angus, That's exactly my point. If you've ever ridden steep technical > terrain off road, you quickly learn never to apply significant > pressure to the front brake or you'll go right over the bars. In fact > you frequently use only the rear brake and shift your weight back > wards on really steep descents to compensate for that weigh transfer. > On pavement it's less critical due to increased friction and the fact > that roads aren't as steep. It just seems common sense to design your > bike with less powerful front brakes for just that reason. > > ~Mike > > On Feb 20, 3:04 am, Angus <angusle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Mike, > > > Under hard braking most of the braking is done by the front brake. > > > Bicycles have a relatively high center of gravity (due to the rider) > > and get a lot of weight transfer onto the front wheel during braking. > > With disks or V-brakes on a MTB it is quite easy to lift the rear > > wheel off the ground by using the front brake. > > > Angus > > > On Feb 19, 6:33 pm, Michael_S <mikeybi...@rocketmail.com> wrote: > > > > I could never understand why you would put the stronger brake ( neo- > > > retro) on the front. I know the rear installation sometimes has > > > clearance problems but that is where you need the greater braking > > > force closer to the center of gravity of bike/rider. Couple that > > > with fork flex and the other associated issues and it's a no brainier > > > to use the Touring version up front. > > > > Plus it adds some nice symmetry to the bike :^P > > > > ~Mike > > > > On Feb 19, 4:03 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Angus > > > > > It doesn't surprise me a whole lot. I've run the geometry numbers, > > > > and straddle height makes essentially no difference on mafac shape > > > > cantilevers. The feel at the lever is almost independent of straddle > > > > height. Low profile cantilevers depend a TON on straddle height. You > > > > can set up the brakes with a really low straddle for power and a > > > > squishy feel at the lever, or set it up tall for "pukka pukka" at the > > > > lever with much less power. With a tall straddle set up, its really > > > > really to load up the front brake. Like try to do an endo, you > > > > probably can't do it. That means you've de-powered your brakes so you > > > > can't get the feedback started. Just a guess. I experienced that on > > > > my cross bike. Neo-retros were terrifying. Touring cantis were a > > > > little better, and ceramic rims/pads were another step better. I > > > > think your observations are consistent. > > > > > On Feb 19, 2:37 pm, Angus <angusle...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > I guess what I struggle with is that I didn't change the cable, or > > > > > hanger, or ferrule, or the fork...only the brakes themselves; and the > > > > > problem stopped...completely...even with the same brake pads. > > > > > > One way to reduce braking performance with the same force is to change > > > > > the contact area between the brake pad and the rim. Which is what > > > > > happens when the pads go into a toe-out situation. > > > > > > And why would my front tire lift off the ground? In free body > > > > > diaphragm terms, the braking force (and the fork flexing backwards) > > > > > would increase the vertical load on the front tire contact patch. > > > > > > Angus > > > > > > On Feb 19, 4:04 pm, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > If you think about it some more, I think you'll see it. The tire > > > > > > lifting off the ground un-flexes the fork, relaxing the cable > > > > > > tension > > > > > > and loosens the clamping force of the brakes on the rim. It can't > > > > > > be > > > > > > otherwise. Like a bow-and-arrow in reverse > > > > > > > I'll go ahead and make a statement and claim it as fact and see if > > > > > > anyone can even anecdotally dispute it. We'll see where that takes > > > > > > us. > > > > > > > Virtually everyone has seen, experienced or heard about this violent > > > > > > fore-aft shuddering on a bicycle under hard front braking. My claim > > > > > > is that every single one of them was a bike with cantilever brakes > > > > > > or > > > > > > center pull brakes. It doesn't happen with V brakes and it doesnt > > > > > > happen with caliper brakes, or disk brakes for that matter. That's > > > > > > because brakes with all-housing are immune to any flex-induced > > > > > > tensioning and detensioning of the cable. Canti-bikes and > > > > > > centerpull > > > > > > bikes don't HAVE to have this problem, but V-brake, disk brake, and > > > > > > caliper brake bikes can't have it. > > > > > > > If this had to do with toed in brake pads micro gripping and > > > > > > releasing, it would be equally common on all rim brake types. > > > > > > Furthermore, there is no free-body diagram one could draw to claim > > > > > > that a brake caliper of any kind squeezing harder on a rim will > > > > > > result > > > > > > in the brake pad squeezing LESS hard on the rim and allow it to > > > > > > release. That's just not physically possible. The sliding rim sort > > > > > > of shrugging the brakepad off of it, like some little wrestling move > > > > > > doesn't hold up. > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 1:33 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Ray Shine wrote: > > > > > > > > > Excellent explanation. Even I could make sense of it! Thank > > > > > > > > you! > > > > > > > > > From: William <tapebu...