Powered by Outside

Shimano Files Patent for a Direct-Mount Single-Sided 3-Piston Brake Caliper [Updated]

Jun 6, 2024 at 10:04
by Jessie-May Morgan  
<Photo is private>

Editor's Note: The original version of this article suggested the patent in question concerned a 6-piston brake caliper. We had incorrectly interpreted Fig. 3 as an exploded diagram of one side of a dual-sided caliper. The patent actually describes a single-sided brake caliper housing three pistons, in which only one brake pad is pushed into the moving rotor. The second pad is fixed in position.

<Photo is private>

A recent patent filing from Shimano depicts a 3-piston brake caliper that mounts directly at the drop out. In all versions, it is shown to be positioned inboard of the swingarm, directly in front of the hub. That's in stark contrast to the swingarm-mounted positions we currently see on mountain bikes. Multiple versions are shown where an adaptor bolted to the caliper bolts onto the chainstay portion of the swingarm, presumably to prevent the caliper from rotating as the brake is applied. In some versions, the adaptor is shown with a number of other mounting points, the purpose of which is not so clear.

Much of the patent's text discusses how such a design stands to be more cost-effective to manufacture, with no mention of performance benefits such as power or heat management.

<Photo is private>

Briefly, an axle mounting bracket (62) that extends radially outward from the drop out accommodates a brake pad (14), the position of which remains fixed. A second brake pad (16) is the one that is pushed by the three pistons housed within the inboard portion of the caliper body. It has a magnetic backing that acts to couple it to a magnet that appears to be housed inside one of the three pistons. All of these components are labelled in Fig. 3.

Throughout the patent document, only a rear-mounted caliper is shown.

A major advantage of mounting the caliper in this way is to ensure consistent caliper alignment with the rotor. With the position of the rotor and caliper dependent on the same thing; i.e., the position of the hub in the drop out, the assembly should allows be perfectly centered. With calipers mounted to the swingarm, there is always huge scope for misalignment, and most riders will be familiar with the time-consuming task of aligning a brake caliper to a rotor to prevent it rubbing.

<Photo is private>

An axial mounting arrangement is not uncommon in the world of motorcycles, but it is very uncommon on bicycles. A notable exception is the N°2 Caliper with floating brake arm, manufactured by Hope Technology in the 90s (thanks to Alan Weatherill for reaching out to share this). The axle-mounted design was made to allow frames without brake mounts to run a hydraulic disc brake. The caliper, mounted to a bracket extending out from the drop out, was prevented from rotating with a floating brake arm that mounted where the cantilever brake would have otherwise been positioned. All that said, that Hope caliper was a 2-piston design with one on each side pushing the pads into the path of the rotor.

<Photo is private>
<Photo is private>

That's in great contrast to the caliper depicted in this recent patent from Shimano. Being a single-sided design, there are inherent performance-limiting drawbacks. During a braking event, one of two things may happen, dependent on the exact arrangement; either the movable pad will push against the rotor forcing it to flex into the fixed pad or, the rotor is consistently in contact with the fixed pad (creating friction), and the braking only occurs when the movable pad is pushed into it.

Ultimately, it's difficult to see exactly what about this design is new, and therefore patentable. Right now, it seems there is no real performance advantage to the design and that it is basically a way to simplify and standardize brake setup on bikes where performance is not the top priority. Examples could include commuter bikes or, more likely, cargo and e-cargo bikes where utility and reliability and the top priorities.

Author Info:
jessiemaymorgan avatar

Member since Oct 26, 2023
91 articles

200 Comments
  • 130 5
 All we really wanted was the XT brakes to be like 10% more powerful with a consistent bite point. That's it. And maybe get rid of 203mm rotors and just do 200 so we can all get along. That's it. Now we're talking about a new brake, new pads and a new mounting standard.
  • 45 7
 Yeah, but we also didn't want new BB standards, wheel sizes, axle widths, handlebar diameters, freehub bodies, etc. I'll admit that sometimes new standards end up being good.
  • 52 28
 @ratedgg13: The only one on your list that you could argue was "good" is wheel diameter.

