Can improper use of back brakes cause the wheel rim to deform?



P

Petrina Quinn

Guest
I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel rim
to deform into a CONCAVE shape.

With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
substantially less- i.e,
about 5%.

The view was that the above factros AND the 100+ psi combined to cause
the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I weigh about
60kgs.

The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the wheel -
which we did!

What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
rather than the usual fractures?

Petrina Quinn
 
On 12 Sep 2006 03:28:54 -0700, "Petrina Quinn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
>compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel rim
>to deform into a CONCAVE shape.


If you were braking hard and throwing the bike into a *sideways* skid,
possibly. But otherwise, no.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Petrina Quinn" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
> compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel
> rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.
>
> With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
> substantially less- i.e, about 5%.
>
> The view was that the above factros AND the 100+ psi combined to
> cause the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I
> weigh about 60kgs.
>
> The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the wheel
> - which we did!
>
> What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
> rather than the usual fractures?


It's not clear what type of failure you are describing, and you don't
provide enough information. We need to know exactly what the failure
was, for one thing. We can at least rule out that the cause was an
inflation pressure of 100 psi, as that's a normal inflation pressure and
every modern rim should be able to handle that. "Poor braking
technique" is ********, whoever told you that is trying to shift the
blame onto you. At 60 kgs you are a lightweight; I weigh 95 kgs (but
then I am 1.93 m tall). Your weight is not the source of the problem.

I also have no idea what measurement you are referring to in your second
paragraph.

If the rear wheel deformed into a "taco" shape on braking, the spoke
tension may have been too high. Usually that problem happens on the
first couple of rides after a very hard stop. If the sidewall bowed out
and the rim is fairly old, then braking wear on the sidewall may have
weakened the rim. This is not all that uncommon if you ride in the rain
with long descents requiring extended braking. Mountain bikers see this
sort of wear and failure, too. Grit from the road gets onto the rim and
becomes a grinding slurry between the rim and the brake pads.

If you can post a photo to the Web (e.g., at Flickr) that shows the
damage, we can have a look at it and it should be easy to tell you more.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2006 03:28:54 -0700, "Petrina Quinn"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
>> compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel rim
>> to deform into a CONCAVE shape.

>
> If you were braking hard and throwing the bike into a *sideways* skid,
> possibly. But otherwise, no.


It sounds to me like you've worn the rims down (through braking, who
knows if you've braked too much?). Time for a new rim!

Pat
 
this just sounds to me like normal rim wear. The pads gradually wear away some alu, which starts the concavity, then, as the rim weakens, the tyre pressure exacerbates the bending......eventually: "crack" or "booom"
 
Petrina Quinn wrote:
> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
> compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel rim
> to deform into a CONCAVE shape.
>
> With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
> substantially less- i.e,
> about 5%.
>
> The view was that the above factros AND the 100+ psi combined to cause
> the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I weigh about
> 60kgs.
>
> The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the wheel -
> which we did!
>
> What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
> rather than the usual fractures?
>
> Petrina Quinn


I wish I had had your "poor" braking technique 21 years ago. I used
the front most all the time then, because it takes less effort. But
then one day I panicked going into a turn on gravel and I touched that
front brake, which immediately took the bike out from under me, and I
came down directly on my knee, broke the kneecap and ruptured the PCL.
After 15 years with seemingly no ill effects, I finally started to get
chronic knee pain.

If I'd used the back brake, I would have merely skidded out and fallen
on my side.

There is nothing "poor" about using the back brake. Each brake has its
uses.
 
Petrina Quinn wrote:
> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
> compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel rim
> to deform into a CONCAVE shape.
>
> With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
> substantially less- i.e,
> about 5%.
>
> The view was that the above factros AND the 100+ psi combined to cause
> the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I weigh about
> 60kgs.
>
> The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the wheel -
> which we did!
>
> What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
> rather than the usual fractures?
>
> Petrina Quinn


If what you're describing (sounds like it) is just excess wear to the
brack track of the rim that resulted in a concave, that's normal and it
was reasonable to replace it.The only thing that can really be done to
maximize rim life for a given amount of braking on it is keeping your
rims and brake pads clean. The "braking too much on your back rim" idea
does make some sense. Due to how weight and force are arranged on the
bike, the front brake is your more powerful one by far (consequently,
there are a lot reasons why it's important to feel comfortable using
it). However, either rim willl probably wear about the same amount for
a given amount of force put on it by the brake pad. In other words, the
ratio of stopping-power-to-rim-wear is much higher for the front brake.

