# Why No Disc Brakes ?



## moonmoth (Nov 8, 2008)

At a recent UCI Cyclocross race, I noticed the posted entry rules did not permit bikes with disc brakes. Why would that be? Is it a safety issue when the bikes are being carried?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Search the Cyclocross board for "Disc". Plenty of threads on the topic.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/search.php?searchid=1993130


----------



## myette10 (Jul 20, 2003)

moonmoth said:


> At a recent UCI Cyclocross race, I noticed the posted entry rules did not permit bikes with disc brakes. Why would that be? Is it a safety issue when the bikes are being carried?


Six years ago at a Supercup race in Piraat, the front rotor came off Jenga Thoruunsen's bike during a crash and killed a 6 year old girl who was waiting in line for frites. Banned ever since.


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

I just had to google Jenga Thoruunsen to confirm what I already knew.


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

d2p said:


> I just had to google Jenga Thoruunsen to confirm what I already knew.



I didn't even have to google it to know...


----------



## suspectdevice (Feb 2, 2008)

The UCI tech commission actually decided a few weeks ago to allow discs again, effective next year. They should really make up their minds...


----------



## CouchingTiger (Mar 5, 2007)

I believe I'd read (in a VeloNews tech post on disc-brakes and the future by Leonard Zinn) that they were deemed an unfair advantage. Some stuff makes no friggin sense at all; sort of like the fact that skin-suits are now banned for gravity events.

I really hope they do allow disc's so that companies start building bikes with them. Canti's suck and braking on carbon rims is crazy, though I would miss the distinct smell of the first corner after the start 

Mike


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

suspectdevice said:


> The UCI tech commission actually decided a few weeks ago to allow discs again, effective next year. They should really make up their minds...


Is this true? If so, I haven't seen it, you have a link?

Personally, I think the UCI should open up all of their CX restrictions (drop bars only, no disc brakes, no tires bigger than 35mm) and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## NickBarbieri (Jul 24, 2007)

no drop bars? i thought frischi used flat bars some times. maybe they weren't uci races. anyway, i think if there were a market for it, there could be some uber-lightweight road/cx disc brake setups developed and it would be a viable option.


----------



## McLovin (Sep 30, 2007)

Hydraulic road levers would be pretty awesome. Too bad nobody makes them.


----------



## rkj__ (Mar 21, 2007)

pretender said:


> Personally, I think the UCI should open up all of their CX restrictions (drop bars only, no disc brakes, no tires bigger than 35mm) and let the chips fall where they may.


I may be overlooking some implications, but I think I agree. Let people use what they feel is best for the conditions at hand.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Everybody except me should be required to drag around disc brakes and futz with tubeless tires no smaller than 45C. :thumbsup:


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Everybody except me should be required to drag around disc brakes and futz with tubeless tires no smaller than 45C. :thumbsup:


I'll take tubulars, thank you.


----------



## tomk96 (Sep 24, 2007)

McLovin said:


> Hydraulic road levers would be pretty awesome. Too bad nobody makes them.


the cable ones work really well.


----------



## NickBarbieri (Jul 24, 2007)

tomk96 said:


> the cable ones work really well.


yeah, but hydro disc's are way better than mechanical discs.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

525g for the 26" version with every square inch covered in mud? Knock yourself out. :lol:


----------



## d2p (Jul 29, 2006)

Anybody seen a link that the UCI will allow disc brakes as alleged? Or have I naively fallen for yet another ruse? 

Will give them credit for allowing clipless pedals and brakeshifterlevers.


----------



## FTM (Feb 4, 2005)

NickBarbieri said:


> no drop bars? i thought frischi used flat bars some times. maybe they weren't uci races. anyway, i think if there were a market for it, there could be some uber-lightweight road/cx disc brake setups developed and it would be a viable option.


He did, for a silver in '96 worlds (pulling this from memory so might not be 96), this was before, and probably a partial cause of, the drop-bar only restriction.


----------



## suspectdevice (Feb 2, 2008)

I haven't seen a press release anywhere, but I got the info on lifting the disc ban from a member of the UCI 'cross commission. Perhaps meeting minutes from the AIOC-Cross and UCI summit at WC#1 aren't floating around yet? I don't know a single racer who actually wants them, but some manufacturers are trying to push it (cannondale)...


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

suspectdevice said:


> I don't know a single racer who actually wants them,


Currently they are still banned so it's a moot point for elite racers. Mountain bike racers of all disciplines seem happy to incur the tremendous weight penalty. But they probably would not be satisfied with what is currently available for mechanical pull.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Hmmmmmm a 1lb weight penalty... vs. better, more reliable breaking in slop and easy wheel changes. I guess it all depends on where you are racing how the course is set up. A lot of courses you just don't need to brake like that.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Dajianshan said:


> I guess it all depends on where you are racing how the course is set up. A lot of courses you just don't need to brake like that.