Take your 35mm bar, 29mm bb, superboost, microspline bike to 2013 and tell me which one actually made any difference. 29" wheels I can see the argument, everything else was not an improvement in performance of any kind. Maybe universal derailleur hangers could be included, although I don't see a need for them other than to sell expensive unnecessary electronics.
  • 15 4
 You need to upgrade to the Shigura.
  • 46 10
 @Caddz: yeah cuz we'd all be stoked to be riding 22.2 mm bars, 135mm qr, and freewheels on our otherwise modern bikes right?
  • 10 34
flag mrbrighteyes (Jun 6, 2024 at 11:01) (Below Threshold)
 @chriskneeland: Shigura also sucks because you have to deal with the "German engineering genius" that is plastic housing, plastic brake lever bodies, and plastic threads.

Obviously Shimano doesn't hold guys like Kerr back, but I have no idea how. Their brakes are trash.
  • 42 4
 @Caddz: UDH means everyone can run the same cheap hanger, with or without electronics. It is definitely good.
  • 9 0
 Mountain bikers get bored easy, new stuff sells.
  • 10 3
 @Caddz: saying wide range 1x (hg freehub bodies couldn’t really accommodate that) isn’t a performance improvement is a hot take my guy
  • 6 1
 @imbiker: It's funny because it's true.
  • 9 1
 Sounds like you want Saints?
  • 4 0
 @ratedgg13: I don't know if you were already on a bike but when thruaxles replaced QR all of us embraced it and were happy to have it. Same for when we went from square taper to isis, which turned out to eat bearings and then outboard bearings BB with thru axle cranks which were the solution. But since it is only new standards for little to no improvement so yeah we got weary.
  • 10 0
 @JSTootell: As someone who owns a Nukeproof frame with UDH, I can vouch for the fact it is a good thing. As well as a masterclass business move on SRAM's part.
  • 1 0
 @Balgaroth: thru axels were already a thing. Just not used as much.
  • 14 0
 @olafthemoose: Shimano 11-51 11 speed cassettes run on HG freehub bodies. If you consider that missing 12th cog (10t) a performance improvement that justifies a new freehub body (and shifter, and derailleur), more power to you, but I don't.
  • 10 4
 @Caddz: 35mm bar enabled wider than 800mm without weighing a ton, 29mm BB is a better sealed version of the older 30mm BB, which is better for bearing life, super boost is the logical conclusion to the wider flanges = stronger, stiffer wheels (which is very much needed for them 29er wheels you think are so good), and microspline is an unfortunate side effect of the two party drivetrain system we have, but XD is far better than HG. Udh is definitely a benefit for the bike industry, they could just do with making a cheaper qr compatible version for cheap bikes so there's only two mech hangers in existence, every bike shop could have a box of each and any bike is compatible, would be amazing.

So yeah, although new standards seem arbitrary at times, in this case the result is definitely greater than the sum of it's parts. Late 2000s full susses pretty much sucked compared to anything from the last 10 years, and even modern budget bikes are hands down better built than pretty much anything from back then. I'm all for progress in MTB design.
  • 1 0
 Wouldn't be MTB without a new standard
  • 3 0
 They basically have those already, they're called Saints. Saints are so good, Shimano had to come up with this crazy setup to move the needle. 14 years old and still relevant. Not to say that whatever is going on with this patent isn't totally cuckoo.
  • 3 7
flag therealmancub (Jun 6, 2024 at 13:24) (Below Threshold)
 @chriskneeland: Quit suggesting this as a solution, when it comes so safety I do not want to be brand-mixing parts designed as a system
  • 1 1
 @ratedgg13: Eh, yes AND half of the standards those things are complete garbage. 2 backward 2 steps forward repeat every 2 years.
  • 1 0
 @grgsmith: progress must progress.
  • 2 0
 @chriskneeland: shigura don’t wander? I’d assumed the issue is at the lever body.
  • 2 0
 @shredddr: Shiguras have self -regulating bite point progressivity (SRBPP) and it’s awesome
  • 2 0
 @VtVolk: While the 10 tooth sprocket is the more obvious benefit of the Microspline freehub, there's another substantial improvement there: The thicker splines. I've seen plenty of sprockets stuck on an (aluminum) Hyperglide freehub because they dug into the splines under pedal power, but haven't come across a Microspline freehub with that damage yet.
  • 6 2
 @therealmancub: not much of a man club if you're stressing over stuff like this. The only safety issue that can come about would stem from an improper install (probably with a wrong olive / barb), which can happen with a full magura or shimano setup too.

