Mount front brakes on rear?



On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:56:13 -0700, Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> _ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:09:43 -0700, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
>>
>>> "_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:33:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 28, 6:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Nashbar has a good deal on ultegra brake calipers; I mounted them on
>>>>>> my front wheel. My rear caliper is kinda corroded, and I was
>>>>>> considering mounting another front caliper on the rear wheel... Is
>>>>>> this a good idea?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have an old bolt for the rear, you can disassemble the brake
>>>>> and replace the longer front bolt with a shorter one required for the
>>>>> rear. I believe this is even easier to do with dual pivot sidepulls
>>>>> than the old style single pivots, but it's been a while since I've
>>>>> taken one of these apart.
>>>>
>>>> Or run a die down the longer bolt and cut the excess off.
>>>
>>> But then you'd have cut threads instead of the superior rolled threads
>>> (vastly superior if they're Italian rolled threads).
>>> Kerry
>>
>> For the strength required of a brake bolt, it makes no difference.
>
> Do you skip messages that are in jim beam debate threads?

Who is "jim beam"?
 
_ wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:27:33 -0600, A Muzi wrote:
>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> 2) You absolutely cannot presume from your measurements of pad
>>>> spacing that the brake arms are twisting. This assumes that the front
>>>> and rear edges are exactly the same distance from the pivot axis. In
>>>> practice, this is going to vary depending on things like fork rake,
>>>> rear dropout design, and how well the brakes are set up. It will in
>>>> fact vary from front to rear, but not because of any difference in the
>>>> calipers.
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> You seem to be talking about fork offset here.
>>> When the fork rake is varied the fork tip and
>>> fork crown move together; and therefore the
>>> brake pad position wrt the wheel rim remains
>>> invariant.
>> I assumed he meant the angle of the pad to the arm
>
> You were correct. The following jim beam quote makes this clear:
>
> "...shimano & campy dual pivot brake
> calipers have a pivot action that increases toe on the pad as the
> caliper closes."

eh? the pad doesn't change relative to the arm - the arm is responsible
for the angle swing. misunderstanding is no reason to misrepresent meaning.


>
> He's not yet explained[1]:
>
> a) why nobody else can measure see this; and/or

this is r.b.t, buddy. this is home to people that can't tell the
difference between rolled and cut thread, but feel free to argue about
thread fatigue. you have people that correctly identify the math
regarding camber thrust, but fail to make their point because they're
intent on personal disagreement, not the facts. and you have people
that claim to be able to eliminate metal fatigue while being ignorant of
100+ years of materials research proving the opposite.

>
> b) just how these pivots change their axis of rotation

but i have.


>
> [1] this assumes that the standard beamboy response of the form "f**king
> moron f**ktard" does not qualify as "explanation".

you seem very intent on keeping that stuff alive. is your appearance at
the same time as "jambo"'s disappearance mere coincidence?
 
On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> _ wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>
> >>>> What should I be measuring?
> >> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>
> >>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>
> >> James Thomson
>
> > Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> > was already pointed out.
>
> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>
> > It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> > cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> > (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>
> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.

Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
fixing bolt. Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
 
On Nov 2, 8:18 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> _ wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:27:33 -0600, A Muzi wrote:
>
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> 2) You absolutely cannot presume from your measurements of pad
> >>>> spacing that the brake arms are twisting. This assumes that the front
> >>>> and rear edges are exactly the same distance from the pivot axis. In
> >>>> practice, this is going to vary depending on things like fork rake,
> >>>> rear dropout design, and how well the brakes are set up. It will in
> >>>> fact vary from front to rear, but not because of any difference in the
> >>>> calipers.
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> You seem to be talking about fork offset here.
> >>> When the fork rake is varied the fork tip and
> >>> fork crown move together; and therefore the
> >>> brake pad position wrt the wheel rim remains
> >>> invariant.
> >> I assumed he meant the angle of the pad to the arm
>
> > You were correct. The following jim beam quote makes this clear:
>
> > "...shimano & campy dual pivot brake
> > calipers have a pivot action that increases toe on the pad as the
> > caliper closes."
>
> eh? the pad doesn't change relative to the arm - the arm is responsible
> for the angle swing. misunderstanding is no reason to misrepresent meaning.
>
>
>
> > He's not yet explained[1]:
>
> > a) why nobody else can measure see this; and/or
>
> this is r.b.t, buddy. this is home to people that can't tell the
> difference between rolled and cut thread, but feel free to argue about
> thread fatigue. you have people that correctly identify the math
> regarding camber thrust, but fail to make their point because they're
> intent on personal disagreement, not the facts. and you have people
> that claim to be able to eliminate metal fatigue while being ignorant of
> 100+ years of materials research proving the opposite.
>
>
>
> > b) just how these pivots change their axis of rotation
>
> but i have.
>
>
>
> > [1] this assumes that the standard beamboy response of the form "f**king
> > moron f**ktard" does not qualify as "explanation".
>
> you seem very intent on keeping that stuff alive. is your appearance at
> the same time as "jambo"'s disappearance mere coincidence?



