# SRAM Red Hydraulic Shifters and brakes



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Leaked Images!



















Man, this will have me thinking about SRAM now.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

Has the tall hood like the supposed DA hydraulic prototype. Imo that could be pretty comfortable.

But alas I'm poor and like Campy levers. The supposed Magura or TRP adapter kits need to get cheaper if they can work in the first place, let alone be released.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Ventruck said:


> Has the tall hood like the supposed DA hydraulic prototype. Imo that could be pretty comfortable.
> 
> But alas I'm poor and like Campy levers. The supposed Magura or TRP adapter kits need to get cheaper if they can work in the first place, let alone be released.


The TRP kit isn't that much when you consider that it includes calipers and all that.

Volagi has models coming out with the TRP hydraulic setup soon. The TRP is in my catalogs, but not available wholesale yet. Dammit. I want it for my Redline.


----------



## dougydee (Feb 15, 2005)

Can someone tell me what hydraulic breaking is? How does it differ from whats currently being used?


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

dougydee said:


> Can someone tell me what hydraulic breaking is? How does it differ from whats currently being used?



Who cares it's cool and new, must buy.......


----------



## dougydee (Feb 15, 2005)

ziscwg said:


> Who cares it's cool and new, must buy.......


I agree, I already want it. I just want to know why:thumbsup:


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

I'm totally ignorant about hydraulic stuff. What's the advantage? Simpler? Better function? Lighter? Cheaper for a given weight?

[edit: I see someone else asked the same question, but I'm still curious]


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Camilo said:


> I'm totally ignorant about hydraulic stuff. What's the advantage? Simpler? Better function? Lighter? Cheaper for a given weight?
> 
> [edit: I see someone else asked the same question, but I'm still curious]


Cables stretch and cable disc calipers flex (the actuation arm). Hydraulic brakes never need adjustment, always deliver a firm lever feel (unless there's a leak in the system) and require much less hand force to operate.

The advantage of discs in general is the amount of modulation they have and the lack of rim wear. Hydraulic discs add more available power (cable discs are somewhat limited by your own hand strength plus the aforementioned stretch/flex).

I have a Hayes disc system on my Rocky Mountain Vertex that hasn't been touched since 2000 except to replace the pads. Compare that to the number of time you've had to replace brake cables.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

PlatyPius said:


> Cables stretch and cable disc calipers flex (the actuation arm). Hydraulic brakes never need adjustment, always deliver a firm lever feel (unless there's a leak in the system) and require much less hand force to operate.
> 
> The advantage of discs in general is the amount of modulation they have and the lack of rim wear. Hydraulic discs add more available power (cable discs are somewhat limited by your own hand strength plus the aforementioned stretch/flex).
> 
> I have a Hayes disc system on my Rocky Mountain Vertex that hasn't been touched since 2000 except to replace the pads. Compare that to the number of time you've had to replace brake cables.


How do you think the weight, simplicity (ease of installation, maintenance, adjustment) and cost will compare? To be apples to apples, let's say a hydraulic rim brake system on a road bike compared to a top of the line cable rim brake system? Again, genuinely curious. This is interesting to me.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

I think the rim calipers will be the thing first. You need a new frame and wheels, not just the shifters to use the 2 in the top pic (disk set up)

I think that is where I will go first. Pricing will dictate when I jump.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

The main advantage of the Road Disc brakes will be with carbon fiber rims:

1. WAAAAY better when weather performance, period. Hence, why you will see this in the pro peleton by the 2013 season.

2. No wear on CF rims

3. No heat issues with CF clincher rims on log decents.

4. Overall easier and smoother breaking.

I am finally going to build a cross bike and it looks like I am going to try this by next year.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

DIRT BOY said:


> The main advantage of the Road Disc brakes will be with carbon fiber rims:
> 
> 1. WAAAAY better when weather performance, period. Hence, why you will see this in the pro peleton by the 2013 season.
> 
> ...


Those are the biggies, yep.




Camilo said:


> How do you think the weight, simplicity (ease of installation, maintenance, adjustment) and cost will compare? To be apples to apples, let's say a hydraulic rim brake system on a road bike compared to a top of the line cable rim brake system? Again, genuinely curious. This is interesting to me.


The discs will be heavier, but not by much.

1. Disc caliper vs rim caliper is pretty much a wash.
2. The lever will possibly be a little heavier, but not enough to bother with.
3. The disc itself will add weight. However, the rim of the wheel can be made a little lighter since it doesn't need to withstand braking forces (but does need to have a stronger spokebed for the braking forces from the hub)
4. The hub will be heavier due to the disc-mounting flange.

Complete guess, but I'd say the difference will be close to Red calipers vs. Apex brake calipers.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

PlatyPius said:


> T
> 
> The discs will be heavier, but not by much.
> 
> ...


Disc equipped bikes will be heavier and more than you think. Bt the overall advantages will be there. If the retro grouches get over nostalgia, they will catch on soon. If you ride in mountainous area, how can you not jump? Cross? Commuter bikes even?

Hell, I live it flat Florida and disc braking is so far superior in nay condition.

What I do't get is , why such big rotors? I bet a 120mm rotor or even smaller would work for road bikes. I assume maybe a whole new caliper technology would have to be built to accommodate smaller rotors? Too small to work?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Where's my loob review?


----------



## maxxevv (Jan 18, 2009)

Interesting take on the hydraulic shift levers but think they could have done a better job of the ergonomics.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> Disc equipped bikes will be heavier and more than you think. Bt the overall advantages will be there. If the retro grouches get over nostalgia, they will catch on soon. If you ride in mountainous area, how can you not jump? Cross? Commuter bikes even?


Eh....I have no desire for them and I do ride in a pretty mountainous area. I've yet to feel I need more brake than even Deltas  provide. I have no intention of using carbon rims as long as any Al ones exist so that angle isn't important.

In case you think I have no clue, I've ran hydraulic brakes on the MTB for ages...HS22s in the pre-disc era and currently Martas. I just don't see the need on the road.


----------



## T0mi (Mar 2, 2011)

DIRT BOY said:


> The main advantage of the Road Disc brakes will be with carbon fiber rims:
> 
> 1. WAAAAY better when weather performance, period. Hence, why you will see this in the pro peleton by the 2013 season.


I don't think we will see them already in 2013. 

First UCI has to allow them. Then they must try them. Look at CX, it was allowed since mid 2010. This year nobody used them at pro level bar a few like Tim Johnson who completely unknown in the european pro cx scene.

You may see one or two pros testing them the first year when UCI will allow them, but no more.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

PlatyPius said:


> Cables stretch and cable disc calipers flex (the actuation arm). Hydraulic brakes never need adjustment, always deliver a firm lever feel (unless there's a leak in the system) and require much less hand force to operate.


I'm not convinced. First of all, for calipers, I'll say outright that hydraulic calipers is a pointless gimmick. I can operate my cable-actuated calipers just fine. Required hand force is determined by required pad travel, which in turn is based on required pad clearance due to the finite accuracy with which you can true a wheel. There's going to be no meaningful difference betwen cable- and hydraulic-actuated calipers.



PlatyPius said:


> Compare that to the number of time you've had to replace brake cables.


 
Uhmm, how about pretty much never? At least not within the last ten years. Can you guarantee that those hydraulics will let me get away with as little maintenance as that?



PlatyPius said:


> The advantage of discs in general is the amount of modulation they have and the lack of rim wear.


Yes, there's advantages to discs, but lots of adjustments that are necessary. Different hubs, and different spoking patterns. You should probably think about adapting the fork as well. And forget about those lightweight radially-spoked front wheels, too. With discs, the front wheel needs to be almost as strong as the rear (well, the vertical load is still a lot less than in the rear, but torque from braking can be a lot higher). And, yes, there's the UCI, too. When all is said and done, I think it's going to take a while for those hydraulics to achieve anything like significant market penetration.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

The other nice part will be the fact that bends and twists in the hose won't effect brake performance. So the brake line can be hidden inside the frame and you'll gain an aero advantage. I can see this being pretty big on TT bikes. 

I for one cannot wait for the disk brake revolution to finally arrive. Imagine having infinitely variable and reliable braking on a full carbon race wheel? 20 mile steep descent with lots of hard braking? No problem!


----------



## sp3000 (Jul 10, 2007)

Pirx said:


> I'm not convinced. First of all, for calipers, I'll say outright that hydraulic calipers is a pointless gimmick. I can operate my cable-actuated calipers just fine. Required hand force is determined by required pad travel, which in turn is based on required pad clearance due to the finite accuracy with which you can true a wheel. There's going to be no meaningful difference betwen cable- and hydraulic-actuated calipers.


I'm not going to get into this whole hydraulic/cable debate, there have been a million threads here and on MTBR that pretty much cover everything!

But to this statement I will simply say it is totally incorrect, with cables you have a mechanical advantage using levers only, with hydraulics you have a MUCH greater advantage utilizing fluid dynamics. Put simply, the master cylinder pushes a certain volume of fluid against the slave (caliper pistons), your level throw is moving much further than the pistons in the caliper, if you push the fluid from a small long cylinder to a short wide cylinder you have much greater force being applied with much less work.

I'm sure someone can explain this more clearly but in the end I have Hydros on 2 bikes and Dura-Ace on one and my god the hydros **** all over cable calipers any day of the week.:thumbsup:

My only problem is I love my current frame! Damn!!:mad2:


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

sp3000 said:


> But to this statement I will simply say it is totally incorrect, with cables you have a mechanical advantage using levers only, with hydraulics you have a MUCH greater advantage utilizing fluid dynamics.


Fundamental mechanics says that this is a fairytale. There's a fairly important principle that's called "conservation of energy", which says that the only thing that matters is the ratio of travel at the pad versus the hand lever. If that ratio is the same between the two systems, and my point was that they must be very similar, then there is no difference in the ratio of braking force over hand force. What you use to transmit the force, cable or fluid, makes no difference whatsoever.



sp3000 said:


> I'm sure someone can explain this more clearly but in the end I have Hydros on 2 bikes and Dura-Ace on one and my god the hydros **** all over cable calipers any day of the week.


I assume your "hydros" push disc pads. If so, then that's completely different, because the travel on those can be a lot less than for rim calipers.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> I for one cannot wait for the disk brake revolution to finally arrive. Imagine having infinitely variable and reliable braking on a full carbon race wheel? 20 mile steep descent with lots of hard braking? No problem!


This is WHY you will see this in the pro peloton faster than most people think. Its about safer as well on those carbon wheels.

Plus, better market penetration with consumers if the Pros are on them, like it or not.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

DIRT BOY said:


> This is WHY you will see this in the pro peloton faster than most people think. Its about safer as well on those carbon wheels.


Well, like I said, I'm all for hydraulic discs, once Campy offers them... 

In the meantime, my cable-actuated calipers work just fine, on aluminum rims bonded to carbon. Oh, and I live in the Midwest, if you know what I mean. Brakes are almost optional around here.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

DIRT BOY said:


> This is WHY you will see this in the pro peloton faster than most people think. Its about safer as well on those carbon wheels.
> 
> Plus, better market penetration with consumers if the Pros are on them, like it or not.


Oh I agree. Once you no longer have to worry about overheating, brake track shape, etc.. manufacturers can really push the limit of aerodynamics plus make braking safer. Moving the rotational mass inward will be beneficial as well. The weight of this system is a non issue since pro tour bikes are already as light as they can be. I see only good things coming from this.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Ventruck said:


> Has the tall hood like the supposed DA hydraulic prototype. Imo that could be pretty comfortable.


Agreed. Also gives you a little extra to hold onto in the bumpy stuff. Maybe we'll stop seeing all the CX'ers angle up their SRAM levers now.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Pirx said:


> Uhmm, how about pretty much never? At least not within the last ten years. Can you guarantee that those hydraulics will let me get away with as little maintenance as that?


You haven't replaced your brake cables in _TEN YEARS?!?!?!?_


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

foto said:


> You haven't replaced your brake cables in _TEN YEARS?!?!?!?_


Maybe he lives somewhere flat where brakes (like said above) are kind of optional.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

ziscwg said:


> Maybe he lives somewhere flat where brakes (like said above) are kind of optional.


Or, maybe he talks about riding more than he actually does any of it.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

T0mi said:


> I don't think we will see them already in 2013.
> 
> First UCI has to allow them. Then they must try them. Look at CX, it was allowed since mid 2010. This year nobody used them at pro level bar a few like Tim Johnson who completely unknown in the european pro cx scene.
> 
> You may see one or two pros testing them the first year when UCI will allow them, but no more.


Not sure that is an entirely fair comparison. If memory serves, the UCI decision on CX disc didn't come down until July/August 2010, literally a month or two before the season got underway. By then, most pros were already in the midst of their ramp up to the season and potentially changing equipment (even if it was available, which for the most part, it wasn't) probably wouldn't be their first priority. This year, we did see some early adapters, such a TJ have success with them. Now he is no superstar in europe, but I think it would be unfair to say he is completely unknown, as he's been going over there for a number of year. Heck, weren't people going crazy when Niels Albert was running mini-v's at the beginning of the season?


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

foto said:


> Or, maybe he talks about riding more than he actually does any of it.


Or, maybe he knows more about it than you do. :thumbsup:


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Pirx said:


> Or, maybe he knows more about it than you do. :thumbsup:


Right, that would explain it. So Professor, can you explain to me how I can ride my bike for ten years without the cables getting gummy, and the housing f cracking, fraying, and getting all turded up?

What is it that you know that lets you get away with not performing what is consider basic, routine maintenance?


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

foto said:


> So Professor, can you explain to me how I can ride my bike for ten years without the cables getting gummy, and the housing f cracking, fraying, and getting all turded up?


Alright, I have a road bike in my basement that I had bought at the end of the 80s. I haven't ridden it in a few years, but up until maybe three or four years ago I rode typically about 2000 miles per season on it. That bike still has all of its original cables on it, with the exception of the rear-dérailleur cable, which indeed broke after maybe 15 years of faithful service. But then, of course, that's the one that sees the most "action". Otherwise, all of my cables and housings look almost like new, and the cables glide perfectly fine in their housings. Not a single strand of wire broken, either. I do put a drop of high-quality oil at each exit of the housing maybe once or twice a season, and I keep the open cables reasonably clean, but that's it. Oh, and I build and maintain all of my bikes myself, and never let anybody else touch them. Of course, I inspect my brake cables closely in regular intervals.



foto said:


> What is it that you know that lets you get away with not performing what is consider basic, routine maintenance?


I guess it's simply that I know what I am doing, specifically I know how to maintain mechanical equipment, that's all. Otherwise, no idea what some people consider "basic, routine maintenance", but replacing cables once a year, or even every two years is complete nonsense, unless you constantly ride in the mud and rain, and possibly corrosive environments (along the beach and such).


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Dang, I guess I don't know what I am doing. After a year, my cables tend to look like ass.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

foto said:


> Dang, I guess I don't know what I am doing. After a year, my cables tend to look like ass.


