MacRetro chat and rides thread
- Thread starter kaiser
- Start date
epicyclo
Senior Retro Guru
Re: Re:
And not a penny to pay. If you have never been in a profit motive driven health system, it's hard to realise just how exceptional our NHS is.
Same here.Mr Panda":2d8k6t1r said:RobMac":2d8k6t1r said:THANKS AGAIN NHS YOUR WONDERFUL
Totally agree. Plenty negative NHS Fake News doing the rounds but I have to say (again probably) my family's experiences have been exceptionally good, attentive, effective and entirely without complaint....
And not a penny to pay. If you have never been in a profit motive driven health system, it's hard to realise just how exceptional our NHS is.
Re:
Help please... Manitou SX fork, the old one with the odd 69mm post mount fitting (guessing it'd fit a 160mm as standard?) , A2Z IS adapter (also makes it +20mm) , so a regular IS caliper and a 180mm rotor should be what i need?
What I've got is Hope Mini No.5 caliper , and its a gnats whisker from fitting over a 203mm rotor ... I tried a No.3 caliper but that was positioned too far out and the pads would only contact half the rotor.
A few washers should move the No.5 caliper out a couple of mm to allow it to fit over the rotor, but, Not sure if its ok to use a 203 rotor on these forks? apart from it just looking a bit odd on an xc bike...
I've now got 3 sets of these Hope brakes :facepalm: and still they won't fit nicely.
Makes me think rim brakes would be much simpler and cheaper!
Help please... Manitou SX fork, the old one with the odd 69mm post mount fitting (guessing it'd fit a 160mm as standard?) , A2Z IS adapter (also makes it +20mm) , so a regular IS caliper and a 180mm rotor should be what i need?
What I've got is Hope Mini No.5 caliper , and its a gnats whisker from fitting over a 203mm rotor ... I tried a No.3 caliper but that was positioned too far out and the pads would only contact half the rotor.
A few washers should move the No.5 caliper out a couple of mm to allow it to fit over the rotor, but, Not sure if its ok to use a 203 rotor on these forks? apart from it just looking a bit odd on an xc bike...
I've now got 3 sets of these Hope brakes :facepalm: and still they won't fit nicely.
Makes me think rim brakes would be much simpler and cheaper!
Attachments
Re: Re:
Considerably faster than you Rob (or me).
Forks definitely not designed for that size of rotor. Seeing how much my similar era SIDs flexed on v brakes, not sure I’d be risking it. Thing is, they’ll be fine right up to the point they’re not, just as the lower snaps.
RobMac":3esinopp said:
Considerably faster than you Rob (or me).
Forks definitely not designed for that size of rotor. Seeing how much my similar era SIDs flexed on v brakes, not sure I’d be risking it. Thing is, they’ll be fine right up to the point they’re not, just as the lower snaps.
As to the 203, tbh i reckon it would be fine, given its actually when you think of it, 20mm difference, which is 10mm all round, which isnt even a 1/2", and yeah a washer, or preferably a single thick washer will lift it. I have seen to many spaced out this way without any issues whatsoever to say it is a danger.
That said, a proper torque, and maybe a pinch beyond for its age would be prudent.
But is it really needed ?, as Rob said. Im about 14stn and 160/180 mini monos on sintered stops me quite spectacularly. In fact way better than the modern X2's, though I reckon thats down to that poncy tech lever.
That said, a proper torque, and maybe a pinch beyond for its age would be prudent.
But is it really needed ?, as Rob said. Im about 14stn and 160/180 mini monos on sintered stops me quite spectacularly. In fact way better than the modern X2's, though I reckon thats down to that poncy tech lever.
Re:
I can't remember the formula but even a small increase in rotor size equates to a much larger breaking force in proportion to rotor size. What I'm trying to say is a 10% increase in rotor size wont equate to a 10% increase in breaking force it'll be greater than that.
Does that make sense :?
I can't remember the formula but even a small increase in rotor size equates to a much larger breaking force in proportion to rotor size. What I'm trying to say is a 10% increase in rotor size wont equate to a 10% increase in breaking force it'll be greater than that.
Does that make sense :?
It does actually Rob, but on the figures front I also remember the increase in actual braking power being purported as 15%.
I know some manufacturers list 180mm max bitd, but again I think thats because the 200+ was just so uncommon. But later forks likely didnt appear have anything else added metal wise as the specs would probably allow 50% increase to cover maximum strain failure.
When I look at the revelation fork ive on the cove, which is touted as a freeride fork, the PM mounts to me look actually quite narrow, and certainly look flimsier than early forks like manitou. I know its not flimsy as ive yet to hear of a mount breaking off but i suppose they must :?
But even there I'd think the IS mount would be the prone one, as the process for it parting company is shear, and metal does not like shear. PM mounts are in compression and tension, both of which are secure. The upper bolt in compression should be fine, just the lower, but again you need a considerable force to pull a bolt straight out, and it would need to be straight, not in an arc as a mount bolt would be, and be reliant on something else failing.
Next fail point would be the entire leg to snap, but the internals would be pretty much holding it together, so maybe not as catastrophic blood and guts landing.
Anyone seen that ?, i have but on carbon forks, and although touted as too big a rotor, most using such would be offroad and under considerable strain anyway :? and magnesium lowers are very strong, especially when forged and they are forged.
My tuppence worth.... er maybe like ... £4.50
I know some manufacturers list 180mm max bitd, but again I think thats because the 200+ was just so uncommon. But later forks likely didnt appear have anything else added metal wise as the specs would probably allow 50% increase to cover maximum strain failure.
When I look at the revelation fork ive on the cove, which is touted as a freeride fork, the PM mounts to me look actually quite narrow, and certainly look flimsier than early forks like manitou. I know its not flimsy as ive yet to hear of a mount breaking off but i suppose they must :?
But even there I'd think the IS mount would be the prone one, as the process for it parting company is shear, and metal does not like shear. PM mounts are in compression and tension, both of which are secure. The upper bolt in compression should be fine, just the lower, but again you need a considerable force to pull a bolt straight out, and it would need to be straight, not in an arc as a mount bolt would be, and be reliant on something else failing.
Next fail point would be the entire leg to snap, but the internals would be pretty much holding it together, so maybe not as catastrophic blood and guts landing.
Anyone seen that ?, i have but on carbon forks, and although touted as too big a rotor, most using such would be offroad and under considerable strain anyway :? and magnesium lowers are very strong, especially when forged and they are forged.
My tuppence worth.... er maybe like ... £4.50
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
