Tomorrow's bike: anti-lock roller brakes -- and???



Pete Cresswell writes:

>> The rear brakes do very little anyway and drums are fine. You
>> should try driving a car with front drums. It teaches you a lot
>> about anticipation and planning ahead.


> My Suburban has drums all around.


My Model-A Ford had mechanical drum brakes all around, and so what?

> I still can't believe how bad the braking is. Seems like somebody
> should go to jail for letting it out on the market.


What year? I see you missed the thread on drum brakes and that they
are still the mainstay of heavy trucks for good reasons.

Jobst Brandt
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> [email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
>> [...]
>> On the other hand, for hard braking on clean dry pavement in a
>> straight line, the limit of braking for a bicycle is limited by the
>> height of the (rider) CG and its distance behind the front tire
>> contact patch. Certainly a long wheel base recumbent can cause a
>> skid, but that is for another newsgroup to discuss.
>>

> Please cite the section of the rec.bicycles.tech charter that limits
> discussion to upright bicycles only.
>
>> Just the same, the assessment of brakes, for those who brake hard
>> enough to raise the rear wheel, is linearity, and that is best
>> achieved with a disk brake, it having no servo effect, the bane of
>> braking that got rid of drum brakes on cars and motorcycles.[...]

>
> Oh, really? My 2005 Honda Civic has rear drum brakes and they modulate
> just as well as the brakes on my all disc 1994 Honda Civic did.
> Apparently Honda figured out a way to overcome the drum brake modulation
> problem [1].


of course - they use a front/rear proportioning valve - and it's
non-linear! imagine how incredibly difficult it must be to come up with
an idea like that. fiendish japanese. maybe they've ever been to
palo alto?



>
> [1] I used to drive a 1993 C/K 2500 with rear drum brakes, and the servo
> effect was a major issue.
>
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:

>>
>>>>> as usual, the "inventor" of the slick tire is confused. the moment
>>>>> a road surface has such incredible alien substances such as grit
>>>>> and mud wash upon it, tread allows a cogging action which can
>>>>> improve grip.
>>>>>
>>>>> [sorry for any cognitive "disturbance" this may cause.]
>>>>
>>>> What kind/depth of "grit" and "mud wash" are you talking about?
>>>
>>> what kind of grit and mud wash do you have peter?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> From your model, why doesn't "tread cogging" improve traction on
>>>> the normal (cemented) surface features of asphalt/concrete, or do
>>>> you feel it does?
>>>
>>> poor setup.
>>>
>>> 1. it's not "my model".
>>> 2. you need to address the fact that clean road is not always real road.
>>>

>>
>> Don't you ever give a straight answer? (rhetorical question)

>
> Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who has
> disagreed with him in the past.
>
> (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)


that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.

1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
actually doing.

2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:

"Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?

"George Washington advocated the cultivation of industrial hemp, and the
original US Constitution document is written on hemp based paper. I
understand that the pulp paper industry lobbyists had a hand in making
the cultivation of hemp illegal.

"And one can throw out the bicycle when the cartridge bottom bracket fails!

"I think the preying mantis is to blame.

"I was raised in the forest by wolves.

"If all else fails, there is the Dark Side."

is most undoubtedly lightweight.



if you don't want people pointing out something you don't like, don't
present them the opportunity. [i would have thought even a lightweight
should be able to figure that out.]



>
> On the bright side, Andres Muro finds these arguments entertaining. ;)a
>
 
On Feb 23, 12:34 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >

>
> > Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who has
> > disagreed with him in the past.

>
> > (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)

>
> that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.
>
> 1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
> actually doing.
>
> 2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:
>
> "Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?... [etc.]"


Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.

They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:34 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who has
>>> disagreed with him in the past.
>>> (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)

>> that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.
>>
>> 1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
>> actually doing.
>>
>> 2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:
>>
>> "Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?... [etc.]"

>
> Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
> talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.
>
> They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
> acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.
>


then take it to a different forum! idiot.
 
[email protected] aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
>>> [...] On the other hand, for hard braking on clean dry pavement in
>>> a straight line, the limit of braking for a bicycle is limited by
>>> the height of the (rider) CG and its distance behind the front tire
>>> contact patch. Certainly a long wheel base recumbent can cause a
>>> skid, but that is for another newsgroup to discuss.