Do you ride a lot in the rain? Also, too much sticky oil on the cables will attract dirt, and tiny sand particles, which can work themselves into the cable housing and eventually wreak havoc on both cable and housing.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Yup, I live in Seattle. Winters here are really mild, and I am really lucky that my current "situation" lets me ride >10hrs/week all year round. Its not just corrosion and contamination, but as the pads wear down you gotta reclamp the cable. Do that a few times and the cables start to fray.

For those that put in lots of miles in less than perfect weather, hydraulic brakes will be less maintenance than cable actuated brakes (if my experience with mountain bikes is comparable). The pads self-center, the housing is completely closed, and bleeding when necessary is an easy, if sometimes messy, job that only takes a few minutes. Hydraulics are nice. I don't think I will be getting them for _my_ road bike, but on a mountain bike, they are pretty luxurious.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

I personally don't see the advantage to running disc brakes for road racing... 

My current brakes have more than enough modulation for me and I don''t have to worry about over heating carbon clinchers because we don't race on them. Even in super wet conditions I have never felt like I didn't have control with my braking. The calipers always work fine with the right pads, even on carbon rims. The limit for me stopping or slowing down in the rain has always been the point of my tires slipping. 

I think the arguments that discs will improve aerodynamics by making cable routing easier are completely backwards. We can already hide brake cables perfectly well with standard calipers. Having a large disc on one side of the wheel, along with having to beef up the spokes and lacing will almost certainly create a wheel that is much less aero than our current wheel options. Having a severely asymmetrical fork and brake system will disrupt air flow over the wheels significantly which will almost certainly require complete redesign of current aero rim shapes to get them even close to on par with what we have now. 

Aside from those issues I cringe at the thought of the first couple of years where races have to deal with half rim and half disc brake set ups. Neutral support will be a nightmare with different cassette standards as well disc specific wheels. Not to mention getting all the manufacturers to agree to using discs as well as an industry standard. 

Discs on road bikes are a solution looking for a problem in my opinion....


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

OK, I guess my questions were misunderstood. I now understand that to a lot of people disks are preferable to rim brakes.

What I was wondering - does the hydraulic system provide advantages to a cabled system for a given type of brake, be it disk or rim. 

Will the system be lighter than the cables? 
Will hydraulics actually work better or more reliably than cables? 
Will it be simpler/easier to install and maintain. 
Will it be cheaper? 

Again, I'm not wondering about rim vs. disk, but simply hydraulic vs. cable. Thanks, interesting topic.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

eh, this is a gimmicky "upgrade" with limited appeal beyond novelty, and the handful of people that would actually want discs on a race bike. Does that answer your question?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> I think the arguments that discs will improve aerodynamics by making cable routing easier are completely backwards. We can already hide brake cables perfectly well with standard calipers. Having a large disc on one side of the wheel, along with having to beef up the spokes and lacing will almost certainly create a wheel that is much less aero than our current wheel options. Having a severely asymmetrical fork and brake system will disrupt air flow over the wheels significantly which will almost certainly require complete redesign of current aero rim shapes to get them even close to on par with what we have now.
> 
> Aside from those issues I cringe at the thought of the first couple of years where races have to deal with half rim and half disc brake set ups. Neutral support will be a nightmare with different cassette standards as well disc specific wheels. Not to mention getting all the manufacturers to agree to using discs as well as an industry standard.
> 
> Discs on road bikes are a solution looking for a problem in my opinion....



1) Discs don't have to be large, and I've always used light spokes on my disc brake wheels. Sapim CX rays, DT Revos, etc. No problems. 

2) Disrupting airflow. Don't know about that, I'm not an engineer. But there were some "prototypes"/"lets get silly" type bikes floating around that had integrating braking systems INTO the fork leg. Very aero, very subtle and very weird. Not practical, but it was a glimpse into what could be done. I'm sure the engineers will be happy to rework their rims to accommodate disc brakes. That's what they get paid to do.....tinker. 

3) Agreed on neutral support. I'm heading to Battenkill with disc brakes. I've got no support in the neutral cars, unless I can sneak a pair into a car. Still hoping.


----------



## sp3000 (Jul 10, 2007)

To all the haters I have one thing to say... PLEASE go down do your LBS and ride a nice hybrid with good high end disc brakes, imagine the feeling when these are implemented well on a road race bike. Until then there really is nothing left to say.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

sp3000 said:


> To all the haters I have one thing to say... PLEASE go down do your LBS and ride a nice hybrid with good high end disc brakes, imagine the feeling when these are implemented well on a road race bike. Until then there really is nothing left to say.


I spent plenty of years riding mountain bikes prior to moving to road bikes.

Disc brakes on mountain bikes = good.

Disc brakes on road bikes = stupid.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

*Here we go again...*

lol some of you clamoring to disc brake as if you've never used them! It's like you get all excited for the sake of it.

Disc are good for certain applications, like

- for heavy bikes, e.g., tandems, commuters, hybrids (discs are already being used on these bikes)
- cx bikes. One of the biggest issues with cx is mud clearane, and disc is great for mud
- heavy ass riders. I supposed if you're 200+ lbs, you would want disc over pads for LONG descents

Now for the "bogus" arguments to use "hydraulic disc":

- if you're a weightweenie, you don't need anymore stopping power if you can already lock your current wheels
- disc gives better modulation. Sure. But you don't need it do you? Guys have been riding mountains for decades with rim brakes, do if you can't handle a little mountain descent on rim brakes, perhaps it's your skill that is lacking.
- disc is less maintenance. From personal experience, I have bled my Magura brakes on my mtb bike a few times in the last 2 years because of air. It's messy, and it's more than "just a few minutes" job (like someone stated earlier).

Now for the other considerations:

- disc brake will require a beefier frame and fork, and wheels, means more weight
- the discs themselves are heavy. Now someone said to use smaller disc. The issue with small disc is that they overheat easier than bigger discs, and smaller discs don't give good modulation

The other issue is the tire size in relation to the stopping power of disc. The limits of the braking will be determine by the tire size, so it's pointless to use disc when rim pads can already lock the tire.

If you're going to use hydralic disc, then it's best to use them under these conditions:
- heavy bike
- heavy riders
- big tires

Putting 140mm discs on a 14 lb road bike is stupid funny looking. It reminds me of craze in mtb biking where guys must use the widest bar possible so their rig look like "freeride" rig. lol


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

These are all the same arguments against that were fielded when disc brakes came out on MTB's. Look where they are now.

In one or two development cycles they will be as light as rim brakes (road calipers aren't very light) and they'll work better. Modulation not important? Inadvertent skidding causes tons of crashes. Nothing says that the improvements that disc brakes can bring will be solely about increased power.

People rode over the Alps and Pyrenees without multiple gears too. Doesn't mean gears aren't better. ;-)


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Hydraulic disks would be sweet an a Salsa Vaya. But a Vaya with SRAM Red would be stupid.

And yeah, their may be some similar arguements against as there were with MTBikes, but there aren't the same arguements for. Brake fade, and riding wheels coated in mud, just doesn't really happen with road bikes in the same way. Discs on MTBs let people go waaaay faster by being able to get on the brakes much later before getting into turns. Do you really think poeple are going to approach turns on the road faster than they do now?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> lol some of you clamoring to disc brake as if you've never used them! It's like you get all excited for the sake of it.
> 
> Disc are good for certain applications, like
> 
> ...


Your right on so many things. BUT its the future for a lot of road bike for one reason. Carbon rims! As they get cheaper and move to the masses, braking will be much, much improved in wet conditions, issues with clinchers (which the masses use) and not wearing you CF rim due to braking will be better. The design of the rims can be made better, lighter and stronger as well.

WW will be on disc road bikes a little later down the road as things get lighter. WW said the same thing about disc brakes on the MTB side. Now its not even close.


----------



## Quattro_Assi_07 (Jan 13, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> Disc equipped bikes will be heavier and more than you think. Bt the overall advantages will be there. If the retro grouches get over nostalgia, they will catch on soon. If you ride in mountainous area, how can you not jump? Cross? Commuter bikes even?
> 
> Hell, I live it flat Florida and disc braking is so far superior in nay condition.
> 
> What I do't get is , why such big rotors? I bet a 120mm rotor or even smaller would work for road bikes. I assume maybe a whole new caliper technology would have to be built to accommodate smaller rotors? Too small to work?


Meh, I've lived and rode in Colorado from the '80s through recently. Never needed anything other than the typical mechanical brake that was around back then til now. I recently rode Peak to Peak Hwy on my mid 80s Miyata PRO wth Dura Ace AX and had no problem wih stopping. I guess some of us have skill and technique and others require hydraulc brakes. If you need them that bad (in Florida of all places), then please get them. The last thing I need when riding in the mountains of Colorado is some noob plowing into me becasue he can't modulate his damn brakes.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> Your right on so many things. BUT its the future for a lot of road bike for one reason. C*arbon rims! As they get cheaper and move to the masses, braking will be much, much improved in wet conditions, issues with clinchers (which the masses use) and not wearing you CF rim due to braking will be better. The design of the rims can be made better, lighter and stronger as well.*
> 
> WW will be on disc road bikes a little later down the road as things get lighter. WW said the same thing about disc brakes on the MTB side. Now its not even close.


If people would stop with this asinine carbon clincher nonsense, this would be much less of a problem. People wouldn't have to worry about melting rims, blowing out tubes, etc etc if they would use some common sense.

Braking on my carbon wheels is just fine with the SS Yellows I use. Never have I wished for "more power" on them. How would discs make them any better?


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

Ah; you got to love evolution.......

If any company will do hydro on the road well; it will be Sram. Having incorporated so many companies under their umbrella and many coming from MTB industry, they will do a great job of hitting their target audience with hydro braking.

Just like any other areas of "high-tech" sports; it will depend on what and how the pros use the products out there that will fund the trickle-down to us mere mortals.

Sram has the lightest gruppo out there of the big three and has allowance for a slight weight gain (as long as UCI has a weight-less limit on pro bikes). 

Imagine being able to use 1 or 2 fingers to activate full stopping power. This will also come with a very short throw of the brake lever. Less fatigue on the fingers; great feedback modulation and unlimited creativity of where to place callipers and new designs of levers to come. This is not going away; it's just the start.

Racers involved in Crits might benefit from hydro callipers allowing them to "dive" further into corners before needing to brake.

Discs on road bikes will depend on end use. I know they are doing wind tunnel testing to see how it affects airflow. This will also make wheel manufacturers design disc-freindly wheels(hmm; doesn't' Sram own Zipp.). Meaning they will have to design around different forces acting on the hub; spokes and rim.

I think the last and perhaps the most important factor is that you can have all the braking power in a brake set but if you can't make that stick to the ground; what use is it? How many times have you fisted the brakes only to skid the rear wheel in emergencies? 

How will hydro rim brakes affect the greater forces placed on aluminum rim? Will it actually cause existing aluminum rims to fail earlier? Will this also cause tire manufactures design and manufacture new-er tire compounds for even greater braking performance(does Sram own any tire company-yet)? Hmmm; more questions. Whatever the questions; I do feel that this is just the beginning of something very existing and can hardly wait to see where it ends up:thumbsup:


----------



## RC28 (May 9, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> This is WHY you will see this in the pro peloton faster than most people think. Its about safer as well on those carbon wheels.
> 
> Plus, better market penetration with consumers if the Pros are on them, like it or not.


Considering how (_sarcasm on_) forward thinking the UCI is (_sarcasm off_), I'd be surprised if it is 2020 before we see Pros using them.


----------



## RC28 (May 9, 2002)

Ten years without replacing brake cables??? I'm quite meticulous about maintaining my bikes (and I also do all work on them myself) and , at the most, I can get a year out of them on my main rides.

My SS road bike still has the original brake cables from three years ago, but that bike only sees about 1000 kms of use each winter.


----------



## Quattro_Assi_07 (Jan 13, 2006)

sp3000 said:


> To all the haters I have one thing to say... PLEASE go down do your LBS and ride a nice hybrid with good high end disc brakes, imagine the feeling when these are implemented well on a road race bike. Until then there really is nothing left to say.



No thanks. I don't want to waste my time and I don't want to waste the LBS's time. :thumbsup:


----------



## Quattro_Assi_07 (Jan 13, 2006)

*BINGO! *We have a winner! :thumbsup:



aclinjury said:


> - disc gives better modulation. Sure. But you don't need it do you? Guys have been riding mountains for decades with rim brakes, do if you can't handle a little mountain descent on rim brakes, perhaps it's your skill that is lacking.


This is a close second...



aclinjury said:


> - disc is less maintenance. From personal experience, I have bled my Magura brakes on my mtb bike a few times in the last 2 years because of air. It's messy, and it's more than "just a few minutes" job (like someone stated earlier).


The average cyclists can easily go out and adjust their cabled brakes right now in about the time than it takes to read this post. I serously doubt the average cyclist will want to mess with hydraulc systems. They will probably just end up riding either 1) less safe, or 2) taking the bike to the LBS.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

It's really a simple solution. If you don't like them, don't get them. If you are intrigued by them and want to get them, then give it a shot. 

There's a whole lot of whining about an item nobody is being forced to buy.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Braking on my carbon wheels is just fine with the SS Yellows I use. Never have I wished for "more power" on them. How would discs make them any better?


"Better" in terms of longevity. You won't wear out your carbon rim. You also have better braking. To some those issues matter more than to others. We all have our priorites, which is why some find the concept of disc brakes on road bikes hard to swallow. Understandable, just don't get them if you don't want them. Folks just need to tone it down about what others choose to ride.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

88 rex said:


> "Better" in terms of longevity. You won't wear out your carbon rim. You also have better braking. To some those issues matter more than to others. We all have our priorites, which is why some find the concept of disc brakes on road bikes hard to swallow. Understandable, just don't get them if you don't want them. Folks just need to tone it down about what others choose to ride.


Along the same vein, folks need to tone down the "ZOMG it's the most gooderest thing since sliced break and hookers!" kind of commentary as well.

This is an option: nothing more. As it stands, it's a solution looking for a problem, and I'm not the only one saying it.

And FWIW: you wear out a carbon rim every 3-5 years....so what? You wear out aluminum rims too. That's part of the cost of owning them (and frankly, why are people riding carbon rims for daily use anyway? Seems stupid to me, but that's just my $.02.)


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

DIRT BOY said:


> Disc equipped bikes will be heavier and more than you think. Bt the overall advantages will be there. If the retro grouches get over nostalgia, they will catch on soon. If you ride in mountainous area, how can you not jump? Cross? Commuter bikes even?
> 
> Hell, I live it flat Florida and disc braking is so far superior in nay condition.
> 
> _*What I do't get is , why such big rotors? I bet a 120mm rotor or even smaller would work for road bikes. I assume maybe a whole new caliper technology would have to be built to accommodate smaller rotors? Too small to work?*_



Too big :lol: ?!!



I run 203mm on my MTB and want to switch to Magura Gustav M 210mm  !

But then again I'm a Clyde so I need all the brake surface area I can get   .


