On Nov 9, 1:08 pm, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:33 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 11:18 am, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 10:11 am, Ozark Bicycle
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 9, 10:22 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 9, 12:47 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > >> for the skeptics.
>
> > > > > > >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128941/
>
> > > > > > >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128939/
>
> > > > > > >>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128923/
>
> > > > > > > What about a picture from the side? If the pads aren't parallel to
> > > > > > > the mounting bolt, this proves absolutely nothing.
>
> > > > > > It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there is an
> > > > > > eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake closes, the
> > > > > > right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also forward (down,
> > > > > > in the photo). This could be explained by the pivots not being parallel
> > > > > > to each other.
>
> > > > > That's the great thing about orbital pad adjustment. You can make it
> > > > > look like all kinds of neat things are happening if you only took at
> > > > > the brake from one direction. Square the pads up like they would be
> > > > > on a bike (where some of us use our brakes) and the eccentricity goes
> > > > > away. It's interesting that jim isn't even trying to show a front
> > > > > brake doing the opposite.
>
> > > > Are you taking the position that jb is deliberately lying? IMO, he
> > > > believes his position is correct. I haven't taken the time to
> > > > 'measure' both a front and rear Shimano or Campy set of dual pivots,
> > > > so I can't say yay or nay. But I do doubt he is willfully being
> > > > deceptive about this.
>
> > > His level of animosity toward those who disagree with him is not
> > > inconsistent with such behavior (willful lying to support incorrect
> > > assertions).
>
> > IMO, much of jb's animosity is a reaction to the animosity displayed
> > *toward* him. And that animosity springs from the fact that he has the
> > temerity to dispute the pronouncements of Jobst the Great and Mighty,
> > who has most people here cowed like a bunch of ****-eating sheep.
>
> I am neither in nor out of either camp.
Did I imply you were?
> And I didn't say he *DID*
> lie.
Not explicitly, no.
And don't look now, but your bias is showing.
>
A bias of having had more than a full dose of Jobst the Great and
Mighty? You bet!!
Luns Tee wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim
> McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there
>> is an eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake
>> closes, the right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also
>> forward (down, in the photo). This could be explained by the
>> pivots not being parallel to each other.
>
> It's not a matter of the pivots: the same thing happens with
> single-pivot brakes with both brake arms pivoting on the same bolt.
>
> This is a matter of the brake pads not being parallel to the brake
> pivots. A rear brake has its pads mounted with their rear end farther
> from the pivots than the front end. Being at a larger radius from the
> pivot, the rear end moves more than the front. A front brake, thanks
> to the offset off the fork, has its pads more parallel to its pivot.
That doesn't suffice to explain the apparent movement shown in "jim's"
photos in which one pad appears to move forward relative to the other.
That could just be an artifact of the brake laying on an open book,
hence my suggestion to "jim" to mount the brake on a planar surface to
provide a reference.
> It's a stretch of the imagination to to think that this is a
> deliberate effect though. More to the point of what started this
> discussion, a front brake mounted on the rear has its pads at the
> same angle relative to its pivots as a rear brake mounted on the
> rear.
Calipers can be swapped front for back and always have been
interchangeable; the only difference is the lengths of the pivot bolts.
Except for the recent Campy arrangement with a dual pivot in front and
a single pivot in the rear, that is.
Luns Tee wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tim
> McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there
>> is an eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake
>> closes, the right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also
>> forward (down, in the photo). This could be explained by the
>> pivots not being parallel to each other.
>
> It's not a matter of the pivots: the same thing happens with
> single-pivot brakes with both brake arms pivoting on the same bolt.
>
> This is a matter of the brake pads not being parallel to the brake
> pivots. A rear brake has its pads mounted with their rear end farther
> from the pivots than the front end. Being at a larger radius from the
> pivot, the rear end moves more than the front. A front brake, thanks
> to the offset off the fork, has its pads more parallel to its pivot.
That doesn't suffice to explain the apparent movement shown in "jim's"
photos in which one pad appears to move forward relative to the other.
That could just be an artifact of the brake laying on an open book,
hence my suggestion to "jim" to mount the brake on a planar surface to
provide a reference.
> It's a stretch of the imagination to to think that this is a
> deliberate effect though. More to the point of what started this
> discussion, a front brake mounted on the rear has its pads at the
> same angle relative to its pivots as a rear brake mounted on the
> rear.
Calipers can be swapped front for back and always have been
interchangeable; the only difference is the lengths of the pivot bolts.