The caliper does not know what brand lever is up top, it simply receives fluid pressure and moves pistons. Maybe if this was part of the bosch ABS system they have on some ebikes then there could be issues, but in a fully mechanical system there's not really hidden variables to worry about your safety. Both brakes work on the same principals using the same fluid, with the same line diameter.
  • 1 0
 @fabwizard: I guess they were already in use in MX bikes and since most of the good "innovation" in MTB comes from downsizing MX gear to replace our road bike heritage, yeah maybe they existed but in the late 90s most DH frames were still using QR, let alone everything else.
  • 1 0
 @ratedgg13: It'd be nice if the bike industry would let the consumer ride their bikes instead of always feeling like we are behind on the newest tech....
  • 4 0
 @scottlink: That's all on us consumers. It's an industry of marginal gains. Is this year's latest & greatest really going to improve your riding by any significant degree? Ride your bike a couple more seasons or years longer than you think. Wait for a few years to go by and let all those improvements accumulate. Then, the next bike you throw a leg over will feel worlds different. Or, ride a singlespeed.

I know, I know...I am not a very good capitalist vis-a-vis good American.
  • 3 0
 @archibaldbarisol: that's exactly what I do. 2012 bike to a 2019 was miles apart, and next bike will probably be a 2025 model year and feel miles apart again. As an (very) average rider, a mid level bike is more than good enough for me every 5 years or so. Plenty of time to get fully in sync with the bike and get my money's worth.
  • 1 2
 @KolaPanda: None of what you wrote means a thing; if they were not designed together, they are not safe to work together.

Go ahead with a false sense of security, but don't recommend to others what you believe is safe when it cannot be proven.
  • 1 1
 @j-t-g: we’ve had 150x12 and 110x20 for ever. Also things like 1.5 HT/steerers. They could have been adopted across all MTB disciplines instead of countless axel and steerer standards. We also wouldn’t have needed boost drive trains/frames to cope with the new wider axles.
I’m not saying there hasn’t been improvements, I’m just saying that very few have actually been about improving the riding experience.
Microspline Is also a terrible interface (loose cogs and a lockring still? Really?), which Shimano really dropped the ball on. So is a brake with three moving pistons on one side, and static on the other IMO. Hayes Sole, anyone?
Also, 31.6 bars do everything that a 35 does. As does 30.9 seat tube. They’ve been around for 20 years and don’t need a dozen variants.
  • 3 0
 @Moorey: you don't understand rear axle standards. 150 and 148 are actually 9mm apart, because the equivalent dh standard is 157mm, the dropouts have the little 3.5mm deep recesses for the end caps of the hub to locate in, which is a whole lot easier than fighting your rear mech spring trying to line it up with one hand and fit the axle with the other, the +7mm standards (142, 148, 157) are a definite improvement over the flat dropout versions (135 and 150, obviously boost they didn't bother with a flat dropout version because it's terrible). There is however a 141 boost qr. And there is a noticeable difference in stiffness between a 142 rear wheel and a 148.

And 35mm bars are available in wider widths than 31.8.

And 95% of the odd seat tube sizes have died off in the last 10 years, konas always had 30mm seat tubes, I've got an old giant hardtail frame (boulder circa 2007ish) that's a 28.something. the move to 34.9 is great for longer droppers, bigger diameter stanchions and bigger bushings are only ever a good thing.
  • 1 0
 @Moorey: oh and 1.5 steerers were great, until you had to find a stem irr headset for one. I had a totem 15 years ago, had a choice of about 3 stems at the time, and maybe 3 or 4 headsets. And it's just not needed, if you need that level of stiffness just run a dual crown, the bigger head tubes being able to reach or angle adjust is great for customisation though.
  • 2 1
 @inked-up-metalhead: 31.8 bars in 800mm are perfect. People are just poseurs going wider.
  • 1 0
 @Moorey: maybe for you. Some people are 6ft 6 or have gorilla arms. I'm on 820 raceface atlas' and think they're great, my old 785 31.8 atlas' felt a bit narrow for the heavier ebike.