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Along the same vein, folks need to tone down the "ZOMG it's the most gooderest thing since sliced break and hookers!" kind of commentary as well.
> 
> This is an option: nothing more. As it stands, it's a solution looking for a problem, and I'm not the only one saying it.
> 
> And FWIW: you wear out a carbon rim every 3-5 years....so what? You wear out aluminum rims too. That's part of the cost of owning them (and frankly, why are people riding carbon rims for daily use anyway? Seems stupid to me, but that's just my $.02.)



As with any new product, there is an aura of hype and interest. It shouldn't come as a surprise that there are folks excited about this product. Given the fact that disc brakes are a heavily debated topic which is still very very new in an extremely "tradtional" sport like road and CX bikes, it's easy to see why the "pro-disc" crowd can finally say "about darn time!" 

It's not a solution or a problem, just an option. It doesn't matter if you or a million people are saying it. It's just an option.

Carbon rims. I personally have the "cheap" ebay rims, but I like my wheels to last. I couldn't imagine replacing Zipps or Enves every 3-5 years. That's $1600 a pop!! What disc brakes do are totally remove rims as a "wear" item. They now become no different than carbon frames or forks..........and I'm pretty sure you're fine with riding those for daily use, right? I had carbon rims on my caliper equipped bike and was hesitant to use the rims on daily use. I tried to keep them as race only wheels. I used the Reynolds blue pads and they stopped Ok (Ok being relative). On my CX bike with carbon rims, which I just put on, I have no worries about them in any conditions. I've been commuting on them without issue. They contact nothing and there is nothing to wear out. 

Even in the MTB world, people are beating the snot out of carbon rims without fail as daily use rims.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

There is no doubt that for commuters and daily riders, disk brakes are nice.

But on a race machine? Doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

foto said:


> But on a race machine? Doesn't make much sense to me.


That's the fun part. Racing with something that "the mass collective" _thinks_ doesn't make sense. I'll be racing a steel bike with disc brakes in a sea of carbon wonderbikes. My experience has told me that my bike is not holding me back, and that a wonderbike won't make a slower person faster. I had a wonderbike for a short while. It was nice, but I was no faster. Maybe in an elite field of Cat1/Pro roadies I would be a little more concerned. In that case I would opt for a carbon road bike with disc brakes.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

88 rex said:


> *That's the fun part. * Racing with something that "the mass collective" _thinks_ doesn't make sense. I'll be racing a steel bike with disc brakes in a sea of carbon wonderbikes. My experience has told me that my bike is not holding me back, and that a wonderbike won't make a slower person faster. I had a wonderbike for a short while. It was nice, but I was no faster. Maybe in an elite field of Cat1/Pro roadies I would be a little more concerned. In that case I would opt for a carbon road bike with disc brakes.


So it's fun to do something with no point?


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> So it's fun to do something with no point?


Isn't that was this forum is for?  There is no point in me responding to this thread, yet I think it's fun to read peoples thoughts.

But, in regard to my post, there is a point. You've just chosen to attempt to make a "sound bite" out of the entire first two sentences. "Thinks" is in italics for a reason. I answered your original post with a reasonable answer. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing then carry on.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

RC28 said:


> Ten years without replacing brake cables??? I'm quite meticulous about maintaining my bikes (and I also do all work on them myself) and , at the most, I can get a year out of them on my main rides.
> 
> My SS road bike still has the original brake cables from three years ago, but that bike only sees about 1000 kms of use each winter.


My 1993 Casati Laser still has the original Dura Ace brake & shifter cables. Yes siree, still do. However, the part of the cables running down the downtube has rusted a bit, but the cables themselves still function nicely that has not prompted me to replace them anytime soon. Granted, I don't ride in the wet much, and I live in Socal so the environment is mostly temperate. That's 19 years and counting!


----------



## RC28 (May 9, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> My 1993 Casati Laser still has the original Dura Ace brake & shifter cables. Yes siree, still do. However, the part of the cables running down the downtube has rusted a bit, but the cables themselves still function nicely that has not prompted me to replace them anytime soon. Granted, I don't ride in the wet much, and I live in Socal so the environment is mostly temperate. That's 19 years and counting!


How many miles do you have on that bike?

It's pretty humid and hot here most of the time, btw.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

foto said:


> Hydraulic disks would be sweet an a Salsa Vaya. But a Vaya with SRAM Red would be stupid.
> 
> And yeah, their may be some similar arguements against as there were with MTBikes, but there aren't the same arguements for. Brake fade, and riding wheels coated in mud, just doesn't really happen with road bikes in the same way. Discs on MTBs let people go waaaay faster by being able to get on the brakes much later before getting into turns. Do you really think poeple are going to approach turns on the road faster than they do now?


Disc brakes don't allow MTBers to go any faster or brake any later unless the surface provides more traction than a rim brake has power. That situation is very rare in XC racing (the closest comparison to road). The real benefit disc provides off road is accurate and consistent control.

Road bikes absolutely get raced in dirty and wet situations. Horror stories in the pro peloton of sketchy, wet descents and carbon rim braking common. In this sense, yes, disc brakes on the road will lead to later braking points because the riders will know that the brakes will work the moment they are applied. Considering how little traction a road tire has, road specific road calipers and discs will evolve to be very small and light. Maybe not the 1st generation but later generations will.

As a means of innovation, discs will allow rim designers to remove the braking component from the equation. Rotating mass out at the rim is many times more noticeable than at the hub. Avoiding brake wear on a $500+ carbon is worth it even if there were no other benefits. 



foto said:


> There is no doubt that for commuters and daily riders, disk brakes are nice.
> 
> But on a race machine? Doesn't make much sense to me.


Try racing in the rain or on a muddy CX course.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

88 rex said:


> Isn't that was this forum is for?  There is no point in me responding to this thread, yet I think it's fun to read peoples thoughts.
> 
> But, in regard to my post, there is a point. You've just chosen to attempt to make a "sound bite" out of the entire first two sentences. "Thinks" is in italics for a reason. I answered your original post with a reasonable answer. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing then carry on.


You can call it argument all you like.

The issue is there's nothing a disc brake will do that the current generation of rim brakes won't do. You talk about wearing out a rim but in all honesty, how often does someone keep the same equipment for 5 years to begin with? How many people do you actually know that have worn out aluminum rims under normal conditions? How many miles?

If you choose to ride carbon rims daily, that's the tradeoff you've chosen. To say that a disc brake is such a dramatic improvement because of something so mundane isn't good enough to justify an entire industry switch to a technology that has dubious benefits.

This coming from a guy who uses discs on my mountain bikes. They're wonderful...on mountain bikes. There's no earthly reason for them on racing bikes other than "hey, they're the cool new thing, man."

And that's perfectly ok. But I never understood the concept of doing something just to do it. No reason is no reason to me. YMMV.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

bikerjohn64 said:


> I think the last and perhaps the most important factor is that you can have all the braking power in a brake set but if you can't make that stick to the ground; what use is it? How many times have you fisted the brakes only to skid the rear wheel in emergencies?
> 
> How will hydro rim brakes affect the greater forces placed on aluminum rim? Will it actually cause existing aluminum rims to fail earlier? Will this also cause tire manufactures design and manufacture new-er tire compounds for even greater braking performance(does Sram own any tire company-yet)? Hmmm; more questions. Whatever the questions; I do feel that this is just the beginning of something very existing and can hardly wait to see where it ends up:thumbsup:


A good point that alot of the hydraulic disc crowds are not getting. Like I've been saying in my earlier posts here (and in the Dura Ace hydralic shifters thread too), that the *LIMITS OF TRACTION WILL BE THE TIRES*. The lastest iteration of most rim calipers are more than adequate to overwhelm the skinny 23c/25c tires. Once a tire skid, applying more braking power does nothing to stop the bike. Apparently, this is lost in the minds of those who keep saying "more braking power is better".

As for overwhelming the rims, hydraulic disc will not overwhelm the rims. Why is this? Because once the tire start to skid (which you can already do with the current rim brakes), traction is lost, and the rims will not bear any more braking forces because traction has been lost (no more friction against the ground, you see).

However, hydraulic disc will overwhelm the current forks out there. LOL road forks will going to need to be MUCH beefier, and so do the rear seat- and chainstays.

I can see the argument of disc brake allowing better carbon wheel design. Definitely see the benefit here. But if I'm an above average cyclist enthusiasts, and I don't want carbon wheels, then what are the chances that an average cyclists would want carbon rims? And if they don't want carbon, then carbon rims will never going to be a mass produced & cheap product (btw, carbon production is labor intensive and is not cheap compared to aluminum). 

BTW, what is to say that carbon wheels in the future won't have better aluminum or scandium braking tracks bonded to them??

I will also contend that disc does allow smoother braking in the event of a wheel become untrued. With a disc, an untrued wheel will not affect the braking modulation. Perhaps if you are a heavy guy riding a light wheelsets that always find itself out of true alot, then disc is your solution.

But they way I look at it, I, as an above average cyclist, who has absolutely no problem with aluminum rims, have no need for carbon rims nor even desire them, who have riden and descended on almost all of the big mountains in Socal,.. I just don't see the need for a hydraulic disc system on a 14-15lbs road bike. 

What I see will eventually happen is that, after all the euphoria and hypes have settled down, hydraulic disc brakes will come into existence for high-end road bikes for these folks:

- if they're a clyde
- if they don't have good bike handling skill and they think that hydraulic disc is the answer (and trust me, I've seen plenty of guys going down mountain like a pusycat always dragging their brake and wishing they have more brake! yet the issue is really their lack of skills)
- BUT.... BUT..... more braking is NOTHING if you don't have more TIRE TRACTION 
- and prices will not be cheap

Yep so IMO, hydraulic disc is a solution looking for a problem!


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

robdamanii said:


> You can call it argument all you like.
> 
> The issue is there's nothing a disc brake will do that the current generation of rim brakes won't do.


If that were true then rim brakes would still be common on MTB's.

Disc brakes offer the same power whether wet dry dirty or otherwise. They can also be made to modulate far more accurately than a pair of cable driven rubber pucks. That benefit also stays the same no matter what the conditions.

Hydraulic discs allow for any rim tire combination without the need for brake re-adjustment. Hydraulic adjustment also does not deteriorate (no more barrel adjusters) and has no cable/housings to corrode and keep clean/lubed.

They'll do away with the downright frightening wet braking characteristics of carbon rims/rim brakes in the wet.

They result in lighter rims because the rim is no longer tasked with being a brake surface. Lighter rims make a bigger difference in performance than reducing the weight anywhere else on the bike.

Loads on forks are not increased. Consider the distance from a rim brake to the axle of the wheel. That's a long lever.

Frames are a wash. There are disc MTB frames on the market that approach the weights of the best road frames. They have no trouble with the disc brake loads in the rear.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

MTB bikes have a much heavier frame structure, and mtb bikes encounter much more dirty conditions. Disc in this case the the perfect application, but it is still not cheap to buy them, even for a cheap set.

Disc brakes do not offer the same operational performance when the conditions turn wet and muddy. The mud and dirt get embedded into the brake pads and can significantly grind down either the pads and/or disc surface itself. I know this for a fact because I ride mtb bike in the wet mountain sometimes. I don't know where you get the idea that braking in dry and wet/dirt/muddy is the same.

Disc brake DO need caliper adjustment too. It is not set and forget. You adjust this using shims/washers. The reason why you would adjust is because the frame/fork/disc may be out of alignment. You might also need to adjust this if you have one side of a caliper that doesn't engage freely as the other side. And I'm talking about even for "floating" discs, you still might need adjustment. So I don't know where you get this idea that hydraulic disc don't need adjustment.

I don't know about you, but all the light weight carbon hardtail I've ridden as compared to a heavier all-mountain rig.. braking do not feel the same at all. The hardtail is twitchy when you grab a handle of brake. The hardtail will slide around if you brake too hard too fast. On the dirt, breaking the tire loose is ok, and worse it can happen is you eat some dirt.. on the road, i reckon you're not as immuned to such mistake.

Overall load on the fork does not increase, but the fork now is asked to bear an asymmetric load when the caliper is mounted on one side of the arm of the fork, no? And does this asymmetric not require a much beefier fork?

The chain/seat stays on even the lightest carbon hardtail still look like a monster compared to the skinny ones on a road bike.

And you have not even brought up the *limit of traction* yet, which is THE most crucial factor in braking 

All in all, you bring up a lot of the pro's of a hydraulic disc, and I don't think ANYONE in here is going to argue that hydraulic disc has better stopping power than a rim-cabled-caliper, but if stopping power is about a whole system, i.e, frame, brake, and tire. So far I have not heard anything about the tire.



davidka said:


> If that were true then rim brakes would still be common on MTB's.
> 
> Disc brakes offer the same power whether wet dry dirty or otherwise. They can also be made to modulate far more accurately than a pair of cable driven rubber pucks. That benefit also stays the same no matter what the conditions.
> 
> ...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

RC28 said:


> How many miles do you have on that bike?
> 
> It's pretty humid and hot here most of the time, btw.


around 10,000 miles on that bike, and actually I'm still using the orginal Mavic ceramic rims!!!

BTW, ceramic rims has the sound of a carbon rim when you brake. I get a lot of those "are those carbon rims"! I'd say no, they're ceramic, but most people haven't heard of ceramic and they be like huh u joking right?

Used it when I was riding in Colorado for a few years (lots of mountain roads in CO), but in CO I would store it in the house and don't ride when it's wet (too dangerous overall to me)... still riding it today in the mountains of Socal.

Come to think of it, the only things not original on this bike are rim tapes, handlebar tapes, brake pads, and tires. Everything else is original!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

davidka said:


> Disc brakes don't allow MTBers to go any faster or brake any later unless the surface provides more traction than a rim brake has power. That situation is very rare in XC racing (the closest comparison to road). The real benefit disc provides off road is accurate and consistent control.
> 
> Road bikes absolutely get raced in dirty and wet situations. Horror stories in the pro peloton of sketchy, wet descents and carbon rim braking common. In this sense, yes, disc brakes on the road will lead to later braking points because the riders will know that the brakes will work the moment they are applied. Considering how little traction a road tire has, road specific road calipers and discs will evolve to be very small and light. Maybe not the 1st generation but later generations will.
> 
> ...


Most guys don't ride in the wet, even less so race in the wet, end less so in wet & muddy. A typical road/weekend warrior rider (who represents the mass) ride in the dry.

And what's to say carbon rim won't improve with better braking surface? Carbon rim isn't anywhere near it's technological dead end yet, and I gotta think they'll come up with better techniques to bond metal to carbon.

You think Shimano, Sram, Campy, Magura, TRP, etc... is going to make a cheap enough hydraulic disc/shifter system for the mass? I don't think so. If you're a hardcore racer willing to pay, I'm sure those manufacturers are willing to sell though. But i'm going to bet that most guys are not willing to buy them if they're expensive. I consider myself an above average rider both in terms of going uphill and taking descend, and I have not yet said to myself that I need more braking power. Sram, Shimano, Campy, etc... will need to persuade me to buy into it if they wish to produce enough sets to sell it to you for cheap. Of course if you're loaded, then you'll buy anyway


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

aclinjury said:


> I don't want carbon wheels, then what are the chances that an average cyclists would want carbon rims?