You are replying to the infamous "jtaylor" of Canada, psychotic anti-
helmet nutcase extraordinaire. Rotsa ruck.

IMO, just ignore the insane lil' sack-o-****.
 
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:16:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> fixing bolt. Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.

And as the pivots are not magical (except perhaps in jim beam's world) such
action is no support for his asserting that this magical pivoting action is
a reason for not putting a back brake on the front - or vice-versa.
 
All fixed! Got my new caliper in the mail. I was going to use the
washer/nut idea, but when I put the caliper through the hole in the
seatstay it was too short- only about 3 threads stuck out the other
side, and with a washer would have made matters worse.

I then considered either cutting more threads onto the bolt and
shortening it or changing it out with the one from the no-name caliper
I took off.

I was worried about tapping the bolt, as the existing threads looked
like they were formed on, and the unthreaded part of the bolt looked
like it might be too thick to cut threads into (?). I also worried
that if it didn't work, I'd have ruined the whole caliper.

So I dissassembled the old caliper. The bolt involved is actually
kinda complex, it goes from one size thread to a smaller about 1/3 of
the way along. I worried that the no-name bolt might not work on the
shimano, but to my surprise it worked just fine.

Other than pinching my palm with the spring as I dissassembled the old
caliper, it went fine.

I adjusted the pads after installation, and I cant percieve any
problem with toe in/out.
Thank you everyone for the help. Sweet!
 
J. Taylor wrote:
>
> Who is "jim beam"?

I think its a bot.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> _ wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>>>> James Thomson
>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
>>> was already pointed out.
>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>>
>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>
> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> fixing bolt.

duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
did, remain the same.


> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>

says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
_ <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:56:13 -0700, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > _ <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:09:43 -0700, Kerry Montgomery wrote:
> >>
> >>> "_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:33:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Oct 28, 6:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>> Nashbar has a good deal on ultegra brake calipers; I mounted them on
> >>>>>> my front wheel. My rear caliper is kinda corroded, and I was
> >>>>>> considering mounting another front caliper on the rear wheel... Is
> >>>>>> this a good idea?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you have an old bolt for the rear, you can disassemble the brake
> >>>>> and replace the longer front bolt with a shorter one required for the
> >>>>> rear. I believe this is even easier to do with dual pivot sidepulls
> >>>>> than the old style single pivots, but it's been a while since I've
> >>>>> taken one of these apart.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or run a die down the longer bolt and cut the excess off.
> >>>
> >>> But then you'd have cut threads instead of the superior rolled threads
> >>> (vastly superior if they're Italian rolled threads).
> >>> Kerry
> >>
> >> For the strength required of a brake bolt, it makes no difference.
> >
> > Do you skip messages that are in jim beam debate threads?
>
> Who is "jim beam"?

Accounts for you being trolled on the
great brake bolt thread controversy.

--
Michael Press
 
On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> _ wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
> >>>>>> What should I be measuring?
> >>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
> >>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
> >>>> James Thomson
> >>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> >>> was already pointed out.
> >> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>
> >>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> >>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> >>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
> >> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> >> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>
> > Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> > explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> > in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> > fixing bolt.
>
> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
> did, remain the same.
>
>
>
> > Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> > horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> > ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> > Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> > about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> > front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> > the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> > because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> > the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> > they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> > adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> > when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> > Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> > which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> > command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> > prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> > pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> > position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> > angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> > attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> > would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>
> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.

And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
pivot caliper. The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>>>>>> James Thomson
>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
>>>>> was already pointed out.
>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
>>> fixing bolt.
>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
>> did, remain the same.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>
> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
> pivot caliper.

eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.


> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?

forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
 
On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> _ wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
> >>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
> >>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
> >>>>>> James Thomson
> >>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> >>>>> was already pointed out.
> >>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
> >>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> >>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> >>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
> >>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> >>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
> >>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> >>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> >>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> >>> fixing bolt.
> >> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
> >> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
> >> did, remain the same.
>
> >>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> >>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> >>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> >>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> >>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> >>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> >>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> >>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> >>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> >>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> >>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> >>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> >>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> >>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> >>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> >>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> >>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> >>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> >>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> >>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> >>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
> >> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>
> > And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
> > point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
> > distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
> > to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
> > would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
> > geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
> > of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
> > believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
> > change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
> > pivot caliper.
>
> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>
> > The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
> > always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
> > when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
> > something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
> > degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
>
> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.

No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense. And
if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
plane rotation.
 
On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> _ wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
> >>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
> >>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
> >>>>>> James Thomson
> >>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> >>>>> was already pointed out.
> >>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
> >>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> >>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> >>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
> >>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> >>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
> >>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> >>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> >>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> >>> fixing bolt.
> >> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
> >> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
> >> did, remain the same.
>
> >>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> >>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> >>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> >>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> >>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> >>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> >>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> >>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> >>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> >>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> >>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> >>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> >>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> >>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> >>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> >>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> >>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> >>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> >>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> >>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> >>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
> >> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>
> > And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
> > point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
> > distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
> > to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
> > would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
> > geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
> > of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
> > believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
> > change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
> > pivot caliper.
>
> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>
> > The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
> > always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
> > when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
> > something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
> > degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
>
> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.

No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense. And
if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
plane rotation.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
>>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
>>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
>>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
>>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
>>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
>>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
>>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
>>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>>>>>>>> James Thomson
>>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
>>>>>>> was already pointed out.
>>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
>>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
>>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
>>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
>>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
>>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
>>>>> fixing bolt.
>>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
>>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
>>>> did, remain the same.
>>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
>>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
>>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
>>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
>>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
>>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
>>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
>>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
>>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
>>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
>>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
>>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
>>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
>>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
>>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
>>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
>>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
>>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
>>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
>>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
>>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
>>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
>>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
>>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
>>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
>>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
>>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
>>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
>>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
>>> pivot caliper.
>> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>>
>>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
>>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
>>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
>>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
>>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
>> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
>
> No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.

no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.


> And
> if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
> a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
> plane rotation.

rubbish.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
>>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
>>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
>>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
>>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
>>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
>>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
>>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
>>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>>>>>>>> James Thomson
>>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
>>>>>>> was already pointed out.
>>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
>>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
>>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
>>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
>>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
>>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
>>>>> fixing bolt.
>>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
>>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
>>>> did, remain the same.
>>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
>>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
>>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
>>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
>>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
>>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
>>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
>>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
>>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
>>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
>>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
>>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
>>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
>>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
>>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
>>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
>>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
>>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
>>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
>>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
>>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
>>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
>>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
>>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
>>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
>>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
>>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
>>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
>>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
>>> pivot caliper.
>> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>>
>>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
>>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
>>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
>>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
>>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
>> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
>
> No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.

no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.


> And
> if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
> a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
> plane rotation.

rubbish.
 
On Nov 4, 12:23 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> _ wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
> >>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
> >>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
> >>>>>>>> James Thomson
> >>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> >>>>>>> was already pointed out.
> >>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
> >>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> >>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> >>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
> >>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> >>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
> >>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> >>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> >>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> >>>>> fixing bolt.
> >>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
> >>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
> >>>> did, remain the same.
> >>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> >>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> >>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> >>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> >>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> >>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> >>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> >>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> >>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> >>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> >>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> >>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> >>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> >>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> >>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> >>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> >>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> >>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> >>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> >>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> >>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
> >>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
> >>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
> >>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
> >>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
> >>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
> >>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
> >>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
> >>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
> >>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
> >>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
> >>> pivot caliper.
> >> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>
> >>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
> >>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
> >>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
> >>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
> >>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
> >> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
>
> > No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.
>
> no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.
>
> > And
> > if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
> > a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
> > plane rotation.
>
> rubbish.