The material of the rim (how "cheap" the rims were) probably doesn't
play much role at all.
 
Petrina Quinn writes:

> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
> compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel
> rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.


Do you mean the brake track on the rim has become concave? That is a
natural occurrence with aluminum rims, especially with major brand
brake pads. If you hear a scraping noise when braking, you have metal
particles from the rim stuck in the brake pads and wear rims rapidly.

Therefore, my first suggestion is to get some Kool-Stop salmon-red
brake pads, either inserts that fit your brakes or the "Continental"
version that is a complete pad-bolt assembly. These pads will not
collect metal and are not as heat sensitive as some.

http://www.koolstop.com/brakes/

near the bottom of the page, or:

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/brakeshoes.html

> With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
> substantially less- i.e, about 5%.


> The view was that the above factors AND the 100+ psi combined to
> cause the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I
> weigh about 60kgs.


Forget tire pressure, that's most likely not the problem. You'll
notice that the rim width at the top of the sidewalls is probably
exactly what it was when new, or in comparison the the front rim.

> The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the
> wheel - which we did!


You mean build a new one with a new rim. That's not hard. Just get a
new rim the same as the old one and lay them side-by-side with the
valve stem holes aligned and transfer spokes one-at-a-time to the new
rim.

> What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
> rather than the usual fractures?


It was a good rim. Meanwhile you might consider the front brake which
can stop you faster than the rear brake if the need arises. That you
haven't crashed for need of stronger braking probably means you don't
come across these situations... so you're OK.

Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:

> You mean build a new one with a new rim. That's not hard. Just get a
> new rim the same as the old one and lay them side-by-side with the
> valve stem holes aligned and transfer spokes one-at-a-time to the new
> rim.


That's what you or I might do, but at LBS, a whole new wheel with
ChinaHub is much less expensive.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Petrina Quinn writes:
>
>> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
>> compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel
>> rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.

>
> Do you mean the brake track on the rim has become concave? That is a
> natural occurrence with aluminum rims, especially with major brand
> brake pads. If you hear a scraping noise when braking, you have metal
> particles from the rim stuck in the brake pads and wear rims rapidly.
>
> Therefore, my first suggestion is to get some Kool-Stop salmon-red
> brake pads, either inserts that fit your brakes or the "Continental"
> version that is a complete pad-bolt assembly. These pads will not
> collect metal and are not as heat sensitive as some.


like these kool-stop salmon pads you mean?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/

and they have frighteningly extended braking distances when wet.

oem campy or the new oem shimano pads are far superior, wet, dry, and
don't accumulate grit when adjusted correctly.

>
> http://www.koolstop.com/brakes/
>
> near the bottom of the page, or:
>
> http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/brakeshoes.html
>
>> With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
>> substantially less- i.e, about 5%.

>
>> The view was that the above factors AND the 100+ psi combined to
>> cause the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I
>> weigh about 60kgs.

>
> Forget tire pressure, that's most likely not the problem. You'll
> notice that the rim width at the top of the sidewalls is probably
> exactly what it was when new, or in comparison the the front rim.
>
>> The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the
>> wheel - which we did!

>
> You mean build a new one with a new rim. That's not hard. Just get a
> new rim the same as the old one and lay them side-by-side with the
> valve stem holes aligned and transfer spokes one-at-a-time to the new
> rim.
>
>> What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
>> rather than the usual fractures?

>
> It was a good rim. Meanwhile you might consider the front brake which
> can stop you faster than the rear brake if the need arises. That you
> haven't crashed for need of stronger braking probably means you don't
> come across these situations... so you're OK.
>
> Jobst Brandt
 
On 12 Sep 2006 03:28:54 -0700, "Petrina Quinn"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back brakes
>compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the back wheel rim
>to deform into a CONCAVE shape.


More likely, it's just worn. That's what happens when you use a
brake; the rim surface wears.

>With calipers the measurement of the back wheel to the front was
>substantially less- i.e,
>about 5%.


Actual dimensions would reveal more.

>The view was that the above factros AND the 100+ psi combined to cause
>the concave metal stress fracture on the aluminium rim. I weigh about
>60kgs.


100psi is not a lot for a road tire. 60kg is not a lot, period.

>The immediate solution - premised on safety - was to change the wheel -
>which we did!


If it was cracked, this was prudent regardless.

>What opinion to others have as to why the rim deformed like this -
>rather than the usual fractures?