I agree with you on carbon rims....I have no desire to own them. However, I do imagine that the average cyclist will want them because they'll be overwhelmed with all the marketing about how great they are, how the pros ride them, etc. 



davidka said:


> If that were true then rim brakes would still be common on MTB's.


Discs took over in MTBs because they do offer an advantage; mud/sand/water on the rims make braking worse and eat away the sidewalls of the rim quicker. While there are times that a road bike sees those conditions they aren't the norm.


> Loads on forks are not increased. Consider the distance from a rim brake to the axle of the wheel. That's a long lever.


I would guess the load will be increased because the traction limit is higher with a smooth tire on pavement vs. a knobby one on dirt and the speeds are often higher as well. Regardless, the load will certainly be different as one leg will bear more load than the other which will exert a twisting effect. I've already seen several pics of road disc forks which have broken on only one (caliper) side. Here's one such set.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> A good point that alot of the hydraulic disc crowds are not getting. Like I've been saying in my earlier posts here (and in the Dura Ace hydralic shifters thread too), that the *LIMITS OF TRACTION WILL BE THE TIRES*. The lastest iteration of most rim calipers are more than adequate to overwhelm the skinny 23c/25c tires. Once a tire skid, applying more braking power does nothing to stop the bike. Apparently, this is lost in the minds of those who keep saying "more braking power is better".





aclinjury said:


> And you have not even brought up the *limit of traction* yet, which is THE most crucial factor in braking



What's your experience with disc brakes on road tires? 

I have lots. I can tell you that the limits of traction is a very precious threshold. When you are in that "oh crap.....a stop sign is coming!" or "oh snap, a car" type of descent it's comforting to know that I can predictably get pretty darn close to that threshold while maintaining all control. I think people who are use to caliper brakes would be really surprised at how much traction their tires can handle. 

Regarding assymetry, frame toughness, etc........I think you're aware that carbon CX forks already exist with disc tabs, right? And that their are carbon cross frames with disc tabs that weigh 1060g, I think your whole frame redesign and "burliness" issue can be put to rest. 

I think we have no come full circle to this again:


88 rex said:


> It's really a simple solution. If you don't like them, don't get them. If you are intrigued by them and want to get them, then give it a shot.
> 
> There's a whole lot of whining about an item nobody is being forced to buy.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PRB said:


> I've already seen several pics of road disc forks which have broken on only one (caliper) side. Here's one such set.


While I don't disagree that one fork leg will see more force, providing this photo is akin to posting an exploded carbon fiber bike and saying it's a bad idea.


----------



## PRB (Jun 15, 2002)

88 rex said:


> While I don't disagree that one fork leg will see more force, providing this photo is akin to posting an exploded carbon fiber bike and saying it's a bad idea.


I thought everyone already knew that carbon fiber bikes are a bad idea.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

davidka said:


> If that were true then rim brakes would still be common on MTB's.
> 
> Disc brakes offer the same power whether wet dry dirty or otherwise. They can also be made to modulate far more accurately than a pair of cable driven rubber pucks. That benefit also stays the same no matter what the conditions.
> 
> ...


Amazing that such characteristics only seem to exist on message boards, huh?

Lighter rims will not be noticed unless the weight reduced is significant. I somehow doubt reduction of weight from an ultralight tubular climbing wheel would be significant enough to notice on a similar disc wheel.

Same power in wet/dry is a was as well. Braking is only as good as the friction between the tire contact patch and ground will allow. You can have all the stopping power in the world, but if the tire skids, all braking power is for naught. Now if they come up with anti-lock disc brakes for bikes....

Again, it's a solution for a non-existent problem. Mountain bikes are not road bikes. They're not ridden under the same conditions, on the same terrain or put under the same stresses. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Plenty of experience with disc brake and road tire... on a motorcycle! Not to sound like a know-it-all or anything, but I can honestly say that as a motorcycle rider I have experienced much more braking forces and the physics of trying to keep 2 wheels in a straightline while braking. I've encountered plenty of "oh-snap" moments from drivers. You ever brake so hard that your rear tire breaks loose of traction while the front is still digging into the tarmac? Ever wonder how it feels as the rear tries to come around you? Ever wonder how it feels when you're leaning hard and trail braking and the front starts to skip? Yep felt it all. I felt this wether I'm on a race replica or a cheap standard. It's still a 2 wheeled vehicle with a front/rear brake operated by the hand and mind of the rider. Granted, hydraulic give better feeling, modulation, blah blah, rider's skill trumps equipment anyday when it comes to controlling a 2 wheel.

I hate to say this, because saying it will make me sound like an ahole to some, but some of you need to learn how to control your equipment. If you feel that you are having lots of "oh-snap" moments while descending, then you have no business riding that fast. You are lacking the skillset.

And on a CX bike, braking traction in the much is much less than braking traction on a slick on tarmac. CX bike fork will never see the same traction as a road fork, unless of course you plan on putting some seriously 2.3 knobby on your CX!

Like I said, I'm not arguing the benefit of the power of hydraulic, but what I'm saying is some folks need to learn the skill first, because hydraulic will only give them a false sense of security to go faster! And that's the last thing one wants.



88 rex said:


> What's your experience with disc brakes on road tires?
> 
> I have lots. I can tell you that the limits of traction is a very precious threshold. When you are in that "oh crap.....a stop sign is coming!" or "oh snap, a car" type of descent it's comforting to know that I can predictably get pretty darn close to that threshold while maintaining all control. I think people who are use to caliper brakes would be really surprised at how much traction their tires can handle.
> 
> ...


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

A simple "none" would have sufficed. 

You keep on keeping on you super star "above average" rider. :thumbsup:





aclinjury said:


> Plenty of experience with disc brake and road tire... on a motorcycle! Not to sound like a know-it-all or anything, but I can honestly say that as a motorcycle rider I have experienced much more braking forces and the physics of trying to keep 2 wheels in a straightline while braking. I've encountered plenty of "oh-snap" moments from drivers. You ever brake so hard that your rear tire breaks loose of traction while the front is still digging into the tarmac? Ever wonder how it feels as the rear tries to come around you? Ever wonder how it feels when you're leaning hard and trail braking and the front starts to skip? Yep felt it all. I felt this wether I'm on a race replica or a cheap standard. It's still a 2 wheeled vehicle with a front/rear brake operated by the hand and mind of the rider. Granted, hydraulic give better feeling, modulation, blah blah, rider's skill trumps equipment anyday when it comes to controlling a 2 wheel.
> 
> I hate to say this, because saying it will make me sound like an ahole to some, but some of you need to learn how to control your equipment. If you feel that you are having lots of "oh-snap" moments while descending, then you have no business riding that fast. You are lacking the skillset.
> 
> ...


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

aclinjury said:


> Disc brake DO need caliper adjustment too. It is not set and forget. You adjust this using shims/washers. The reason why you would adjust is because the frame/fork/disc may be out of alignment. You might also need to adjust this if you have one side of a caliper that doesn't engage freely as the other side. And I'm talking about even for "floating" discs, you still might need adjustment. So I don't know where you get this idea that hydraulic disc don't need adjustment.
> .


From experience. Almost all decent brakes these days are post-mount adjustable, not shimmed. None of the scenarios you listed happen anymore.



robdamanii said:


> Amazing that such characteristics only seem to exist on message boards, huh?
> 
> Again, it's a solution for a non-existent problem. Mountain bikes are not road bikes. They're not ridden under the same conditions, on the same terrain or put under the same stresses. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.


No, the problem is very well documented and I have experienced it first hand with my own carbon wheels and rim brakes in the wet. BTW, alloy rims in the wet suck too, just not as bad.

We're talking about the upcoming SRAM RED, not an entry level group. Many SRAM Red customers will absolutely ride and race in the rain, several time per year. Many of the largest bike markets in the world get a lot of rain (Pacific Northwest, Mid-Atlantic US, Western EU, etc.).

Stopping a road bike today is no more a "problem" than climbing on a 21lb steel bike with down-tube shifters was 15 years ago. That hasn't prevented the bike companies from answering the cusomer's demands for lighter and lighter bikes with broader gear ranges.

If you don't believe that braking can be improved on then you're not a customer for this and I don't know why you're participating in the conversation.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

davidka said:


> From experience. Almost all decent brakes these days are post-mount adjustable, not shimmed. None of the scenarios you listed happen anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you have zero stopping power with your carbon wheels in wet. Interesting. Makes me wonder why you actually use them then...

I'd contend that most people who purchase a Red equipped bike are those with a lot of money. The actual percentage of people who race and ride in the rain is quite small compared to the overall ownership of Red components. As for the "largest bike markets" I highly doubt there will be a clamor to switch to disc brakes: people will realize that there is little difference from a simple cable operated caliper brake on their road bikes and the technology will fall towards the "option" rather than the "norm."

So I can't participate in a conversation because I have a different viewpoint? Interesting...


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> around 10,000 miles on that bike, and actually I'm still using the orginal Mavic ceramic rims!!!
> 
> Come to think of it, the only things not original on this bike are rim tapes, handlebar tapes, brake pads, and tires. Everything else is original!


Yep, that sounds pretty much like the bike I had been talking about. I have Mavic Open 4CD rims on that one, the ones with that dark anodization (not ceramic). You know what, those rims look like new, with no discernable wear whatsoever. I have changed odometer/bike computer systems a couple of times on that one, so I am not entirely sure how many miles total, but 10k miles sounds about right.



88 rex said:


> I think people who are use to caliper brakes would be really surprised at how much traction their tires can handle.


I call BS on that one. Going back to my 20+-year-old bike, which comes with single-pivot Shimano Dura Ace brakes, I could easily flip the bike over with two fingers on the front brake, and of course, running out of traction on the rear wheel is quite easy, too. On top of that, modulation is as close to perfect as it gets. So, what else do you think I could ask for? What is it that any kind of brake system, hydraulic or otherwise, could improve?



robdamanii said:


> Again, it's a solution for a non-existent problem.


Yes, that's my take on this. Of course, I'm the guy who thinks that there never was any compelling benefit nor need to go to dual-pivot, either, see my experience above...  At least Campy still offers single-pivot for the rear brakes.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

robdamanii said:


> So you have zero stopping power with your carbon wheels in wet. Interesting. Makes me wonder why you actually use them then...
> 
> I'd contend that most people who purchase a Red equipped bike are those with a lot of money. The actual percentage of people who race and ride in the rain is quite small compared to the overall ownership of Red components. As for the "largest bike markets" I highly doubt there will be a clamor to switch to disc brakes: people will realize that there is little difference from a simple cable operated caliper brake on their road bikes and the technology will fall towards the "option" rather than the "norm."
> 
> So I can't participate in a conversation because I have a different viewpoint? Interesting...


Yes, for 50+ft I have absolutely no stopping power with carbon rim brakes (carbon rims, cork pads, one of the best known combos) in the wet. The day I discovered it for myself I was riding a granfondo. Every single person with carbon rims was having the same problem. When I asked others about their brakes they all replied to the effect of, "yeah, didn't you know that?". It was one of the factors that drove me to get rid them.

There is no reason to think that with disc brakes developed specifically for road applications that they won't become just as prolific as MTB discs. 

As for the conversation, I didn't say you can't, just don't know why you're interested to if you think it's a bad idea.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Pirx said:


> I call BS on that one. Going back to my 20+-year-old bike, which comes with single-pivot Shimano Dura Ace brakes, I could easily flip the bike over with two fingers on the front brake, and of course, running out of traction on the rear wheel is quite easy, too. On top of that, modulation is as close to perfect as it gets. So, what else do you think I could ask for? What is it that any kind of brake system, hydraulic or otherwise, could improve?


Don't buy them then. Keep using your 20+ year old bike. Won't bother me none.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

A lot of you goofballs are really missing the point here.

Road compatible disc brakes have been available for, like, *8 YEARS!!!* The only new thing here is the _hydraulics_. If your life has sucked so bad with rim brakes, you could have been experimenting with a disc road setup for a while now, especially in the last few years, your frame options have gone up dramatically, look at Raleigh's 2012 line, for example.

Since I am not reading anyone on here saying, "My cable actuated disc brakes suck, this will be a nice upgrade", I call this whole thing BS. It is a gimmicky idea to create a niche in order to be the first to market with some new thing _no body even knew they wanted!!!_.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

88 rex said:


> Don't buy them then. Keep using your 20+ year old bike. Won't bother me none.


That was not the question; I'm not asking you what to buy. I was asking you if you have a rational argument that would explain why I should lust after hydraulic disk brakes. I take it you have none.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

bikerjohn64 said:


> Ah; you got to love evolution.......
> 
> If any company will do hydro on the road well; it will be Sram. Having incorporated so many companies under their umbrella and many coming from MTB industry, they will do a great job of hitting their target audience with hydro braking.
> 
> ...


don't take this the wrong way, but you don''t race crits, do you? rule #1 is 'don't touch the brakes'...
if you need to brake, so does everyone else...so 'diving' deeper into a corner would pretty much involve people running each other over. then you'd have to accelerate harder out of the corner...criteriums are all about being smooth, not diving corners and turner friends into enemies. 
leaving braking later into a corner might gain you a little time if on a mountain descent if you could go downhill like Cancellara. they would make a bit more sense in that scenario.


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

cxwrench said:


> don't take this the wrong way, but you don''t race crits, do you? rule #1 is 'don't touch the brakes'...
> if you need to brake, so does everyone else...so 'diving' deeper into a corner would pretty much involve people running each other over. then you'd have to accelerate harder out of the corner...criteriums are all about being smooth, not diving corners and turner friends into enemies.
> leaving braking later into a corner might gain you a little time if on a mountain descent if you could go downhill like Cancellara. they would make a bit more sense in that scenario.


You know it! As I was reading your post; your comments make total sense. My thoughts were thinking more in line with Formula One :blush2: Thanks for your correction; I'm sup prised that no one caught that until now
Anyhow; I do think we will see more hydro callipers on road bikes and I'm sure that Sram will also incorporate (wait for it.....) hydro shifting.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

bikerjohn64 said:


> Sram has the lightest gruppo out there of the big three


As an aside, I have never understood where that particular fairytale is coming from. The lightest off-the-shelf group you can buy is Campy's Super-Record.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Pirx said:


> As an aside, I have never understood where that particular fairytale is coming from. The lightest off-the-shelf group you can buy is *Campy's Super-Record*.


Like the equivalent of wearing clown shoes to Salsa Night.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

bikerjohn64 said:


> Anyhow; I do think we will see more hydro callipers on road bikes and I'm sure that Sram will also incorporate (wait for it.....) hydro shifting.


Hydro calipers make no sense whatsoever. Hydro-shifting? You got to be kidding...


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

foto said:


> Like the equivalent of wearing clown shoes to Salsa Night.