Please tell me what it is that I'm presuming. I've duplicated your
progressive toe in measurements on both single and dual pivot brakes,
and I've changed it to a progressive toe out simply by changing the
pad adjustment. If either of those calipers has an arm that's
rotating out of plane, brake pad measurements simply are not
sufficient proof. Seeing how you're the only person on the planet
that believes that this rotation is happening, you're going to have to
do a lot more than stomp your feet and yell rubbish to convince me.
 
On Nov 4, 12:23 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> _ wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
> >>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
> >>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
> >>>>>>>> James Thomson
> >>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> >>>>>>> was already pointed out.
> >>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
> >>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> >>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> >>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
> >>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> >>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
> >>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> >>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> >>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> >>>>> fixing bolt.
> >>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
> >>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
> >>>> did, remain the same.
> >>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> >>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> >>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> >>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> >>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> >>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> >>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> >>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> >>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> >>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> >>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> >>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> >>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> >>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> >>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> >>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> >>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> >>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> >>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> >>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> >>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
> >>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
> >>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
> >>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
> >>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
> >>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
> >>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
> >>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
> >>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
> >>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
> >>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
> >>> pivot caliper.
> >> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>
> >>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
> >>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
> >>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
> >>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
> >>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
> >> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
>
> > No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.
>
> no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.
>
> > And
> > if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
> > a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
> > plane rotation.
>
> rubbish.

Please tell me what it is that I'm presuming. I've duplicated your
progressive toe in measurements on both single and dual pivot brakes,
and I've changed it to a progressive toe out simply by changing the
pad adjustment. If either of those calipers has an arm that's
rotating out of plane, brake pad measurements simply are not
sufficient proof. Seeing how you're the only person on the planet
that believes that this rotation is happening, you're going to have to
do a lot more than stomp your feet and yell rubbish to convince me.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:23 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>>>>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
>>>>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
>>>>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
>>>>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
>>>>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
>>>>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
>>>>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
>>>>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
>>>>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>>>>>>>>>> James Thomson
>>>>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
>>>>>>>>> was already pointed out.
>>>>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>>>>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
>>>>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
>>>>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>>>>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>>>>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
>>>>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
>>>>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
>>>>>>> fixing bolt.
>>>>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
>>>>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
>>>>>> did, remain the same.
>>>>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
>>>>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
>>>>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
>>>>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
>>>>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
>>>>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
>>>>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
>>>>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
>>>>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
>>>>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
>>>>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
>>>>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
>>>>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
>>>>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
>>>>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
>>>>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
>>>>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
>>>>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
>>>>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
>>>>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
>>>>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>>>>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>>>>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
>>>>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
>>>>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
>>>>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
>>>>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
>>>>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
>>>>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
>>>>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
>>>>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
>>>>> pivot caliper.
>>>> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>>>>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
>>>>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
>>>>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
>>>>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
>>>>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
>>>> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
>>> No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.
>> no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.
>>
>>> And
>>> if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
>>> a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
>>> plane rotation.
>> rubbish.
>
> Please tell me what it is that I'm presuming. I've duplicated your
> progressive toe in measurements on both single and dual pivot brakes,
> and I've changed it to a progressive toe out simply by changing the
> pad adjustment. If either of those calipers has an arm that's
> rotating out of plane, brake pad measurements simply are not
> sufficient proof. Seeing how you're the only person on the planet
> that believes that this rotation is happening, you're going to have to
> do a lot more than stomp your feet and yell rubbish to convince me.
>