>
>> Please cite the section of the rec.bicycles.tech charter that limits
>> discussion to upright bicycles only.

>
> I see no reference in this thread about exclusivity. That is your
> interpretation of recumbent discussions. That it is not a mainstay of
> this newsgroup may be apparent from participation in such subjects.
> High wheelers and tricycles are also not part of most subjects like
> this thread so lets not mix them when talking about braking on
> bicycles. I think that unless specified, we are discussing
> conventional upright rider bicycles.
>

Then why not write "but that is for another THREAD to discuss", and
avoid the exclusionary connotation?

>>> Just the same, the assessment of brakes, for those who brake hard
>>> enough to raise the rear wheel, is linearity, and that is best
>>> achieved with a disk brake, it having no servo effect, the bane of
>>> braking that got rid of drum brakes on cars and motorcycles.[...]

>
>> Oh, really? My 2005 Honda Civic has rear drum brakes and they
>> modulate just as well as the brakes on my all disc 1994 Honda Civic
>> did. Apparently Honda figured out a way to overcome the drum brake
>> modulation problem [1].

>
> You should consider why some rear brakes on M/C and Autos are drums.
> It is because they have little effect on retardation of the vehicle,
> so it doesn't matter that they are drums except that they are cheaper
> and on cars make a handbrake easier to implement. If you doubt that,
> take a look at front and rear wheels of cars and note that there is no
> brake dust on rear wheels because they perform no significant braking.[...]
>

The drums also have less issue with corrosion, which is a concern in the
upper Midwest, where fittings on calipers can rust to the point of
requiring replacement.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> as usual, the "inventor" of the slick tire is confused. the
>>>>>> moment a road surface has such incredible alien substances such as
>>>>>> grit and mud wash upon it, tread allows a cogging action which can
>>>>>> improve grip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [sorry for any cognitive "disturbance" this may cause.]
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind/depth of "grit" and "mud wash" are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>> what kind of grit and mud wash do you have peter?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From your model, why doesn't "tread cogging" improve traction on
>>>>> the normal (cemented) surface features of asphalt/concrete, or do
>>>>> you feel it does?
>>>>
>>>> poor setup.
>>>>
>>>> 1. it's not "my model".
>>>> 2. you need to address the fact that clean road is not always real
>>>> road.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Don't you ever give a straight answer? (rhetorical question)

>>
>> Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who has
>> disagreed with him in the past.
>>
>> (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)

>
> that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.
>
> 1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
> actually doing.
>
> 2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:
>
> "Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?
>
> "George Washington advocated the cultivation of industrial hemp, and the
> original US Constitution document is written on hemp based paper. I
> understand that the pulp paper industry lobbyists had a hand in making
> the cultivation of hemp illegal.
>
> "And one can throw out the bicycle when the cartridge bottom bracket fails!
>

Well, if "jim" had a better memory, he would appreciate the above. When
I mentioned that a replaced an OEM Shimano LP-27 bottom bracket with a
Shimano UN-52 bottom bracket, someone sarcastically suggested that I
should just throw out the bicycle since I did not rebuild the LP-27,
that person not realizing the the LP-27 is a cheap cartridge unit.

> "I think the preying mantis is to blame.
>
> "I was raised in the forest by wolves.
>
> "If all else fails, there is the Dark Side."
>
> is most undoubtedly lightweight.
>

"jim" fails to understand the difference between humor (of whatever
quality) and snarkiness.

> if you don't want people pointing out something you don't like, don't
> present them the opportunity. [i would have thought even a lightweight
> should be able to figure that out.]


[yawn]

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 12:34 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who has
>>>> disagreed with him in the past.
>>>> (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)
>>> that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.
>>>
>>> 1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
>>> actually doing.
>>>
>>> 2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:
>>>
>>> "Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?... [etc.]"

>>
>> Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
>> talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.
>>
>> They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
>> acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.
>>

>
> then take it to a different forum! idiot.


"jim beam" as a Usenet cop. Who would have thought someone so interested
in flaming would get his/her/their/its underwear in knots over a few
humorous posts?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 23, 1:05 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
> > talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.

>
> > They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
> > acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.

