Dood, I've never been a big fan of Pete's and I'm not here to cover his back either. But what he's saying is FACT, sustainable by objective data. You seem to be be expressing OPINION or BELIEF which is supported by subjective response or false information.

We can all learn something new. Maybe you should take it as such?


If you'll excuse me I'll go back to eating my popcorn & nachos.

Looking at the thread, I see that Pete has actually gone pretty easy.

Agreed.

People use toilets all there life without having a clue about how they work. Experience is helpful but it does not necessarily equate to understanding.

Everyone is allowed their own opinion. You are not allowed your own facts. You substitute your "experience" for basic laws of physics and claim these are facts ... they are not.

You cannot use hydraulics (non-boosted) to amplify force indefinitely and still have the system work. If you amplify the force in your hand by a factor of 30, you reduce travel by a factor of 30. At some point you will have so little travel that you would have to have the rotors in contact with the pads in order for the system to engage. Mechanicals have already go this whipped and if you don't believe me, try some cantilever levers with mechanical disc brakes. To assert that you can amplify the force indefinitely without affecting travel means that you are getting power from an external source. You must identify that source or admit that your theory breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is a contradiction).

A larger rotor vs a smaller rotor for the same force applied to identical pads as the rotor DOES move over the caliper faster and this generates heat. Thats energy and it has to come from somewhere. It comes from kinetic energy of the bicycle. To assert otherwise you need to cite where that energy is coming from or admit you're breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is a contradiction).

fjyang, you're theory does not stand up to scrutiny. It's probably best to go read up on what we are telling you and then drop it.

man, i've been away too long. i've forgotten how fun this forum can be to read.

Welcome back. Here, have some popcorn.

[QUOTE=Pete Fagerlin]

I'm "outa control" because you don't know what you're talking (writing) about? Ok, I'm outa control man!

QUOTE]

Guess you have not taken the advice.....

Chill

I thought this thread was about the differences between hydraulic and mechanical discs... Not squabbling... Just sayin'. You have to let some things go.

keep it coming

Don't get into a duel of symantics with Pete; you will not even tread water let alone prevail.

I am going to use this quote every chance I get.



Hey Pete, what was your original join date?

Fixed. Except for the minutes and seconds. Methinks your birthday is not correct either, but I'm sure we can live with that.

I'm so happy when Pete spends time here. He's been spending a lot of time over at VC and A&S. I read through some of the threads but it's just so much better here.

Vc?

Vintage & Classic?

I don't need to assume anything with you Pete, its pretty clear already.

YOu keep having hardon's for tires but tires alone don't stop your bike, if you're relying friction between the road and your tire to stop your vehicles ....then you're also pretty confuse.

Its the friction between the brake "pads and your rotors" that provide the majority of your braking force.

Tires provide "traction" and as long as the tire can maintain that traction with road surface then whatever the braking force generated by the calipers and rotors can be effectively transfer.

You state that you need to a larger tire size to shorten your braking distance.... and I disagree with you as you do that last.

People go wilth larger rotor or extra caliper/pistons to increase braking force as there is way more friction on rotors/pads than tires, only when you start to lose traction then you upgrade the tire to match your braking set up. NOT the other way around as you stated.

Tire, rotors and calipers and master cyclinders all play their part as I stated before in braking. If you want to disect and take my words regarding individual element out of "contex" to serve your purpose like you have done with so many other post from other threads too, then you're belittling yourself with all those word game your playing.

You can wax lyrics with your semantics and I give you credit for that. I bet the above words can keep you going for another......20 post? I'm sure you can do what you do best...so knock yourself out with it.

Ahhh I didnt even know we had that forum...

/me is gonna sit back and watch the massacre. This is one of the funniest threads in a while

No, VC = Vehicular Cycling. It's a sub-forum of Advocacy & Safety. It was recently created because that one topic was too hot for the regular A&S forum.
https://bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=252

dude...he's assuming you can already lock them up into a slide...at that point bigger better brakes wont help you at all.
your not paying close attention.

Bueler, Bueler, Bueler?

The question was answered. And some of them are subjective. I find hydros infinitely easier to setup (most systems come prebuilt), and repair is on par with mechs. most people seem to fear hydros especially on the repair side, but seriously if you have any mechanical ability at all, and can read instructions, its easy money.

If a hydro blows on the trail, then it will stop working. Same with mechs. If you carry the "spares" around for the mechs the "spares" for hydros aren't that much more difficult to carry. It is messier

Otherwise I would agree.

There you go again taken stuff out of contex, I'd said tires alone won't do it. Anyway I was expecting 19 more post, sugarpie. Your running out of materials from my other threads to post? Please go through my entire history in this forum and dig things up post here to massage your ego....that can be your homework for the weekend.

Well, since this thread is going nowhere, I'm closing it.