Can Disk Brakes flip you over the handle bars?

Nate Nagel

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>Lots of cars didn't used to have servo assistance on the
>>>>>>>>brakes. All the force and work required to brake came from
>>>>>>>>your leg. And yet you could slow down a tonne of car from
>>>>>>>>70mph like that.
>
>
>>>>>>>Drum brakes used massive self servo action to achieve useful
>>>>>>>braking. Because that effect is highly unpredictable, they had
>>>>>>>both lock-up and fade. That is why we use disks today. You
>>>>>>>may recall that this was discussed here at great length.
>
>
>>>>>>I don't understand why you consider that action "highly
>>>>>>unpredictable" it's simply speed dependent. Sure they lock up
>>>>>>if you stomp on 'em but so will boosted discs. The fade comes
>>>>>>from the inability of the shoes and drum to shed heat as
>>>>>>effectively as discs where all the parts are out in the open and
>>>>>>in some racing applications even have forced air ducted over
>>>>>>them for additional cooling.
>
>
>>>>>I think you don't know the history of the drum brake. It's self
>>>>>servo action is laid out about a specific friction coefficient
>>>>>such that when it is a bit high, brakes lock up (even after
>>>>>taking the foot off the pedal)
>
>
>>>>Which is not an issue on any automotive application, as if
>>>>anything, current non-asbestos linings have an even lower
>>>>coefficient of friction than the original linings around which the
>>>>brake system was designed. I have seen some high-performance
>>>>linings made available for various vintage drum brake setups
>>>>(presumably for vintage racing) and have not ever heard of this
>>>>happening in practice.
>
>
>>>>>and when it is a bit low from heating, there is essentially no
>>>>>brake at all, resulting in run-aways on mountain roads.
>
>
>>>The servo effect is what makes the drum brake respond poorly and
>>>why, if you read the Wiki article, no RR ever used drum brakes,
>>>skidding a wheel being a major loss.
>
>
>>>>That much is true. Of course this can also happen with discs, if
>>>>you abuse them enough, but discs cool down *much* faster than
>>>>drums given that the friction surface is in direct contact with
>>>>cooling air, the discs have a higher surface area to mass ratio,
>>>>and that the calipers and at least portions of the linings are
>>>>also in closer proximity to cooling air than in a drum brake.
>
>
>>>>It cannot happen with disks. The relation of the friction
>>>>coefficient and brake retardation is linear so the 5% change in
>>>>friction that formerly cause total brake failure, the disk sees
>>>>a 5% change. It's much like boiling engines in cars. That
>>>>they don't boil today is not because they have better
>>>>radiators, but because they have a non-leaking water pump seal
>>>>and don't lose coolant.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine...were_air-cooled
>
>
>>a 5% change in brake friction will not cause a "total brake failure"
>>on any decent automotive brake system. Now it may cause more than
>>5% loss on a servo-action system, but not "total."
>
>
>>>>>>Old manual drum brakes are actually quite pleasant to drive on,
>>>>>>so long as you're not racing or driving fast through the
>>>>>>mountains. IMHO they have a much better pedal feel than all but
>>>>>>the best new disc brakes; certainly more direct as there is a
>>>>>>direct hydraulic connection between foot and shoes with only a
>>>>>>very few, simple mechanical parts in between.
>
>
>>>>>Oh nostalgia for things that weren't. Read:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_..._in_drum_brakes
>
>
>>>>Seeing as I actually own and (occasionally) drive a '55 Studebaker
>>>>coupe equipped with the (excellent) factory equipment brakes, with
>>>>the only upgrade being the addition of finned drums from a later
>>>>model car, I can say that they certainly aren't anywhere near the
>>>>death-dealing devices that you seem to be making them out to be.
>>>>The three major shortcomings of drum brakes in general are 1)
>>>>brakes often undersized for the vehicle, exacerbating other
>>>>problems (not an issue on my car, but, say, the 9" front drums on
>>>>an old Dart are an insult to common sense.) 2) Cooling - drum
>>>>brakes do retain heat far more so than do discs, resulting in
>>>>earlier fading. 3) single circuit master cylinders can result in
>>>>complete brake system failure with one single hydraulic failure.
>>>>Not an issue with the drums themselves, but legal until the late
>>>>60's and therefore common on most vehicles you'll find with four
>>>>wheel drum brakes.
>
>
>>>I take it you are saying that the auto companies of the world are
>>>barking up the wrong tree when they dumped the drum brake. That's
>>>a bit far fetched. Drum brakes are non-linear and unreliable.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jhiu
>
>
>>No, I'm saying that while discs are definitely an improvement, drums
>>are not nearly as dangerous and unacceptable, at least in the better
>>automotive implementations, as you make them out to be.
>
>
>>How do you explain, if the servo-action is responsible for the
>>effects that you claim, that some automotive drums did *not* use
>>servo-action brakes and still exhibited similar fade? It's the
>>heat, plain and simple. That was the biggest downfall of drums, and
>>it's the biggest advantage of discs. To a lesser extent the
>>increased linearity of brake torque vs. line pressure that you did
>>mention. That is not to say that there aren't downsides - the
>>biggest *disadvantage* of discs is the necessity to install a power
>>booster on all but the lightest cars, as you need significantly more
>>line pressure to develop the same brake torque as the same size drum
>>brake. This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the improved
>>pedal feel of drums - the vacuum booster commonly used does make for
>>a far less direct feel on the brake pedal.
>
>
> When the brake application force is in the direction of drum rotation,
> as it must be with drum brakes, then there is a self energising
> effect.