IMO, courses should be set up to test strength and skill, not technology. If disc brakes became prevalent, courses would have to be re-designed to make them a challenge. The only winner would be people selling disc brakes and people buying them for non-race applications.

Of course the non-racers riding MTB trails on CX bikes are hardly in a position to wag their fingers at anyone for not using the best equipment for the job.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> IMO, courses should be set up to test strength and skill, not technology. If disc brakes became prevalent, courses would have to be re-designed to make them a challenge.


So, cantilever brakes are what makes cross difficult?

Who knew?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pretender said:


> So, cantilever brakes are what makes cross difficult?
> 
> Who knew?


Difficult? I said "challenging". Traditional cyclocross equipment does make racing more challenging, and the challenge is what makes it fun.

For me, anyway.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Is the weight penalty enough to neutralize any technological advantage?


----------



## cyclevt (Aug 6, 2004)

*Just don't use brakes!*

I try not to rely on them when racing. Seriously, I think braking during a race just slows you down.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> IMO, courses should be set up to test strength and skill, not technology. .


banning cantilevers and going back to sidepulls would be even more fair in that case. and definitely drop the 8,9 and 10 speeds. back to 126mm spacings..... no more heart monitors or clipless pedals.... thats a greasy slope. might need discs to stop.


----------



## glenzx (Aug 2, 2004)

McLovin said:


> Hydraulic road levers would be pretty awesome. Too bad nobody makes them.


Ditto. The problem (at this point) with Disks on CX bikes is yer stuck with heavy, crappy, cable actuated calipers.

The thought of a SRAM Red or Shimano Dura Ace integrated shifter / hydro lever gives me the willie$$$.

If there was some sort of standard for hydraulic "throw" or lever actuation and caliper response - perhaps it'd work out. In the meantime - as a sophomore CX racer - I see why crappy brakes don't matter too much on good CX courses. You simply do not need to brake much if you're riding efficiently! The cheapie Tektro 720's I have work dandy on aluminum rims IMO.

Still - it should be allowed and then it will be developed.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

kiwisimon said:


> banning cantilevers and going back to sidepulls would be even more fair in that case. and definitely drop the 8,9 and 10 speeds. back to 126mm spacings..... no more heart monitors or clipless pedals.... thats a greasy slope. might need discs to stop.


I've raced with centerpulls no problem. I've seen fast guys racing on dual pivots. Can't imagine that side-pulls would be an insurmountable challenge.

This is only a slippery slope if you refuse to take a step back and recognize that _all sports are subject to *aribtrary* rules_. This is what makes them fair, challenging and unique.


----------



## suspectdevice (Feb 2, 2008)

Dajianshan said:


> Is the weight penalty enough to neutralize any technological advantage?


There is no technological advantage. Brakes as they exist now are good enough. It would take fundamentally altering the sport to make anything else more worthwhile. And 'cross, as a competitive discipline, is just fine as it is.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

McLovin said:


> Hydraulic road levers would be pretty awesome. Too bad nobody makes them.


They acutally exist. Or at least a very close prototype from Germany.


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> They acutally exist. Or at least a very close prototype from Germany.


And they _have_ existed in the past. Magura used to make the HS-66 for tandem riders.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

> There is no technological advantage. Brakes as they exist now are good enough. It would take fundamentally altering the sport to make anything else more worthwhile.


Out of curiosity... 1) If discs don't add an advantage why should they be banned?
2) How do disc brakes "fundamentally alter" the sport? Don't other bikes have brakes? Stopping is stopping and if all bikes have devices that help them stop I don't see a "fundamantal" difference. I am not saying I care if they can or can't be used, but for the sake of discussion...


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

To take another approach to why things should be the way they are - cyclocross bikes are honed machines built for a _very_ particular discipline of cycling. They are a beautiful thing (in both function and form), and are somewhat "characterized" by certain things: cantilevers, tubulars, drop bars and a particular range of gears. Change any of these, and you take away from that beauty. Cross racing is more than just the race - it is a whole culture.


----------



## singlering (Feb 19, 2006)

I think canti brakes suck, and I feel they should keep them.
Ban carbon wheels, and make the weight limit 18 lbs too.


----------



## colinr (Nov 20, 2006)

cyclevt said:


> I try not to rely on them when racing. Seriously, I think braking during a race just slows you down.


That is a common sentiment expressed around here by people who want to_ sound_ fast.


----------



## myette10 (Jul 20, 2003)

colinr said:


> That is a common sentiment expressed around here by people who want to_ sound_ fast.


And pretty much exactly what I said I was looking to do during course inspection this past sunday. Did I sound fast when I said it? 

