Disc brakes squeal due to loose pads?

[dianne_1234]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 09:58:22 -0700, "SDMike" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you COULD have the
>situation where you'd need to change brake pads pretty quickly.
>
>Not that a road bike would do real well on a mud-fest ride, but that's another
>story. A cross bike maybe, but not a road bike with slicks.

Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3

"Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."

"The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
right to the metal."

 

[[email protected]]

Dianne_1234? writes:

>> Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you
>> COULD have the situation where you'd need to change brake pads
>> pretty quickly. Not that a road bike would do real well on a
>> mud-fest ride, but that's another story. A cross bike maybe, but
>> not a road bike with slicks.

> Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3

> "Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
> the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."

> "The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
> and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
> peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
> right to the metal."

There is something wrong here. Either he was using some esoteric
coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Dianne_1234? writes:
>
>
>>>Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you
>>>COULD have the situation where you'd need to change brake pads
>>>pretty quickly. Not that a road bike would do real well on a
>>>mud-fest ride, but that's another story. A cross bike maybe, but
>>>not a road bike with slicks.
>
>
>>Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3
>
>
>>"Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
>>the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."
>
>
>>"The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
>>and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
>>peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
>>right to the metal."
>
>
> There is something wrong here.

it's definitely extreme, but entirely possible if it's muddy enough.
i've worn out brand new mountian bike brake pads in less than 5 miles of
descent in bad mud. standard rims.

> Either he was using some esoteric
> coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
> 2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
> Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
> worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
> at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]

 

[Tom Young]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dianne_1234? writes:
>
> >> Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you
> >> COULD have the situation where you'd need to change brake pads
> >> pretty quickly. Not that a road bike would do real well on a
> >> mud-fest ride, but that's another story. A cross bike maybe, but
> >> not a road bike with slicks.
>
> > Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3
>
> > "Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
> > the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."
>
> > "The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
> > and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
> > peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
> > right to the metal."
>
> There is something wrong here. Either he was using some esoteric
> coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
> 2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
> Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
> worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
> at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]


Perhaps I came into this thread too late or don't know your history
when it comes to claims about brake pads, but the last two sentences
leave me puzzled. Why do you keep brake pads that are worn to the
metal while claiming that such a thing is impossible?

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Young writes:

>>>> Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you
>>>> COULD have the situation where you'd need to change brake pads
>>>> pretty quickly. Not that a road bike would do real well on a
>>>> mud-fest ride, but that's another story. A cross bike maybe, but
>>>> not a road bike with slicks.

>>> Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
>>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3

>>> "Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
>>> the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."

>>> "The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
>>> and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
>>> peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
>>> right to the metal."

>> There is something wrong here. Either he was using some esoteric
>> coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
>> 2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
>> Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
>> worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
>> at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.

> Perhaps I came into this thread too late or don't know your history
> when it comes to claims about brake pads, but the last two sentences
> leave me puzzled. Why do you keep brake pads that are worn to the
> metal while claiming that such a thing is impossible?

Perhaps you didn't read what was written. In the rain, descending
Alpine passes I wore out practically new rims with one set of pads. I
have worn out many pads (and rims) but my pads were worn out in dry
weather where rims do not wear significantly while pads do. That
they can be worn to the metal is why I keep them and also to stop
people from educating me on break usage and wear. Some don't even
get the gist when they see the bag of 30 or more worn out Kool-Stop
Continentals.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[[email protected]]

On 21 Jun 2004 20:58:44 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Young)
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Dianne_1234? writes:
>>
>> >> Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you
>> >> COULD have the situation where you'd need to change brake pads
>> >> pretty quickly. Not that a road bike would do real well on a
>> >> mud-fest ride, but that's another story. A cross bike maybe, but
>> >> not a road bike with slicks.
>>
>> > Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
>> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3
>>
>> > "Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
>> > the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."
>>
>> > "The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
>> > and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
>> > peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
>> > right to the metal."
>>
>> There is something wrong here. Either he was using some esoteric
>> coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
>> 2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
>> Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
>> worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
>> at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>> [email protected]
>
>
>Perhaps I came into this thread too late or don't know your history
>when it comes to claims about brake pads, but the last two sentences
>leave me puzzled. Why do you keep brake pads that are worn to the
>metal while claiming that such a thing is impossible?