Except for the recent Campy arrangement with a dual pivot in front and
a single pivot in the rear, that is.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Nov 9, 10:22 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
>>>> On Nov 9, 12:47 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
>>>>> for the skeptics.
> >>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128941/
> >>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128939/
> >>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128923/
> >>>>
>>>> What about a picture from the side? If the pads aren't parallel
>>>> to the mounting bolt, this proves absolutely nothing.
> >>
>>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there
>>> is an eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake
>>> closes, the right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also
>>> forward (down, in the photo). This could be explained by the
>>> pivots not being parallel to each other.
>>
>> That's the great thing about orbital pad adjustment. You can make it
>> look like all kinds of neat things are happening if you only took at
>> the brake from one direction. Square the pads up like they would be
>> on a bike (where some of us use our brakes) and the eccentricity
>> goes away. It's interesting that jim isn't even trying to show a
>> front brake doing the opposite.
>
> Far be it from me to accept anything from "jim beam" at face value,
> however I am not at all certain that the orientation of the pad would
> produce the apparent effect shown in the photos. The apparent movement
> is about 1/8". The sweep of the ends of the pads would be the same
> regardless of their orientation.
correct.
>
> The problem with the photo is that the brake is lying on an open book
> rather than mounted firmly. If "jim beam" really wants to demonstrate
> his point, he'd do better to mount the brake on a flat surface (e.g.,
> drill a mounting hole through a board and mount the brake to it), which
> would provide a plane reference surface against which to judge the
> movement.
doesn't make any difference - study the pads, not the paper.
> I don't own a dual pivot brake or I'd do it myself.
evidently the same situation as the other posters!
> Unfortunately, "jim beam" won't accept my suggestion simply because it
> comes from me, so the point will remain moot.
i'd do it if it was relevant, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
>
> If the eccentric motion is real, the likelier explanation is that the
> pivot axes are not parallel.
indeed. it's really not hard if one thinks about it.
>
> (And what's up with Google Groups's removal of newlines from quoted
> material? What a pain in the ass to have to keep fixing. That's 90%
> of the legibility problem in these long threads. Google must fear the
> whitespace. Jeez, I wish people would use real newsreaders.)
Tim McNamara wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Nov 9, 10:22 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>
>>>> On Nov 9, 12:47 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
>>>>> for the skeptics.
> >>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128941/
> >>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128939/
> >>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128923/
> >>>>
>>>> What about a picture from the side? If the pads aren't parallel
>>>> to the mounting bolt, this proves absolutely nothing.
> >>
>>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there
>>> is an eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake
>>> closes, the right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also
>>> forward (down, in the photo). This could be explained by the
>>> pivots not being parallel to each other.
>>
>> That's the great thing about orbital pad adjustment. You can make it
>> look like all kinds of neat things are happening if you only took at
>> the brake from one direction. Square the pads up like they would be
>> on a bike (where some of us use our brakes) and the eccentricity
>> goes away. It's interesting that jim isn't even trying to show a
>> front brake doing the opposite.
>
> Far be it from me to accept anything from "jim beam" at face value,
> however I am not at all certain that the orientation of the pad would
> produce the apparent effect shown in the photos. The apparent movement
> is about 1/8". The sweep of the ends of the pads would be the same
> regardless of their orientation.
correct.
>
> The problem with the photo is that the brake is lying on an open book
> rather than mounted firmly. If "jim beam" really wants to demonstrate
> his point, he'd do better to mount the brake on a flat surface (e.g.,
> drill a mounting hole through a board and mount the brake to it), which
> would provide a plane reference surface against which to judge the
> movement.
doesn't make any difference - study the pads, not the paper.
> I don't own a dual pivot brake or I'd do it myself.
evidently the same situation as the other posters!
> Unfortunately, "jim beam" won't accept my suggestion simply because it
> comes from me, so the point will remain moot.
i'd do it if it was relevant, but you're barking up the wrong tree.
>
> If the eccentric motion is real, the likelier explanation is that the
> pivot axes are not parallel.
indeed. it's really not hard if one thinks about it.
>
> (And what's up with Google Groups's removal of newlines from quoted
> material? What a pain in the ass to have to keep fixing. That's 90%
> of the legibility problem in these long threads. Google must fear the
> whitespace. Jeez, I wish people would use real newsreaders.)
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Luns Tee wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tim
>> McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there
>>> is an eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake
>>> closes, the right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also
>>> forward (down, in the photo). This could be explained by the
>>> pivots not being parallel to each other.
