Are brake arms part of the "fuselage form"??

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Dalai,
Good question, that was a design consideration.
"A fuselage form shall be defined as an extension or streamlining of a section. This shall be tolerated as long as the ratio between the length (L) and the diameter (D) does not exceed 3."
While each arm is certainly more than 3x deeper than the width, I would argue that the "fuselage" applies to the extents of the entire brake. The Egg Brake is actually a thin shell of metal (hence the name). The arm thickness is most comparable to the thickness a frame tube wall rather than the whole tube. That is my take on it anyhow.
Matt

While it could be argued that the handlebars and seatposts are part of the "fuselage"...I'm thinking that componentry such as brakes, chainrings, derailleurs, crankarms, quick-release levers, shifter cables, etc. are NOT part of the fuselage (and the UCI has said so in the past IIRC). So, I would think the point is moot.

I think I'd be more concerned about the brakes meeting the applicable DIN standards (which is also required for UCI "approval"), since that requires actual testing...at least that's how I remember it.

But...for the vast majority of people, especially triathletes, UCI "legality" isn't an issue in the first place.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Tom,
I was thinking about that rule some more. Below is a picture describing the last reply. The thin walls are structural and I would have to think that they pass muster with UCI.
If anyone out there has an interpretation (i.e. a UCI official) or a story about an official not allowing a bike into a race, I would love to hear about it.

That UCI rule

Matt,

I know that weight is not that important on aero brakes but I have been asked several times what the weight of each brake is. Do you have this information that you can share with the group.

Thanks

I'm not Matt, but the weight of the rear brake (I didn't weigh the front before mounting it...but the only difference is the length of the mounting bolt) came in at exactly 150g for me. I can't imagine the front weighing much more than a gram or two more...

I thought I reported this earlier in the thread?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I can't see these brakes being an aero problem, but sooner or later the parts issue will come up. How long until someone comes up with QR level where the lever is big enough to fair part of the RD.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

[/reply]
I'm not Matt, but the weight of the rear brake (I didn't weigh the front before mounting it...but the only difference is the length of the mounting bolt) came in at exactly 150g for me. I can't imagine the front weighing much more than a gram or two more...

I thought I reported this earlier in the thread?[/reply]
What is the difference between the front and rear? Could I buy a pair and just use them both as a front on 2 different bikes?

So that would put them almost at the same weight as the new Dura-Ace calipers. That is not bad since they are way more aero.

For all who are into aero brakes I am putting my hooker cat 1 frame,fork,brakes, and seatpost on ebay through my lbs website.

Thanks for the reply about UCI legalities Matt, kudos for making this brake.

Like I said Tom, UCI rules won't interest most on this site. But it does me as due to a forced hiatus from running, I am currently just focusing on the road and track at the moment. And here in Australia, our cycling federation follows the UCI rules to the letter even for local events. So I am being forced to swap out my safe but illegal Vision Tech integrated bars for 2010...

So who's picked these up? Post some pics of them installed.

I do not have them installed yet but I am sure that I could put them on just for some pictures if you like. I have pictures of the brakes themselves which are on the camera downstairs at the moment and will try to post them later tonight.

The brakes are 300-301g's (scale was flickering between the two) for the pair and the workmanship is very good. Just about the break down the bike for a new paint job so they may not be mounted for some time.

If you have any trouble uploading a pic you can send them to me. I would like to see them myself.
simkinsdesigns@gmail.com

I guess I should get right to the point. What I'm really interested in is how well they line up with the profile of various frames, especially the rear of the p3c.

They look well executed on the front fork, but I'm wondering about the back end.

I can tell you from dry fitting them onto my P2K that they are tight to the seat stays and I had to take a double look to see if they were hitting. I will not be mounting them any time soon as I will be getting the frame painted in the very near future so they will stay boxed for now. Was thinking about mounting them to my SLC but that is getting painted as well.

The only thing that I might change over is the barrel adjustment bolt as I have some aluminum button head black anodized bolts that I have modified into adjustment barrels that are way more aero looking and lower stack height than the ones supplied that I think might look a bit more trick than the ones supplied. Not sure I will go that route yet but we will play a bit before actual mounting.

Good things come to those who wait.

On a P4:
http://palladinospics.shutterfly.com/27
http://palladinospics.shutterfly.com/28
http://palladinospics.shutterfly.com/29
(sorry for the links and not direct pics)

---

Steve Palladino
http://www.permanente.net/...tor/steve_palladino/
http://www.eteamz.com/...rt=24&id=4591042

You can put a spacer on the brake to get a little bit of standoff. To get the maximum drag advantage the brakes should have a really snug fit. If they will clear without a spacer, I would recommend that. This statement was verified with computer modeling.

Ideally, there would be no gap and the brake would flow right into the fork. One person who is using the Egg Brake even put tape in the gap.

I realize that they look like they will not clear the frame, but when you get them mounted up they should clear any fork or frame.

I think you are correct about the adjuster. I chose not to anodize it because that area gets handled and the anodizing could wear off. They are not the prettiest adjusters, but they are the smallest ones that I know of. If you find some that work, and look nice, please tell me. That is one of those things that is really easy to change.

I have them mounted and have ridden them. Very great stoppers. I haven't taken pictures yet on the bike.

BTW, Matt I showed the study to a friend and team mate that is an aerodynamic engineering professor at the University of Illinois Champaign/ Urbana. He felt it was done very well but he calculated the power savings at 5 watts over the Cervelo brake.

How'd he calculate that?

I have some modified aluminum bolts that I have drilled out the head to fit the end of the cable housing and then drilled out the center to 2mm to allow the brake cable to run through it. The nice part about this is that you still have some adjustability but a very smooth looking button head. Also very small. I just need to go through my 6 boxes of parts to find the ones that I made and will post some pictures when I get a moment. Not really something that is production ready for you but a nice touch for me.

Cheers.

Kraig Willett apparently doesn't believe that the differences are real (or at least so I have been told).

I have read his posts over there and I would agree that he does not feel that the 3w-5w is real but I believe he said that he would love to test a pair of these brakes.

well that's the kiss of death ....

I just used them at IMAZ, front and rear, and they provided smooth, strong braking action and plenty of grip. I'm very pleased with the purchase. No pics at the moment as the bike will be in transport for a while.

---

-------
Joe