Unnerving braking experiences; sudden braking increase.

Michael,

Just a guess, but by riding on the brakes it made the (rust pad?) Kool
Stops hot.
They expanded and added pressure to brake surface. Then if they got
slightly cocked
when they were hot, soft, and draging pads the rear pads could catch
and jam the wheel.

It would be logical the rears would heat, expand, and grab more since
the front of the pads
would get direct air cooling.

But that's just a guess. Dragging bike brakes seems dangerous.
Are those Salmon color rust pad Kool Stops? That may have been what
happened to Jobst going
down the Alps. Good experience to pass on. So for cooling the pads, the
AL fins wouldnt' do much since furtherst
away from hot pad surface: air scoops need to divert air on the back of
the pad surfaces on the rear end,
top rear half, and bottom rear half of each pad. Interesting puzzle for
an air dam.

I may be way off, but it sounds logical any way.

Thanks

Michael Press said:

I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

--
Michael Press

Michael Press said:

I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

Something sounds very wrong here... Perhaps you've got the pads toed
out (with a wider gap at the leading edge of the pad than the trailing
edge). That can cause this kind of thing (though normally it'll still
be somewhat progressive in nature).

Maybe it's just contamination on the rim or brake pad? A bit of
water? If you go into a corner on the brakes hard with a wet rim, the
braking WILL "improve" sharply when the water is removed by the first
couple revolutions of the wheel (give or take).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

On Jan 24, 7:21 pm, Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:
At a later point in the brake

Quoted message said:

application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

I had something similar happen when I was using different sets of
wheels with rims that didn't match in the rim brake path (Nisi Mixer
with triangular profile, switching to box-section tubies to race on).
Brake pads worn on the Mixers contacted "boxer: rims unevenly. Going
for more stopping power, more shoe area would contact the rims as the
brakes were pulled tighter, so I got more squeeze plus more brake pad.
One emergency slow-down to avoid a crashing rider sent me over the bars
when the front brake worked all too well, all of a sudden. It hadn't
been a problem (the usual multi-turn crit race) until I tried to use it
real hard. (You've probably checked pad-to-rim "engagement" already,
posting "JIC"😉 --D-y

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

ddog said:

Michael Press said:

I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply. This happened more than once. Had not seen
this before, and need more experiments. Any comments on
this sketchy account?

Just a guess, but by riding on the brakes it made the (rust pad?) Kool
Stops hot.
They expanded and added pressure to brake surface. Then if they got
slightly cocked
when they were hot, soft, and draging pads the rear pads could catch
and jam the wheel.

It would be logical the rears would heat, expand, and grab more since
the front of the pads
would get direct air cooling.

But that's just a guess. Dragging bike brakes seems dangerous.
Are those Salmon color rust pad Kool Stops? That may have been what
happened to Jobst going
down the Alps. Good experience to pass on. So for cooling the pads, the
AL fins wouldnt' do much since furtherst
away from hot pad surface: air scoops need to divert air on the back of
the pad surfaces on the rear end,
top rear half, and bottom rear half of each pad. Interesting puzzle for
an air dam.

I may be way off, but it sounds logical any way.

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

ddog said:

Michael Press wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

--
Michael Press

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and I'm not
flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do it on usenet?

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:26:52 -0800, "Mamba" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

Top posting practically guarantees longer messages and wasted
bandwidth, since there is no incentive to trim out unnecessary stuff.

In long threads, or any thread, the proper thing to do is to bottom
post while removing information not needed to understand the post
you're writing.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Does this help?

Mamba said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

ddog said:

Michael Press wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

--
Michael Press

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much
verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances
in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do
it on usenet?

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:47:25 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Does this help?

You're such a [censored]. Stuff like that was funny in grade school.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Quoted message said:

I experienced something a bit unnerving yesterday on a
bike I have been riding a couple years. The bike is a
nifty steel sport frame. The brakes are Ultegra 49 mm
reach with Kool Stop pads. On descents I was waiting a
bit longer before braking at turns, using more braking
force, but still using progressive force, rather than
slamming them. At a later point in the brake
application, the braking force suddenly increased
sharply.

Check both the rim and pads for signs of unusual wear; specifically, if the
rim is significantly worn, you can end up with a lip near the top and
bottom. As the brake pads wear, pressure is at first applied to the very
small surface area of the lip, after which it drops down into the main
section... which can suddenly increase the braking forces.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>

ddog said:

Michael Press wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.
In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

Mamba said:

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and I'm not
flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do it on usenet?