Let's be clear on whether cyclevt means never brake at all or using them as little as possible. There's a significant difference.


----------



## colinr (Nov 20, 2006)

Eh, I'm just saying I'm pretty over "braking only slows you down" pearl of wisdom. You know what else slows you down? Coasting into corners.

In my humble opinion, it's a slippery slope from "riding efficiently" to "riding lazy." Easy to do the latter and convince yourself it's the former.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

suspectdevice said:


> I haven't seen a press release anywhere, but I got the info on lifting the disc ban from ...


Mickey, A. says shut it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

jmoote said:


> To take another approach to why things should be the way they are - cyclocross bikes are honed machines built for a _very_ particular discipline of cycling. They are a beautiful thing (in both function and form), and are somewhat "characterized" by certain things: cantilevers, tubulars, drop bars and a particular range of gears. Change any of these, and you take away from that beauty. Cross racing is more than just the race - it is a whole culture.


I like your passion, but tend to disagree. I don't argue their "beauty," but think it should be more "run what you brung" when it comes to racing. I'm no purist and I have discs on my cross bike. Drop bars, flared drops, moustache, flat bars........who cares as long as you're having fun. 

Biking is the culture.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

jmoote said:


> They are a beautiful thing (in both function and form), and are somewhat "characterized" by certain things: cantilevers, tubulars, drop bars and a particular range of gears.


If you are really concerned about beauty, outlaw aluminum frames and carbon rims.

The real reason for the cross equipment rules (let's be honest here) is that the UCI wants to preserve a certain European "look and feel" for cross that is distinctly separate from mountain biking. Hence, drop bars, canti brakes, narrow tires. They didn't bother outlawing flat bars until Frischknecht did really well using them.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

cyclevt said:


> I try not to rely on them when racing. Seriously, I think braking during a race just slows you down.


Reliable, accurate braking makes you faster.


----------



## LaxFactor (Nov 19, 2006)

Cantilevers just add to the excitement of a CX race by letting you wonder whether you will be able to stop or not.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I dunno... maybe cyclocross should be reserved for 20lb, silver lugged, steel craft bikes. Racing and elitism don't pair well. Sorry dad...but racing is about winning (or trying to win). Even if you don't think of yourself as a winner or even a contender of a race... people hold those things so someone can win. It's not like cruising pimped out rides down the boulevard near the beach... in a loop where the beauty and individuality of the vehicle makes 'em all a winner. I kinda think classic cyclocross racing was a little more... ummmm.... whatever "punk rock" would have been a hundered or so years ago (jazz singing?). Anyway, racing vehicles are always in a state of evolution (I am sure this has been covered ad nausium in other disc threads) to make them faster, better, safer and more able to win. That's racing. Look at those Speedo swimsuits in the Olympics. I don't think discs should be barred if they don't add a competative advantage and may even be a liablity in weight and if they don't increase risk of injury. I find it odd that a form of competative vehicle racing could be so driven (or impaired) by luddite tendencies for a fetishized, mythologized classical, authentic truth. 

Maybe the UCI should just say cantis only. End of story. If they can define a cyclocross bike down to the detail then there would be little to argue about. Material, gearing, brakes, tire size, weight etc... That's the only way I think an argument could be made for an unchanging, authentic form of "classical" bike. Even something as classic as sail boat racing has seen the employment of new materials and even bi and tri-hulled boats. Unless it specifically says classic as defined by xyz period and time...then why be so choosy?


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

pretender said:


> Reliable, accurate braking makes you faster.


I don't know about that. Sometimes really crappy (to non-existent) braking causes you to blow past the field on the inside of the first turn because you can't stop. But then somehow you stick the turn on the 6 inches or so of space left over, and next thing you know you've gone from a 50+ starting position to top 5 within 15 seconds.

There's nothing like going from unintentional but assured self-destruction (and taking half the field with you) to rolling the front of the race in one turn. With good brakes, that never happens.


----------



## elmar schrauth (Feb 19, 2007)

Dajianshan said:


> I dunno... *maybe cyclocross should be reserved for 20lb, silver lugged, steel craft bikes. Racing and elitism don't pair well. Sorry dad...but racin*g is about winning (or trying to win). Even if you don't think of yourself as a winner or even a contender of a race... people hold those things so someone can win. It's not like cruising pimped out rides down the boulevard near the beach... in a loop where the beauty and individuality of the vehicle makes 'em all a winner. I kinda think classic cyclocross racing was a little more... ummmm.... whatever "punk rock" would have been a hundered or so years ago (jazz singing?). Anyway, racing vehicles are always in a state of evolution (I am sure this has been covered ad nausium in other disc threads) to make them faster, better, safer and more able to win. That's racing. Look at those Speedo swimsuits in the Olympics. I don't think discs should be barred if they don't add a competative advantage and may even be a liablity in weight and if they don't increase risk of injury. I find it odd that a form of competative vehicle racing could be so driven (or impaired) by luddite tendencies for a fetishized, mythologized classical, authentic truth.
> 
> Maybe the UCI should just say cantis only. End of story. If they can define a cyclocross bike down to the detail then there would be little to argue about. Material, gearing, brakes, tire size, weight etc... That's the only way I think an argument could be made for an unchanging, authentic form of "classical" bike. Even something as classic as sail boat racing has seen the employment of new materials and even bi and tri-hulled boats. Unless it specifically says classic as defined by xyz period and time...then why be so choosy?