I think you've already provided the relevant data, but had
misinterpreted the results.


--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Petrina Quinn writes:
> >
> >> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back
> >> brakes compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the
> >> back wheel rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.

> >
> > Do you mean the brake track on the rim has become concave? That is
> > a natural occurrence with aluminum rims, especially with major
> > brand brake pads. If you hear a scraping noise when braking, you
> > have metal particles from the rim stuck in the brake pads and wear
> > rims rapidly.
> >
> > Therefore, my first suggestion is to get some Kool-Stop salmon-red
> > brake pads, either inserts that fit your brakes or the
> > "Continental" version that is a complete pad-bolt assembly. These
> > pads will not collect metal and are not as heat sensitive as some.

>
> like these kool-stop salmon pads you mean?
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/


Can't tell if those are the salmon pads or just the red pads, which are
inferior. What the hell is "hothatch?" And is that "hot hatch" or "ho
thatch?"

> and they have frighteningly extended braking distances when wet.


As has been pointed out to you time and again, your experience is at
odds with pretty much everybody else's. This is just another such
example.

> oem campy or the new oem shimano pads are far superior, wet, dry, and
> don't accumulate grit when adjusted correctly.


When a variety of brake pads were tested by VeloNews on the Schwinn
brake testing rig, including wet and dry braking, the KoolStop salmon
pads came out as one of the best pads in both conditions. That included
Shimano and Campy OEM pads, various other KoolStop pads, Ritchey pads,
etc. But that was 1995 and perhaps other compounds have come along. I
haven't seen any repeat testing for comparison. Unfortunately the
original article doesn't seem to be on the VeloNews site any more. It
was in the May 22, 1995 issue according to references I could find. One
site reproduces part of the results:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/hg/newsletters/95august.htm

The rest of the article demonstrates some lack of understanding of
physics, but hey, it's the Web. Caveat emptor. The interesting point
is in the table- that with the KoolStop material, stopping distance
(time to stop in this case) in the wet was twice that in dry conditions,
but that was the best ratio of any of the other pads.

I've ridden with people using the recent Shimano pads. The grinding
noises and poor dry stopping performance are frightening to behold.
I've had better results, in wet and dry, with the salmon pads than any
other including both of the ones you name. Although mine are all
branded "Scott/Mathauser" since I think the KoolStop pads are a bit
dinky and I prefer not having grooves on the braking surface- but the
pads are made by the same manufacturer from the same compound.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Petrina Quinn writes:
>>>
>>>> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back
>>>> brakes compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the
>>>> back wheel rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.
>>> Do you mean the brake track on the rim has become concave? That is
>>> a natural occurrence with aluminum rims, especially with major
>>> brand brake pads. If you hear a scraping noise when braking, you
>>> have metal particles from the rim stuck in the brake pads and wear
>>> rims rapidly.
>>>
>>> Therefore, my first suggestion is to get some Kool-Stop salmon-red
>>> brake pads, either inserts that fit your brakes or the
>>> "Continental" version that is a complete pad-bolt assembly. These
>>> pads will not collect metal and are not as heat sensitive as some.

>> like these kool-stop salmon pads you mean?
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/

>
> Can't tell if those are the salmon pads or just the red pads


they're bona-fide kool-stop salmons for post-2000 campy.

>, which are
> inferior. What the hell is "hothatch?" And is that "hot hatch" or "ho
> thatch?"
>
>> and they have frighteningly extended braking distances when wet.

>
> As has been pointed out to you time and again, your experience is at
> odds with pretty much everybody else's. This is just another such
> example.


maybe that's because my bike's not attached to my armchair?

>
>> oem campy or the new oem shimano pads are far superior, wet, dry, and
>> don't accumulate grit when adjusted correctly.

>
> When a variety of brake pads were tested by VeloNews on the Schwinn
> brake testing rig, including wet and dry braking, the KoolStop salmon
> pads came out as one of the best pads in both conditions. That included
> Shimano and Campy OEM pads, various other KoolStop pads, Ritchey pads,
> etc. But that was 1995 and perhaps other compounds have come along. I
> haven't seen any repeat testing for comparison. Unfortunately the
> original article doesn't seem to be on the VeloNews site any more. It
> was in the May 22, 1995 issue according to references I could find. One
> site reproduces part of the results:
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/hg/newsletters/95august.htm
>
> The rest of the article demonstrates some lack of understanding of
> physics, but hey, it's the Web. Caveat emptor. The interesting point
> is in the table- that with the KoolStop material, stopping distance
> (time to stop in this case) in the wet was twice that in dry conditions,
> but that was the best ratio of any of the other pads.
>
> I've ridden with people using the recent Shimano pads. The grinding
> noises and poor dry stopping performance are frightening to behold.
> I've had better results, in wet and dry, with the salmon pads than any
> other including both of the ones you name. Although mine are all
> branded "Scott/Mathauser" since I think the KoolStop pads are a bit
> dinky and I prefer not having grooves on the braking surface- but the
> pads are made by the same manufacturer from the same compound.