You're going to have to explain that one to me. That went right over my head...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Showing up to a group ride with Campy Super Record on your bike is not cool. It isn't the absence of cool, it is actively not cool. You may not hear anything about it, but people are thinking it...

SRAM makes the lightest group people should actually consider.


----------



## bikerjohn64 (Feb 9, 2012)

Pirx said:


> As an aside, I have never understood where that particular fairytale is coming from. The lightest off-the-shelf group you can buy is Campy's Super-Record.


I just got that from this article on Bicycle magazine on the 2013 Sram Red Preview....

"At about 1,920 grams, the current Red group owned the title of lightest road groupset and was only recently unseated by Campagnolo's newest Super Record 11 Titanium, about 10 grams lighter. SRAM must have really wanted the title back, because 2013 Red receives a whopping weight reduction, around 250 grams, putting the group’s total weight at 1,670 grams. Zellmann refused to comment on any specific weight details, only saying “Every group we've ever developed has been lighter than its predecessor.” If you're a racer, that means you probably can use cranks with a power meter and still have a lighter group than your friends riding Campy or Shimano."

But I guess the point I was trying to make is that there is room for allowance in incorporating a slighlty heavier braking system.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

foto said:


> Showing up to a group ride with Campy Super Record on your bike is not cool. It isn't the absence of cool, it is actively not cool.


Why? Would I be allowed to show up with DA Di2? Ultegra Di2, at least? How about Record? Or do I have to go down to Chorus? Can you teach me the rules of cool, oh wise one?


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

bikerjohn64 said:


> SRAM must have really wanted the title back, because 2013 Red receives a whopping weight reduction, around 250 grams, putting the group’s total weight at 1,670 grams.


Hmm, that's some seriously low weight. I wonder how they did that. Made that popular FD cage even more flimsy?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Pirx said:


> Hmm, that's some seriously low weight. I wonder how they did that. Made that popular FD cage even more flimsy?


Made it steel.

Dropped weight on the cranks (completely redesigned), brakes (completely redesigned), and cassette (completely redesigned) for most of the weight reduction.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Pirx said:


> Why? *Would I be allowed to show up with DA Di2?* Ultegra Di2, at least? How about Record? Or do I have to go down to Chorus? Can you teach me the rules of cool, oh wise one?


You are allowed to do whatever you want, professor. I know you think you are a pretty smart guy, but some things cannot be taught.

And no, Dura Ace Di2 is not cool either.

However, since you managed 3 posts in one thread without being overtly condescending, I have decided to help you out with a little hint as to the _rules of cool_.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

88 rex said:


> A simple "none" would have sufficed.
> 
> You keep on keeping on you super star "above average" rider. :thumbsup:


Nah. I've plenty of noobs who can't descend, cross the double yellow multiple times, only lucky to be alive. Seen plenty of them who fail to understasnd that braking forces and cornering forces don't mix, panic crashed, and in 2 cases died. Seen plenty of noobs with no business going 40 mph around a sweepers. If you don't believe that riding a motorcycle teaches you real quick the concept of braking on 2 wheel, and that the concept is transferable to a bicycle too, well then nothing I can say will probably persuade you.

You ever wonder why there are guys who can go 50 mph down a mountain and survive and then there are guys who crash and died even at 30, 35 mph? I'll give you a hint, it ain't because their brakes don't work.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

davidka said:


> From experience. Almost all decent brakes these days are post-mount adjustable, not shimmed. None of the scenarios you listed happen anymore.


I see these enough on the trails to note them. Go to MTBR's braking section there's a dedicated section for brake problems, and many of them involve hydraulic disc brakes. Yes, real problems in the real world reported/asked by real users, I'm afraid.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Pirx said:


> That was not the question; I'm not asking you what to buy. I was asking you if you have a rational argument that would explain why I should lust after hydraulic disk brakes. I take it you have none.


That actually wasn't your question. Your question was more a statement about how you can lock up your old Dura Ace brakes with 2 fingers and send you over your handlebars. I have no interest in telling you what you should and shouldn't ride. What I can tell you is that my fleet of bikes will have disc brakes. It makes more sense for me for the type of riding I do and the type of racing I do. I can't buy uber wheels for every bike I own, so I share wheels amongst bikes, just like many CX'ers and roadies. My CX'er is my primary bike. It has disc brakes. I race CX on it, Ultra CX events, fast road hammerfests, and occasionally show up to a MTB ride on it. I will also be racing road on it, and I will be using my carbon wheels for all my racing. I haven't had issues with the discs in any situation, and I don't find them to be a problem. They are hassle and worry free. 

I am patiently awaiting the hydro set-ups, and I am very curious on the weights of these new brakes.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> Nah. I've plenty of noobs who can't descend, cross the double yellow multiple times, only lucky to be alive. Seen plenty of them who fail to understasnd that braking forces and cornering forces don't mix, panic crashed, and in 2 cases died. Seen plenty of noobs with no business going 40 mph around a sweepers. If you don't believe that riding a motorcycle teaches you real quick the concept of braking on 2 wheel, and that the concept is transferable to a bicycle too, well then nothing I can say will probably persuade you.
> 
> You ever wonder why there are guys who can go 50 mph down a mountain and survive and then there are guys who crash and died even at 30, 35 mph? I'll give you a hint, it ain't because their brakes don't work.


There's a whole lot of unfortunateness in this post, and I'm sorry folks have lost their lives. I don't really know how any of this translates to the proliferation of disc brakes though.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Nah. I've plenty of noobs who can't descend, cross the double yellow multiple times, only lucky to be alive. Seen plenty of them who fail to understasnd that braking forces and cornering forces don't mix, panic crashed, and in 2 cases died. Seen plenty of noobs with no business going 40 mph around a sweepers. If you don't believe that riding a motorcycle teaches you real quick the concept of braking on 2 wheel, and that the concept is transferable to a bicycle too, well then nothing I can say will probably persuade you.
> 
> You ever wonder why there are guys who can go 50 mph down a mountain and survive and then there are guys who crash and died even at 30, 35 mph? I'll give you a hint, it ain't because their brakes don't work.


I have ridden motorcycles. This isn't really worth arguing about, there is a lot of skill crossover between motos and bikes.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

foto said:


> I have ridden motorcycles. This isn't really worth arguing about, there is a lot of skill crossover between motos and bikes.


Agree...I have my own motorcycle that I ride a lot in the summer and I attribute much of my downhill prowess to riding motorcycles at speed. 

The same skills for steering and braking a motorcycle apply toward a bicycle, as does apexing corners, looking where you "want" to go, scanning for debris and looking ahead. People that want to downhill fast would do well to take some motorcycle classes...and advanced skills classes for that matter.

As for the whole disc brake argument on bicycles...My .02 worth:

1. If you think they are a bad idea...don't buy them and quit trying to persuade those that do want them from purchasing them.

2. Disc brakes have their advantages and disadvantages...as does every piece of equipment on a bicycle.

3. I have ridden a road bike (custom frame) with disc brakes and it was "AWESOME" compared to regular "Current" road brakes.

4. There will be plenty of options down the line both disc and non-disc equipped when it comes to bicycles...buy what you like.

There...I'm done and summed up the whole argument/discussion in 4 points :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

Pirx said:


> Why? Would I be allowed to show up with DA Di2? Ultegra Di2, at least? How about Record? Or do I have to go down to Chorus? Can you teach me the rules of cool, oh wise one?


Funny...I've seen Di2 in two separate groups I've ridden with...Other than some curiosity, nobody cared and half (or more) didn't even notice the Di2 equipped bike! I'm guessing the same would be said if somebody showed up with Super Record. 

I'd guess Foto is somebody who can't afford high end groups (I'm one that can't even afford mid level groups), but is jealous of those that can.

The funny part...and maybe his point...Of both the riders/racers that had Di2...I was faster than them on my single speed. 

If I had the money though...I'd likely own a Di2 equipped bike (most likely on my TT bike) and wouldn't give a rats butt what others thought about it as I rode them off my wheel


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Pirx said:


> Hydro calipers make no sense whatsoever. Hydro-shifting? You got to be kidding...


They make lots of sense. Hydro line and fluid is lighter than cable/housing and can make tight bends that cables can't so that it can be internalized and hidden giving designers more freedom to work. It's completely sealed so the actuation is impervious to the elements. Once assembled and sealed is has an extremely long service life (ho long has it been since you flush/filled your car's brake system?). In Europe, Magura hydraulic rim brakes are still very popular.

There has been a hydro shifting conversion in the past but it was just a cable replacement. It was reported to work pretty well but since it had cylinders hanging off the lever and back of the derailleur it was prone to damage. 



aclinjury said:


> I see these enough on the trails to note them. Go to MTBR's braking section there's a dedicated section for brake problems, and many of them involve hydraulic disc brakes. Yes, real problems in the real world reported/asked by real users, I'm afraid.


An internet forum is not representative of the real world. For every report of a brake leaking there are 1000's of users not reporting that they are having no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> The funny part...and maybe his point...Of both the riders/racers that had Di2...I was faster than them on my single speed.


Ouch...



Wookiebiker said:


> If I had the money though...I'd likely own a Di2 equipped bike (most likely on my TT bike) and wouldn't give a rats butt what others thought about it as I rode them off my wheel


I'm with you. I used to drop people riding my 7-speed steel bike I had been racing on as a student 15 years earlier. Now I drop them riding 11-speed Campy SR on a carbon frame. Same difference... 



davidka said:


> Hydro line and fluid is lighter than cable/housing and can make tight bends that cables can't so that it can be internalized and hidden giving designers more freedom to work.


Alright, I'll give you that one. Good point.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> If people would stop with this asinine carbon clincher nonsense, this would be much less of a problem. People wouldn't have to worry about melting rims, blowing out tubes, etc etc if they would use some common sense.
> 
> Braking on my carbon wheels is just fine with the SS Yellows I use. Never have I wished for "more power" on them. How would discs make them any better?


Wet weather. I love watching guys around here on carbon rims trying to slow and stop in the rain. Clinchers and CF are an issue.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> Wet weather. I love watching guys around here on carbon rims trying to slow and stop in the rain. Clinchers and CF are an issue.


I never had an issue in wet weather either, but that's just me. 

I must be lucky.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

bikerjohn64 said:


> I just got that from this article on Bicycle magazine on the 2013 Sram Red Preview....
> 
> "At about 1,920 grams, the current Red group owned the title of lightest road groupset and was only recently unseated by Campagnolo's newest Super Record 11 Titanium, about 10 grams lighter. to make is that there is room for allowance in incorporating a slighlty heavier braking system.


About is the key. Lets wait for real world numbers.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Hey Wookie! 2 bsyt post so far and you summed everything up perfectly.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> Of both the riders/racers that had Di2...*I was faster than them on my single speed.*


Otherwise known as the cyclist's version of "My willy is bigger than yours!"


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> Otherwise known as the cyclist's version of "My willy is bigger than yours!"


It's not about the size of your cog, it's how you use it. :ihih:


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Pirx said:


> I'm with you. I used to drop people riding my 7-speed steel bike I had been racing on as a student 15 years earlier. Now I drop them riding 11-speed Campy SR on a carbon frame. Same difference...


Oh My God! You can _drop_ some people???!!!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

foto said:


> Oh My God! You can _drop_ some people???!!!


Anybody can if they lift them high enough...pushing them off cliffs doesn't count though


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Anybody can if they lift them high enough...pushing them off cliffs doesn't count though


Clown benching?


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

foto said:


> A lot of you goofballs are really missing the point here.
> 
> Road compatible disc brakes have been available for, like, *8 YEARS!!!* The only new thing here is the _hydraulics_. If your life has sucked so bad with rim brakes, you could have been experimenting with a disc road setup for a while now, especially in the last few years, your frame options have gone up dramatically, look at Raleigh's 2012 line, for example.
> 
> Since I am not reading anyone on here saying, "My cable actuated disc brakes suck, this will be a nice upgrade", I call this whole thing BS. It is a gimmicky idea to create a niche in order to be the first to market with some new thing _no body even knew they wanted!!!_.


This is the point everyone seems to be missing. BB-7's have been around "forever", work quite well, and see very little application. If there was a market, cable-actuated, road-lever-compatible disc calipers would have seen additional competition and development by now.

There are indeed two discussions here 1) whether discs vs calipers, and 2) whether hydraulics vs cables.

Whether discs: Riding carbon rims in the wet - fine, they are better. And on an all-weather commuter, sure, better. So why haven't we seen them adopted before now? Dunno, but I'm going to go with a) the net difference is more marginal to many than the fanboi's seem to feel; and b) the disadvantages (adding weight to the system, as well as to the fork, the mostly different but arguably more fussy setup issues, the pesky things like dropping pads when removing wheels...). While those disadvantages can certainly be argued, today's market forces still focus on 'the numbers' , and weight sells more easily than stopping distance for a race bike. Rational? Perhaps not, but we're adults riding bikes, for heaven's sake. Rationality has nothing to do with it. 

I will note that unlike MTBR, we don't seem to need an entire subforum to dedicated to making rim calipers work well.

Whether hydraulics? IMO, if you are talking about an application for road discs, the differences are pretty marginal (when comparing to cable discs for a rational discussion). I'll take as given that the hydros will be 'nicer' in feel and modulation. We don't have the actual items, so it's really to early to make an honest conclusion about maintenance and setup, but I imagine much will come to personal preference and familiarity.

If you ask me, this fun little debate has missed the really intriguing bit: What do the rim caliper hydros do for braking, when combined with good pads? If that plays well, it means no need for fork and frame alterations. Even if it's not all the way to the imagined nirvana of hydro discs, it might be the more impactful outcome of this "innovation".


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

danl1 said:


> This is the point everyone seems to be missing. BB-7's have been around "forever", work quite well, and see very little application. If there was a market, cable-actuated, road-lever-compatible disc calipers would have seen additional competition and development by now.
> 
> There are indeed two discussions here 1) whether discs vs calipers, and 2) whether hydraulics vs cables.
> 
> ...


Magura has been making hydraulic rim brakes even longer than road discs have been around. In the dirt world, the only enduring application of rim crushers is on trials bikes, because they have even more stopping power than discs, and they load the frame evenly, instead of on one side as in discs.

However, we saw in that silly little video those guys doing abubaca stalls on road bikes with dual pivot caliper brakes. Anybody here intend on doing fufanus and abubacas with their new Di2 setups, once they come out?

Edit to add: SRAM has plenty of hydraulic disc experience, but the shifter/brake application in this case is *really ugly*. They couldn't figure this out without putting a big square box on the end of the brake hoods???


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

danl1 said:


> There are indeed two discussions here 1) whether discs vs calipers, and 2) whether hydraulics vs cables.
> 
> Whether discs: Riding carbon rims in the wet - fine, they are better. And on an all-weather commuter, sure, better. So why haven't we seen them adopted before now?
> 
> ...


One reason you haven't seen more disc on the road already is the same reason we're all riding with negative rise stems on our road bikes (which is completely wrong in every practical sense). Road is stuck on it's traditions. 