Actually, it doesn't matter which direction, on most brakes. The servo
effect works both ways, but the leading shoe is smaller for reasons of
even wear.

> Proof of that is the rum brakes lock up at times when the
> friction coefficient is slightly higher than the design level.

Ok, so? that's not generally a problem.

> All
> deum brakes have servo effect.

No, there are most definitely non-servo drum brakes. Early Studebaker
drums for example, or some of the odd dual wheel cylinder designs.

> If you have worked on drum brakes you
> should have noticed that they are designated leading shoe brakes, that
> is that the activating hydraulic piston is pushing in the direction of
> drum rotation.

And that is for reasons of even shoe wear. also the wheel cylinder
pushes both ways in the normal drum brake setup, so the servo action can
work in both directions.

>
>>>>>>>>The difficult part is getting rid of all the heat that the
>>>>>>>>brakes are converting the bike's kinetic energy into.
>
>
>>>>>That's why heavy trucks still use drum brakes, drums having large
>>>>>surface to reject heat by forced convection. Highways have long
>>>>>dual tired skid marks because the response to brake application
>>>>>cannot be well controlled with drum brakes.
>
>
>>>>I believe that they still use drums because they're easier to work
>>>>with in an air brake application. They still don't shed heat
>>>>nearly as well as to discs. I suspect many of those skid marks
>>>>are also the result of air system failures, not panic stops gone
>>>>bad.
>
>
>>>You are guessing. Brakes are used for performance and disks large
>>>enough to control a large truck will not fit inside standard truck
>>>wheels. That's why disks are not used there.
>
>
>>I actually *have* seen discs on heavy trucks... not nearly as many
>>as drums, but they are out there.
>
>
> You may have seen them on tractors of semi trailer rigs, but not on
> the tandem dual dive axles or the semitrailer where heavy braking
> occurs.
>
>
>>>>>>>Apparently the bicycle industry is not addressing that part of
>>>>>>>the problem when the surface area and thermal mass their
>>>>>>>gossamer rings of steel have. I have asked brake manufacturers
>>>>>>>why their disks are mostly air with a thin pattern of thin
>>>>>>>steel between. For cooling is the answer. Maybe they should
>>>>>>>tell the automotive and railway people about their theory.
>
>
>>>>>>??? most automotive disc brakes are "vented," that is, the
>>>>>>braking surfaces are separated by a webbing of cast iron
>>>>>>intended to have air pass through. High-performance rotors are
>>>>>>also cross-drilled and/or slotted.
>
>
>>>>>I think you'll find that they are not vented but rather solid
>>>>>disks with no holes.
>
>
>>>>Not true at all.
>
>
>>>OK! You keep making these claims and show no reason or reference
>>>for them. Just inspect BMW cars and note that even their large
>>>"sport cars"do not have holes in the disks.
>
>
>>But they are still vented.
>
>
> Look at all the high performance (BMW, Mercedes, Caddillac, Chrysler,
> Cheverolet, Buick,...) cars and you will see they have no holes. You
> must be assuming car companies are taking safety lightly if they sell
> the largest part of their cars with, as you claim, inferior disks that
> have no holes.