Secondly, it is possible to edit or 'snip' quoted material to enhance
readability while retaining the prior writer's point. (It's also
possible to chop up another's words into a twisted version unlike his
intent but that's another topic)

..backwards running is conversation of flow the if as, oddly reads
posting Top .annoying posting top find ,me including ,people Some

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Does this help?

Mamba said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>
,
"ddog" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

In the cases reported I spent _less_ time with the
brakes on. I was not dragging the brakes as you say.

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much
verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances
in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do
it on usenet?

You can read about it here.

<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm>

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mamba said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Quoted post said:

Michael Press wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Do not top post. I fixed it for you.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom
posting encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much
verbiage, especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances
in the thread would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

You've got it backwards. Top posting encourages putting one sentence
(e.g., "me too"😉 on top of 400 lines of text. So-called "bottom
posting" practice asks the poster to clip out the irrelevant portions of
the text, which you will notice that I have done with the posts above.

Quoted message said:

I realize that some folks use readers that make this desirable, and
I'm not flaming. Just curious about why this became the "way" to do
it on usenet?

Because it is the most logical way to carry on a conversation with
multiple participants.

A: it screws up the flow of a conversation.

Q: What's wrong with top posting?

Michael,

Are you playing teacher by an unknown web source as your authority?
Not to say anything is right or wrong, because except for math,
everything is variable.

I can find many sources that say different if I wanted to waste my
time.
English changes daily, much less web rules from strict parented
obedient offspring
trying to pass off as an expert of anything. Just the overly complex
presentaion
of that link shows they have little too offer that couldn't been said
in a few bullet lines:
and therefore infinitely more understandable. But if logic were flawed
it would be easily revealed as well!

EVERY English paper formatting guidelines are different: EVERY one.
And all have flaws that may not adapt to your medium to be a simple
pleasing format to your readers.

Communication is the bridge to mental mapping (Human factor
engineering), and
not stringent rules that make messages overcomplex to meet artificial
guidelines.

After several degrees, if you so desire, you will understand the
policies behind the procedures, and
will be less judgemental on meaningless procedures that adds minutia in
our lives.

imto

Michael Press said:

You can read about it here.

<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm>

--
Michael Press

ddog said:

Michael,

Are you playing teacher by an unknown web source as your authority?
Not to say anything is right or wrong, because except for math,
everything is variable.

Baloney.

Some things are variable. Some things are matters of opinion. But
pretending there is no right or wrong in _anything_ is really pretty
dumb.

People have explained and cited the advantages of posting in logical
order - that is, with later comments following earlier quoted comments,
with proper trimming. To me, those advantages seem beyond debate.

What do _you_ see as the advantage of top posting?? Is it _that_ much
work to move your cursor??

And do feel free to "waste your time" finding citations.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

I am curious about the "top post" comment. It appears that bottom posting
encourages bandwidth waste and the inclusion of way too much verbiage,
especially in longer threads. Since all prior occurances in the thread
would likely contain the same stuff, seems redundant.

You only have to include the relevant part you're replying to or, if you're
really concerned about bandwidth, you could simply post a reply to the
thread without context. Not such a great idea though, since you've obviously
made it more difficult for someone googling the thread to understand what it
is you're responding to.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

ddog said:

After several degrees, if you so desire, you will understand the
policies behind the procedures, and
will be less judgemental on meaningless procedures that adds minutia in
our lives.

You are full of [censored].

Sincerely, D-y

Quoted message said:

ddog said:

You are full of [censored].

Sincerely, D-y

Yo' momma!

ddog wrote (BELOW QUOTED TEXT FOR ONCE!):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Jan 26, 9:35 am, "ddog" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are full of [censored].

Sincerely, D-y

Quoted message said:

Yo' momma!

FINALLY he gets it! LOL

On Jan 26, 10:40 am, "ddog" <[email hidden]> wrote:
(On Jan 26, 11:28 am, [email hidden] wrote):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are full of [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sincerely, D-y

Yo' momma!

Which of the many degrees supplied that snappy rejoinder?

Glad to see you getting with the program here. Trim, quote, reply, hit
send. Atta boy, good ddog! --D-y