Dear Tom,

Possibly what Jobst was saying was that people ask him why
he saves worn brake pads while at the same time the same
people (not Jobst) claim that (something about wear and
weather) is impossible.

Since no one was claiming in this thread that brake pads
could not be worn to the metal in better weather than Ekimov
wore his brake pads down to the metal, it's a somewhat
puzzling post.

There may be something intended about brake pad wear versus
rim wear, but I couldn't figure it out, either. Let's hope
for clarification.

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>you're making blanket condemnations of disk brakes
>
>This is not true for two reasons; firstly, I am discussing road use, in
>response to another poster's use of "road rim brakes" (so not "blanket");
>and secondly, I am merely pointing out that they offer no advantages (so
>not "condemnations").

Well, that's still a blanket generatlity (condemnation? ;-), just of
disc brakes for road bikes rather than disc brakes in general.

I'm the original poster of disc vs. rim brakes for road bikes, and
disc brakes absolutely provide an advantage over rim brakes. I've got
a road bike with Ultegra double pivot calipers and a road bike with
Avid mechanical disc brakes. I frequently alternate them, in wet and
dry conditions, so I have frequent direct comparisons between
high-quality rim and disc brakes in various weather conditions.

And, as I stated earlier in this post, 1) in dry weather the disc
brakes stop me slightly faster, 2) in light rain conditions the disc
brakes stop me noticeably faster (i.e. the rim brakes start increasing
stopping distance), and 3) in heavy rain conditions the disc brakes
lose no stopping power at all over dry conditions, while the rim
brakes double or triple their stopping distances. The discs also
retain "modulation", meaning good feel for how much brake is being
applied, in all conditions; the rim brakes lose modulation in the
wet, where you pretty much have to mash them to get any stopping
power.

This is my experience. Others may have different experiences, but
unlike other posters, I won't discount their experiences with blanket
generalities.

Michael

 

[Michael Press]

Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:57:43 -0400, Michael Press
><[email protected]> may have said:
>
>>I have Avid Ball Bearing Road disc brakes on my commuting (road) bike.
<snip>
>>Here's the problem - the front brakes squeal when the applied at any
>>pressure less than death-grip. Rear brake is fine. The brakes work
>>great, but the squealing is loud and VERY annoying.
<snip>
>I suggest going to an auto parts store and getting some disc brake
>anti-squeal compound; apply it to the back of the pads, NOT the
>friction surface. Follow the instructions included with the product.
>Be aware that it's sticky, and most types must dry thoroughly before
>the pads can be reinstalled. Just about any of these compounds will
>usually damp the oscillations and silence the squeal.

Worked perfectly! No squeal at all now. Thanks.

Michael

 

[David Damerell]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>you're making blanket condemnations of disk brakes
>>This is not true for two reasons; firstly, I am discussing road use, in
>>response to another poster's use of "road rim brakes" (so not "blanket");
>>and secondly, I am merely pointing out that they offer no advantages (so
>>not "condemnations").
>Well, that's still a blanket generatlity (condemnation? ;-), just of
>disc brakes for road bikes rather than disc brakes in general.

Manifestly it is not a blanket generality when you must first describe the
specifics involved.

>And, as I stated earlier in this post, 1) in dry weather the disc
>brakes stop me slightly faster, 2) in light rain conditions the disc
>brakes stop me noticeably faster (i.e. the rim brakes start increasing
>stopping distance), and 3) in heavy rain conditions the disc brakes
>lose no stopping power at all over dry conditions, while the rim
>brakes double or triple their stopping distances.

Then your rim brakes are incompetently adjusted or designed. A good rim
brake will lift the rear wheel. You cannot have more braking than that.
What part of this escapes you?

>applied, in all conditions; the rim brakes lose modulation in the
>wet, where you pretty much have to mash them to get any stopping
>power.

This sounds more like the days of steel rims than modern equipment.

>This is my experience. Others may have different experiences, but
>unlike other posters, I won't discount their experiences with blanket
>generalities.

Unfortunately the "blanket generality" I am using is elementary applied
mathematics.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Michael Press]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>>And, as I stated earlier in this post, 1) in dry weather the disc
>>brakes stop me slightly faster, 2) in light rain conditions the disc
>>brakes stop me noticeably faster (i.e. the rim brakes start increasing
>>stopping distance), and 3) in heavy rain conditions the disc brakes
>>lose no stopping power at all over dry conditions, while the rim
>>brakes double or triple their stopping distances.
>
>Then your rim brakes are incompetently adjusted or designed. A good rim
>brake will lift the rear wheel. You cannot have more braking than that.
>What part of this escapes you?

