Shimano Dura-Ace 9000 Series - 11sp

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
maxxevv
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:51 am

by maxxevv

yourdaguy wrote:Looking forward to your design.


Don't try to wriggle your way out of this.

If you have yours "figured out in your head", then you jolly well can show it. Like I said, I shall wait 24hours for you to post yours before I post mine. Because it will be an exercise in vain if I did so first.

maxxevv
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:51 am

by maxxevv

VNTech wrote:
maxxevv wrote:
VNTech wrote:I don't want to challenge you, maxxevv, but I would love to see what mounting solutions you come up with. I'm writing a sort of opinion piece on this very subject right now.


Well, I appreciate that. At least you know what you're talking about. :thumbup:


Let's not get carried away :lol: I'm a writer, not an engineer. Those can't do, write, right?


No, not saying anything out of the ordinary.

At least you know what are some of the key limiting factors. Not like some fella who 'figured out in his head" without genuinely questioning "what" was it that he was trying to figure out. :noidea:

User avatar
yourdaguy
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:25 am
Location: Southern Indiana USA
Contact:

by yourdaguy

Well to contribute constructively to the conversation instead of just being a jerk and to help you with your caad drawing I will submit this picture of the Breezer Lightening and how high he had to make the seat stays to accommodate the brake on the chain stay. Most current designs place the tab for the rear brake on the seat stay. The rear tab is directly over the rear axle and the current 140 adapter is basically flat with only enough room for the bolt holes. So while I have considered this in my brain, and visualized it, I don't think you have thought it through very far. Breezer is a legendary guy and he makes a living designing bikes. If he limited his design to 140 mm discs, he could probably shave an inch out of the seat stays, but I don't see these arched seat stays being popular on race oriented road frames.

Since you are such a caad ace it should be easy for you to include dimensional data with your graphic. I hope that doesn't move the goal post out of your range.

Well the link won't work because dirt rag won't let it. So I will figure out a work around and reapost.
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.

User avatar
yourdaguy
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:25 am
Location: Southern Indiana USA
Contact:

by yourdaguy

Lets try this.

Well the picture is too big.

How about a link to the original article: http://www.dirtragmag.com/webrag/interb ... steel-bike


It is the first picture I was trying to refer to.
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.

bricky21
Posts: 1405
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:28 pm

by bricky21

Your link doesn't work. Here's a pic Image

maxxevv
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:51 am

by maxxevv

yourdaguy wrote:Well to contribute constructively to the conversation instead of just being a jerk and to help you with your caad drawing I will submit this picture of the Breezer Lightening and how high he had to make the seat stays to accommodate the brake on the chain stay. Most current designs place the tab for the rear brake on the seat stay. The rear tab is directly over the rear axle and the current 140 adapter is basically flat with only enough room for the bolt holes. So while I have considered this in my brain, and visualized it, I don't think you have thought it through very far. Breezer is a legendary guy and he makes a living designing bikes. If he limited his design to 140 mm discs, he could probably shave an inch out of the seat stays, but I don't see these arched seat stays being popular on race oriented road frames.

Since you are such a caad ace it should be easy for you to include dimensional data with your graphic. I hope that doesn't move the goal post out of your range.

Well the link won't work because dirt rag won't let it. So I will figure out a work around and reapost.


I have no issues with dimensional drawings but I want see yours from your head.. where's your so called 'figured it out in my head' limitations ? If you want one from me, then I want one from you too.

You see.. you're just taking all the things at face value without understanding the underlying reasons why things are done in a certain way. And basically, you're still trying to wriggle yourself out of a hole you dug yourself.

The 140mm limitation is a direct result of inherent industry mounting standards. Joe is a seasoned and well respected bike designer. He is also not a dumb business man either, he needs to sell his bikes. For that, it needs to work with industry available components. He's not big enough to move the industry and he knows that. So when that happens, basically he's got to stick to what the industry dictates. In this case, you've got to work within a limitation, which are disc brakes that are available in the industry. That's why I mentioned that VNtech knows what he's talking about.