Another reason is simply that cable and the BB7 are simply not good enough. By good I mean convincingly high-end, D/A level quality. With RED Hydro coming out, point #2 is gone. 

As has been pointed out before, road bikes stand to gain all the same benefits from disc as MTB does. It'll be up to the bike manufacturers to build bikes and get it going. Some of them are already prepared in the CX market where this will be most readily accepted. Once it's demonstrated that road customers will buy it, it'll take off and the products will develop more quickly into truly road specific products. 

As for the placement of the master cylinder, that's a good first effort. It had to go somewhere. The shifter mechanism is fairly bulky and can't be disturbed. The only other option would be to move it away from the hood body but that would place demands on the handlebars or some other location. In order to make it compatible with existing equipment I think they did a good job. I'd imagine with Shimano's Di2 system making for an empty hood, they'll have an advantage when if they choose to do it too.

A great comparison would be when Shimano applied STI to mountain bike brake levers. They were a bulky mess that has been discontinued.
..or nobody will buy it and we'll stay with calipers. That'd be a shame. We're the last major wheel sport using cables and rubber pucks to stop our vehicles.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

foto said:


> Magura has been making hydraulic rim brakes even longer than road discs have been around. In the dirt world, the only enduring application of rim crushers is on trials bikes, because they have even more stopping power than discs, and they load the frame evenly, instead of on one side as in discs.
> 
> However, we saw in that silly little video those guys doing abubaca stalls on road bikes with dual pivot caliper brakes. Anybody here intend on doing fufanus and abubacas with their new Di2 setups, once they come out?
> 
> Edit to add: SRAM has plenty of hydraulic disc experience, but the shifter/brake application in this case is *really ugly*. They couldn't figure this out without putting a big square box on the end of the brake hoods???


SRAM prolly took their mtb hydro cylinder and stuffed it into their shifter and called it a day! lol. To be fair, Shimano looked just as ugly


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

foto said:


> Magura has been making hydraulic rim brakes even longer than road discs have been around. In the dirt world, the only enduring application of rim crushers is on trials bikes, because they have even more stopping power than discs, and they load the frame evenly, instead of on one side as in discs.
> 
> However, we saw in that silly little video those guys doing abubaca stalls on road bikes with dual pivot caliper brakes. Anybody here intend on doing fufanus and abubacas with their new Di2 setups, once they come out?
> 
> Edit to add: SRAM has plenty of hydraulic disc experience, but the shifter/brake application in this case is *really ugly*. They couldn't figure this out without putting a big square box on the end of the brake hoods???


Magura is acknowledged. I almost included them but left them out because it's not for road. Mathauser had hydro rim brakes for the road in 1986, but an idea before it's time.


I'm not sure about the ugly factor. Sure, they don't fit in with today's notions of attactiveness in a lever body. But they will provide a bar-end-like additional hand position that could be rather nice. The bug-antenna Shimano stuff had some of that, and it had some popularity as a minor benefit to an otherwise goofy-looking design. It's the very reason Campagnolo added the ears to their 11s hoods - a look I still haven't become accustomed to.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> 1. If you think they are a bad idea...don't buy them and quit trying to persuade those that do want them from purchasing them.


My concern is totally from a racing point of view, but here it is:

I think with discs the issue is a little bit more complex than just "if you don't like them don't buy them". If manufacturers decide to start pushing disc set ups into pro racing it will create a change in the way racing bikes are designed that will be on a completely different level than the recent "updates" that involve more cassette cogs, carbon rims, etc. etc. 

With recent advances in gearing the basic overall functioning of road bikes has stayed the same. For example, if I do a local race with my 11 speed stuff and have to grab a 10 speed wheel in a tight situation I can at least get my bike to function. It will not work perfectly, but I could at least ride safely to the finish. The same goes for carbon rims, normal pads may not stop well on a carbon brake track, but you can make it work if you have to get an unexpected wheel change. 

If disc brakes are pushed into racing by SRAM and other companies the basic cross compatibility of bikes will not exist anymore. If you have discs and your spare wheel isn't a disc set up you can no longer ride your bike safely. If you are on rim brakes and get a disc wheel it will either not fit in your frame at all or not have a brake track that you could use without being unsafe/ruining the wheel. 

I know these scenarios are worst case but having a day ruined by not being able to get a spare wheel sucks. 

The big question is how hard will SRAM and other try to push this technology into the pro peloton. They can force a change for riders who rely on sponsorship whether we like it or not. This is what concerns me the most.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

davidka said:


> ...Another reason is simply that cable and the BB7 are simply not good enough. By good I mean convincingly high-end, D/A level quality. With RED Hydro coming out, point #2 is gone.


*Hey Pirx*, here is another hint.





davidka said:


> We're the last major wheel sport using cables and rubber pucks to stop our vehicles.


How true. Even Munis use Maguras.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

davidka said:


> One reason you haven't seen more disc on the road already is the same reason we're all riding with negative rise stems on our road bikes (which is completely wrong in every practical sense). Road is stuck on it's traditions.
> 
> Another reason is simply that cable and the BB7 are simply not good enough. By good I mean convincingly high-end, D/A level quality. With RED Hydro coming out, point #2 is gone.
> 
> ...


Which is simply untrue because road bikes are not mountain bikes, nor are they ridden under similar conditions.

Apples to oranges.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

robdamanii said:


> Which is simply untrue because road bikes are not mountain bikes, nor are they ridden under similar conditions.
> 
> Apples to oranges.


You are plainly wrong about this.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

chase196126 said:


> My concern is totally from a racing point of view, but here it is:
> 
> I think with discs the issue is a little bit more complex than just "if you don't like them don't buy them". If manufacturers decide to start pushing disc set ups into pro racing it will create a change in the way racing bikes are designed that will be on a completely different level than the recent "updates" that involve more cassette cogs, carbon rims, etc. etc.
> 
> ...



If the goal is to just safely make it back to the finish line, then it's super easy to remove a disc from a wheel and use the brake track. I have used my front disc wheel, sans disc, on my road bike just fine since the rim is a Deep V. Theoretically you could shove a 135mm spaced hub into a 130mm frame to get to the end of a race. Really wouldn't take all that much. Heck, my 10 speed disc wheels would work better for you than a road wheel with an 11 speed cassette. Front hubs are all the same width at the hub, so not really an issue. It's more an issue for the guys with disc brakes. We won't have brakes if we use a road wheel, but you guys with calipers can still use our wheels.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

chase196126 said:


> With recent advances in gearing the basic overall functioning of road bikes has stayed the same. For example, if I do a local race with my 11 speed stuff and have to grab a 10 speed wheel in a tight situation I can at least get my bike to function. It will not work perfectly, but I could at least ride safely to the finish. The same goes for carbon rims, normal pads may not stop well on a carbon brake track, but you can make it work if you have to get an unexpected wheel change.
> 
> If disc brakes are pushed into racing by SRAM and other companies the basic cross compatibility of bikes will not exist anymore. If you have discs and your spare wheel isn't a disc set up you can no longer ride your bike safely. If you are on rim brakes and get a disc wheel it will either not fit in your frame at all or not have a brake track that you could use without being unsafe/ruining the wheel.
> 
> ...



Valid concerns here and with Shimano releasing 11 speed it will throw yet another variable into the mix but it should be pointed out that this will only affect a racer's choices with neutral support. Pro Teams will have their own gear to cover it but it's true, sometimes a neutral wheel saves the day.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Which is simply untrue because road bikes are not mountain bikes, nor are they ridden under similar conditions.
> 
> Apples to oranges.


I think it has been well established that road bikes have more in common with motorcycles than anything else in this thread.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

davidka said:


> You are plainly wrong about this.


So you ride your road bike through sand, puddles, deep mud, over logs, rocks, roots, pine needles, etc etc? Those are the conditions that destroy rim brake systems. Discs on a road bike is nothing more than change for the sake of change.

Cyclocross makes perfect sense for discs. They often deal with the same conditions mountain bikes do.

But to each their own. You've obviously bought into they hype already, despite not even laying your hands on these.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

davidka said:


> Valid concerns here and with Shimano releasing 11 speed it will throw yet another variable into the mix but it should be pointed out that this will only affect a racer's choices with neutral support. Pro Teams will have their own gear to cover it but it's true, sometimes a neutral wheel saves the day.


Most racers are amateurs who buy their own gear. Pros with team support are the rarified elite.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

88 rex said:


> I think it has been well established that road bikes have more in common with motorcycles than anything else in this thread.


Absolutely. Motorcycles also weigh how much more than a road bike? Discs very much make sense on a motorbike as well. 

The idea that modern rim based caliper brakes are "inferior" is nothing more than a recent attitude fostered by companies looking to sell something new.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I ride my bike in the wet, sometimes through puddles and the water is almost never clean. I sometimes hit potholes that could damage my rims just the same as a rock or root would an MTB's (possibly much worse) while riding in traffic or large groups on the road. Not sure I've ever seen a brake system fouled by pine needles.

If road riding were a contamination free environment then you'd never have to clean your bike. The challenges for rim brakes are the same in both disciplines. Contamination, damage and wear.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Camilo said:


> How do you think the weight, simplicity (ease of installation, maintenance, adjustment) and cost will compare? To be apples to apples, let's say a hydraulic rim brake system on a road bike compared to a top of the line cable rim brake system? Again, genuinely curious. This is interesting to me.


The lightest disc brakes for MTBs are almost (within 100g for the whole system) as light as the best rim brakes. Since you can make rims lighter when you use disc brakes, the weight issue becomes a wash. 

XX World Cup Hydraulic Disc brake | SRAM
vs
Speed Dial Ultimate 
Single Digit Ultimate


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm hoping that more and more rim makers will be able to better incorporate a metal braking track into the carbon rim. Shimano is already doing this with its latest Dura Ace carbon clinchers. Zipp is doing this. Hoping to see more and more carbon rims with good metal bracking tracks. 

Once we can get a carbon wheelset like this for well under $1000, I think hydro disc will be fighting an uphill battle to be put on highend road racers. No more "I can't brake my carbon wheels in the wet." Hydro disc will end up residing on commuters and mud bikes, and they will get the cheap hydro disc (like low end mtb bikes are getting now).

I don't see pro's wanting hydro disc. Pro's don't pay for their wheels so they don't care. And pro's don't need nor can they use the more brake power if they continue to ride on high psi skinny 23c tires. So not seeing hydro disc on pro's highend bikes either.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> No more "I can't brake my carbon wheels in the wet."



I have carbon wheels and my bike brakes great in the snow and rain.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

davidka said:


> I ride my bike in the wet, sometimes through puddles and the water is almost never clean. I sometimes hit potholes that could damage my rims just the same as a rock or root would an MTB's (possibly much worse) while riding in traffic or large groups on the road. Not sure I've ever seen a brake system fouled by pine needles.
> 
> If road riding were a contamination free environment then you'd never have to clean your bike. The challenges for rim brakes are the same in both disciplines. Contamination, damage and wear.


They absolutely face the same "challenges" but not nearly to a similar degree where a difference would be noticeable enough to make the switch worthwhile.

But again, there's not much point in further discussion. You've fallen for the marketing BS hook, line and sinker already, and nothing will change that.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

foto said:


> Most racers are amateurs who buy their own gear. Pros with team support are the rarified elite.


I agree, though neutral support is pretty common these days at amateur events too. SRAM/Zipp show up at most of the races I do with a neutral support car.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

kbiker3111 said:


> The lightest disc brakes for MTBs are almost (within 100g for the whole system) as light as the best rim brakes. Since you can make rims lighter when you use disc brakes, the weight issue becomes a wash.
> 
> XX World Cup Hydraulic Disc brake | SRAM
> vs
> ...


How does that figure within 100g?

My $139 Planetx brakes weigh 205g for 2 calipers with 2 sets of pads.

The Sram XX is 277g for 1 set of lever + disc combo. You'll need another set of lever + disc combo.
the Speed Dial is 159g for the lever. You'll need another lever plus 2 discs.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

davidka said:


> I agree, though neutral support is pretty common these days at amateur events too. SRAM/Zipp show up at most of the races I do with a neutral support car.


Well, SRAM better not be trying to jam some mountain bike wheel into my race frame, or I will beetch slap that mofo.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

davidka said:


> I ride my bike in the wet, sometimes through puddles and the water is almost never clean. I sometimes hit potholes that could damage my rims just the same as a rock or root would an MTB's (possibly much worse) while riding in traffic or large groups on the road. Not sure I've ever seen a brake system fouled by pine needles.
> 
> If road riding were a contamination free environment then you'd never have to clean your bike. The challenges for rim brakes are the same in both disciplines. Contamination, damage and wear.


Hahahah! _Riiiiiight._


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> But again, there's not much point in further discussion. You've fallen for the marketing BS hook, line and sinker already, and nothing will change that.


Sure. Why not let those of us who are suckers talk amongst ourselves. Aren't there other discussions going on in this forum that you can interject your arguments in?

It snowed last night I'm personally excited to take my bike out in the snow. Carbon rims, disc brakes and all!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

kbiker3111 said:


> The lightest disc brakes for MTBs are almost (within 100g for the whole system) as light as the best rim brakes. Since you can make rims lighter when you use disc brakes, the weight issue becomes a wash.
> 
> XX World Cup Hydraulic Disc brake | SRAM
> vs
> ...


Back to the technical side:


What do you think might be the weight of the newest SRAM Red set-up, I'm guessing the shifter itself might be 320-370g. The newest non-hydro Red shifter weighs 280g accroding to BikeRumor's scale. The brake caliper itself looks smaller and lighter than the XX.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

88 rex said:


> Sure. Why not let those of us who are suckers talk amongst ourselves. Aren't there other discussions going on in this forum that you can interject your arguments in?
> 
> It snowed last night I'm personally excited to take my bike out in the snow. Carbon rims, disc brakes and all!


There you go again... 

"Why don't you leave since you don't share the same opinion."


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> There you go again...
> 
> "Why don't you leave since you don't share the same opinion."



That wasn't me that said that. I have no problem conversing with someone who has a different opinion. At this point in the thread though we all know you have no interest in disc brakes. That's fine. I'd like to get some more info on these discs and opinions from like minded individuals. Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? I'm specifically interested in the weight of the new system.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Here is my viewpoint:

The lighter the bike gets, the less there is a need for heavy duty (hydraulic disk) brakes. If you had a light enough bike you could get away with a very small brake. The problem is the weight of the RIDER is increasing in our eat at McDonald's then go ride a 5 mile downhill society. Since the weight gain of the rider exponentially exceeds the weight reduction of the bike and bike components, hydraulic disk brakes are an inevitable future addition to road bikes.

Regarding not changing your car's brake fluid, if you haven't done that in ten years you are operating your car in an unsafe condition. Most brake fluid should be changed every 2-3 years.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

OK I'm going to ask this question ONE last time. If any cares or pretends to care, please answer it, comment on it.

What good is putting on a more power brake system if you don't increase the tire size? After all, it is not only the calipers and pads that stop a bike, but it is actually the tires. Applying a huge amount of braking forces to overwhelm the skinny 23c tires... well then you might as well brake them while riding on marbles.