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > To: RBW Owners Bunch <rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > > Sent: Sat, February 19, 2011 9:36:14 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: [RBW] Re: AR front brake shudder and fork flex > > > > > > > > > This topic comes up repeatedly. The discussions typically > > > > > > > > focus on > > > > > > > > treatment, which is natural, because you just want the thing to > > > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > away. But understanding the cause is usually helpful in > > > > > > > > figuring out > > > > > > > > the treatment. The cause is as follows: > > > > > > > > > You grab your front brake, which tries to stop the wheel > > > > > > > > rotating. > > > > > > > > The road is pushing back on your tire and your body's forward > > > > > > > > momentum > > > > > > > > is pushing forward on the front hub. This moment tries to bend > > > > > > > > back > > > > > > > > the front fork. You can do this part for yourself in the > > > > > > > > garage. > > > > > > > > Lock up the front brake and push forward on the bike. Everyone > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > me? Cool. > > > > > > > > > Now look at the cable. The length of cable going from the > > > > > > > > hanger down > > > > > > > > to the brake is hanging in space in FRONT of the fork which is > > > > > > > > flexing > > > > > > > > BACK. The distance the cable spans is increasing, effectively > > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > the cable shorter, which is going to tighten the front brake, > > > > > > > > the same > > > > > > > > way tightening your grip would have. This makes the force at > > > > > > > > the fork > > > > > > > > greater, flexing it more, tightening the brake more, and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So far so good. Except that you'd have to be flexing the fork > > > > > > > between the brake pad contact point and the brake cable hanger on > > > > > > > the top of the headset; this also requires flexing the steerer > > > > > > > and possibly the head tube. That's not impossible, I suppose. I > > > > > > > have read that steerers can flex in the lower part, near the > > > > > > > lower headset race. Maybe that can flex enough. Or maybe > > > > > > > there's enough flex in the fork legs between the braze-on and the > > > > > > > bottom headset cups; you'd only need a little bit of stretch, > > > > > > > maybe a mm or so, to significantly tighten the brake. > > > > > > > > The alternative is the fork legs twisting as the brake pads are > > > > > > > dragged forward. Oval tubing is poorly resistant to being > > > > > > > twisted (which is why ovalized down tubes don't stiffen the BB- > > > > > > > they are twisted rather than loaded laterally. And why Ritchey > > > > > > > ovalizes the seat tube, which is loaded laterally). My thought > > > > > > > is that the pads are dragged forward until the front edge lifts > > > > > > > enough that friction is reduced and the rim can slip; as the pads > > > > > > > snap back they grab again and the cycle is repeated. This is why > > > > > > > a brake booster works, it prevents the fork legs from being > > > > > > > twisted by constraining the ends of the braze-ons from swinging > > > > > > > away from the centerline. > > > > > > > > Even simpler is if there's a bump at the rim joint or a bump in > > > > > > > the rim from an impact; that can cause this sort of thing. > > > > > > > > The visible process is the wagging of the forks as a symptom of > > > > > > > the stick-slip cycle. It can be very dramatic- my friend Steve's > > > > > > > S-works looked like the front end was going to fly apart. > > > > > > > > > This is a positive feedback that only stops when something lets > > > > > > > > go, and on > > > > > > > > the road, the thing that lets go is the road/tire interface. > > > > > > > > The tire > > > > > > > > momentarily lets go of the road, and the fork springs back > > > > > > > > forward > > > > > > > > which loosens the brake. When the tire hits the ground again it > > > > > > > > starts up all over again. > > > > > > > > Here's where we run into problems with this explanation IMHO. > > > > > > > Since you're decelerating, you're loading the front tire more > > > > > > > heavily and pushing it against the ground. This makes it harder > > > > > > > for the tire to skip. And, if this happened in a turn, you'd > > > > > > > just crash. Besides, lifting the tire off the ground wouldn't > > > > > > > loosen the pads by any mechanism I can think of right now. > > > > > > > > I could be quite wrong, of course. Wouldn't be the first > > > > > > > time...- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