>
> then take it to a different forum!


:) Sorry, jim. I'm going to disrespectfully ignore your command.

> idiot.


In fact, after someone spews thousands of grade-school insults, one
learns to ignore a lot of his vomiting.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 12:34 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who has
>>>>> disagreed with him in the past.
>>>>> (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)
>>>> that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.
>>>>
>>>> 1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
>>>> actually doing.
>>>>
>>>> 2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:
>>>>
>>>> "Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?... [etc.]"
>>>
>>> Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
>>> talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.
>>>
>>> They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
>>> acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.
>>>

>>
>> then take it to a different forum! idiot.

>
> "jim beam" as a Usenet cop. Who would have thought someone so interested
> in flaming would get his/her/their/its underwear in knots over a few
> humorous posts?
>


don't flatter yourself - i really couldn't give a flying one for what
you post. but if you post lightweight carp, you have no right to bleat
when someone points that out. duh.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 23, 1:05 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
>>> talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.
>>> They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
>>> acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.

>> then take it to a different forum!

>
> :) Sorry, jim. I'm going to disrespectfully ignore your command.
>
>> idiot.

>
> In fact, after someone spews thousands of grade-school insults, one
> learns to ignore a lot of his vomiting.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


responding is ignoring????? you're a complete freakin' idiot krygowski.
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Feb 23, 12:34 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Indeed. "jim beam" exhibits a childish attitude towards anyone who
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> disagreed with him in the past.
>>>>>> (Now "jim beam" can flame me with a "lightweight hypocrite" comment.)
>>>>> that's not a flame - it's the simple truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1, you are a hypocrite if you accuse me of something you yourself are
>>>>> actually doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. anyone whose "tech" contributions comprise:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do not used bearings work as sling shot ammunition?... [etc.]"
>>>>
>>>> Many posters on r.b.tech occasionally deviate from pure technical
>>>> talk, to contribute a bit of social comment, or humor, or whimsy.
>>>>
>>>> They don't deserve a lecture from those who deviate only to inject
>>>> acidic bitterness or world-record rudeness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> then take it to a different forum! idiot.

>>
>> "jim beam" as a Usenet cop. Who would have thought someone so
>> interested in flaming would get his/her/their/its underwear in knots
>> over a few humorous posts?
>>

>
> don't flatter yourself - i really couldn't give a flying one for what
> you post.


"jim beam" certainly spends enough time posting on what he/she/they/it
does not care about.

> but if you post lightweight carp, you have no right to bleat
> when someone points that out. duh.


After the lightweight carp program, we are moving on to lightweight trout.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
jim beam wrote:
> don't flatter yourself - i really couldn't give a flying one for what
> you post. but if you post lightweight carp, -snip-


If you've had enough of lightweight carp, we have some 25-pounders up here.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
Per [email protected]:
>What year? I see you missed the thread on drum brakes and that they
>are still the mainstay of heavy trucks for good reasons.


1998.
--
PeteCresswell
 
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per [email protected]:
>> What year? I see you missed the thread on drum brakes and that they
>> are still the mainstay of heavy trucks for good reasons.

>
> 1998.


I thought the Suburban was based on the C/K pick-em-up truck, and those
had front disc brakes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
> > don't flatter yourself - i really couldn't give a flying one for
> > what you post. but if you post lightweight carp, -snip-

>
> If you've had enough of lightweight carp, we have some 25-pounders up
> here.


No complaints there!
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> What year? I see you missed the thread on drum brakes and that they
> are still the mainstay of heavy trucks for good reasons.


Apparently they're disc braked over here...
 
Per Tom Sherman:
>I thought the Suburban was based on the C/K pick-em-up truck, and those
>had front disc brakes.


Apparently not in 1998.
--
PeteCresswell
 
On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > In fact, after someone spews thousands of grade-school insults, one
> > learns to ignore a lot of his vomiting.

>
> responding is ignoring????? you're a complete freakin' idiot krygowski.


Hmm. Perhaps someone can explain to you the meaning of "a lot." With
luck, they can get you to understand that "a lot" is not the same as
"all."

But honestly, I'm not hopeful. _Any_ suggestion that jim beam is
imperfect just generates more grade school insults.

- Frank Krygowski