The "wet" part seems to escape you.

>>applied, in all conditions; the rim brakes lose modulation in the
>>wet, where you pretty much have to mash them to get any stopping
>>power.
>
>This sounds more like the days of steel rims than modern equipment.

Again, discounting others' experiences...

>>This is my experience. Others may have different experiences, but
>>unlike other posters, I won't discount their experiences with blanket
>>generalities.
>
>Unfortunately the "blanket generality" I am using is elementary applied
>mathematics.

Uh huh. Oh yeah, NOW I remember learning "disc brakes suck" in math
class.

Just so you know, I won't be responding any more to your posts. It's
not worth my time to argue with someone who just likes to be contrary.

Michael

 

[Gary Young]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> David Damerell wrote:
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>evan & david & the other doubters - you are entitled to your opinion,
> >>but /please/ don't dismiss the experience of others without cause. rim
> >>brakes are fine for the majority of users and in moderate conditions,
> >>but /never/ try telling someone that's had to change rim brake pads half
> >>way through a muddy ride that rim brakes are superior to disk.
> >
> >
> > Evidently you missed the word "road" too. Check with your other sock
> > puppets to see if they saw it, "tux lover" ?
>
> what has "road" got to do with it? you're making blanket condemnations
> of disk brakes and i'm merely pointing out that my experience with them
> has been extremely positive. exactly why this should trigger a hostile
> response from you is something i have trouble understanding.
>
> and you, of all people, should be able to figure out the connection
> between "tux lover" and my choice of o.s.

Once again "jim beam" dodges and weaves. I doubt anyone cares why you
gave the name "tux lover" to one of your sock puppets. The point is
that you've tried to hide the fact that your various sock puppets are
the same person, as when the "jim beam" sock puppet told the group he
was new here:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=z7koa.590%24uq5.173%40newssvr16.news.prodigy.com&output=gplain>

 

[David Damerell]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Then your rim brakes are incompetently adjusted or designed. A good rim
>>brake will lift the rear wheel. You cannot have more braking than that.
>>What part of this escapes you?
>The "wet" part seems to escape you.

A good rim brake will lift the rear wheel in the wet. You cannot have more
braking than that. What part of this escapes you?

>>>applied, in all conditions; the rim brakes lose modulation in the
>>>wet, where you pretty much have to mash them to get any stopping
>>>power.
>>This sounds more like the days of steel rims than modern equipment.
>Again, discounting others' experiences...

That is not true. I am not disputing that your brakes do not perform well;
I am merely pointing out that, since rim brakes can work perfectly well in
the wet, that is because yours are inferior, not because of an inherent
limitation of the design. Obviously one can equally well obtain an
inferior disc brake; that would not imply that no disc brake works well.

>>>This is my experience. Others may have different experiences, but
>>>unlike other posters, I won't discount their experiences with blanket
>>>generalities.
>>Unfortunately the "blanket generality" I am using is elementary applied
>>mathematics.
>Uh huh. Oh yeah, NOW I remember learning "disc brakes suck" in math
>class.

Evidently you didn't learn anything, or you would be able to see how the
position of the CoG relative to the front contact patch informs maximum
braking.

>Just so you know, I won't be responding any more to your posts.

Of course not; you don't have an argument, merely a set of vague
insinuations. This is an attempt to conceal that fact.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[jim beam]

David Damerell wrote:

> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Then your rim brakes are incompetently adjusted or designed. A good rim
>>>brake will lift the rear wheel. You cannot have more braking than that.
>>>What part of this escapes you?
>>
>>The "wet" part seems to escape you.
>
>
> A good rim brake will lift the rear wheel in the wet. You cannot have more
> braking than that. What part of this escapes you?
>
>
>>>>applied, in all conditions; the rim brakes lose modulation in the
>>>>wet, where you pretty much have to mash them to get any stopping
>>>>power.
>>>
>>>This sounds more like the days of steel rims than modern equipment.
>>
>>Again, discounting others' experiences...
>
>
> That is not true. I am not disputing that your brakes do not perform well;
> I am merely pointing out that, since rim brakes can work perfectly well in
> the wet, that is because yours are inferior, not because of an inherent
> limitation of the design. Obviously one can equally well obtain an
> inferior disc brake; that would not imply that no disc brake works well.
>
>
>>>>This is my experience. Others may have different experiences, but
>>>>unlike other posters, I won't discount their experiences with blanket
>>>>generalities.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately the "blanket generality" I am using is elementary applied
>>>mathematics.
>>
>>Uh huh. Oh yeah, NOW I remember learning "disc brakes suck" in math
>>class.
>
>
> Evidently you didn't learn anything, or you would be able to see how the
> position of the CoG relative to the front contact patch informs maximum
> braking.

david, you are correct that when the brakes are fully effective, maximum
braking is defined in terms of the above. but it is incorrect to assume
that all brakes are effective to this level in all conditions. foreign
material [mud] between the brake pad & the braking surface has a
substantially negative impact on their friction coefficient and can
easily cause the brake to not be able to approach the above limit.

please also remember that not everyone lives in flat country like you.
in my case, 210lbs [15 stone?] of lard contending with several miles of
gradient 6" deep in winter effluent are not optimum conditions for rim
brakes. next time you're in the san francisco bay area, you're welcome
to borrow my guest bike and see what i mean. you'll enjoy it -
california rain is much warmer than british rain.

>
>
>>Just so you know, I won't be responding any more to your posts.
>
>
> Of course not; you don't have an argument, merely a set of vague
> insinuations. This is an attempt to conceal that fact.

 

[[email protected]]

David Damerell writes:

> That is not true. I am not disputing that your brakes do not perform
> well; I am merely pointing out that, since rim brakes can work
> perfectly well in the wet, that is because yours are inferior, not
> because of an inherent limitation of the design. Obviously one can
> equally well obtain an inferior disc brake; that would not imply
> that no disc brake works well.

I disagree on your assessment of rim brakes on wet rims. I have
performed tests on wet braking that conclusively show that it doesn't
work the way most riders visualize. I have had the opportunity to
brake in water deep enough to submerge the rim and found that there
was practically no brake effect during the immersion. Subsequently I
rode in snow so there was a snow pack on the inner periphery of the
rim. On braking, this snow melts supplying a continuous flow of water
to the braking surface. Braking came back to typical wet weather
effect as the snow was gone and shortly after that full effectiveness
returned.

This is a good test to perform if you ride in snow. I did it because
I ride in snow on occasion and had the distinct feeling of no brakes
in such circumstances. It's not riding through snow but getting it on
the rim that does the mean trick and exposes water lubrication for
what it is. That's also why chains work well until the rain stops,
and then they squeak. RR trains have skidding problems on wet track.

Braking in rain, rims are not as wet as one might assume judging from
these experiments. The effect is mainly a partially wet and warm rim
which is not what occurs on a disc brake that is rapidly heated above
boiling temperatures in use.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[Michael Press]

Jobst, I'm having some trouble understanding exactly what you're
saying here, so please indulge some (possibly obvious to you)
clarifications. I believe that you're agreeing with my subjective
impressions of rim brakes becoming ineffective in the presence of lots
of water, and are stating that you have done some studies to validate
those theories.

[email protected] wrote:
>> I am not disputing that your brakes do not perform
>> well; I am merely pointing out that, since rim brakes can work
>> perfectly well in the wet, that is because yours are inferior, not
>> because of an inherent limitation of the design.
>
>I disagree on your assessment of rim brakes on wet rims. I have
>performed tests on wet braking that conclusively show that it doesn't
>work the way most riders visualize.

I have no idea what most riders visualize. I've stated my impression
that wet rims brake ineffectively; is that what your tests
conclusively show? Can you provide more detail on these tests?

> I have had the opportunity to
>brake in water deep enough to submerge the rim and found that there
>was practically no brake effect during the immersion.

By "No brake effect during immersion" you mean that braking was
completely ineffective during immersion?

>Subsequently I rode in snow so there was a snow pack on the inner periphery of the
>rim. On braking, this snow melts supplying a continuous flow of water
>to the braking surface. Braking came back to typical wet weather
>effect as the snow was gone and shortly after that full effectiveness
>returned.