I'm 6ft 1, but most definitely gorilla armed, my arm span is 6ft 7, I've got broad shoulders and long arms.
  • 2 0
 @inked-up-metalhead: if you’re convinced that 10mm each side is a game changer that requires a complete new bar/stem standard, I have a plot of land on the moon I’d sell you got a good price
  • 2 1
 @Moorey: 10mm can make a big difference when it makes your bike fit you just that much better. I'm not as gorilla proportioned as @inked-up-metalhead, but going from a 780mm bar to an 800mm with the same length stem made a huge difference in how I felt on the bike. 35mm bars are an objective improvement over 31.8mm, better stiffness to weight, and strength to weight, but it's one of those improvements that people choose to ignore for some reason.
  • 2 2
 @eae903: or….swear they notice for some reason
  • 1 0
 @Caddz: Na they should have standardized at 28".
All other sizes go up in increments of 2, so we should have had 26" and 28" wheels and called it good.
  • 2 0
 @barp: sprockets biting into alloy splines on HG freehubs was solved long ago by integrating thin steel plate into the edge of one or two splines.
  • 2 0
 @carrottread: if it was so solved, why do companies not do it across the board and why does it still happen?
  • 1 0
 @therealmancub: are you aware that across most other fields of motorsport there's no real relation to making sure your brand of pedals / levers has to match your calipers? Fundamentally I'm trying to explain to you that the brake system has a set amount of variables it is designed for (fluid type, line interface, mounting style) and working within those variables allows you to run a setup different than factory.

It's not like putting brembos on a toyota is inherently going to lead to the brakes failing. Folks with engineering knowledge are capable of putting the same thought into an install as the manufacturer. On the flip side of that, manufacturers are also capable of making huge oversights in product design.

Putting them on a pedestal that they're the only ones capable of safety is a belief that stems from an incomplete picture of what it means to engineer a product. Each product inherently comes with baked in compromises in order to fit what they want to make, and generally safety items like brakes are going to have failure modes that happen gradually. Replacing the shitty plastic magura lever with an alloy lever body takes away a means for catastrophic failure (snapping the lever off the clamp), along with making it less likely to damage plastic threads when you're servicing them.

Your statements are true some of the time, but believing that they are true 100% of the time is an oversimplification. What does it mean to prove something is safe? There's the baseline standards within ISO 4210-4:2023 (that both shimano and magura have validated their parts to), but those baseline standards don't cover some of the failures that can occur in real world uses. Along with that there's then real world testing and validation, which for shigura's I agree isn't formalized, however I've yet to see anyone in the years people have been doing it have a failure from something outside of install error. It's not that I have a false sense of security, it's that I'm informed enough to see that this upgrade removes some of the compromise baked into the initial design.
  • 1 0
 @carrottread: Or just make the whole freehub steel, yeah. But weight weenies gonna weight weenie.
  • 1 0
 @davemays: 29ers are close to 28" anyways depending on the tire. We should have just used the 700c label instead of this weird tire diameter measurement. Makes more sense to have 600a, 650b, and 700c for wheel sizes across all types of bike, (yes I know 600a and 26" rim are different diameters
  • 1 0
 @eae903: Not all "700" rims are "C" and not all "650" rims are "B" though. The "NumberLetter" sizes originally designated not just the bead seat diameter, but a specific tire width as well. So even when we use the French size names, we're usually using them wrong. We should really just use ISO rim and tire sizes.