>>
>> It's not a matter of the pivots: the same thing happens with
>> single-pivot brakes with both brake arms pivoting on the same bolt.
>>
>> This is a matter of the brake pads not being parallel to the brake
>> pivots. A rear brake has its pads mounted with their rear end farther
>> from the pivots than the front end. Being at a larger radius from the
>> pivot, the rear end moves more than the front. A front brake, thanks
>> to the offset off the fork, has its pads more parallel to its pivot.
>
> That doesn't suffice to explain the apparent movement shown in "jim's"
> photos in which one pad appears to move forward relative to the other.
> That could just be an artifact of the brake laying on an open book,
> hence my suggestion to "jim" to mount the brake on a planar surface to
> provide a reference.
irrelevant. look at the pads.
>
>> It's a stretch of the imagination to to think that this is a
>> deliberate effect though. More to the point of what started this
>> discussion, a front brake mounted on the rear has its pads at the
>> same angle relative to its pivots as a rear brake mounted on the
>> rear.
>
> Calipers can be swapped front for back and always have been
> interchangeable; the only difference is the lengths of the pivot bolts.
> Except for the recent Campy arrangement with a dual pivot in front and
> a single pivot in the rear, that is.
single pivot, yes. dual pivot, no. the toe regime is specific to front
and rear. and that's why the manufacturers actually say they're not
interchangeable!
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Luns Tee wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tim
>> McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there
>>> is an eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake
>>> closes, the right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also
>>> forward (down, in the photo). This could be explained by the
>>> pivots not being parallel to each other.
>>
>> It's not a matter of the pivots: the same thing happens with
>> single-pivot brakes with both brake arms pivoting on the same bolt.
>>
>> This is a matter of the brake pads not being parallel to the brake
>> pivots. A rear brake has its pads mounted with their rear end farther
>> from the pivots than the front end. Being at a larger radius from the
>> pivot, the rear end moves more than the front. A front brake, thanks
>> to the offset off the fork, has its pads more parallel to its pivot.
>
> That doesn't suffice to explain the apparent movement shown in "jim's"
> photos in which one pad appears to move forward relative to the other.
> That could just be an artifact of the brake laying on an open book,
> hence my suggestion to "jim" to mount the brake on a planar surface to
> provide a reference.
irrelevant. look at the pads.
>
>> It's a stretch of the imagination to to think that this is a
>> deliberate effect though. More to the point of what started this
>> discussion, a front brake mounted on the rear has its pads at the
>> same angle relative to its pivots as a rear brake mounted on the
>> rear.
>
> Calipers can be swapped front for back and always have been
> interchangeable; the only difference is the lengths of the pivot bolts.
> Except for the recent Campy arrangement with a dual pivot in front and
> a single pivot in the rear, that is.
single pivot, yes. dual pivot, no. the toe regime is specific to front
and rear. and that's why the manufacturers actually say they're not
interchangeable!
Luns Tee wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there is an
>> eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake closes, the
>> right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also forward (down,
>> in the photo). This could be explained by the pivots not being parallel
>> to each other.
>
> It's not a matter of the pivots: the same thing happens with
> single-pivot brakes with both brake arms pivoting on the same bolt.
no it doesn't! you clearly haven't compared the two types. i have.
>
> This is a matter of the brake pads not being parallel to the
> brake pivots.
no it's not. that's something i've already checked.
> A rear brake has its pads mounted with their rear end
> farther from the pivots than the front end.
no, that depends on the frame. and it doesn't change this result.
> Being at a larger radius
> from the pivot, the rear end moves more than the front. A front brake,
> thanks to the offset off the fork, has its pads more parallel to its
> pivot.
distance from the pivots simply changes the length of travel, not the
degree of offset.
>
> It's a stretch of the imagination to to think that this is a
> deliberate effect though.
why? toe is well known to address squeal and offer modulation.
> More to the point of what started this
> discussion, a front brake mounted on the rear has its pads at the same
> angle relative to its pivots as a rear brake mounted on the rear.
Luns Tee wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there is an
>> eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake closes, the
>> right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also forward (down,
>> in the photo). This could be explained by the pivots not being parallel
>> to each other.
>
> It's not a matter of the pivots: the same thing happens with
> single-pivot brakes with both brake arms pivoting on the same bolt.
no it doesn't! you clearly haven't compared the two types. i have.