They may not be cross drilled, but they are all vented.

>>>>>The cross drilling is found only on vehicles tauted to be high
>>>>>performance while no passenger sedan has cross drilling that has
>>>>>no technical advantage but is a relic of the days when brake fade
>>>>>was believed to be caused by out-gassing of brake shoes to
>>>>>generate a gas bearing. The holes allow that imaginary gas to
>>>>>escape.
>
>
>>>>True, but all but very light and/or inexpensive cars still use
>>>>vented rotors, at least on the front. you are confusing
>>>>cross-drilling and/or slotting with simple venting, which is a
>>>>common feature of nearly all automotive disc brakes. Look at a
>>>>disc edge-on, you will see that it is not solid but is essentially
>>>>two solid braking surfaces connected by a webbing and with lots of
>>>>air space in between. That is what is commonly known as a
>>>>"vented" rotor.
>
>
>>>Name a few please.
>
>
>>Any modern car equipped with disc brakes. In my driveway, a Chevy
>>Impala (icky company car) a Porsche 944 and a Ford F-150. All have
>>vented discs, at least on the front.
>
>
> Not the new ones aold today. Exactly these are proof that there is no
> benefit to the cross drillings in the disks of "sports cars".

Yes, all of the new ones sold today. They are vented, as I defined
above (and as is common usage.)

>
>>The last car I saw *without* vented front discs was my mom's '86 VW
>>Golf. It did have solid front discs.
>
>
> You use the term "vemnted" without definition. What do you mean?


See above, I defined the common usage of the term when referring to brakes.

>
>>>>>I worked in brake design with Girling and ATE in the years when
>>>>>the auto industry was changing to disks and was amazed at the
>>>>>amount of myth and lore surrounding brakes.
>
>
>>>>I don't mean to be insulting, but that surprises me given the
>>>>inaccuracies in your post. Although that would explain your
>>>>unfamiliarity with vented rotors, as AFAIR at least the Studebaker
>>>>applications of the first Girling brakes did in fact use solid
>>>>rotors. I would assume that other applications of those brakes
>>>>did as well as I'm not aware of any significant variations on the
>>>>caliper design.
>
>
>>>You are not trying hard enough to not be insulting. Your
>>>unsupported claims are in themselves insulting in facer of evidence
>>>to the contrary. The subject here was to cross drilling with holed
>>>through the disk faces. RR disks are all internally radially
>>>vented in the disk casting.
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disk
>
>
>>At this point, I can't even determine if you understand the
>>difference between venting and drilling. If you can't keep your
>>terminology straight there's no point in continuing this discussion.
>
>
> At this point I suggest you heed your request for definition of disk
> form. I detect you are trying to make a technical educational course
> about disk brake, not understanding the basic difference between disks
> and drums. I am not ready to outline a course on disk brakes here.

I'm afraid I don't need your "technical educational course" - not to do
the credential dick-waving thing, but I too have worked professionally
with braking systems (albeit specifically with ABS software) and
apparently quite a bit more recently than you. You're confusing venting
with cross-drilling, or you're not understanding the terminology that
I'm using which is standard and has been since the late 60's.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Clive George

"Kerry Montgomery" <kamontgo@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:N5Gdnbxi0dfKIYbVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...

> Jobst and Nate,
> Just to set some common ground - here is what I think a vented disk brake
> rotor looks like:
> http://images.outdoorinteractive.net/mgen/530211_oi.jpg

Yeah, I am coming to the conclusion that Jobst doesn't actually understand
the normal definition of 'vented' - that used by most auto-parts suppliers.

