Nick Manning Posted March 19, 2012 Report Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hi all, I am posting this on behalf of Peter Cole. He has recently posted up on Facebook some pictures and a good write up of a product he has been working on for awhile now. Here is Peter's write up: Hi guys, i've been sat on this idea for a while now and i've fianlly got round to producing a prototype with some amazing results thus far. Thoughts welcome. - The unique Integrated Booster & Brake Clamp design reduces weight, flex and increases strength by removing the need for traditionally required long flexi bolts and spacers. - Frame remains under a consistent minimised flex distortion even when the rear wheel is extended in horizontal dropouts. - Lowest Booster/brake clamp profile all while increasing brake power and feel. - Excellent internal Booster profile minimises stress and thus flex with a reinforced wall rib structure. - Machined pockets in the Booster and Clamps to reduce weight whilst retaining crucial rigidity. - CNC machined from high grade billet Aluminium 6061-T6 - Includes chamfered and round edges throughout to reduce weight and sharp edges to hands. - Wide profile to protect cross-over pipes on HS33/ECHO brakes (136mm at it's widest point) - For use with dedicated 4-bolt Magura Mounts - 100mm spacing only (centre-to-centre of bolt holes) - Increased thickness around clamp radius to reduce deformation if over tightened. - Clamp design increases clamping force and removes the need for plastic cylinder washers, all you do it clamp your cylinders down and the brakes are automatically set up squarely! (Providing your frame mounts are square.) - Extra long slots (2mm longer) for more adjustment. - Compatible with all Magura HS33 and ECHO Hydraulic brakes cylinders - Weight: 146g (26" version, without bolts) Any questions, feel free to pm Peter at his Facebook address - https://www.facebook...hp?id=513434259 or discuss it here with your points of view, comments and criticisms. Thanks for reading. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pengsmelly Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Love the idea! looks great. I think the actual booster itself looks a little too fat/big width wise, but that's just me being fussy - I think it's something that cold really take off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann2707 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Epic stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigman Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 It looks good and respect for making something that looks as smart as that! But looks to me that if you have Echo slaves or run magura slaves pushed right in towards the mounts that there may be very little space for the cross over fittings to clear and allow enough room for good routing. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 It's cool and all, but expecting all frames to have 100mm spacing and to be in the right place/straight is probably a little naive. Major props for looking into it of course, that goes without saying, but certainly worth considering... Edit; Perhaps a slightly slotted arrangement to give a couple of mm of adaptability could work (provided mounts on the frame were parallel of course!) but even then a range of mounts from 95-105mm spacing would still need a fair amount of effort and would start to make things pretty nasty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Poyzer @ Onza Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Very nice work and well done for producing such accomplished drawings and good looking prototypes. Its not new however. I have three sample prototypes somewhere knocking about of three variant prototypes with the same idea, which we produced in about 2004. The stumbling block was always the variable width between mounts. First prototype also included a hose splitter. Our final prototype was in 2 halves with a dovetail sliding centre section so that you could vary the width and the middle prototype had slotted sideways holes for the same purpose. General lack of interest from riders at the time made us shelve it. This is my sketch of first prototype. Afraid all the follow up CAD's are now deleted If I remember correctly, did not someone from Russia or Ukraine produce something similar 3 or 4 years ago as well. Edited March 20, 2012 by Mike Poyzer @ Onza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I like the idea, bit of an improvement on the TNN offering (which is the finest booster I've used!) though the problem I had on my 26" frame was due to the angle of the frame where the mounts are in relation to the wheel, when the slaves were positioned in line with the rim the booster was exactly where the brake crossover needed to run so I couldn't fit it to my Because. Looking at this design I think I personally would have the same problem so I wouldn't buy one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEVE-0 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Make it sleeker and out of carbon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefletch Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 It would work better upside down surely? Thus illuminated any flex in the bolts. Its a spanking idea however, and I'd have one but the final hurdle, which is the big one, is the general low rent quality control on many trials products which relates to the frame width etc and the extremely shallow pockets of most riders (partly down to age). I think Peter Cole should sell the idea (although they will no doubt steal it anyway) to Lord Deng. Trials frames should incorporate the bottom half the a mount into the CNC's booster area that they already have. Saves weight, reduces flex and reduces the height the brake set-up protrudes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 It would work better upside down surely? Thus illuminated any flex in the bolts. Its a spanking idea however, and I'd have one but the final hurdle, which is the big one, is the general low rent quality control on many trials products which relates to the frame width etc and the extremely shallow pockets of most riders (partly down to age). I think Peter Cole should sell the idea (although they will no doubt steal it anyway) to Lord Deng. Trials frames should incorporate the bottom half the a mount into the CNC's booster area that they already have. Saves weight, reduces flex and reduces the height the brake set-up protrudes. I've been wondering why they haven't got round to doing this for a long time! After the introduction of inbuilt boosters the next step seemed obviously to mount the slave directly so that you'd only ever need the top mounts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcdk Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 I think the main reason it hasnt been done is the fact that if a frame had next to no flex we wouldent go and spend extra money on new clamps boosters cnc pads etc thus reducing profits that a company could make eg we will spend on average £60 on top of what else we have already bought on pads and booster plus more people are getting on the weight bandwagon where everything has to weigh nothing not flex and still take a bashing whilst being cheap Triajs is still a new sport compared to.the rest of cycling and is therefore still learning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Hmmm, good