www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#french
  • 2 0
 @KolaPanda: at the end of the day we're not swapping chains or cassettes, it's a brake system. I understand where you're coming from but we can't perpetuate the idea that the layman can just swap out brake parts willy-nilly - and I know that's not your angle, but a lot of people out there believe to know more than they do and we shouldn't go around giving them poor advice.
  • 2 0
 @barp: fair enough.
  • 2 0
 @therealmancub: yeah that's a valid point
  • 2 1
 @therealmancub: Turning your XT's into Shigura's is probably the best advice you can give someone.
  • 1 0
 I’d just settle for a reliable bite point.
  • 1 0
 @CustardCountry: switch brake fluid from standard mineral oil to redline likewater. Problem solved.
  • 1 0
 @ratedgg13: but shouldn’t it work fine with Shimano oil rather than needing to go out and buy one specific brand of oil?
  • 1 0
 @CustardCountry: totally agree. But since it doesn't, some people have found solutions, ranging from shigura to likewater.
  • 2 0
 We also want piston seals that don’t leak or at least the ability to service them and not have to throw the whole calliper out.
  • 66 0
 I'm holding out for that Shimano/Gillette partnership that gives us 17 piston brakes, and a little strip that cleans them too.
  • 14 0
 Who doesn't like a little strip out front
  • 19 0
 @DizzyNinja: better than a big strip out back
  • 1 0
 Thank you. This was the comment I was looking for.
  • 45 1
 Thanks i also hate being able to access my brake pads
  • 22 1
 We can only hope that this will introduce a new axle diameter and dropout width, because what the consumer really needs is options. Personally, I want a 16.99mm axle in a ModerateBoost width.
  • 10 0
 careful, I have already trademarked the following: MediumBoost, MediocreBoost, Boostish, OKAYboost, MamabearBoost.
  • 5 0
 @Mtbdialed: 100% read manbearboost at first read.
  • 16 0
 This is the conventional way to mount a rear disc brake on motorcycles, and the advantage is that you maintain perfect rotor alignment even with chainstay length adjustments or caliper removal because the caliper position is indexed to the axle and hub, not the frame. No more fidgety caliper alignment frustrations.
  • 5 0
 And the patent is actually mostly about this, not the piston count. They're also bringing up the adapter/mount being part of the caliper, but I don't think that's a thing motorcycles (yet?)
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: My guess is the next patent is the mirror it on the other side for a derailleur mount that negates the need for a UDH entirely and makes it so you can have 1 spare do 2 jobs.
  • 16 1
 "Perhaps of equal interest to the number of pistons is the way in which this caliper is mounted."

The last paragraph... way to bury the lede! The mounting is the primary thing mentioned in the patent! In fact, the only mention of numbers of pistons is to point out that it could be a single-piston system.

The mounting system dominates the document text, including that the adapter can be an integral part of the caliper, and that making it axle centric simplifies the frame portion of the mounting system. They're claiming the integration allows for simplified and potentially more compact systems, which makes sense, and _allows_ increasing the piston count but does not require it.

Simplifying the mounting system comes from the axle being part of the positioning, so the mounting points on the frame are free to be moved around. It could be inside the frame as shown, or it could be belong the chainstay, or above the seatstay. The real point is that the axle constrains most of the positioning, thus the frame mount only has to manage the force transfer and can more easily be placed in the strongest place for a given frame since it doesn't have to deal with locating the caliper relative to the axle.

tl:dr; This patent is about mount positioning and mount integration, NOT about piston count.
  • 2 0
 Very good point some of us noticed.
  • 14 3
 it doesn't really matter if the entire system is hydraulic or not. it's not like there is a system that is cycling the fluid through the entire system. the fluid in a standard MTB brake doesn't ciruculate, and there for doesn't do much besides transmit heat a tiny bit up the hose via thermal transfer. I mean, why does the caliper get hot but the lever is ambiant?

The only hope to lower fluid temps at the caliper, would be a much larger fluid capacity at the caliper, and cooling fins of some sort.
  • 22 0
 I have called out this before on Pinkbike articles, Hydraulic brakes are not better at thermal management than mechanical systems.

Watch this video, the heat transfer up the hose is minimal
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqMuxfHd9Vg

Hydraulic brakes are much better at transfer of mechanical work from lever to caliper without losses, thus giving more power and usually better modulation.
  • 8 1
 @superkeen: @Mtbdialed: careful, this kind of making sense is liable to get your fact-filled comments down-voted beyond threshold.
  • 2 0
 @superkeen: Even the heat transfer into the _caliper_ is minimal, when compared to the rotor (and the pads, check out the pad fixing bolt!). The spokes get radiatively heated just from being near the rotor just about as much as the outside of the caliper gets heated from conduction (seems to be the same color yellow-green in the thermal image).
  • 3 0
 @superkeen: 1) holy crap. It’s *not* the hydraulic press channel.

