Old 08-10-21, 10:37 AM
  #23  
cudak888 
www.theheadbadge.com
 
cudak888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern Florida
Posts: 28,514

Bikes: http://www.theheadbadge.com

Mentioned: 124 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 4,396 Times in 2,093 Posts
Originally Posted by pastorbobnlnh
My speculation would be that the holders Kool Stop received and used for these reproductions might have been crimped more than normal. Thus leading to the undersized pads you received. Might there be a practical way to shim the pads as you insert them into the holders? Possibly, thin aluminum strips from a beverage can?
Possibly, but to @BFisher's point about variation in manufacturing - why risk patterning the new replacement against the holder when it's safer to copy the pad?

Thin strips from a beverage can won't cut it for the Humber. I didn't pay $24.95 for brake pads for a fit that's worse than the cheapest Indian repops money can buy. Ditto for the John Bulls, which - unlike the rod pads - are downright unusable.

Originally Posted by SJX426
What is missing for me is the measured dimension of the radius base of all pads shown. Are they the same or different?
Excellent point. Here you go:




Originally Posted by BFisher
All I can say is that Kool Stop's rod brake pads fit my holders perfectly. They make great products. If multiple specs exist, and that seems so, they can't be expected to meet every one. Consistency of the British cycling industry being what it was. You can see tool marks on both ends where they were pinched in manufacturing.
It looks as if you had to round out the normally open end to get it to stay in the holder, more so than one would have to do with a stock pad.

It's a method of making them work, but I dare say that there's a larger gap to the bottom of the pad here than it appears, due to the crimping.

-Kurt
__________________












cudak888 is offline