I raised up this question a few times in here. I also raised it up at least 1 time in the Dura Ace hydraulic discussion, yet I'm still waiting for someone to chime in.

I wonder if people realize that when it comes to 2 wheel, CONTACT PATCH will trump any sort of superpower force you can apply to the calipers/pads. In motorcycle racing, when the go from steel disc to carbon disc (for increased brake power), they also need to develop tires that can handle the increase braking forces. Yet, some how this connection between braking power and tire is completely missing from what seems to be somewhat a technical discussion.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

aclinjury said:


> OK I'm going to ask this question ONE last time. If any cares or pretends to care, please answer it, comment on it.
> 
> What good is putting on a more power brake system if you don't increase the tire size? After all, it is not only the calipers and pads that stop a bike, but it is actually the tires. Applying a huge amount of braking forces to overwhelm the skinny 23c tires... well then you might as well brake them while riding on marbles.
> 
> ...


I already specifically answered this question. My repsonse was what prompted you to post about your super awesome bike handling skills and your extensive abilities in bombing down mountains on your motorcycle.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> How does that figure within 100g?
> 
> My $139 Planetx brakes weigh 205g for 2 calipers with 2 sets of pads.
> 
> ...


I was comparing entirely within mountain bike equipment to get an apples to apples comparison. Of course your road stuff is lighter.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

hahaha

This is great! Do people still come here for "information"?


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

aclinjury said:


> OK I'm going to ask this question ONE last time. If any cares or pretends to care, please answer it, comment on it.
> 
> What good is putting on a more power brake system if you don't increase the tire size? After all, it is not only the calipers and pads that stop a bike, but it is actually the tires. Applying a huge amount of braking forces to overwhelm the skinny 23c tires... well then you might as well brake them while riding on marbles.
> 
> ...


The problem with this question is that it assumes that the only reason and advantage for disc brakes is absolute power. When MTB discs became accepted it was popular to run semi-slick tires in XC so when the tires of the time typically offered less traction, a more powerful brake still became popular. It happened because the power power was not the only advantage. The key advantages are precision and consistency of control.

And FWIW, motorcycle racing tires are not developed around a particular braking technology. Carbon disc brakes didn't wait for a certain level of tire traction to exist because like road bicycle discs, increased power is not their only advantage. The only equipment specific tire development I am aware of in the last 10 years was a focus on wear resistance in anticipation of the higher horsepower 990cc 4-strokes that would replace the 500cc 2-strokes in MotoGP, Much to the chagrin of the engineers, the more powerful 4-strokes were much easier on the tires than the 2-strokes were.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

88 rex said:


> I already specifically answered this question. My repsonse was what prompted you to post about your super awesome bike handling skills and your extensive abilities in bombing down mountains on your motorcycle.


You answered me? how?

Here's what you wrote back on pg.3



> I have lots. I can tell you that the limits of traction is a very precious threshold. When you are in that "oh crap.....a stop sign is coming!" or "oh snap, a car" type of descent it's comforting to know that I can predictably get pretty darn close to that threshold while maintaining all control. I think people who are use to caliper brakes would be really surprised at how much traction their tires can handle.


I can also get right up to the limits of traction with a cable operated rim calipers. You do realize that to feel that limits of traction, it takes repeated experience on the same equipment right? Simply putting a person on a bike with a hydro disc system will not instantly enable him to feel that limit of traction. You're speaking as if only hydro disc can enable such traction finding. Well it ain't. It's the operator, and only through repeated experience on the same equipment. Just because you have become accustomed to finding the limits of traction quickly on your bike/tire/brake setup, it does not mean that you are the only person who can do so. I can also do so on my bike, on cable operated rim brakes.

And I told you about my motorcycling experience in hoping to show that it's still the rider that must do the braking. Simply knowing how to squeeze a hydro levers does not make one a better braker. I wanted to convey that on 2 wheel, rider's skill trumps equipment anyday. But you seem to snide at my motorcycle comment. You seem to think motorcycle skills have no valuable & transferable experience. Braking is braking, and the forces that act on a 600 lb motobike + 75kg rider also act on a 15 lb bicycle + 75 kg rider.
Only difference here is the amount (quantitative) of force involved, but the forces (vectors) are all the same.

But I'm not surprised you are having a hard time trying to digest my comparison between cycling and moto, because you prolly don't have moto experience. And it seems to me that MTB guys have a higher regard for dirtbike skills than roadie for motorcycling skills.

If you can't beat a guy down a mountain, then chances are you aren't going to beat him either if your bike is hydro disc equipped. Equipment is 10%, skill 90%. And all your "oh-snap" moments that you think your hydro brakes saves you, maybe to a certain extent, but most "oh-snap" moments come down to being lucky. Don't confused "oh-snap" I survived due to luck with skill. And if you're having a lots of oh-snap moments, then perhaps you're going too fast for your ability to scan ahead safely, too fast to be safe, and it's time to consider another road, or go slower. Hydro disc will give you that 10% edge, but it's not the answer for the other 90% (which involve road condition, safe speed, rider's judgement, etc). In my experience, almost every oh-shiaaat moment always involve some rider's error, aka, going too fast for road condition and/or rider's skillset.

And you should know that some of the best hydro disc system manufacturers in the MTB industry has crossed-over roots with their moto side of the business. Sram/Shimano did not innovate anything new when it comes to hydraulic disc. Some guys in here rave like "oh my mtb has hydro, I want hydro for my roadie too". Ugh... people have been using it for decades in the moto world, but I just don't see it as a necessarily application for the high-end road bikes with skinny 23c tires that can already be overwhelmed with cable operated rim calipers. Yes, I can go that limit and overwhelm it, all with 2 fingers, prolly same with you can do on your hydro disc.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

davidka said:


> The problem with this question is that it assumes that the only reason and advantage for disc brakes is absolute power. When MTB discs became accepted it was popular to run semi-slick tires in XC so when the tires of the time typically offered less traction, a more powerful brake still became popular. It happened because the power power was not the only advantage. The key advantages are precision and consistency of control.
> 
> And FWIW, motorcycle racing tires are not developed around a particular braking technology. Carbon disc brakes didn't wait for a certain level of tire traction to exist because like road bicycle discs, increased power is not their only advantage. The only equipment specific tire development I am aware of in the last 10 years was a focus on wear resistance in anticipation of the higher horsepower 990cc 4-strokes that would replace the 500cc 2-strokes in MotoGP, Much to the chagrin of the engineers, the more powerful 4-strokes were much easier on the tires than the 2-strokes were.


Precision and consistency?
In the real world, I see alot of mtb guys simply lock up their tires and skid them, when in doubt. They keep saying on the trail, don't skid your tires because it ruins the trails. Yet guys do it almost like a bad habit. And furthermore, everyone knows that skidding the tires don't make you go any faster, nor safer. Yet a lot of guys prefer to skid. So where is the precision that hydro disc? What good is precision if you don't have the skills to use it?

I can see your argument about the carbon rim wear, mud clearance. But your argument on hydro disc allowing better control is like 20% authentic (because hydro disc do have better modulation) and 80% imagined improvement. And hydro disc will not make you any faster down a mountain either if you don't already have the skills. It may sound like I'm resisting the hyrdro disc thing, but that's only because I have not felt like I need more brake, and yes, I've gone done all the big mountain in Socal every weekend, regularly hit 40 mph around sweepers, 50 mph straight. If I feel I need to slow down, then I will slow to what I deem is a safe speed I can handle, and chances are if I somehow equip my bike with hydro disc, then I would also slow down too. In other words, I'm contending that hydro disc will not make me any faster on the down.

Now if you're like one of these riders who often fail to judge speed and up-coming turns, and because of that, you would grab a handful of brake (rather than modulating your speed from afar) at the last minute, and running over the double yellow, well then hydro disc ain't going to fix this because it is 90% rider's error for failing to judge speed. However, I will admit that with a disc system, you do eliminate that headshake should your wheel is out of true. In this scenario, a disc system is advantageous.

But me, I don't need it. Disc won't make me faster. Be interesting to see how many riders will want a disc-equipped frame or can stand it's look. Like you said, roadies are tradiitonal people, and I think disc on a frame is something you have to think about in relation to the tradition. Will it be accepted? I don't think so.

And yes, in Motogp, tires develop along with brake and engine technology. They all need to be developed as a complete package. In Motogp, where hundred of millions are spent, everything BETTER be developed as a packaged. Perhaps the tire technology might trail the brake technology for a season or two, and vice versa, but eventually the package (tires/brake/engine) needs to come together. Try putting road race wheel on a MotoGP bike and brake them hard from 200mph a few times and see if those tires won't delaminate.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Absolutely. Motorcycles also weigh how much more than a road bike? Discs very much make sense on a motorbike as well.
> 
> The idea that modern rim based caliper brakes are "inferior" is nothing more than a recent attitude fostered by companies looking to sell something new.


And let's not forget that a rim brake is nothing but a disc brake with the largest possible rotor.

Or that the biggest, baddest rotors in all of braking braking are made of carbon ceramic. 

Ergo, where all this 'technology' really needs to go is to a slight change in materials for carbon rim brake tracks. Done and done.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

chase196126 said:


> My concern is totally from a racing point of view


I agree that it will cause some compatibility issues for racers...but when did that become the concern of parts manufacturers? They make what they can sell and use pro racing to advertise their products...if it works better or helps a racer win a race, racers will use it compatibility be damned!

With that said...it only becomes an issue for neutral support...not team support since your teammates will all be running the same equipment.

When it comes to support at the amateur level...people will need to bring and extra wheel-set for the neutral support car, and just deal with it if they get dropped and lose contact with the neutral support car.

Nobody said the transition would be easy...they rarely ever are...but it's a transition that will take place like it or not. Eventually things will become "Standardized" to the point that neutral support isn't a big deal any longer. The question is how long will that take?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

danl1 said:


> And let's not forget that a rim brake is nothing but a disc brake with the largest possible rotor.
> 
> Or that the biggest, baddest rotors in all of braking braking are made of carbon ceramic.
> 
> Ergo, where all this 'technology' really needs to go is to a slight change in materials for carbon rim brake tracks. Done and done.


agreed!
a slight improvement in carbon rim material and/or brake pad material... and we could be looking at the biggest, baddest, and possibly lightest brakedisc-rim combo. I have to think carbon rim technology has not reached its deadend yet.

I think the latest Dura Ace carbon clinchers are a nice balance between carbon and aluminum.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Precision and consistency?
> In the real world, I see alot of mtb guys simply lock up their tires and skid them, when in doubt. They keep saying on the trail, don't skid your tires because it ruins the trails. Yet guys do it almost like a bad habit. And furthermore, everyone knows that skidding the tires don't make you go any faster, nor safer. Yet a lot of guys prefer to skid. So where is the precision that hydro disc? What good is precision if you don't have the skills to use it?....


I would just like to point out that that is a bad example. Since skidders are typically weekend warriors with little skill, who don't dig.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

foto said:


> I would just like to point out that that is a bad example. Since skidders are typically weekend warriors with little skill, who don't dig.


fair enough. But they are the majority of the mbt riders. Most are not racers, and most don't care if they skid. Same can be said of roadies. My point is that theoretical precision in a lab as measured by a bunch of transducers does not automatically equates to precision on the trail, and even if they do, it's never 100%. anyway I'm not arguing on the precision part.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Now if you're like one of these riders who often fail to judge speed and up-coming turns, and because of that, you would grab a handful of brake (rather than modulating your speed from afar) at the last minute, and running over the double yellow, well then hydro disc ain't going to fix this because it is 90% rider's error for failing to judge speed. However, I will admit that with a disc system, you do eliminate that headshake should your wheel is out of true. In this scenario, a disc system is advantageous.


While I tend to agree with your overall position, this argument is at best weak, and at worst wrong. To quote Mario Andretti (only slightly out of context) "It is amazing how may drivers, even at the Formula One Level, think that the brakes are for slowing the car down."

Point is, good brakes let you do exactly what you are claiming is an error: Keep as much speed as possible as long as possible. 

Whether you need squishies to do that or not is the subject of the day. And to that end, you've somewhat validated their use, for some folks, in some conditions. Which is a fair assessment, overall. Though to be strictly accurate, you validated discs more than you did hydros.

The people saying they are the needed, essential, way of the future are every bit as right (and every bit as wrong) as the people that are saying they are a waste on a road bike. 

I don't have a need for them. That doesn't mean that someone else doesn't, and that doesn't say anything about the skills of either of us.


----------



## maxxevv (Jan 18, 2009)

At the end of the day, we all love cycling .. really no point arguing over the semantics. We can always chose how we want to ride our bicycles. Heck.. there are loads of people who still ride fixies with no brakes so to speak of !! 

But technologically, whether one likes it or not, hydraulics is the way to go for performance and placement flexibility. In the long term, its something that will evolve like how index shifting, integrated shifters, dual pivot brakes and clipless pedals have become so entrenched in our cycling equipment that many of us cannot imagine riding a bike without them at all ... 

It may take a while, but it will eventually subsume cable actuated brakes in some form or another like how it has replaced those in cars and motorcycles. 

Though for now, cable actuated ones are still the flavour of the season... much like friction shifters were all those years ago. 

But who knows ... it may be just that it may NOT take off on road bikes eventually, if the technical benefits are not eventualised. ... 

Meanwhile ... just ride what makes you happy on the bike.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Worth a look, points clarified by SRAM's product people:

SRAM Hydraulic brake images leaked


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

maxxevv said:


> At the end of the day, we all love cycling .. really no point arguing over the semantics. We can always chose how we want to ride our bicycles. Heck.. there are loads of people who still ride fixies with no brakes so to speak of !!
> 
> But technologically, whether one likes it or not, hydraulics is the way to go for performance and placement flexibility. In the long term, its something that will evolve like how *index shifting, integrated shifters, dual pivot brakes and clipless pedals* have become so entrenched in our cycling equipment that many of us cannot imagine riding a bike without them at all ...
> 
> ...


Every one of those was a huge refinement that solved an issue present on a bicycle. A disc brake offers (very possibly maybe) better modulation and better wet braking. If those are the only problems it solves, there's very little point in completely redesigning frames, forks, hubs and rims just to accept them.

Manufacturers have long been trying to force something new upon us just to sell more units of XYZ. Why the change from 9 to 10 to 11 speed? Why the "carbon clincher" movement? 

Find a niche, fill it, convince everyone that they need it. Rinse, repeat. Until real world performance shows otherwise, road discs are just another one of the inevitable forced changes aimed at drawing more money out of consumers and into the manufacturer's pockets.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

davidka said:


> Worth a look, points clarified by SRAM's product people:
> 
> SRAM Hydraulic brake images leaked





> From that we can infer that the whole system will be slightly less powerful than SRAM’s top mountain brakes, with a greater focus on improved modulation. Such a change becomes vital with a road disc system due to drastically decreased tire contact patch and subsequent ease of overpowering the tire and locking up a wheel.
> 
> Rotor sizes will stay 140/160, same as most current cross country brakes. SRAM says that going any smaller negates some of the benefits of going to discs in the first place, and so 140 is as small as they’ll be going in the near future.