i'm not trying to "convince" you - i simply want you to stop confusing
yourself with irrelevancies about single pivot and pad adjustments [as
long as they remain fixed, the deltas remain the same] and focus on
observation of the dual pivot lever action! and even then, the ones i
have stated. it may indeed be the case that some brakes don't have this
feature, but as i have observed, campy veloce and record, and 7700
dura-ace, these definitely do!
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:23 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> _ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
>>>>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
>>>>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
>>>>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
>>>>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
>>>>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
>>>>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
>>>>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
>>>>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
>>>>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
>>>>>>>>>> James Thomson
>>>>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
>>>>>>>>> was already pointed out.
>>>>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
>>>>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
>>>>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
>>>>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
>>>>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
>>>>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
>>>>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
>>>>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
>>>>>>> fixing bolt.
>>>>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
>>>>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
>>>>>> did, remain the same.
>>>>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
>>>>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
>>>>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
>>>>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
>>>>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
>>>>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
>>>>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
>>>>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
>>>>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
>>>>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
>>>>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
>>>>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
>>>>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
>>>>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
>>>>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
>>>>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
>>>>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
>>>>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
>>>>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
>>>>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
>>>>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
>>>>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
>>>>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
>>>>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
>>>>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
>>>>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
>>>>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
>>>>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
>>>>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
>>>>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
>>>>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
>>>>> pivot caliper.
>>>> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
>>>>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
>>>>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
>>>>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
>>>>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
>>>>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
>>>> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
>>> No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.
>> no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.
>>
>>> And
>>> if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
>>> a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
>>> plane rotation.
>> rubbish.
>
> Please tell me what it is that I'm presuming. I've duplicated your
> progressive toe in measurements on both single and dual pivot brakes,
> and I've changed it to a progressive toe out simply by changing the
> pad adjustment. If either of those calipers has an arm that's
> rotating out of plane, brake pad measurements simply are not
> sufficient proof. Seeing how you're the only person on the planet
> that believes that this rotation is happening, you're going to have to
> do a lot more than stomp your feet and yell rubbish to convince me.
>

i'm not trying to "convince" you - i simply want you to stop confusing
yourself with irrelevancies about single pivot and pad adjustments [as
long as they remain fixed, the deltas remain the same] and focus on
observation of the dual pivot lever action! and even then, the ones i
have stated. it may indeed be the case that some brakes don't have this
feature, but as i have observed, campy veloce and record, and 7700
dura-ace, these definitely do!
 