are you from the uci ?
sounds like that .


i race cyclocross now since 30 years . 

by thinking on the bullshit ,which i grew up with ....................... rrr: rrr: rrr: rrr: rrr: rrr: 
breoken frames ,forks ,pedals ,,,,,,,,,,,,
brakes that didnt work
maximum tire wide 28 mm ,always with superhigh pressures ...
holy campy hubs ,thats spindle broke three times a season ( without selaed bearings of course .

i like every innovation/progress that comes on the scene 
i dont want to race in the "neandertal "again .


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I am assuming you caught the sarcasm...


----------



## marty_hd (Feb 19, 2008)

Elmar,
I think the gist of Dajianshan's post was not much different from your train of thought. Sounds like you are both saying the same things. 

I am not sure he was advocating that the UCI actually define a cyclocross bike down to the nth degree, just if they did then there would be no pissing contests about what a cross bike is. 

Cheers,
Marty


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Val_Garou said:


> And they _have_ existed in the past. Magura used to make the HS-66 for tandem riders.


No, I mean hydro STI shifters.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

iktome said:


> I don't know about that. Sometimes really crappy (to non-existent) braking causes you to blow past the field on the inside of the first turn because you can't stop. But then somehow you stick the turn on the 6 inches or so of space left over, and next thing you know you've gone from a 50+ starting position to top 5 within 15 seconds.


In this situation, you should blow past the field regardless of whether you have good brakes. Not by accident, but because you have the training and technique to take that turn as fast as possible.

Disc brakes would help in certain situations. IME these situations are rare and on balance don't justify the extra cost, hassle and weight of discs, but I can only speak for the places where I have raced.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

pretender said:


> The real reason for the cross equipment rules (let's be honest here) is that the UCI wants to preserve a certain European "look and feel" for cross that is distinctly separate from mountain biking. Hence, drop bars, canti brakes, narrow tires. They didn't bother outlawing flat bars until Frischknecht did really well using them.


Agree completely, and think this is a good approach.

Plenty of opportunities to race MTBs.

I also think that MTBs offer no real advantages, which is why their numbers tend to thin out as the level of racing goes up.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Does it bother you that your argument hinges on such an utterly false choice? CX bike technology seems to be marching steadily foreward within the UCIs regulations.

Just about every form of racing, every form of competition, is subject to byzantine rules.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Agree completely, and think this is a good approach.
> Plenty of opportunities to race MTBs.
> I also think that MTBs offer no real advantages, which is why their numbers tend to thin out as the level of racing goes up.


IMO equipment should be determined by the race, and not the reverse. A chicken/egg question, for sure, but cross courses are pretty well defined under the rules, and I don't think an mtb would ever be the weapon of choice for pros.


----------



## elmar schrauth (Feb 19, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> No, I mean hydro STI shifters.


there have been edco sti ,too which worked with magura 
there ist now the masteradapter .from formuala . 
another adapter comes from hope .


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I think competitive racing sports usually try to use technology to better create winners. Racing teams in other sports consider how they can use different arrangements of components to better win. I don't know if disc brakes would create a better winner, but it seems the choice would be better left to the rider and wrench. The UCI decision is more puzzling as I think we can conclude that disc brakes do not give the rider an unfair advantage and do not pose a safety hazard. If anything they might just add weight in most races. Rules are fine... that's why they are organized sports... but how the bike stops (if it stops) is kind of a minor issue in a cross race. Up to the rider to decide...that is if the UCI will let'im.


----------



## ejh (Oct 31, 2007)

LaxFactor said:


> Cantilevers just add to the excitement of a CX race by letting you wonder whether you will be able to stop or not.


+1 it keeps you on your toes


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Dajianshan said:


> I think competitive racing sports usually try to use technology to better create winners. Racing teams in other sports consider how they can use different arrangements of components to better win.


Same situation in CX if you don't fixate on disc brakes.

Some people feel that disc brakes would offer a significant advantage. Some don't.


