Linear pull brake levers???

Pizza Man wrote:
"Phil, Squid-in-Training"
wrote in message
...
Pizza Man wrote:
I am considering upgrading my V brakes from entry level Tektro to
SRAM
9.0 Linear pull brakes (or some other quality mid level V brake).

Ouch... not a good idea. If the Tektro levers have a lot of
friction, then I would upgrade, but the SRAM 9.0 levers are plastic.
They aren't as bad as one might think, but they are pretty poor
unless you can use them with GOOD disc brakes.

The Avid Single Digit series, including the 7, is an excellent
choice.

Phil,

I did not realize the levers are plastic. I'll pass. I spent a while
reading the reviews of the Avid SD7 at MTBR and it looks to be a great
brake at a great price. Thanks for the tip.

Tracy.

I've got a set of SD7s brakes , recently outfitted w/ Kool Stop pads. I
love 'em. I do prefer XT levers, but the SD levers almost as good and I'd
have no problems using 'em if I could get a good deal.

You might want to head down to the LBS and pull a few levers and see what
you think.

Tom

Tom Sherman writes:

We also commonly use the term "alloy" as a synonym for
"alumin(i)um" and everybody in the biz understands this....

The word "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy"
unless one is referring to a material that is of at least industrial
grade purity, since the mechanical properties of aluminium and
aluminum alloy differ greatly.

Oh? So all metals used on bicycles must be referred to as alloys,
alloy steel, iron alloy, copper alloy, tin alloy, etc. You're pulling
my leg aren't you. This sounds much like the cement, asphalt, and
concrete discourse. There's much too much liturgical turgidity there.

Jobst Brandt

Chalo Colina writes:

The advantage of centerpulls is the same as the advantage of
cantilevers, viz.: increased tire/fender clearance.

It is a widespread misapprehension that this type of brake gives
more braking force.

That was the basis on which they were touted but then measuring it
and showed them to be no different in ME.

Mechanical advantage is only one element in delivering braking
force. Stiffness is at least as important.

Centerpull calipers have shorter, stiffer arms connecting the pads
to the pivots, so they are better able to resist fore-to-aft flex
and torsional flex in the pivot. It is flex, and not lack of
mechanical advantage, that limits the maximum braking force
available from a caliper brake. All else equal, centerpulls can
deliver more braking force than sidepulls because they flex less and
can be pulled harder before the lever runs out of travel.

From this, I assume the long reach Campagnolo side pull brakes on my
bicycle don't work at all. They have a lower ME than dual pivots and
they are too flexible to work, having excessively long arms. I think
you are selectively exaggerating as though you were a user of
centerpull brakes defending your crummy brakes. You must be aware
that the centerpull was discontinued because it had no clothes,
offering no functional advantage over other brakes while having a pad
sweep that endangered the tire as its pads wore. Besides, it never
has a good QR.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:

Tom Sherman writes:


We also commonly use the term "alloy" as a synonym for
"alumin(i)um" and everybody in the biz understands this....


The word "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy"
unless one is referring to a material that is of at least industrial
grade purity, since the mechanical properties of aluminium and
aluminum alloy differ greatly.


Oh? So all metals used on bicycles must be referred to as alloys,
alloy steel, iron alloy, copper alloy, tin alloy, etc. You're pulling
my leg aren't you. This sounds much like the cement, asphalt, and
concrete discourse. There's much too much liturgical turgidity there.

Jobst Brandt


No, he said "alumin(i)um" should always
be accompanied by "alloy..." If my
element table is correct, steel, iron,
copper, tin are not "alumin(i)um."

Richard Tack writes:

We also commonly use the term "alloy" as a synonym for
"alumin(i)um" and everybody in the biz understands this...

The word "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy"
unless one is referring to a material that is of at least
industrial grade purity, since the mechanical properties of
aluminium and aluminum alloy differ greatly.

Oh? So all metals used on bicycles must be referred to as alloys,
alloy steel, iron alloy, copper alloy, tin alloy, etc. You're
pulling my leg aren't you. This sounds much like the cement,
asphalt, and concrete discourse. There's much too much liturgical
turgidity there.

No, he said "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy..."
If my element table is correct, steel, iron, copper, tin are not
"alumin(i)um."

Yes, he said "unless one is referring to a material that is of at
least industrial grade purity, since the mechanical properties of
aluminium and aluminum alloy differ greatly". I guess you missed that
part of the rule which applies to most pure metals.

I take it you believe in bicycle jargon even when unambiguous English
words exist for the concepts.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst Brandt wrote:

Tom Sherman writes:


We also commonly use the term "alloy" as a synonym for
"alumin(i)um" and everybody in the biz understands this....


The word "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy"
unless one is referring to a material that is of at least industrial
grade purity, since the mechanical properties of aluminium and
aluminum alloy differ greatly.


Oh? So all metals used on bicycles must be referred to as alloys,
alloy steel, iron alloy, copper alloy, tin alloy, etc. You're pulling
my leg aren't you. This sounds much like the cement, asphalt, and
concrete discourse. There's much too much liturgical turgidity there.