>
> This is a matter of the brake pads not being parallel to the
> brake pivots.
no it's not. that's something i've already checked.
> A rear brake has its pads mounted with their rear end
> farther from the pivots than the front end.
no, that depends on the frame. and it doesn't change this result.
> Being at a larger radius
> from the pivot, the rear end moves more than the front. A front brake,
> thanks to the offset off the fork, has its pads more parallel to its
> pivot.
distance from the pivots simply changes the length of travel, not the
degree of offset.
>
> It's a stretch of the imagination to to think that this is a
> deliberate effect though.
why? toe is well known to address squeal and offer modulation.
> More to the point of what started this
> discussion, a front brake mounted on the rear has its pads at the same
> angle relative to its pivots as a rear brake mounted on the rear.
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:18 am, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 10:11 am, Ozark Bicycle
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 10:22 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:47 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> for the skeptics.
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128941/
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128939/
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128923/
>>>>>> What about a picture from the side? If the pads aren't parallel to
>>>>>> the mounting bolt, this proves absolutely nothing.
>>>>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there is an
>>>>> eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake closes, the
>>>>> right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also forward (down,
>>>>> in the photo). This could be explained by the pivots not being parallel
>>>>> to each other.
>>>> That's the great thing about orbital pad adjustment. You can make it
>>>> look like all kinds of neat things are happening if you only took at
>>>> the brake from one direction. Square the pads up like they would be
>>>> on a bike (where some of us use our brakes) and the eccentricity goes
>>>> away. It's interesting that jim isn't even trying to show a front
>>>> brake doing the opposite.
>>> Are you taking the position that jb is deliberately lying? IMO, he
>>> believes his position is correct. I haven't taken the time to
>>> 'measure' both a front and rear Shimano or Campy set of dual pivots,
>>> so I can't say yay or nay. But I do doubt he is willfully being
>>> deceptive about this.
>> His level of animosity toward those who disagree with him is not
>> inconsistent with such behavior (willful lying to support incorrect
>> assertions).
>
> IMO, much of jb's animosity is a reaction to the animosity displayed
> *toward* him. And that animosity springs from the fact that he has the
> temerity to dispute the pronouncements of Jobst the Great and Mighty,
> who has most people here cowed like a bunch of ****-eating sheep.
>
Your jealousy is showing again.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:18 am, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 10:11 am, Ozark Bicycle
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 9:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 10:22 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 9, 12:47 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> for the skeptics.
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128941/
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128939/
>>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128923/
>>>>>> What about a picture from the side? If the pads aren't parallel to
>>>>>> the mounting bolt, this proves absolutely nothing.
>>>>> It's difficult to tell from the photos, but it appears that there is an
>>>>> eccentric motion to the pad on the right. As the brake closes, the
>>>>> right pad not only moves towards the other pad but also forward (down,
>>>>> in the photo). This could be explained by the pivots not being parallel
>>>>> to each other.
>>>> That's the great thing about orbital pad adjustment. You can make it
>>>> look like all kinds of neat things are happening if you only took at
>>>> the brake from one direction. Square the pads up like they would be
>>>> on a bike (where some of us use our brakes) and the eccentricity goes
>>>> away. It's interesting that jim isn't even trying to show a front
>>>> brake doing the opposite.
>>> Are you taking the position that jb is deliberately lying? IMO, he
>>> believes his position is correct. I haven't taken the time to
>>> 'measure' both a front and rear Shimano or Campy set of dual pivots,
>>> so I can't say yay or nay. But I do doubt he is willfully being
>>> deceptive about this.
>> His level of animosity toward those who disagree with him is not
>> inconsistent with such behavior (willful lying to support incorrect
>> assertions).
>
> IMO, much of jb's animosity is a reaction to the animosity displayed
> *toward* him. And that animosity springs from the fact that he has the
> temerity to dispute the pronouncements of Jobst the Great and Mighty,
> who has most people here cowed like a bunch of ****-eating sheep.
>
Your jealousy is showing again.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> The problem with the photo is that the brake is lying on an open book
> rather than mounted firmly. If "jim beam" really wants to demonstrate
> his point, he'd do better to mount the brake on a flat surface (e.g.,
> drill a mounting hole through a board and mount the brake to it), which
> would provide a plane reference surface against which to judge the
> movement. I don't own a dual pivot brake or I'd do it myself.