----------



## elmar schrauth (Feb 19, 2007)

marty_hd said:


> Elmar,
> I think the gist of Dajianshan's post was not much different from your train of thought. Sounds like you are both saying the same things.
> 
> I am not sure he was advocating that the UCI actually define a cyclocross bike down to the nth degree, just if they did then there would be no pissing contests about what a cross bike is.
> ...


sorry :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

pretender said:


> If you are really concerned about beauty, outlaw aluminum frames and carbon rims.


I can't say I'd feel too badly if they did...



> The real reason for the cross equipment rules (let's be honest here) is that the UCI wants to preserve a certain European "look and feel" for cross that is distinctly separate from mountain biking. Hence, drop bars, canti brakes, narrow tires. They didn't bother outlawing flat bars until Frischknecht did really well using them.


I agree that this is the primary motivation, but this "look and feel" is pretty much why I race cross. If not for that, I'd have stuck to mountain bike racing and tooling around on the road bike (which I still enjoy). The specificity of cross courses, equipment and skills is what appeals to me.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*Safety*



Dajianshan said:


> The UCI decision is more puzzling as I think we can conclude that disc brakes do not give the rider an unfair advantage and do not pose a safety hazard.


I don't think there is concensus on the safety issue either. Brakes of any kind are banned on the track. Why? Many people choose to ride track bikes around on the streets where brakes may be required by law. Why shouldn't they be allowed to eat the weight and aero penalty in the velodrome if they choose to do so?

Allowing a significant difference in braking between competitors is a safety hazard in any situation. Giving someone the opportunity to panic stop or even decelerate unpredictably in the midst of a pack of riders with no brakes is a recipe for disaster.

It is little different on the CX course when someone decides to charge ahead of riders who are "riding lazy" and then slam on the brakes right before the turn. Shouldn't happen of course, but _some_ of the demand for disc brakes is driven by people who's technical skills are outpaced by their strength. 

Since CX fields are often a mix of road and MTB racers, there are frequently racers who can string out the fields on fast sections but are sketchy anytime course narrows, hits mud or takes a sharp turn. This is particularly a problem on the first lap.

I was in just this situation a couple weeks ago when a strong rider jammed on the brakes at a point where, based on my pre-race course examination and experience riding the course in the past, I had no expectation that someone would suddenly brake. As it was, I had to ride off the course onto an off-camber section of wet vegetation. If he had had more brake to use, I might not have avoided crashing into him.


----------



## Val_Garou (Apr 30, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> No, I mean hydro STI shifters.


Oh, well that sounds pretty cool. But I'm still bummed they don't make the 66s any more.


----------



## kalare (Oct 10, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> If he had had more brake to use, I might not have avoided crashing into him.


Unless you also had more brake to use.


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> In this situation, you should blow past the field regardless of whether you have good brakes. Not by accident, but because you have the training and technique to take that turn as fast as possible.


Is that what you do? Even when there's a high risk that you'll take out half the field? Doesn't "as fast as possible" imply some chance that you won't make the turn? What if you are (like most people) completely delusional about your level of skill?

While "training and technique" certainly help when random start orders place you in the back half of a 100 person field, getting past all of those people isn't as simple as you make it sound -- particularly when it is a fast and skilled field.

Luck, and sometimes stupidity, still play a role. But that doesn't mean you should intentionally risk crashing out the field so you can move up. Crash yourself? That's fine.

In any event, my initial post was made in a fashion often referred to as "joking" or "facetious" or perhaps "less than serious."


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Actually the big advantage with disks would be in the wheel department, and also in the side mud clearance/taco'ed wheel area (as seen on the mountain side of things). 

Being able to build a carbon tubular rim without needing a brake surface or huge sidewall would also allow you to make a stronger rim, probably lighter too. Heck, not having a carbon brake track would be cheaper and safer too. Plus it would make many races a lot quieter. . 

The only reason discs were banned in cross was the "not invented here" parochialism. 

You certainly don't need them for cross, and they may or may not give you an advantage, just like aero carbon wheels, 14 pound cross bikes, $175 Dugast tubulars, ect.

Don't like them fine- don't use them.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> Plus it would make many races a lot quieter.


This past summer I heard plenty of noisy-ass disc brakes at the XC races.

I'm just saying.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Yeah, but nothing is worse then squawking carbon brake tracks. And I having raced road, mountain and cross this year and I heard 5-10 carbon wheel howls for every one disc brake bark. The pad compounds on the discs are pretty good these days.


----------



## tomk96 (Sep 24, 2007)

pretender said:


> This past summer I heard plenty of noisy-ass disc brakes at the XC races.
> 
> I'm just saying.


usually nothing that 30 seconds and an allen wrench can't fix.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

kalare said:


> Unless you also had more brake to use.


Maybe, but then someone behind me could have taken us both out. So your logic only works if everyone has roughly equivalent braking power, which is the situation we already have with discs not being allowed.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> The only reason discs were banned in cross was the "not invented here" parochialism.