Which is why I stated, in the context of this thread that its possible to do a 110mm disc, maybe even smaller. Because we are talking about Shimano here. They can almost dictate the industry (bicycle) standard when they really want/have to. Its just the practical physical limits that's the issue. Not what Joe Breezer has to deal with there.

andyindo
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:03 am

by andyindo

airwise wrote:
andyindo wrote:If anyone really thinks discs are going to get them down a typical Alpine descent faster than normal brakes then I think they need to work on their skills and cornering technique first.


Well I didn't get overtaken on one all last year including competing in the majority of larger sportive events. My time for the descent of Alpe d'Huez is sub 14 minutes. I'm fairly confident I know what I'm talking about here but then I don't know you from Adam.

It amazes me how many posters STILL seem to think discs are all about power.


Simply look at the Pro peleton. The difference between someone like Cancellara going downhill and a Schleck is technique. Not better brakes.

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

Would Cancellara be quicker on a wet descent with the benefit of better and more reliable brake modulation? Of course he would. Following hundreds of riders for years, it never fails to amaze me how poor most people are st descending, and most of the time lost is in the braking zone where people start slowing gently far too early.

I would say 99.99% of Shimano customers get nowhere near the limits of adhesion under braking on long descents. Their most common problem is dragging brakes which leads to terrifying blow outs. Discs fix this overnight making the whole experience considerably safer and in time faster.

nitropowered
Posts: 1146
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:10 am

by nitropowered

The problem is, current "road" discs, are simply mountain disc brakes with a cantilever pull ratio rather than a v-brake pull ratio. They weren't designed for road bikes.

Now shimano has the OEM power to create a new Road disc standard that may allow for a smaller rotor. Also the pad contact area of a disc brake is fairly wide. How about narrowing the brake track for less power?

Also mechanical vs hydraulic is a night and day difference. Hydraulic road discs will certainly be much better than cable ones

andyindo
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:03 am

by andyindo

airwise wrote:What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

Would Cancellara be quicker on a wet descent with the benefit of better and more reliable brake modulation? Of course he would. Following hundreds of riders for years, it never fails to amaze me how poor most people are st descending, and most of the time lost is in the braking zone where people start slowing gently far too early.

I would say 99.99% of Shimano customers get nowhere near the limits of adhesion under braking on long descents. Their most common problem is dragging brakes which leads to terrifying blow outs. Discs fix this overnight making the whole experience considerably safer and in time faster.

Since you asked, 6 eggs are about £2 at my local shop :)

The point I was making about Cancellara vs Schleck is that all things equal, technique plays a bigger part than technology. This is even more amplified in wet descents. How do discs fix the dragging brakes problem?Anyone who descends by dragging brakes is asking for problems. If you drag your disc brakes then you're going to get brake fade and loose power. Thats potentially just as bad or worse than a blowout from dragging rim brakes.

Discs would solve the carbon clincher problem though.

Besides....this is all a hypothetical argument. :beerchug:

User avatar
yourdaguy
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:25 am
Location: Southern Indiana USA
Contact:

by yourdaguy

maxxevv wrote:
yourdaguy wrote:Well to contribute constructively to the conversation instead of just being a jerk and to help you with your caad drawing I will submit this picture of the Breezer Lightening and how high he had to make the seat stays to accommodate the brake on the chain stay. Most current designs place the tab for the rear brake on the seat stay. The rear tab is directly over the rear axle and the current 140 adapter is basically flat with only enough room for the bolt holes. So while I have considered this in my brain, and visualized it, I don't think you have thought it through very far. Breezer is a legendary guy and he makes a living designing bikes. If he limited his design to 140 mm discs, he could probably shave an inch out of the seat stays, but I don't see these arched seat stays being popular on race oriented road frames.

