It occurred to me that a Cane Creek Direct Curve 3 or 5 (DC 3 or DC 5) V brake combined with an equalising linkage like that of an avid(Sram) "arch rival" V-brake: would allow a noodleless V brake with less curved cable entry, equal brake arm pressure (a flaw in the DC3/5), AND almost linear pad action (but with a simpler mechanism than XT parallelagram brakes).......
I think that this would struggle to work well because the arch rival linkage isn't designed to withstand any real load, only to help if one of the pivot is binding slightly. With the asymmetric brakes like the cane creek, the force developed in a similar linkage could be much, much greater.
I don't know why people get so agitated about noodles; after all the brake cable turns 90 degree in other places and we accept it, why not there too...?
Brucey wrote:I.... I don't know why people get so agitated about noodles; after all the brake cable turns 90 degree in other places and we accept it, why not there too...?
Just because every 90 degree bend is losing a predictable minimum amount of braking efficiency.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------
sure, but if that were such a big deal then no-one would use (say) aero brake levers on drops (the cable run is much nicer with exposed cables), or indeed drops even; the cable run is much nicer off flat bar levers.
V braked (direct pull) work so well because the cable moves in the same plane (at brake arms) as the brake pads. And the low Velocity Ratio of the levers mean high cable movement and thus low tension and low friction.
Power loss will be mainly in the cable and some in the noodle through friction. Power loss with deflection will be the cable compressing and the brake arms bending. Changing direction of cable through noodle because of relative low speed and low mass will not be much if any measurable through inertia. If you want efficiency then minimising links pivots etc and keeping components simple is the way.
I see lever lengths on cane greek as said might give unequal pad force, even if the clever design has corrected unequal arm length with vectors the angled cable between the brake arms means non direct pull. Also deflection of unequal brake arms might lead to unequal pad force.
Unneccesary linkage on the avid arch design is surplus to need as only when the pads contact together on rim will any practical balance of pad force be applied, i. e. if one pad contacts before the other the pad force is negligible (force here equal to brake arm return spring) so no real pad force is applied till both touch and then the pad movement is also negligible, balance is assured with equal arm length connected with one cable.
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
It occurred to me that a Cane Creek Direct Curve 3 or 5 (DC 3 or DC 5) V brake combined with an equalising linkage like that of an avid(Sram) "arch rival" V-brake: would allow a noodleless V brake with less curved cable entry, equal brake arm pressure (a flaw in the DC3/5), AND almost linear pad action (but with a simpler mechanism than XT parallelagram brakes).......