Funny how selective that parochialism is, no? Look at a modern pro bike and tell me which feature _was_ invented "here". :skep:

Lets not pretend that there is some snooty Euro luddite conspiracy here. There is an obvious and logical bias against MTB tech.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Funny how selective that parochialism is, no? Look at a modern pro bike and tell me which feature _was_ invented "here". :skep:
> 
> Lets not pretend that there is some snooty Euro luddite conspiracy here. There is an obvious and logical bias against MTB tech.


Yeah in _your_ mind. Its clear you have plenty of _opinions_, try not confuse them for facts.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Coolhand said:


> Yeah in _your_ mind. Its clear you have plenty of _opinions_, try not confuse them for facts.


Like when you look at a full carbon frameset with carbon wheels and the latest road group and it is clear to you that "not invented here" parochialism reigns in cyclocross?


----------



## tjanson (Nov 11, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Being able to build a carbon tubular rim without needing a brake surface or huge sidewall would also allow you to make a stronger rim, probably lighter too. .


I can't imagine anything you could do to the design of a carbon rim with a brake track that would strengthen or lighten it significantly. Sure, you could put a little less material on the sidewalls. But it's pretty structurally efficient as it is.

With good cantis, you can lock up the tires. You can only get so much braking force out of a 34mm tire on dirt. So I don't think the braking power argument is correct.


----------



## kalare (Oct 10, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Maybe, but then someone behind me could have taken us both out. So your logic only works if everyone has roughly equivalent braking power, which is the situation we already have with discs not being allowed.


True, but if this were always the argument no equipement would ever change. There's got to be some point in the sand where you draw a line and say, "well, now we're allowing this"...

Sooner or later, everyone will switch over and then the argument will be moot once again. I'm willing to bet if they legalized it, a decent bunch of people would start using discs. Pro's would probably be pushed to used them by sponsors, and in a couple years time ... well, you get the picture. Fear of accidents because of someone braking harder isn't really a decent excuse.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

kalare said:


> I'm willing to bet if they legalized it, a decent bunch of people would start using discs.


Discs are rare even in series/fields where they are legal. There have been widely available production disc CX bikes on the market for years. The picture is pretty clear.

The "if it were always this way" logic is weak. Its _not_ always this way and doesn't have to be. The UCI makes judgements on how innovations impact parity between bikes, and they take a conservative line when the impact is judged to be significant.

If safety isn't a decent excuse, maybe you aren't moving very fast.


----------



## Float (May 27, 2005)

This post needs some more love - Disc brakes will never happen in CX because they are not needed. 

That said I would love to ride a carbon disc rotor bike, or maybe a 100mm metal rotor brake.

My CX bike weighs in at a bit over 17lbs, adding a set a boat anchors seems silly to me.


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> No.


Then you aren't going "as fast as possible." 

You're going "as fast as I'm comfortable going without getting too close to that line where I might be going too fast and thus not make the turn. Now that I think about it, maybe I should add an adequate margin of safety and thus only go as fast as comfortable minus a bit in case my brakes don't work too well or there's grass or ice or water or something else."


----------



## Float (May 27, 2005)

*Ice*



iktome said:


> Now that I think about it, maybe I should add an adequate margin of safety and thus only go as fast as comfortable minus a bit in case my brakes don't work too well or there's grass or ice or water or something else."


Disc brakes don't help you brake on ice becuase the surface does'nt allow you to brake in the first place.

Mudd is kind of similar to ice, not a very good braking surface.


----------



## jroden (Jun 15, 2004)

The disc brakes work really well, far better than even good canti brakes. I decided the weight penalty and having to own a 135mm spaced rear wheel were too much of a pain, but I do have to say the brakes are really nice, especially in crummy conditions. If they are in fact legal next year, I'm half tempted to run one on the front only.


----------



## colinr (Nov 20, 2006)

I just read this whole thread and lost an IQ point ;(


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Like when you look at a full carbon frameset with carbon wheels and the latest road group and it is clear to you that "not invented here" parochialism reigns in cyclocross?


Yeah, its nothing like that. But thanks for playing.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

tjanson said:


> I can't imagine anything you could do to the design of a carbon rim with a brake track that would strengthen or lighten it significantly. Sure, you could put a little less material on the sidewalls. But it's pretty structurally efficient as it is.
> 
> With good cantis, you can lock up the tires. You can only get so much braking force out of a 34mm tire on dirt. So I don't think the braking power argument is correct.


Braking power is not the argument I would make either- except for conditions where the side walls are too gunked up. Rather the ability to use stronger disc only rims would be nice. Plus not having to have perfectly true wheels is a bonus in such a gear destructive sport.

