Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Ah. Argument from authority.
I see no problem with citing an experienced mechanic. No matter what you may think about Rivendell, a lot of them have been around the bike business for some time. While I find your goal of dismissing my post via invocation of formal fallacy to be novel (at least around here), I also don't think it is valid. Lord forbid we ever invoke an expert...
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Firstly, from an engineering point of view, ***you cannot divorce stopping power from permitted tyre width***. Either brake can lock its wheel - it's tyre width that decides how much braking the point just before lock provides.
Quite right. But the disc tends to win in both linearity and constancy regardless of environmental conditions.
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Secondly, braking force on the wheel isn't Mechanical Advantage - which is the error that I think you and your Authoritative One have made.
Mechanical advantage is not the fulcrum upon which my point turns. It has some minor relevance when comparing different brakes and their effectiveness with the cable pull allowed by a "road" lever though. Your reading comprehension is clearly lagging though, since my "Authoritative One" never once utilized this term. Are you purposefully creating straw men, or is this simply an unfortunate side-effect? Either way, you are starting to make foolish assumptions.
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Which one again, despite the misconceptions of a thousand half-smart vulgarians, is NOT the same as MA.
Never said it was.
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Thirdly, it's quite easy to set a canti for the same mechanical advantage - or higher than a dual pivot. It just won't be a very good brake any more, because pad travel will be so small that braking force will no better than a dual pull, and with a standard canti design you'll be limited to skinny tyres because of the yoke angle.
Sure, but you're getting hung up on MA to a degree that I don't understand. Why would one do a setup like this?
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Based on someone telling you their guy is Teh Greetest! and his telling you what to think. Sure.
Your assumptions are getting ridiculously belligerent now.
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
To calculate actual braking power you'd have to take the more complex version of these calculations - which I am sure are quite beyond you - and feed it into a model of the brake pad.
And now you're just being foolish. Typical "keyboard tough".
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Vague and wrong. For instance, mechanical disc brakes do weigh quite a bit more than cantilevers!
Sure they do. I said that "a lot" of the issues raised applied to hydraulics. I did not way that "all" applied. You've done very well in re-stating this for me, with some added - and unnecessary - "eff you" thrown in. Well done.
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
I never mentioned disc alignment.
You also never mentioned that you didn't understand that "kenshinvt" said it, and that I was quoting him.
Originally Posted by
meanwhile
Congratulations on knowing a technical term! In practice I'd say that reduced rim wear matters more. Cosine error, like non-linear response, is something the sophisticated computers that control bicycles adapt to very easily. Braking is done in a feedback loop, not by looking at a corner and the speedo and going "Oh yeah - that's an 8lb pull for 2.3 seconds."
Congratulations on being exceedingly foolish. You haven't the slightest clue who I am, and you are making a great many assumptions. I love forum "toughs"...Always willing to shoot from the hip before they know who they're actually talking to.
Oh well. Done with this thread.
To the OP; I hope you find a satisfactory solution.