Your picture agrees with me and pretty much everybody else.

cheers,
clive

Clive George

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:fvgdll02qd9@news2.newsguy.com...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
>> news:fvg74802ik0@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the improved pedal feel
>>> of drums - the vacuum booster commonly used does make for a far less
>>> direct feel on the brake pedal.
>>
>>
>> You might find driving a power-braked car amusing - on a proper citroen,
>> the pedal doesn't move (noticably), but the braking is still proportional
>> to how hard you press. Coming from an over-assisted conventional car was
>> an interesting reminder of the difference.
>>
>>> Any modern car equipped with disc brakes. In my driveway, a Chevy
>>> Impala (icky company car) a Porsche 944 and a Ford F-150. All have
>>> vented discs, at least on the front.
>>
>>
>> Many over here don't have vented. My CX had them (all round :-) ), but
>> nothing else I've owned. The stuff you've just mentioned comes under
>> "bigger or faster than normal". Of course with the weight inflation of
>> cars, they're getting rather more common...
>
> If you'd consider any of those cars "faster than normal" I have the
> greatest sympathy for you.

I did carefully say "bigger" first.

> Of course Vlad the Impala and the pickup truck are also quite large, and
> only one of those two has a good reason for being so. A 944 has many
> redeeming qualities, but sparkling acceleration isn't one of them.

Is it broken? 944 wasn't actually _that_ slow, even in N/A form. 137mph top
speed isn't too bad for 1982, and is still faster than many cooking model
cars.

> Oddly enough, likely the fastest car I own (I don't know for sure, I
> haven't fully tested its capabilities) is also the one with four wheel
> drum brakes.

I did have an amusing time recently reading about USian muscle cars - with
hundreds of BHP, but engineered for the 1/4 mile rather than actual speed,
as could be seen by the gearing they came with. Probably a good thing though
given the handling and braking :-)

cheers,
clive

Nate Nagel

Clive George wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:fvgdll02qd9@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fvg74802ik0@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>> This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the improved pedal
>>>> feel of drums - the vacuum booster commonly used does make for a far
>>>> less direct feel on the brake pedal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You might find driving a power-braked car amusing - on a proper
>>> citroen, the pedal doesn't move (noticably), but the braking is still
>>> proportional to how hard you press. Coming from an over-assisted
>>> conventional car was an interesting reminder of the difference.
>>>
>>>> Any modern car equipped with disc brakes. In my driveway, a Chevy
>>>> Impala (icky company car) a Porsche 944 and a Ford F-150. All have
>>>> vented discs, at least on the front.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many over here don't have vented. My CX had them (all round :-) ),
>>> but nothing else I've owned. The stuff you've just mentioned comes
>>> under "bigger or faster than normal". Of course with the weight
>>> inflation of cars, they're getting rather more common...
>>
>>
>> If you'd consider any of those cars "faster than normal" I have the
>> greatest sympathy for you.
>
>
> I did carefully say "bigger" first.
>
>> Of course Vlad the Impala and the pickup truck are also quite large,
>> and only one of those two has a good reason for being so. A 944 has
>> many redeeming qualities, but sparkling acceleration isn't one of them.
>
>
> Is it broken? 944 wasn't actually _that_ slow, even in N/A form. 137mph
> top speed isn't too bad for 1982, and is still faster than many cooking
> model cars.

I don't think they had quite as much power over here as in Europe...
mine's an 88, so had 150-something HP from the factory, and I doubt it's
picked up any extra over the years I might have a *slightly* warped
perspective though, as my previous ride was a GTI 1.8T which had Hand of
God Torque(tm) and although it didn't handle as well would just flat out
destroy any 944 (NA) in a straight line.

I would really like to try a turbo 944 some day, but budget etc.

>
>> Oddly enough, likely the fastest car I own (I don't know for sure, I
>> haven't fully tested its capabilities) is also the one with four wheel
>> drum brakes.
>
>
> I did have an amusing time recently reading about USian muscle cars -
> with hundreds of BHP, but engineered for the 1/4 mile rather than actual
> speed, as could be seen by the gearing they came with. Probably a good
> thing though given the handling and braking :-)

yeah, some of the larger ones were borderline irresponsible, e.g.
Hemi-powered midsize MoPars with disc brakes *optional* - a Studebaker
isn't so bad as it is a fairly light car and their drum brakes were
better than most. Handling was never a big priority as even most
"sporty" American cars were really primarily people haulers and long
distance tourers; if you wanted to go around corners fast you needed to
look to something European. The Corvette being the only real notable
mass-market exception that comes to mind...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Tom Sherman