I would probably stick with my Pauls Neo Retros, but I think the concept if done right may make sense in certain applications.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

colinr said:


> I just read this whole thread and lost an IQ point ;(



Just one? You must have skimmed it. . .


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Discs are rare even in series/fields where they are legal. There have been widely available production disc CX bikes on the market for years. The picture is pretty clear.


That's a pretty weak argument against them. Whenever you see someone start these threads about "should I buy a bike with discs?" a good majority of opinions are that if you're going to race then you shouldn't get discs. Since most people have that thought, "Hey I think I want to race" then they don't get discs. If they were allowed then, yes, you would see a whole lot more. They are not WIDELY available, and of the ones available they weren't exactly built for all out racing. 


A complete disc set-up does not weigh a ton, and I think many people severly overestimate the weight of the entire set-up. There are plenty of lightweight mountain bikes running disc brakes. The weight point is pretty moot IMO. 

The UCI NEEDS to remove this ban. It's rediculous and unnecessary.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Discs add about 1-lb to the overall weight. To some weight weenies these are boat anchors and other people wouldn't notice. Has the UCI ever clarified their decision in writing? I am just curious in regard to the reasoning. I am trying to look at this, not as a disc vs. canti argument but a broader discussion on UCI sanctioned equipment.


----------



## iktome (Aug 29, 2003)

Float said:


> Disc brakes don't help you brake on ice becuase the surface does'nt allow you to brake in the first place.
> 
> Mudd is kind of similar to ice, not a very good braking surface.


You sort of missed the point of my post, but I'll respond anyway. There's a mistaken perception that discs are only about increased power. They also allow for better control of modulation as well, which means they are a significant advantage in mud and ice (even ignoring the effects of ice and mud on the braking surface of rim brakes).

But I'm not taking a position about whether discs belong in 'cross. That was never my point.


----------



## furball (Sep 14, 2008)

*Gots ta wapple da wheelz!*

I use discs on Stans ZTR 29'ers to swap out w/ a 29'er mtb. Have a nice build & think the extra weight is a good way to save $800 on a custom build. Yea, its heavy for cross but my lean is mtb.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Maybe, but then someone behind me could have taken us both out. So your logic only works if everyone has roughly equivalent braking power, which is the situation we already have with discs not being allowed.


I've raced with people who have significantly worse mountain bike brakes/tires and never has anyone run into me because I braked too hard.

Theres a reason disk brakes are used in pretty much every reasonable application. They're a better concept.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

You've been able to get a disc CX bike from Cannondale for several years. Same with Lemond (until this year). The Salsa Las Cruces was available and could be orderd by any bike shop with a QBP account (pretty much every shop in the US). How much wider availability do you need?

Of course they weren't built for racing -- they have disc brakes! (Actually the Las Cruces was a scandium frame with a CF fork. How much more built for racing do you need?)

The UCI doesn't need to do anything. Nobody _needs_ discs to race CX (with the possible exception of people with hand or wrist impairment).


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

kbiker3111 said:


> Theres a reason disk brakes are used in pretty much every reasonable application. They're a better concept.


Except road, CX and track. So basically every application including MTBs and _nothing else_.


----------



## ettore (Jun 9, 2008)

I like the rules to keep the sport like it is (re: no discs). To add discs and it sortof sullies the idea of racing CX (I am not even "into" the sport TBH). I mean, flat bars, discs, fat tires ... starting to look like 29ers which I think isn't a good way to go.

Just my opinion, keep it "oldschool". I wouldn't even be opposed to forcing 32H wheels or the like to keep the sport competitive for those without unlimited budgets.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

ettore said:


> I like the rules to keep the sport like it is (re: no discs). To add discs and it sortof sullies the idea of racing CX (I am not even "into" the sport TBH). I mean, flat bars, discs, fat tires ... starting to look like 29ers which I think isn't a good way to go.
> 
> Just my opinion, keep it "oldschool". I wouldn't even be opposed to forcing 32H wheels or the like to keep the sport competitive for those without unlimited budgets.


So basically take a Keirin approach, i.e. freeze the bikes in a time capsule. Not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but that hasn't been the tradition of the sport, and what you are suggesting is far more radical than simply allowing the racers to choose their handlebars, brakes, and tires.


----------



## colinr (Nov 20, 2006)

ettore said:


> I am not even "into" the sport TBH


...which is why your response makes little sense.

If the bikes turned into the 29ers, it's because the courses favored that. But they won't.

I have never seen someone who was at a competitive advantage on a mountain bike, on a proper cross course, no matter how rigid and how narrow the tires.


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I don't know if the brakes are that integral to the form. They seem like a minor choice for preferred stoppage. 