On Nov 6, 11:32 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 12:23 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Nov 3, 7:27 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 2, 9:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 2, 12:53 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> _ wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:08:07 +0100, James Thomson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What should I be measuring?
> >>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> a ?crit:
> >>>>>>>>>>> distance between the front tips of the brake pads with the caliper
> >>>>>>>>>>> open vs. caliper closed, and for the rear tips, open vs closed. when
> >>>>>>>>>>> open, the front tips are further apart than the rears. when closed,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the front tips are closer than the rears. [front caliper]
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm using the moulding seam of the brake block at the point it touches the
> >>>>>>>>>> holder as a reference point on the Ultegra 6500 brakes, and (in the absence
> >>>>>>>>>> of a convenient moulding mark) trying to pick a consistent point on the
> >>>>>>>>>> Centaur pad holder. The measurements are repeatable to within about 1mm, and
> >>>>>>>>>> I can't detect any sign of the effect you say is there.
> >>>>>>>>>> James Thomson
> >>>>>>>>> Either beam's bushings are worn or the arms are loose on the pivots - that
> >>>>>>>>> was already pointed out.
> >>>>>>>> no, these are new calipers - in perfect condition.
> >>>>>>>>> It's impossible for an arm to pivot on a
> >>>>>>>>> cylindrical bushing and change the axis of rotation without another pivot
> >>>>>>>>> (which is, in essemce, what beamboy is claiming).
> >>>>>>>> no it's not. it's a simple geometry problem. you not figuring it out
> >>>>>>>> doesn't mean it's impossible - after all, it is observed to be happening.
> >>>>>>> Yes, it's a very simple geometry problem. Far simpler than your
> >>>>>>> explanation of magic pivots describes. The brake pads are adjustable
> >>>>>>> in a number of directions, one of which is rotation about the pad
> >>>>>>> fixing bolt.
> >>>>>> duh. and when that bolt is tightened, they remain fixed. from that
> >>>>>> point on, it doesn't matter /what/ you do, the /delta/ measurements i
> >>>>>> did, remain the same.
> >>>>>>> Look at the brake from the side with the mounting bolt
> >>>>>>> horizontal, and if the brake is set up to go on the rear, the rear
> >>>>>>> ends of the pads are going to be sitting lower than the front ends.
> >>>>>>> Assuming everything is set up square and parallel when the pads are
> >>>>>>> about a rim width apart, this will will give the appearance of the
> >>>>>>> front ends of the pads pointing inwards when you open the caliper all
> >>>>>>> the way. The rear ends of the pads moved farther out horizontally
> >>>>>>> because they are father from the pivot axes. Close the caliper all
> >>>>>>> the way and the front ends of the pads will be pointed out, because
> >>>>>>> they traveled a shorter horizontal distance for the same angle. Re-
> >>>>>>> adjust the pads so that the front ends are sitting lower than the rear
> >>>>>>> when viewed from the side, and you get the exact opposite behavior.
> >>>>>>> Adjust them level, and you're back to boring old parallel motion,
> >>>>>>> which is what everyone who actually wasted their time obeying your
> >>>>>>> command to measure their brakes observed. This is why you need to
> >>>>>>> prove your magic pivot theory by measuring from the arms not the
> >>>>>>> pads. The pads may be fixed, but they are not always fixed in a
> >>>>>>> position that supports your theory. If the second pivot really is
> >>>>>>> angled, there will also be some fore-aft translation of the arm
> >>>>>>> attached to it. Another reason why common sense dictates that this
> >>>>>>> would be an incredibly stupid way to design a brake.
> >>>>>> says the guy that doesn't understand the concepts.
> >>>>> And what concepts would those be? That the distance traveled by a
> >>>>> point on a rigid rotating body does not depend on that point's
> >>>>> distance from the axis of rotation? Because that's what you're trying
> >>>>> to claim, and you're exactly right that I don't understand it. You
> >>>>> would be hard pressed to find anyone with a passing knowledge of
> >>>>> geometry who would buy that one. If you change the relative distances
> >>>>> of the pad ends from the pivot axes (in whichever direction you
> >>>>> believe them to be pointing) the delta measurements you performed will
> >>>>> change. Front or rear, and I'm looking at it right now on a single
> >>>>> pivot caliper.
> >>>> eh? you're basing your entire comment on single pivot???? holy carp.
> >>>>> The ends of the pads farthest from the pivot will
> >>>>> always be farther apart when the caliper is open, and closer together
> >>>>> when it's closed. How do you suppose it is that I can observe
> >>>>> something that you say absolutely has to be the result of one of a two
> >>>>> degree of freedom mechanism on a brake with only one degree of freedom?
> >>>> forget it. if you can't be bothered, nor can i.
> >>> No, I'm basing it on single pivot, dual pivot, and common sense.
> >> no, you're basing it on single pivot and underinformed presumption.
>
> >>> And
> >>> if your observation of changing brake pad distances can be observed in
> >>> a single pivot brake, then it absolutely cannot be proof of out of
> >>> plane rotation.
> >> rubbish.
>
> > Please tell me what it is that I'm presuming. I've duplicated your
> > progressive toe in measurements on both single and dual pivot brakes,
> > and I've changed it to a progressive toe out simply by changing the
> > pad adjustment. If either of those calipers has an arm that's
> > rotating out of plane, brake pad measurements simply are not
> > sufficient proof. Seeing how you're the only person on the planet
> > that believes that this rotation is happening, you're going to have to
> > do a lot more than stomp your feet and yell rubbish to convince me.
>
> i'm not trying to "convince" you - i simply want you to stop confusing
> yourself with irrelevancies about single pivot and pad adjustments [as
> long as they remain fixed, the deltas remain the same] and focus on
> observation of the dual pivot lever action! and even then, the ones i
> have stated. it may indeed be the case that some brakes don't have this
> feature, but as i have observed, campy veloce and record, and 7700
> dura-ace, these definitely do!

As long as they remain fixed where? Fix them in a different place and
the deltas disappear or reverse. This is not irrelevant. It shows
that while your observations of pad angle are necessary conditions to
prove your hypothesis of arm twisting, they are not sufficient. You
have not posted any observations of lever action. Only pad movement,
and only movement in directions that point to more realistic
explanations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Problem with direct mount front delarieur
Replies
18
Views
977
Cycling Equipment
RaceReadyRob
R
L
Front mount bike carrier
Replies
4
Views
648
Cycling Equipment
[email protected]
R
5MinuteMajor
The pros and cons of direct mount rear derailleurs
Replies
11
Views
135
Cycling Equipment
5MinuteMajor
5MinuteMajor
robertlees
What are the best ways to mount tech gadgets on a bike without cluttering the handlebars?
Replies
22
Views
430
Cycling Equipment
robertlees
robertlees
B
Looking for a bicycle mount for a redmi note 11 pro.
Replies
0
Views
631
Cycling Equipment
Bartandroid123
B
Top Bottom Back