2) cool video. But I wonder how much father up the hose the heat might travel during, say, a less-than-expert rider’s run down a steep and techy trail. Obviously the point about levers never getting hot still stands. But I’m genuinely curious how things shake out in a more broadly applicable context.
  • 1 0
 @justinfoil: And don't they use phenolic or ceramic pistons specifically to minimise conduction?
  • 1 0
 @boozed: sounds familiar, probably been quoted in more than a few PB articles. But they're still spout off about "moar fluid in hose make gooder breaks!" because it they think it's fun to shit on companies that aren't on their list of cool (chinese company making mech-hydro hybrid brakes is not on that list, it seems)
  • 2 0
 With no patent number for reference...
  • 4 0
 @chriskneeland: yeah. And the rotor is a Centerline in the filing.
  • 13 1
 I'm wandering if they'll get it right this time...
  • 11 0
 7 Minute Abs...
  • 6 0
 8 minutes??? Who's got that kind of time?!?!??!!!??
  • 1 0
 @ReformedRoadie: 7's the magic number!
  • 4 0
 I ride a Hope Mono 6 - the brakes weren't terribly strong until I slapped the new Tech4 levers on. Still don't think I need 6 pistons, I just think it's cool Big Grin
So yeah, I hope Shimano never builds these so that my silly brakes stay bling.
  • 3 0
 Those Tech4 levers are the bomb.
  • 7 0
 Some sort of universal brake hanger ?
  • 6 3
 So 4 piston Brembos on a sport bike have enough power to stand it up on the front wheel with 1 finger, WITH great modulation and feel but we need 6 piston brakes on a pedal bike?

I know, apples to much larger apples and all....
  • 8 1
 It's not about power, it's about packaging. Power comes from piston surface area, not piston count. Those 6 pistons are quite small, and besides, the piston count and configuration is not even mentioned in the patent.
  • 3 0
 I would add that on motocycles the rotors are bigger and the wheel smaller than a bicycle so the ratio of the force created by the wheel's lever arm and the force needed at the rotor is closer to 1 for a motorcycle and higher on a bicycle.
  • 4 0
 On a sport bike, you've got two brakes up front, so technically 8 pistons Wink
  • 1 0
 @micahaalders3: True, but it also weighs 450lbs and is going MUCH faster. Maybe a supermoto is a better motorcycling analogy.
  • 3 0
 grapes to coconuts
  • 3 0
 What's older - the average age of PB commenters, or Grimeca System 8 brakes aka Shimano XT BR-755? Grimeca also did a 6-piston System 17 version.

I have some old 755s on old bikes and they are great with a modern XT lever.

Bring back the crazy prototype double-rotor, 3-pad, radiator-cooled set-up that Shimano was experimenting with waaaaaay back in the Airline days lol. www.pinkbike.com/photo/17460529
And Marzocchi forks of the same vintage, some had brake tabs on both sides for dual front brakes, hah!
www.pinkbike.com/photo/17460528
  • 7 1
 Do we really need to overdo every part of the bike?
  • 13 1
 More pistons means more pistons to lubricate, more seals to potentially fail, more chance of uneven action, more chance of a rubbing disc. What's not to love?
  • 3 0
 There's only one upside: there's not a single added piston to replace in case it breaks since it's Shimano.
  • 1 0
 This might actually be one of those that just makes sense, locating the brake directly on the axle is actually a much better idea than putting a welded frame between it from a tolerance management perspective. Ignore the 6 piston part of this patent, that is not important.
  • 5 1
 6 piston is way too much overkill, especially on the rear. I’m sure it’s heavy too. Why is everything getting heavier? The new Mavens are big ugly boat anchors.
  • 3 0
 Ebikes.
  • 1 0
 and Suron's...
  • 6 0
 Cargo bikes are super heavy and rear brake bias.

You’re welcome.
  • 2 0
 Isn't this called a "radial mount"? Motorcycles have been doing it forever. I've never understood why mtb brakes have the offset mounting, Radial mounts are lot easy to work with, design around, etc. This should have happened when disc brakes were first developed for mtb's. This industry is a mess when it comes to standards. I refer to them as non-standards. Let see it!!!
  • 3 1
 There's nothing about 6 pistons in this filing. Fig. 3 shows a 3-piston single-sided caliper and references a magnetic mechanism in the diagrams for the fixed side (#58, pg. 33, "it is possible to magnetically attract one of the first brake pad and second brake pad. Thus it is possible to synchronize the movement of the first brake pad and the piston, smoothening(sic) the operation of the disc brake caliper"). This is a strange caliper, but not for the reasons anyone above is talking about.
  • 2 0
 It would be great if someone that has even a basic understanding of patents wrote these articles. No mention of any of the claims in the patent which in the US is the only enforceable part. The pictures and description serve mostly as prior art.
  • 2 0
 "to ensure consistent caliper alignment with the rotor. With the position of the rotor and caliper dependent on the same thing; i.e., the position of the hub in the drop out"

A major reason that most brakes have lateral adjustment isn't just because the frame-mount-to-dropout distance has a tolerance, but also because the dropout/endcap-to-rotor-mount distance has a tolerance as well. Ever swapped wheels (swapping the same rotor between the wheels) and had to realign the caliper to get rid of a rub? Same frame mount, so caliper and it's mount haven't moved in relation to the dropout, but the rotor _has_ moved relative to the dropout.