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fvf0c2$d55$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> [...]
>> Back in the early days of the 20th Century recumbent revival (e.g.
>> Hypercycle, the never produced Avatar 1000,) the designers mistakenly
>> thought that some heel/wheel overlap needed to be avoided. Therefore, the
>> boom was made very long and the rider was seated almost over the front
>> wheel. This led to too flexible booms which made climbing and acceleration
>> poor, poor handling - especially when hitting bumps at speed , and the
>> bike rotating forward about the front wheel contact patch under hard
>> braking.
>>
>> Modern short=wheelbase recumbent sensibly trade off some heel overlap for
>> proper weight distribution and have none of the above flaws. However, some
>> of the "experts" tried the earlier designs 25 or 30 years ago and have
>> closed their minds to later improvements.
>
> Even so, SWB recumbents do not handle well and tend to be squirrely. They
> are fine for around town for a few hours, but they are the pits on day long
> rides.

My short-wheelbase recumbents (RANS Rocket, Earth Cycles Sunset
Lowracer) are easy to ride, even after I have hammered to the point of
exhaustion on a double metric century.

> Also, heel overlap is not a good idea. Sooner or later it will trip
> you up.
>
Not a big deal as long as there is nothing for the crank to hit. Crank
to wheel overlap can dump you in a hurry. Of course, that can only
happen at low speed, and a low speed fall on a recumbent is trivial
compared to doing the same on an upright.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

Nate Nagel wrote:
> [...] The three major shortcomings
> of drum brakes in general are 1) brakes often undersized for the
> vehicle, exacerbating other problems (not an issue on my car, but, say,
> the 9" front drums on an old Dart are an insult to common sense.)[...]

I drove the early 1970's Plymouth sibling for a bit, and the brakes were
about as effective as using just the hand brake on a proper automobile.
The only thing worse was the steering, which felt like a wheel mounted
to a bearing, with absolutely no feedback. The rest of the car was
hardly better.

No wonder Chrysler would have gone bankrupt without corporate welfare.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> [...]
> That's why heavy trucks still use drum brakes, drums having large
> surface to reject heat by forced convection. Highways have long dual
> tired skid marks because the response to brake application cannot be
> well controlled with drum brakes.[...]
>
Herr Brandt must not have driven a 2002-2005 Honda Civic, which has rear
drum brakes but exhibits none of the ills that Brandt claims are
inherent to drums.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org aka Jobst Brandt wrote:
> [...]
> OK! You keep making these claims and show no reason or reference for
> them. Just inspect BMW cars and note that even their large "sport
> cars"do not have holes in the disks.[...]

Like these vented rotors for BMW's?
<http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/10318396/Brake_Rotor_For_BMW_and_BENZ.jpg>

No holes on the braking surface, but radial holes between the surfaces.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>> [...]
>> I did have an amusing time recently reading about USian muscle cars -
>> with hundreds of BHP, but engineered for the 1/4 mile rather than
>> actual speed, as could be seen by the gearing they came with. Probably
>> a good thing though given the handling and braking :-)
>
> yeah, some of the larger ones were borderline irresponsible, e.g.
> Hemi-powered midsize MoPars with disc brakes *optional* - a Studebaker
> isn't so bad as it is a fairly light car and their drum brakes were
> better than most. Handling was never a big priority as even most
> "sporty" American cars were really primarily people haulers and long
> distance tourers; if you wanted to go around corners fast you needed to
> look to something European. The Corvette being the only real notable
> mass-market exception that comes to mind...
>
Not mass market by any stretch of the imagination, but a USian car with
a big V-8 that likely gave Signore Ferrari sleepless nights:
<http://www.legendarymotorsport.com/Portals/0/Good.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