> Unfortunately, "jim beam" won't accept my suggestion simply because it
> comes from me, so the point will remain moot....
do it yourself, lightweight.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> The problem with the photo is that the brake is lying on an open book
> rather than mounted firmly. If "jim beam" really wants to demonstrate
> his point, he'd do better to mount the brake on a flat surface (e.g.,
> drill a mounting hole through a board and mount the brake to it), which
> would provide a plane reference surface against which to judge the
> movement. I don't own a dual pivot brake or I'd do it myself.
> Unfortunately, "jim beam" won't accept my suggestion simply because it
> comes from me, so the point will remain moot....
do it yourself, lightweight.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
I saw a photo series of a rear caliper whose shoes ended up angled the
wrong way at full compression. I'm sorry I can't help with that.
Brakes on bicycles here seem to not have any complex mechanism to do
such a complex movement - all DPs here have a pair of simple sleeve
pivots for the arms. Modern shoes have orbital mounts for toeing.
In fact if our rear calipers on bikes moved like your rear brake photos,
we would know it. The pads would be noisy, hitting the rim backwards.
Again, perplexing photos which I don't understand and cannot explain. If
you find no solution, check with Shimano or get some genuine Campagnolo
calipers.
--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I saw a photo series of a rear caliper whose shoes ended up angled the
wrong way at full compression. I'm sorry I can't help with that.
Brakes on bicycles here seem to not have any complex mechanism to do
such a complex movement - all DPs here have a pair of simple sleeve
pivots for the arms. Modern shoes have orbital mounts for toeing.
In fact if our rear calipers on bikes moved like your rear brake photos,
we would know it. The pads would be noisy, hitting the rim backwards.
Again, perplexing photos which I don't understand and cannot explain. If
you find no solution, check with Shimano or get some genuine Campagnolo
calipers.
--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> ...
>> The problem with the photo is that the brake is lying on an open book
>> rather than mounted firmly. If "jim beam" really wants to demonstrate
>> his point, he'd do better to mount the brake on a flat surface (e.g.,
>> drill a mounting hole through a board and mount the brake to it),
>> which would provide a plane reference surface against which to judge
>> the movement. I don't own a dual pivot brake or I'd do it myself.
>> Unfortunately, "jim beam" won't accept my suggestion simply because it
>> comes from me, so the point will remain moot....
>
> do it yourself, lightweight.
No, no. Get it straight. You're the lightweight. I'm the retard.
Krygowski's the idiot. Jobst is satan in "jim's" little world, as far
as I can tell. I can't remember the rest of "jim's" little pet names.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> ...
>> The problem with the photo is that the brake is lying on an open book
>> rather than mounted firmly. If "jim beam" really wants to demonstrate
>> his point, he'd do better to mount the brake on a flat surface (e.g.,
>> drill a mounting hole through a board and mount the brake to it),
>> which would provide a plane reference surface against which to judge
>> the movement. I don't own a dual pivot brake or I'd do it myself.
>> Unfortunately, "jim beam" won't accept my suggestion simply because it
>> comes from me, so the point will remain moot....
>
> do it yourself, lightweight.
No, no. Get it straight. You're the lightweight. I'm the retard.
Krygowski's the idiot. Jobst is satan in "jim's" little world, as far
as I can tell. I can't remember the rest of "jim's" little pet names.
A Muzi wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> for the skeptics.
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128941/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128939/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1928128923/
>>
>> based on viewer stats, it seems some people are only looking at the
>> first link. you'll need to look at all three to see the
>> progression.
>
> I saw a photo series of a rear caliper whose shoes ended up angled
> the wrong way at full compression. I'm sorry I can't help with that.
>
> Brakes on bicycles here seem to not have any complex mechanism to do
> such a complex movement - all DPs here have a pair of simple sleeve
> pivots for the arms. Modern shoes have orbital mounts for toeing.
>
> In fact if our rear calipers on bikes moved like your rear brake
> photos, we would know it. The pads would be noisy, hitting the rim
> backwards.
>
> Again, perplexing photos which I don't understand and cannot explain.
> If you find no solution, check with Shimano or get some genuine
> Campagnolo calipers.
I can think of a couple of possibilities to explain the apparent motion.
One is motion parallax error caused by the camera position. Another
is that the brakes are laying freely on a surface and may move slightly
as the brakes close. Note that there are two sets of photos that appear
to show contradictory evidence. Hence my suggestion that the brakes
should be mounted to a planar surface to provide a reference. If I
owned a dual pivot brake, I'd do it, but unfortunately all my bikes have
cantilevers, single pivots or hub brakes.
