Originally Posted by
operator
Except at the point where toe-in delays application of full braking, indefinitley. Don't repair or build many bikes do you? This is the typical response to fork chatter on canti equipped caron fork bikes or to fix squeal where replacement of parts is not possible.
If the brakes don't squeal, they don't need toe-in. It would be rare to see a modern road bike with dual pivots that requires any sort of toe-in at all. Theory is great until you apply it to the real world where practical results matter.
You misunderstood my post. I meant that because toe-in introduces additional flex to the pad before it is fully clamped down onto the rim, the brake lever is at a more severely depressed position than on a setup with no toe-in when the brakes are fully engaged, all other conditions being equal. Since levers have lower mechanical advantage the further they are depressed, a lever used on a setup with toe-in cannot achieve the same mechanical advantage as in a setup with no toe-in.
1. If a theory doesn't match the real world it's because the theory is incorrect or inadequately refined, not because it is a theory. We're discussing Newtonian physics here: it's hardly cutting edge stuff.
2. I doubt I've built or repaired as many bicycles as you, because you do that for a living; though I don't see how that's relevant. If one of us is correct it's because that person has the facts straight, not because he has repaired more bicycles.