Since you are such a caad ace it should be easy for you to include dimensional data with your graphic. I hope that doesn't move the goal post out of your range.

Well the link won't work because dirt rag won't let it. So I will figure out a work around and reapost.


I have no issues with dimensional drawings but I want see yours from your head.. where's your so called 'figured it out in my head' limitations ? If you want one from me, then I want one from you too.

You see.. you're just taking all the things at face value without understanding the underlying reasons why things are done in a certain way. And basically, you're still trying to wriggle yourself out of a hole you dug yourself.

The 140mm limitation is a direct result of inherent industry mounting standards. Joe is a seasoned and well respected bike designer. He is also not a dumb business man either, he needs to sell his bikes. For that, it needs to work with industry available components. He's not big enough to move the industry and he knows that. So when that happens, basically he's got to stick to what the industry dictates. In this case, you've got to work within a limitation, which are disc brakes that are available in the industry. That's why I mentioned that VNtech knows what he's talking about.

Which is why I stated, in the context of this thread that its possible to do a 110mm disc, maybe even smaller. Because we are talking about Shimano here. They can almost dictate the industry (bicycle) standard when they really want/have to. Its just the practical physical limits that's the issue. Not what Joe Breezer has to deal with there.


Well making a hundred drawings of ideas that didn't work would be a waste of my time. Please show us your one drawing of something that does work

Also, keep in mind that as you go to a caliper smaller than 140mm you are going to have huge heat dissipation problems on long Alpine descents. I am not an engineer, but my back of the napkin calculations pretty much say that the practical limit for how small you can go and still let a #200 rider descend the average long Alpine descent without having huge issues with fade is 130 mm front and rear. Brakes work by turning energy into heat and they have to be large enough to dissipate that heat. This is a very big underlying reason that you have not addressed or even apparently thought about. By my watch we have about 10 more hours to see your drawing or the BS should stop.
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.

Briscoelab
Posts: 1730
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:01 pm

by Briscoelab

Hey guys, lets keep it on topic of Shimano 9000 and 11 speed. Otherwise, Frankie or others might lock this thread altogether. Start a disc brake discussion if need be :)

User avatar
yourdaguy
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:25 am
Location: Southern Indiana USA
Contact:

by yourdaguy

At least let him post his picture of a viable solution
For certain parts stiffer is more important than lighter.

maxxevv
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:51 am

by maxxevv

nitropowered wrote:The problem is, current "road" discs, are simply mountain disc brakes with a cantilever pull ratio rather than a v-brake pull ratio. They weren't designed for road bikes.

Now shimano has the OEM power to create a new Road disc standard that may allow for a smaller rotor. Also the pad contact area of a disc brake is fairly wide. How about narrowing the brake track for less power?



Exactly! :beerchug:

maxxevv
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:51 am

by maxxevv

yourdaguy wrote:
Well making a hundred drawings of ideas that didn't work would be a waste of my time. Please show us your one drawing of something that does work

Also, keep in mind that as you go to a caliper smaller than 140mm you are going to have huge heat dissipation problems on long Alpine descents. I am not an engineer, but my back of the napkin calculations pretty much say that the practical limit for how small you can go and still let a #200 rider descend the average long Alpine descent without having huge issues with fade is 130 mm front and rear. Brakes work by turning energy into heat and they have to be large enough to dissipate that heat. This is a very big underlying reason that you have not addressed or even apparently thought about. By my watch we have about 10 more hours to see your drawing or the BS should stop.


I asked for a drawing that can show that "140mm is as small as a disc can go" ... as you said you figured it out all 'in your head' ... you have not been able to do that. :roll:

Now, you're shifting goalposts again here and detracting on what was the original argument. But in any case, I'm up to the task of "what you think you know you're talking about" here.

So since its on the back of your napkin calculations ... can post some snap shots of those 'calculations' you did then ?

Of for that matter, lets keep it simple and direct, which formulas did you use in your calculations ??

Right ... in your head yah ?? :roll:

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post