Clive George wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:fvg74802ik0@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the improved pedal
>> feel of drums - the vacuum booster commonly used does make for a far
>> less direct feel on the brake pedal.
>
> You might find driving a power-braked car amusing - on a proper citroen,
> the pedal doesn't move (noticably), but the braking is still
> proportional to how hard you press. Coming from an over-assisted
> conventional car was an interesting reminder of the difference.
>
>> Any modern car equipped with disc brakes. In my driveway, a Chevy
>> Impala (icky company car) a Porsche 944 and a Ford F-150. All have
>> vented discs, at least on the front.
>
> Many over here don't have vented. My CX had them (all round :-) ), but
> nothing else I've owned. The stuff you've just mentioned comes under
> "bigger or faster than normal". Of course with the weight inflation of
> cars, they're getting rather more common...
>
Bigger and faster than normal for the EU, but not for NA.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Obviously I would assume they could if you clamp down fast enough.
>
>> landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, if you don't brace yourself and are unfamiliar with the brake and
>>> grab wildly, any powerful brake can be dangerous--but so can many
>>> things in life. Well adjusted brakes should be easy to modulate,
>>> provided you're not inebriated and have practiced a few panic stops,
>>> and shouldn't necessitate the purchase of a new bicycle.
>>> Be careful when posting questions like this, because you may attract
>>> 'bent riders, who are bearded hammers in search of nails--sometimes
>>> with orange flippy flags!
>
> Harry Brogan wrote:
> > I do NOT have orange flippy flags!!!!!! ROFLMAO
>
> Not yet?
> Tom Sherman can probably help you choose a nice flippy orange one.

I suggest a red flag with a gold "hammer & sickle" logo.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <fve853$ncf$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> TBerk ? wrote:
>>> On May 1, 8:31 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> landotter wrote:
>>> <snippage>
>>>>> Be careful when posting questions like this, because you may attract
>>>>> 'bent riders, who are bearded hammers in search of nails--sometimes
>>>>> with orange flippy flags!
>>>> Since so many upright riders feel necessary to comment on the alleged
>>>> disadvantages of recumbents (often quite rudely in person), it is only
>>>> fair to do the same for uprights.
>>> But yeah, you guys are thread-jacking though.
>>>
>> In other breaking news...
>>
>> Thread drift is a fact of life on Usenet.
>
> Almost all non sequiturs on recumbent bicycles
> are introduced by you.

Dude, [1]

For the record, Mike Schwab first introduced recumbents into this
thread, not me. "DougC" and "landotter" also posted responses mentioning
recumbents independently of anything I posted.

> You walk, or roll supine,
> with `Kick Me' sign and are surprised
> that you are sore? Try going a year without
> a gratuitous introduction of recumbent bicycles
> and see how things work out.
>
I did not bring up the subject in this thread, as a cursory review of
the thread would make blindingly obvious.

Change the charter of rec.bicycles.tech to exclude recumbents, and I
will not mention them without an "OT" lead to the subject line. Until
then, deal with their occasional mention.

[1] Feel free to respond "Don't call me dude".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman

TBerk wrote:
> On May 1, 10:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> TBerk ? wrote:
> <snip>
>>> But yeah, you guys are thread-jacking though.
>> In other breaking news...
>> Thread drift is a fact of life on Usenet.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman
>
> Sorry, forgot to include an emoticon 8])
>
>
> TBerk
> I'm going to be looking into replacement forks with disk brake
> capacity. Stay tuned everybody...

Be sure to get a system with a through-bolt or one of the rare forks
that has the dropouts and/or caliper mounts arranged so the brake is not
trying to eject the wheel:
<http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/index.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

TBerk

On May 2, 7:49 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> TBerk wrote:
> > On May 1, 10:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> TBerk ? wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> But yeah, you guys are thread-jacking though.
> >> In other breaking news...
> >> Thread drift is a fact of life on Usenet.
>
> >> --
> >> Tom Sherman
>
> > Sorry, forgot to include an emoticon 8])
>
> > TBerk
> > I'm going to be looking into replacement forks with disk brake
> > capacity. Stay tuned everybody...
>
> Be sure to get a system with a through-bolt or one of the rare forks
> that has the dropouts and/or caliper mounts arranged so the brake is not
> trying to eject the wheel:
> <http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/inde...>.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman -


Now, see? While as yet unsubstantiated it seems like the kind of help
I started this thread for in the 1st place.


TBerk