To be pedantically correct, yes.

Cement is an adhesive material, asphalt [1] is an adhesive derived from
petroleum, and concrete is a composite material consisting of an
aggregate matrix in a cementituous binder. The terms are not at all
interchangeable.

[1] Not to be confused with tar, which is a coal derivative.

--
Tom Sherman - Pedant

wrote:

Richard Tack writes:


We also commonly use the term "alloy" as a synonym for
"alumin(i)um" and everybody in the biz understands this...


The word "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy"
unless one is referring to a material that is of at least
industrial grade purity, since the mechanical properties of
aluminium and aluminum alloy differ greatly.


Oh? So all metals used on bicycles must be referred to as alloys,
alloy steel, iron alloy, copper alloy, tin alloy, etc. You're
pulling my leg aren't you. This sounds much like the cement,
asphalt, and concrete discourse. There's much too much liturgical
turgidity there.


No, he said "alumin(i)um" should always be accompanied by "alloy..."
If my element table is correct, steel, iron, copper, tin are not
"alumin(i)um."


Yes, he said "unless one is referring to a material that is of at
least industrial grade purity, since the mechanical properties of
aluminium and aluminum alloy differ greatly". I guess you missed that
part of the rule which applies to most pure metals.

I take it you believe in bicycle jargon even when unambiguous English
words exist for the concepts.

Jobst Brandt


You may need to have it become an all
inclusive "concept" for your own ego.
However, the specific subject matter was
and still is a single element:
"alumin(i)um" and not "all metals used
on bicycles."

wrote:

Chalo Colina writes:

All else equal, centerpulls can
deliver more braking force than sidepulls because they flex less and
can be pulled harder before the lever runs out of travel.

From this, I assume the long reach Campagnolo side pull brakes on my
bicycle don't work at all. They have a lower ME than dual pivots and
they are too flexible to work, having excessively long arms.

If you never require more braking than they can provide, then they are
fine for your use. If you require more braking than that, a stiffer
brake (like a centerpull or better yet a stud-mounted brake) works
better, all other factors equal.

In the same way that 36-spoke wheels with Mavic MA-2 rims are perfect
for you but inadequate for my use, a sidepull caliper may provide you
enough stopping power but would never suffice to stop me safely in my
usual riding conditions.

I have drum brakes that are as weak as sidepull brakes and more
fade-prone, but solve the problems of chatter, tire sidewall rub, rim
wear, filth, inadequate tire and fender clearance, and poor wet
braking that afflict sidepulls. Likewise I have cantilever, linear
pull and disc brakes that offer me better stopping power than
sidepulls but have their own tradeoffs.

The fact that you prefer sidepulls to all other brakes indicates that
you value their benefits of simplicity, compactness, infrequent pad
adjustment and light weight over the qualities they lack, like
stopping power, tire clearance, and weather tolerance. You make a
valid judgment, just as do those who place more importance on strong
braking or the ride quality benefits of fat tires.

Chalo Colina

On 27 Sep 2004 19:54:10 -0700,
(Chalo) wrote:

wrote:

Chalo Colina writes:

All else equal, centerpulls can
deliver more braking force than sidepulls because they flex less and
can be pulled harder before the lever runs out of travel.

From this, I assume the long reach Campagnolo side pull brakes on my
bicycle don't work at all. They have a lower ME than dual pivots and
they are too flexible to work, having excessively long arms.

If you never require more braking than they can provide, then they are
fine for your use. If you require more braking than that, a stiffer
brake (like a centerpull or better yet a stud-mounted brake) works
better, all other factors equal.

In the same way that 36-spoke wheels with Mavic MA-2 rims are perfect
for you but inadequate for my use, a sidepull caliper may provide you
enough stopping power but would never suffice to stop me safely in my
usual riding conditions.

I have drum brakes that are as weak as sidepull brakes and more
fade-prone, but solve the problems of chatter, tire sidewall rub, rim
wear, filth, inadequate tire and fender clearance, and poor wet
braking that afflict sidepulls. Likewise I have cantilever, linear
pull and disc brakes that offer me better stopping power than
sidepulls but have their own tradeoffs.

The fact that you prefer sidepulls to all other brakes indicates that
you value their benefits of simplicity, compactness, infrequent pad
adjustment and light weight over the qualities they lack, like
stopping power, tire clearance, and weather tolerance. You make a
valid judgment, just as do those who place more importance on strong
braking or the ride quality benefits of fat tires.

Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

I don't mind you being so sensible and courteous, but do you
have to write so much more clearly than the rest of us, too?

Enviously,

Carl Fogel

Chalo wrote:

...
I have drum brakes that are as weak as sidepull brakes...

Are these drum brakes used on larger (ISO 559-630 mm) wheels? Drum
brakes are best used with small diameter wheels, since the shorter lever
arm from the contact patch to axle greatly increases their effectiveness.

--
Tom Sherman