tim, with respect, i've taken the trouble to buy and use a number of
post-95 pads. "old" shimano, as in those found on br-7700's, are indeed
awful. but the new ones, as in br-7800's are great. as are post-2000
campy. and in driving rain, you know, the kind not encountered when
sitting at home posting on news groups, kool-stop salmons are abysmal.
absolutely abysmal. in the dry, they're definitely more grippy that
standard pads, which is probably where everyone gets this false
impression, but again, downhill in the rain, when a car's just turned
right on you and your life is literally in the balance, they're no
freakin' good whatsoever. campy stop me every time, no questions asked.
 
jim beam wrote:

> tim, with respect, i've taken the trouble to buy and use a number of
> post-95 pads. "old" shimano, as in those found on br-7700's, are indeed
> awful. but the new ones, as in br-7800's are great. as are post-2000
> campy. and in driving rain, you know, the kind not encountered when
> sitting at home posting on news groups, kool-stop salmons are abysmal.
> absolutely abysmal.


As someone who rides with salmons in the rain All The Godamn Time, I
disagree.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Petrina Quinn writes:
> >>>
> >>>> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back
> >>>> brakes compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the
> >>>> back wheel rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.
> >>> Do you mean the brake track on the rim has become concave? That
> >>> is a natural occurrence with aluminum rims, especially with major
> >>> brand brake pads. If you hear a scraping noise when braking, you
> >>> have metal particles from the rim stuck in the brake pads and
> >>> wear rims rapidly.
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, my first suggestion is to get some Kool-Stop
> >>> salmon-red brake pads, either inserts that fit your brakes or the
> >>> "Continental" version that is a complete pad-bolt assembly.
> >>> These pads will not collect metal and are not as heat sensitive
> >>> as some.
> >> like these kool-stop salmon pads you mean?
> >>
> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/

> >
> > Can't tell if those are the salmon pads or just the red pads

>
> they're bona-fide kool-stop salmons for post-2000 campy.
>
> > which are inferior. What the hell is "hothatch?" And is that "hot
> > hatch" or "ho thatch?"
> >
> >> and they have frighteningly extended braking distances when wet.

> >
> > As has been pointed out to you time and again, your experience is
> > at odds with pretty much everybody else's. This is just another
> > such example.

>
> maybe that's because my bike's not attached to my armchair?


Lame. Even for you. Of course, you're just a contrarian as far as
anything Jobst says, and you are very good at not allowing reality to
intrude on your little private war.

> >> oem campy or the new oem shimano pads are far superior, wet, dry,
> >> and don't accumulate grit when adjusted correctly.

> >
> > When a variety of brake pads were tested by VeloNews on the Schwinn
> > brake testing rig, including wet and dry braking, the KoolStop
> > salmon pads came out as one of the best pads in both conditions.
> > That included Shimano and Campy OEM pads, various other KoolStop
> > pads, Ritchey pads, etc. But that was 1995 and perhaps other
> > compounds have come along. I haven't seen any repeat testing for
> > comparison. Unfortunately the original article doesn't seem to be
> > on the VeloNews site any more. It was in the May 22, 1995 issue
> > according to references I could find. One site reproduces part of
> > the results:
> >
> > http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/hg/newsletters/95august.htm
> >
> > The rest of the article demonstrates some lack of understanding of
> > physics, but hey, it's the Web. Caveat emptor. The interesting
> > point is in the table- that with the KoolStop material, stopping
> > distance (time to stop in this case) in the wet was twice that in
> > dry conditions, but that was the best ratio of any of the other
> > pads.
> >
> > I've ridden with people using the recent Shimano pads. The
> > grinding noises and poor dry stopping performance are frightening
> > to behold. I've had better results, in wet and dry, with the
> > salmon pads than any other including both of the ones you name.
> > Although mine are all branded "Scott/Mathauser" since I think the
> > KoolStop pads are a bit dinky and I prefer not having grooves on
> > the braking surface- but the pads are made by the same manufacturer
> > from the same compound.