So by "Braking came back to typical wet weather effect" you're stating
that when the melting snow supplied a flow of water on the rim, the
effect was the same as during immersion, that is little or no braking
ability?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[SDMike]

<snip>
>
> >> There is something wrong here. Either he was using some esoteric
> >> coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
> >> 2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
> >> Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
> >> worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
> >> at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.

<snip>Kool-Stop Continentals.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]

See, there's the difference. You're riding some aftermarket pad while Eki is
probably riding the stock D/A pad. I know that I've had wear issues on my D/A
pads pretty quickly.

As always YMMV,

M

 

[SDMike]

<snip>
> Just so you know, I won't be responding any more to your posts. It's
> not worth my time to argue with someone who just likes to be contrary.
>
> Michael
>
See! Told ya so!

M

 

[Tom Sherman]

David Damerell wrote:

> ...
> Then your rim brakes are incompetently adjusted or designed. A good rim
> brake will lift the rear wheel. You cannot have more braking than that....

While the above is true theoretically, in the real world a brake that
provides better control of its modulation will allow the rider to apply
a force closer to the theoretical maximum than a brake with poorer
modulation would. This MIGHT allow for shorter stopping distances on a
bicycle equipped with a front disc brake (all else being equal), even
though both the disc brake and rim brake are strong enough to cause the
rear wheel to lift.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press writes:

>> I have had the opportunity to brake in water deep enough to
>> submerge the rim and found that there was practically no brake
>> effect during the immersion.

> By "No brake effect during immersion" you mean that braking was
> completely ineffective during immersion?

Yes, there was practically no brake effect as long as the rim was in
the water although there was a small and unacceptably low retardation
that fits the description of complete brake fade.

>> Subsequently I rode in snow so there was a snow pack on the inner
>> periphery of the rim. On braking, this snow melts supplying a
>> continuous flow of water to the braking surface. Braking came back
>> to typical wet weather effect as the snow was gone and shortly
>> after that full effectiveness returned.

> So by "Braking came back to typical wet weather effect" you're stating
> that when the melting snow supplied a flow of water on the rim, the
> effect was the same as during immersion, that is little or no braking
> ability?

Yes. Try it, you'll like it... as the old saying goes.

Jobst Brandt
[email protected]

 

[Tom Young]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Young writes:
>
> >>>> Conceivably, if you do go ride a muddy road on a road bike, you
> >>>> COULD have the situation where you'd need to change brake pads
> >>>> pretty quickly. Not that a road bike would do real well on a
> >>>> mud-fest ride, but that's another story. A cross bike maybe, but
> >>>> not a road bike with slicks.
>
> >>> Found a report about Eki wearing down his brake pads in 100km. From
> >>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2003/mar03/mar13news3
>
> >>> "Ekimov suffered during the two Belgian season openers, particularly
> >>> the second one, Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne, which followed Het Volk."
>
> >>> "The Sunday race was held in cold rain and the road was so slippery
> >>> and the tempo so brisk that there was no end to the braking in the
> >>> peloton. After 100 km Ekimov found that his brake pads had worn down
> >>> right to the metal."
>
> >> There is something wrong here. Either he was using some esoteric
> >> coated rim or flimsy brake pads, because I wore out an MA-2 rim on a
> >> 2500mi all rain tour in the alps with brake pad material left on my
> >> Kool-Stop Continental. I have several dozen of these pads that were
> >> worn to the metal in better weather. People ask why I save them while
> >> at the same time claiming that that is impossible. You be the judge.
>
> > Perhaps I came into this thread too late or don't know your history
> > when it comes to claims about brake pads, but the last two sentences
> > leave me puzzled. Why do you keep brake pads that are worn to the
> > metal while claiming that such a thing is impossible?
>
> Perhaps you didn't read what was written. In the rain, descending
> Alpine passes I wore out practically new rims with one set of pads. I
> have worn out many pads (and rims) but my pads were worn out in dry
> weather where rims do not wear significantly while pads do. That
> they can be worn to the metal is why I keep them and also to stop
> people from educating me on break usage and wear. Some don't even
> get the gist when they see the bag of 30 or more worn out Kool-Stop
> Continentals.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> [email protected]

Ahh... It's not *you* who is claiming that it's impossible to wear
brake pads to the metal, it's the folks who are questioning why you
keep worn-out brake pads. The wording confused me.