point. Why add something to a frame that they can just get people to buy as well as the frame for an extra x pounds. Edited April 1, 2012 by super Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Smith Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) That booster looks amazing! loving the concept behind it , this man should also have a go at making a stiff v brake booster as the only stiff nice looking one about is shimano xtr carbom booster, and they ain't stiff enough are too rare and expensive! and the mounting holes are not wide enough for most frames with wide rims and new pads :/ with the amount of people running v brakes nowdays i think there is a huge niche in the market for a stiff nice looking v brake booster that is wide enough to fit most frame, rim and pad combinations! i think he should make some strong vee adaptors aswell, the onza ones available today just ain't up to the job strength wise, and the neon and echo ones available on tartybikes don' have the adjustability, and i know that heatsink is going to release the mk3 vee adaptors again, but i don't know weather it is a ''one off'' or a permanant thing or not yet could deffo be onto a winner if he produces stuff for v brakes even half as good as that magura booster though! there just ain't anything on the market decent enough available in terms of v brake's Andrew. Edited April 2, 2012 by Andrew Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Hmmm, good point. Why add something to a frame that they can just get people to buy as well as the frame for an extra x pounds. Because if the frame is good and has this built in feature which works well, people are gonna buy your frame over other's on the market, which makes you more money through increased sales by being seen to put function before profit. Regardless of that I think there are major adjustment issues with the built in clamp design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigjames Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Because if the frame is good and has this built in feature which works well, people are gonna buy your frame over other's on the market, which makes you more money through increased sales by being seen to put function before profit. Regardless of that I think there are major adjustment issues with the built in clamp design. Exactly, it's only Echo and the smaller lower cost frames that don't have in built boosters. I would go to say the majority do have them. Not a fan of how bulky the booster section looks either personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted April 2, 2012 Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 We'll take Echo, they are selling very well and rightly so. The frame is good, plus it has the BB and chain tensioner features built in that work well too. If a frame design can incorporate a booster/clamp that is stiffer and lighter than a frame + booster + bolts + clamp, people will work this out straight away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 It appears the huge dose of sarcasm in previous post went over a couple of peoples heads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro3785 Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 Hi guys, not only have I been working on a fully integrated Magura/Echo Booster iBooster I had also turned my attention to the more streety amoung us and created a Magura 4-Bolt Mount Incorporating Vee-Brake Booster! I'm currently in the process of producing the prototype and look forward to similar results as I've had from the integrated Magura Model. - The unique Integrated Booster & Brake Vee Pin design reduces weight, flex and increases strength by removing the need for running Vee Adaptors with long flexi bolts and spacers to clear the Vee Brake arm upon which sits the booster. - Frame remains under a consistent minimised flex distortion even when the rear wheel is extended in horizontal dropouts. - Lowest Booster/Vee brake clamp profile all while increasing brake power and feel. - Excellent internal Booster profile minimises stress and thus flex with a reinforced wall rib structure. - Machined pockets in the Booster to reduce weight whilst retaining crucial rigidity. - CNC machined from high grade billet Aluminium 6061-T6 - Includes chamfered and round edges throughout to reduce weight and sharp edges to hands. - For use with dedicated 4-bolt Magura Mounts - 89mm/95mm Frame spacing (centre-to-centre of bolt holes to suit Inspired Frames?) - Featuring a choice of 2 vertical mounting positions to suit horizontal dropouts (if designed with 100mm T.G.S frame spacing. TBC) - Weight: TBC I realeased this along side my integrated Magura iBooster through FB Bristol Trials Group and have yet found the time to post it here. All thoughts welcome. Any questions, feel free to pm me or add me through Facebook - https://www.facebook...hp?id=513434259 Thanks for reading. Peter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 I've been wondering why they haven't got round to doing this for a long time! After the introduction of inbuilt boosters the next step seemed obviously to mount the slave directly so that you'd only ever need the top mounts. Cause it'd only work on frames with vertical dropouts of which there are almost non nowadays Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Cause it'd only work on frames with vertical dropouts of which there are almost non nowadays Not really,it´s only about mounts beeing perfectly square and possible crossover complications what´s problematic.Other than that,they are just as adjustable as echo tr,tnn clamps etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 How could it? If you had the bottom half of a set of mounts fixed to the frame you couldn't adjust them up and down to account for how far back the wheel is sat, or am I being dumb?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigjames Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 No you're right, mounts integrated into the frame wouldn't be much use to a frame with horizontal dropouts. The concept proposed by the topic starter would be great but only on frames with mounts spaced at nigh on perfectly100mm and that are perfectly square, something very few frames are. Still think integrated booster and mounts like the echo tr and tryall mounts are the way forwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isitafox Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Phatmike customised one of his MAD frames to have built in bottom mounts which is why I always remember it as that had vertical dropouts. He did say to me though that it worked really well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostrider88 Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) How could it? If you had the bottom half of a set of mounts fixed to the frame you couldn't adjust them up and down to account for how far back the wheel is sat, or am I being dumb?? Oh I thought you were talking about OP,If it was welded,than of course not Edited April 6, 2012 by ghostrider88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedro3785 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Share Posted April 8, 2012 Hi guys, I've had my Vee Booster Concept (Vee5) added to the thread so scroll back through to page1 to view! Comments welcome, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.