>
> tim, with respect, i've taken the trouble to buy and use a number of
> post-95 pads. "old" shimano, as in those found on br-7700's, are
> indeed awful. but the new ones, as in br-7800's are great. as are
> post-2000 campy. and in driving rain, you know, the kind not
> encountered when sitting at home posting on news groups, kool-stop
> salmons are abysmal. absolutely abysmal. in the dry, they're
> definitely more grippy that standard pads, which is probably where
> everyone gets this false impression, but again, downhill in the rain,
> when a car's just turned right on you and your life is literally in
> the balance, they're no freakin' good whatsoever. campy stop me
> every time, no questions asked.


Thankfully it *never* rains in Minnesota or on a brevet or any other
time I take my armchair out for a ride. And of course there are no cars
or hills here either. So you can safely discount what I say, and of
course you might as well discount the careful, scientific measurement of
brake pads since it's obviously a plot by Jobst sympathizers to
discredit you. Never mind that inexpert idiots like Mike J. and Sheldon
find the KoolStop salmons to be good brake pads. All hail jim beam,
master of reality.

LOL. You're such a troll.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Petrina Quinn writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been told that my poor brake technique - overuse of back
>>>>>> brakes compared to front brakes and "cheap" rims had caused the
>>>>>> back wheel rim to deform into a CONCAVE shape.
>>>>> Do you mean the brake track on the rim has become concave? That
>>>>> is a natural occurrence with aluminum rims, especially with major
>>>>> brand brake pads. If you hear a scraping noise when braking, you
>>>>> have metal particles from the rim stuck in the brake pads and
>>>>> wear rims rapidly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, my first suggestion is to get some Kool-Stop
>>>>> salmon-red brake pads, either inserts that fit your brakes or the
>>>>> "Continental" version that is a complete pad-bolt assembly.
>>>>> These pads will not collect metal and are not as heat sensitive
>>>>> as some.
>>>> like these kool-stop salmon pads you mean?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/
>>> Can't tell if those are the salmon pads or just the red pads

>> they're bona-fide kool-stop salmons for post-2000 campy.
>>
>>> which are inferior. What the hell is "hothatch?" And is that "hot
>>> hatch" or "ho thatch?"
>>>
>>>> and they have frighteningly extended braking distances when wet.
>>> As has been pointed out to you time and again, your experience is
>>> at odds with pretty much everybody else's. This is just another
>>> such example.

>> maybe that's because my bike's not attached to my armchair?

>
> Lame. Even for you. Of course, you're just a contrarian as far as
> anything Jobst says, and you are very good at not allowing reality to
> intrude on your little private war.
>
>>>> oem campy or the new oem shimano pads are far superior, wet, dry,
>>>> and don't accumulate grit when adjusted correctly.
>>> When a variety of brake pads were tested by VeloNews on the Schwinn
>>> brake testing rig, including wet and dry braking, the KoolStop
>>> salmon pads came out as one of the best pads in both conditions.
>>> That included Shimano and Campy OEM pads, various other KoolStop
>>> pads, Ritchey pads, etc. But that was 1995 and perhaps other
>>> compounds have come along. I haven't seen any repeat testing for
>>> comparison. Unfortunately the original article doesn't seem to be
>>> on the VeloNews site any more. It was in the May 22, 1995 issue
>>> according to references I could find. One site reproduces part of
>>> the results:
>>>
>>> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/hg/newsletters/95august.htm
>>>
>>> The rest of the article demonstrates some lack of understanding of
>>> physics, but hey, it's the Web. Caveat emptor. The interesting
>>> point is in the table- that with the KoolStop material, stopping
>>> distance (time to stop in this case) in the wet was twice that in
>>> dry conditions, but that was the best ratio of any of the other
>>> pads.
>>>
>>> I've ridden with people using the recent Shimano pads. The
>>> grinding noises and poor dry stopping performance are frightening
>>> to behold. I've had better results, in wet and dry, with the
>>> salmon pads than any other including both of the ones you name.
>>> Although mine are all branded "Scott/Mathauser" since I think the
>>> KoolStop pads are a bit dinky and I prefer not having grooves on
>>> the braking surface- but the pads are made by the same manufacturer
>>> from the same compound.