This design eliminates the frame-mount-to-dropout alignment, but keeps the rotor-to-dropout/endcap alignment and adds the bracket-to-dropout/endcap alignment, so still two things to rely on for alignment. If there is no lateral adjustment, it's relying solely on the tolerances of the bracket and the hub, and history shows that hub tolerances are already less than ideal for rotor alignment.
  • 5 0
 Will perfectly pair with a 13 speed drivetrain.
  • 18 0
 Don't you put that evil on me ricky bobby
  • 6 1
 Ultimate trolling with the SRAM-esque rotor
  • 4 0
 Where are the 6 pistons? the Patent looks like it shows a single sided 3 piston design.
  • 4 2
 Broped bros get chonky from the lack ‘o wattage generation. Then we have all these chonktastic broped bros on their chonky rigs. So now we need more powerful brakes because broped chonk.
  • 1 0
 Sorry pinkbike but to have a 6 pot caliper you need six pistons and clearly this is only 3-off. Looks a bit naff to me as the fixed pad really is fixed, and looks to rely on flex to get the correct clearance/preload with the disc.
  • 1 0
 The Magura Gustav brake patent must have expired and someone at Shimano thought they could do better. The Gustav was a floating caliper with one sided fixed pad and two piston caliper on the other side. The floating aspect is the best part!
  • 5 1
 the rotor on the first picture strangely resembles sram centerline
  • 2 0
 Unless this works as a floating brake or an ABP, which would be great.. I much prefer my brake above the seat stay, Easier to work on. an, 2 pistons are fine thanks
  • 3 0
 Is this the battle of the patents?
  • 3 0
 We are getting so close to bluetooth brakes I can feel it.......
  • 4 0
 Bluetooth being so reliable…
  • 6 0
 @BermJunky: Idk my JBL gets pretty good range
  • 2 0
 And don't forget to put a 6 pot caliper on each side of the fork to really give you that 'over the bars' capability.
  • 2 0
 Interesting how they use a sram centerline-esque 6-bolt rotor design on a Shimano patent drawing.
  • 1 0
 More failure points, eh? I’d like to see a powerful, reliable, and affordable 2-piston setup from one of the big companies.
  • 2 0
 @TurboDonuts Dominions come in a two-piston package and are often on sale...
  • 1 0
 @therealmancub: I saw a review recently that highlighted the poor QC / reliability of the A4 setup. My LBS has also reported some hit-miss situations with customers
  • 1 1
 @therealmancub: And Curas
  • 1 0
 @TurboDonuts: I have two pairs of A4's and a pair of A2's and have had no issues
  • 1 0
 @J26z: Long ago I had half a service manual come up in Italian, in the English version. Never again!
  • 3 0
 6 piston?
looks more like a floating 3 piston to me like the Gustav was.
  • 2 0
 yep, parts 60, 58 and 56 are defined as spacers, NOT pistons.
pad 14 screws to part 18 (62) therefore does not move relative to the left side of the "caliper"
  • 1 0
 Talking about speed sensors gave me a related idea: Is this intended for anti-lock brakes, as already found on some e-cargo bikes?
  • 1 1
 Complicating a simple design. Why not join the standard (with SRAM) of getting rid of the derailleur hanger? And, work with other manufacturers to standardize ebike motor frame mounts?
  • 3 0
 No!
  • 8 6
 Slovenly mopedders rejoice
  • 2 0
 Things that make you go "Hmmm...."
  • 1 1
 Would an axle mounted caliper seperate braking forces from suspension movement more effectively? Could be a big win in DH if so.
  • 1 0
 That's already a thing with the various floating brake mounts that have been tried. This is not that. It's using the axle for positioning, but still need to be fixed to the frame for force transfer.
  • 2 0
 They say bigger's better, but bigger's bigger.
  • 2 1
 just give the ppl a hg+ 11s steel cogs on aluminium carrier cassette with a decent rear mech.
  • 9 0
 Dude, it's literally what the linkglide family of drivetrains is for. 11-51 11s full steel cassette and linkglide XT mech/shifter. Solves all your problems. Best most durable system i've ever had.
  • 4 0
 @zdus13: you got me! i was about to comment on its weight, but surprisingly it's less than a 11-51 deore!
  • 2 0
 What a load of b*llocks. They'll be telling use we 'need' 30.5" rims next.
  • 7 0
 Is bullocks really profanity?
  • 3 0
 @DizzyNinja: g*sh d*rn it!
  • 1 0
 @warmerdamj: F*ck that, im callin BS.
  • 10 12
 "More pistons means more powerful braking."