I am just curious what guys were using in the first cyclocross races? When cantis were invented and entered CX? Why mini-V's are ok and not a violation of the "old skool" form? Anyone know the history, evolution and the history of the orthodoxy of CX equipment?


----------



## Float (May 27, 2005)

*New Thread*



Dajianshan said:


> I don't know if the brakes are that integral to the form. They seem like a minor choice for preferred stoppage.
> 
> I am just curious what guys were using in the first cyclocross races? When cantis were invented and entered CX? Why mini-V's are ok and not a violation of the "old skool" form? Anyone know the history, evolution and the history of the orthodoxy of CX equipment?


Great question - Probably a good idea to start this under a new thread and see if somebody with a UCI historical prospective chimes in.

My guess is that mini-v's are not "new technology"


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I would think STI shifters would have been more of a hurdle to get past UCI if they were concerned with being classic. I also wonder how many CX romantics are running STI shifters on their bikes. I would think STI shifters would have added more of a disparity in performance when they were introduced. How long did it take the UCI to accept them in CX?


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

Except STI came from the road side of things. The whole notion behind the restrictions - for better or worse - is to keep CX bikes from becoming mountain bikes. We all know that this won't happen as long as the courses remain as they are but... well, the rest of this thread covers that already.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> You've been able to get a disc CX bike from Cannondale for several years. Same with Lemond (until this year). The Salsa Las Cruces was available and could be orderd by any bike shop with a QBP account (pretty much every shop in the US). How much wider availability do you need?
> 
> Of course they weren't built for racing -- they have disc brakes! (Actually the Las Cruces was a scandium frame with a CF fork. How much more built for racing do you need?)
> 
> The UCI doesn't need to do anything. Nobody _needs_ discs to race CX (with the possible exception of people with hand or wrist impairment).


That's only a handful of disc equipped CX bikes with Cannondale being the only "large" company producing one. I'm sure you could string together a lengthy list of names of canti equipped bikes. 

According to many "pure racers" on here, the Las Cruces has bottle cage mounts, and I would assume the V-studs would be viewed as excess weight. Not a "pure" racer. 

You guys can debate whether discs are needed vs not needed all day, but the ban on brake types and handlebar types is rediculous.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I can legally race my disc equipped CX bike in a UCI road race, but not a UCI CX race.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

88 rex said:


> That's only a handful of disc equipped CX bikes with Cannondale being the only "large" company producing one. I'm sure you could string together a lengthy list of names of canti equipped bikes.


So your point is what? That there are more canti-only bikes?

The Trek-Fisher-Lemond group is (was) not a "large" company?

Most CX bikes have bottle cage mounts. The putative "pure racer" type wouldn't look at a disc equipped bike even if it had no brake posts.

"Pure racer" or otherwise, nobody was looking at disc only bikes like the Cannondale, Poprad Disc or Bianchi Roger in large enough numbers to induce other manufacturers to compete in the market in any perceptible way. In fact, the Roger was a one-year-wonder and Fisher does not seem to be continuing the disc version of the Poprad. Maybe they will change their mind, but what would it say if even a MTB company like Fisher didn't seem to think that disc-CX bikes are worthwhile?

The ban is ridiculous? Maybe so. But sports need rules and rules always peeve somebody. As long as they don't impede the growth of the sport, I don't see any need to change them.


----------



## colinr (Nov 20, 2006)

On a more positive note, once I give up trying to be UCI-fast, I am totally building a hydraulic mullet cross bike with a single ring.


----------



## gregwjs (Nov 9, 2007)

Well that settles it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> The ban is ridiculous? Maybe so. But sports need rules and rules always peeve somebody. As long as they don't impede the growth of the sport, I don't see any need to change them.


This is my last post in this thread as I think the horse has been beaten enough.

I don't think someone with canti's would be "peeve'd" if someone else was allowed to race their CX with disc brakes. $$$ is not an issue, weight is of minimal issue, and if they sevrve no advantage then why be so worried about them. I'd argue that any rule excluding potential advancement is impeding the growth of the sport. If the UCI allows them and nobody uses them, then there is no harm. 

But you should know that the rule in question that you covet and don't think should be changed has only been around since 2003. Not exactly "it's the way it's been, so that's the way it shall remain."

Perhaps we should ban clipless pedals, brifters, carbon wheels, and the next technological advancement........electric shifting.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

88 rex said:


> I don't think someone with canti's would be "peeve'd" if someone else was allowed to race their CX with disc brakes.


Probably true. Few people care about discs in CX, even fewer want them and as such the rule is moot one way or another. It can stay or go and nothing will really change.


----------



## haikalah (Oct 5, 2004)

*Steel. Disc Only. Cross.*

I just think it's funny that as I read this tread, the ad for Salsa's LaCruz shows at the top.

Maybe one of these days I'll click on that ad.


----------