>> tim, with respect, i've taken the trouble to buy and use a number of
>> post-95 pads. "old" shimano, as in those found on br-7700's, are
>> indeed awful. but the new ones, as in br-7800's are great. as are
>> post-2000 campy. and in driving rain, you know, the kind not
>> encountered when sitting at home posting on news groups, kool-stop
>> salmons are abysmal. absolutely abysmal. in the dry, they're
>> definitely more grippy that standard pads, which is probably where
>> everyone gets this false impression, but again, downhill in the rain,
>> when a car's just turned right on you and your life is literally in
>> the balance, they're no freakin' good whatsoever. campy stop me
>> every time, no questions asked.

>
> Thankfully it *never* rains in Minnesota or on a brevet or any other
> time I take my armchair out for a ride. And of course there are no cars
> or hills here either. So you can safely discount what I say, and of
> course you might as well discount the careful, scientific measurement of
> brake pads since it's obviously a plot by Jobst sympathizers to
> discredit you. Never mind that inexpert idiots like Mike J. and Sheldon
> find the KoolStop salmons to be good brake pads. All hail jim beam,
> master of reality.


sure, so

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/

is a fake?

"salmons are great because they don't embed grit" we are told by those
with a vested interest in selling them. i've found this not to be true.
"they stop well in the wet" we are told. i've found that not to be
true also - and because i have the temerity to say so, that makes me
untruthful?

>
> LOL. You're such a troll.


no tim, i just don't like smoke being blown up my kilt. and i will call
out anyone that tries to do so.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> sure, so
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/
>
> is a fake?


As I said earlier, it's impossible to tell if those are the salmon pads
or just the red pads, which are an inferior compound.

> "salmons are great because they don't embed grit" we are told by
> those with a vested interest in selling them. i've found this not to
> be true. "they stop well in the wet" we are told. i've found that
> not to be true also - and because i have the temerity to say so, that
> makes me untruthful?


Just pointing out that your experience, as seems to frequently be the
case, is at odds with the rest of us. I've used these pads for years
(got my first set of Mathausers in the late 1970s) and have had no
problems with the pads picking up bits of rim material, and find them
better in the rain than any other brake pad I have tried. Interestingly
there is objective data to back up that subjective impression, as I
mentioned.

> > LOL. You're such a troll.

>
> no tim, i just don't like smoke being blown up my kilt. and i will
> call out anyone that tries to do so.


"Call out?" What is this, the OK Corral? LOL! Perhaps you should
change your handle from "jim beam" to "pale rider."
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> sure, so
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/101935519/
>>
>> is a fake?

>
> As I said earlier, it's impossible to tell if those are the salmon pads
> or just the red pads, which are an inferior compound.


this is the item i bought - and vendor from whom i did it.

http://biketoolsetc.com/index.cgi?i...r-Parts&sc=Brake&tc=Pads-Road&item_id=KS-C2SA

there is no confusion.

>
>> "salmons are great because they don't embed grit" we are told by
>> those with a vested interest in selling them. i've found this not to
>> be true. "they stop well in the wet" we are told. i've found that
>> not to be true also - and because i have the temerity to say so, that
>> makes me untruthful?

>
> Just pointing out that your experience, as seems to frequently be the
> case, is at odds with the rest of us.


yes. and how many of you, and for how many years, blindly accepted
jobst's engineering gaffes without question? mockery and ridicule don't
make a naysayer incorrect - indeed such behavior frequently demonstrates
the opposite since a factual rebuttal would be both much simpler and
carry more weight.

> I've used these pads for years
> (got my first set of Mathausers in the late 1970s) and have had no
> problems with the pads picking up bits of rim material, and find them
> better in the rain than any other brake pad I have tried. Interestingly
> there is objective data to back up that subjective impression, as I
> mentioned.


what's with the presumption that kool-stops are the same as the
mathausers and therefore have the same properties? it's simply that - a
presumption. i've questioned this point before, but so far, no one has
been able to definitely illuminate.

>
>>> LOL. You're such a troll.

>> no tim, i just don't like smoke being blown up my kilt. and i will
>> call out anyone that tries to do so.

>
> "Call out?" What is this, the OK Corral? LOL! Perhaps you should
> change your handle from "jim beam" to "pale rider."


if dueling was legal, there wouldn't be as many liars and bullshitters
in the world. and many lawyers would be unemployed.
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> ...
> if dueling was legal, there wouldn't be as many liars and bullshitters
> in the world. and many lawyers would be unemployed.


"jim beam" better hope no one challenges him to a duel using capital
letters as weapons.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.