Does it? Main piston area to caliper piston area creates the power relation (and motion ratio). Number of pistons is arbitrary for a given surface area. More pistons may _allow_ more surface area, but it doesn't have to. It may be used purely for packaging: changing the size and shape of the caliper.
  • 7 0
 Why is this downvoted? It's correct.
  • 1 0
 @Muckal: No one is allowed to criticize or correct PB authors.
  • 2 0
 @justinfoil: again what learned, like we Germans say! Thanks!
  • 2 0
 So more pistons to weep fluid or has that been sorted?
  • 1 0
 My just-out-of-warranty M7120 calipers indicate that is not...
  • 1 0
 The disadvantage is you need a new bracket and/or caliper for each rotor size.
  • 1 0
 Which is not so different from the current situation, where you need a new bracket/adapter for each rotor size.
  • 2 0
 Pistons are the new disposable razor blades!
  • 1 0
 so basically they cant invent new right side mount as sram did the thing already and decided do to the left side?
  • 2 0
 My Harley wants its brake design back!
  • 1 0
 In today's episode of "The industry is desperately finding shit to try and sell you"....
  • 2 0
 6-pistons is not enough. We need 7-pistons!
  • 1 0
 Wasn't there already a consensus that the Mavens are too powerful? Seems like we don't need 6 pistons if that's the case.
  • 1 0
 How cheeky that Shimano used Sram disc drawing to submit a patent. Well done.
  • 1 1
 Just a question for the people who said we needed boost to accommodate the new Drivetrains, remind me why we can still run 12 speed with HG on an old 135mm hub?
  • 1 0
 why not two front discs
i mean it would stop the turn of usd forks if you break (sorry for the english)
  • 1 1
 That's a lot of force to put through an intentionally weak point on the bike. Announcing 35mm Axel's in 3, 2, 1...
  • 1 0
 Does everything need to be direct mount now?
  • 1 0
 I'd argue that directly mounting to the component you need tight tolerances with is far superior to mounting it from the frame. So yes, maybe everything should become direct mount.
  • 1 2
 Broped bros don’t work on their own bikes, so yeah. Internal everything. Direct mount everything. Just hide any indication of any mechanical processes occurring on the broped.
  • 1 0
 Why does this Shimano patent show a SRAM rotor in the first diagram?
  • 1 0
 How much longer till we slap Brembos on our bikes?
  • 2 0
 Brembo had a limited production of MTB brakes some 20 years ago. They are a highly desirable item for collectors.
  • 1 0
 @nozes: Thanks yeah I thought I remembered something like that… wasn’t sure if it was Brembo or another motorcycle brand!
  • 2 0
 You're welcome.
  • 1 0
 for heavy e-bike? why no use truck brake?
  • 1 0
 Does that Shimano diagram show an XD freehub?
  • 1 0
 Huh, several people here have pointed out that the diagram shows a SRAM rotor already, but I believe you're the first to point out that the freehub is also a SRAM part--nice catch.

This made me double check the actual document, and it does indeed say Shimano on it... Any IP attorneys know what's going on here? Just trolling? Or is this a way for Shimano to assert that if SRAM copies it, they're definitely in violation of the patent?
  • 1 1
 *oops, that was supposed to be a reply*
  • 2 1
 TRPs or bust
  • 1 1
 Only 6! Come on, we want more, more....
  • 1 0
 God no! Please no!
  • 1 0
 Orr norr
  • 1 0
 Stop it.
  • 1 0
 Awesome , speed kills !
  • 1 1
  !!!!!
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.050707
Mobile Version of Website