Sram is raising an issue dealing with contact patch, the same issue I have been asking multiple times in this thread. Like I said, once you can lock up the tires (which I can already do with my SINGLE pivot cable operated caliper), then then more powerful brake is just useless and in fact may become dangerous if the user can't modulate the power toward the end stroke. The selling point here is not more power, but more modulation. Perhaps for a casual rider, more modulation is beneficial, but for me, I have learned to modulate my single pivot enough such that I feel I can stop the bike in a control fasioned at 45-50 mph. Now above 60 mph, then I would want hydro disc, but I would ALSO want bigger tires to go with the hydro disc.

I think a lot of folks is going to find out that if they are NOT already a great braker with calipers, then they won't be a great braker with hydro disc either. They would get marginally better, but braking on 2 wheel is still an art that is 90% dependent on the hands of the rider. I'm not even getting into the issue of front/rear bias braking yet, trail braking, etc.

I guess I'm more skill-focused,, you tend to be more equipment focused. Braking on 2 wheel is an art, always has been, always will be.

Note: I'm not saying hydro disc won't have other benefits, but for braking alone, it won't make a poor brakers a good one. Maybe poor to average, which may be worth it if it'll prevent that rider from plowing into people.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Sram is raising an issue dealing with contact patch, the same issue* I have been asking multiple times in this thread*. Like I said, once you can lock up the tires (which I can already do with my SINGLE pivot cable operated caliper), then then more powerful brake is just useless and in fact may become dangerous if the user can't modulate the power toward the end stroke. The selling point here is not more power, but more modulation. Perhaps for a casual rider, more modulation is beneficial, but for me, I have learned to modulate my single pivot enough such that I feel I can stop the bike in a control fasioned at 45-50 mph. Now above 60 mph, then I would want hydro disc, but I would ALSO want bigger tires to go with the hydro disc.
> 
> I think a lot of folks is going to find out that if they are NOT already a great braker with calipers, then they won't be a great braker with hydro disc either. They would get marginally better, but braking on 2 wheel is still an art that is 90% dependent on the hands of the rider. I'm not even getting into the issue of front/rear bias braking yet, trail braking, etc.
> 
> ...


You may not want to take these "discussions" too seriously...just sayin.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

aclinjury said:


> Sram is raising an issue dealing with contact patch, the same issue I have been asking multiple times in this thread. Like I said, once you can lock up the tires (which I can already do with my SINGLE pivot cable operated caliper), then then more powerful brake is just useless and in fact may become dangerous if the user can't modulate the power toward the end stroke. The selling point here is not more power, but more modulation. Perhaps for a casual rider, more modulation is beneficial, but for me, I have learned to modulate my single pivot enough such that I feel I can stop the bike in a control fasioned at 45-50 mph. Now above 60 mph, then I would want hydro disc, but I would ALSO want bigger tires to go with the hydro disc.
> 
> I think a lot of folks is going to find out that if they are NOT already a great braker with calipers, then they won't be a great braker with hydro disc either. They would get marginally better, but braking on 2 wheel is still an art that is 90% dependent on the hands of the rider. I'm not even getting into the issue of front/rear bias braking yet, trail braking, etc.
> 
> ...


Riding skill is sort of a fixed variable. There will always be a wide range of capabilities but if a component functions better, I think users of all levels can appreciate it. 

If these brakes deliver it won't make skittish descenders smooth but it may give them more piece of mind. 

If you haven't yet, I would highly recommend trying out the new Shimano disc brakes (XT or SLX). They are FANTASTIC, enough better that I will be changing away from my Avids which were pretty good. Granted, I don't have to re-engineer my mountain bike to accommodate them but the difference between two models of disc brakes is enough to make this usually cheap rider plunk down the cash to switch. It stands to reason that road discs will be at least as big a difference from rim brakes, doesn't it?

I don't see the transition happening overnight. People will ride their bikes. Eventually they'll want new bikes. Hydraulic discs will become a part of the decision of which bike to buy.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

Someone else brought this up and I think it is an interesting point. But if disc brakes become the norm, we will begin to see a blurring of the line between a cross bike and a road bike to the point that no one will be able to tell the difference. Which means bikes will start to have slightly longer wheelbases and accept wider tires.

But the transition will be ugly and expensive in beginning as everyone will be buying new frames, forks, wheels, brakes, etc. I guess this is good for the bike industry, which is why I see the move to disc brakes a certainty down the road.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

nightfend said:


> Someone else brought this up and I think it is an interesting point. But if disc brakes become the norm, we will begin to see a blurring of the line between a cross bike and a road bike to the point that no one will be able to tell the difference. Which means bikes will start to have slightly longer wheelbases and accept wider tires.
> 
> But the transition will be ugly and expensive in beginning as everyone will be buying new frames, forks, wheels, brakes, etc. I guess this is good for the bike industry, which is why I see the move to disc brakes a certainty down the road.


Cross and Road bikes have very different geometry. I don't see it blurring the line from CX to true road race bikes. I'm all for more tire clearance though. Good quality 25-28c road tires are reeeally nice to ride. It'd be nice to be able to run fenders with them on my road bike in the off season.

I think people are worried about the transition unnecessarily. Rim brakes and wheels will not disappear overnight. It will take years if it happens.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Food for thought here:

Road Bike Disc Brakes Are Coming, But Will They Work? - Bike Rumor


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> Food for thought here:
> 
> Road Bike Disc Brakes Are Coming, But Will They Work? - Bike Rumor


More like crap for though. He runs cyclocross brakes and very thin, ultralight rotors and wants to blame disc brakes in general?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> More like crap for though. He runs cyclocross brakes and very thin, ultralight rotors and wants to blame disc brakes in general?


He states numerous times he was the cause of the accident. 

The meat of the article was industry input from everyone except SRAM on the challenges and potential pitfalls of discs on road bikes.

Critical thinking, please.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

robdamanii said:


> Food for thought here:
> 
> Road Bike Disc Brakes Are Coming, But Will They Work? - Bike Rumor


Food for thought, sure but I don't find it too compelling. Consider that rubber rim brake pads can take it. The pressure at the pads but the braking surface speed is way higher at the rim then at the rotor. I'm still very confident that it will work well. You don't see factory brake systems with high amounts of void in the rotors like those.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

davidka said:


> Food for thought, sure but I don't find it too compelling. Consider that rubber rim brake pads can take it. The pressure at the pads but *the braking surface speed is way higher at the rim then at the rotor. *I'm still very confident that it will work well. You don't see factory brake systems with high amounts of void in the rotors like those.


The rim, hub, and rotor are all connected, and therefore travel at the same speed. If not, your rim would at some point "lap" your hub and your spokes would have to be magic spokes that changed holes on the rim on their own.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

That example is retarded. I have gone down mountain passes with cable discs many times, and never had a brake fade problem. Of course, I used the equipment the brakes were designed for...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> That example is retarded. I have gone down mountain passes with cable discs many times, and never had a brake fade problem. Of course, I used the equipment the brakes were designed for...


How many people can resist dicking with their gear?

How many weight weenies will screw with their equipment?

There's actually a pretty good thread on it over at WW.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

PlatyPius said:


> The rim, hub, and rotor are all connected, and therefore travel at the same speed. If not, your rim would at some point "lap" your hub and your spokes would have to be magic spokes that changed holes on the rim on their own.


That's actually incorrect - the rim, hub, and rotor travel at different speeds, since an arbitrary spot on the rim will cover a greater distance in one rotation than a corresponding spot on the rotor. What you probably meant to say is that they all complete a full circle in the same amount of time, not the same speed.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Royal28 said:


> That's actually incorrect - the rim, hub, and rotor travel at different speeds, since an arbitrary spot on the rim will cover a greater distance in one rotation than a corresponding spot on the rotor. What you probably meant to say is that they all complete a full circle in the same amount of time, not the same speed.


The speed for a wheel is RPM - Revolutions Per Minute.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> The speed for a wheel is RPM - Revolutions Per Minute.


shh. stop grasping.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> How many people can resist dicking with their gear?
> 
> How many weight weenies will screw with their equipment?
> 
> There's actually a pretty good thread on it over at WW.


And who is responsible for these dumbasses and their gear? The dumbasses themselves.

I simply can't resist stamping silver dollar sized wholes in my top tube. But I am not going to blame the frame manufacturer if it buckles (which it would never, not in a million years).


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> And who is responsible for these dumbasses and their gear? The dumbasses themselves.
> 
> I simply can't resist stamping silver dollar sized wholes in my top tube. But I am not going to blame the frame manufacturer if it buckles (which it would never, not in a million years).


I'm not saying that you will, nor did I ever claim you would. However there will be people who attempt to push the envelope of what's possible, and in some cases that will reveal a very real weakness in the system that's been modified.

What I'm saying is that there are real concerns and issues with moving to a disc brake system on the road, which have basically all been dismissed as "nah, it works on mountain bikes so it must be good on the road too" by the supporters of such changes. 

I'm simply pointing out that the two disciplines are grossly different and assuming the same benefits is silly without considering that they may not be as successful as imagined.

That said, I'm still sticking with calipers. Change for change's sake is pointless.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

foto said:


> shh. stop grasping.


For general forum discussions, I reckoned that linear speed vs. tangential speed was a little too much.

But overall, wheel speeds are measured with RPM (linear speed). Bike speed is tangential speed.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> I'm not saying that you will, nor did I ever claim you would. However there will be people who attempt to push the envelope of what's possible, and in some cases that will reveal a very real weakness in the system that's been modified.
> 
> What I'm saying is that there are real concerns and issues with moving to a disc brake system on the road, which have basically all been dismissed as "nah, it works on mountain bikes so it must be good on the road too" by the supporters of such changes.
> 
> ...


Going on a hunch (like you?) I would say the implementation is really not that hard at all, and is mostly how to design the package so it is all neatly integrated. The engineering of bicycle disc brakes is mostly already figured out and done. Road or mountain. I would say more work will need to go into frame design than brake design.

Yes the disciplines are different, but come on, they aren't grossly different.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

PlatyPius said:


> The rim, hub, and rotor are all connected, and therefore travel at the same speed. If not, your rim would at some point "lap" your hub and your spokes would have to be magic spokes that changed holes on the rim on their own.





PlatyPius said:


> The speed for a wheel is RPM - Revolutions Per Minute.


I am referring to tangential speed, not RPM. The velocity at which something moves increases the further from the center of the spinning circle at a given RPM. 

The circumference of a 160mm brake rotor is ~ 502mm

The circumference of a 622mm rim is `~1954mm

About 4 times the amount of brake surface passes a rim brake pad in a single rotation of the wheel. that means that the brake surface travels across the pad at ~4x the speed, does it not?

Simple test, spin your wheel in your hands. Try to read the decals on the hub, then try to read the decals on the sidewall of the tire.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> Going on a hunch (like you?) I would say the implementation is really not that hard at all, and is mostly how to design the package so it is all neatly integrated. The engineering of bicycle disc brakes is mostly already figured out and done. Road or mountain. I would say more work will need to go into frame design than brake design.
> 
> Yes the disciplines are different, but come on, they aren't grossly different.


If there's no challenges, then why do you have guys from Shimano and Magura claiming there are?

(That was the point of the article; to get actual industry perspective on the topic instead of a bunch of consumer input.)


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> The rim, hub, and rotor are all connected, and therefore travel at the same speed. If not, your rim would at some point "lap" your hub and your spokes would have to be magic spokes that changed holes on the rim on their own.


Factually correct in that they are a connected system...but you are missing something in your thought process.

An example for those to see the difference in speeds on a wheel (just an example since I don't know the exact amounts of travel for each):

The outside of the wheel travels 1 foot...during that same time duration...the rotor of a disc brake travels 1 inch...which is traveling faster?

They are turning revolutions at the same rate...but the distance they cover is different, therefore the speeds are different.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> If there's no challenges, then why do you have guys from Shimano and Magura claiming there are?
> 
> (That was the point of the article; to get actual industry perspective on the topic instead of a bunch of consumer input.)


Fine, since you insist I actually read the article:

Shimano:

"...Weight is more critical. The brake system itself isn’t so much the problem as redesigning the frames for the different torsional loads and redesigning the front wheel to accommodate for the asymmetrical dish..."

Magura:
"...The brakes itself might be equal, but forks and frames for disc brakes have to be beafier and made stiffer to take the loads from disc brakes with their asymmetrical force input..."

TRP:
"...Compared to mountain bikes, the piston and rotor sizes are quite similar from what we’ve found."

On pad compounds:

Shimano: "No" they won't be changed

Magura: "Pad compound and rotor surface on MTB disc brakes is already on the top. If we had better friction partners, we would use it on both MTB and road."

...and on and on.

Do I need to copy and paste the whole article in here?

I am convinced, the hard engineering for road discs has already been done with the development of mountain discs. The "challenges" now are packaging, frame design, and marketing.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> Fine, since you insist I actually read the article:
> 
> Shimano:
> 
> ...


And those aren't valid challenges that affect how well these systems work?

You're saying the same thing I am but splitting hairs about brake system vs frame, fork and wheels. The brake can't function independently of the frame, and visa versa. They work as a unit.

This whole transition will not be a "bolt on a disc and go ride through candy land" as people are claiming.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> And those aren't valid challenges that affect how well these systems work?
> 
> You're saying the same thing I am but splitting hairs about brake system vs frame, fork and wheels. The brake can't function independently of the frame, and visa versa. They work as a unit.
> 
> This whole transition will not be a "bolt on a disc and go ride through candy land" as people are claiming.


Maybe you are over-thinking this? There are _already_ road bikes with disc brakes on them. Light cross bikes? Ever hear of the Salsa Las Cruces? That was a 2.5 lb frame that was disc ready. Came out like 10 years ago. This really isn't rocket science. When you design a caliper mount onto a frame, a little testing will go into making sure its beefy enough for superlight bikes, but otherwise, yeah it kind of is slap a disc on and go ride.

Edit:
I think those interviews should be interpreted more like: what are these component engineers doing at work this week? Not, is this technology even feasible? Will these scientists overcome significant challenges to be able to apply this advanced technology to an entirely new application?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> Maybe you are over-thinking this? There are _already_ road bikes with disc brakes on them. Light cross bikes? Ever hear of the Salsa Las Cruces? That was a 2.5 lb frame that was disc ready. Came out like 10 years ago. This really isn't rocket science. When you design a caliper mount onto a frame, a little testing will go into making sure its beefy enough for superlight bikes, but otherwise, yeah it kind of is slap a disc on and go ride.


I've repeatedly stated there's wonderful uses for discs...in 'cross. On the road...not so much. But hey, if you think it's something you need, I can't stop you from buying it. But to arbitrarily accept it as so many are doing without a good, long, hard look at the pros and cons of both the system and the integration of the system into current and future frames/forks/wheels is foolish.

Those will be the people who, like the article author, end up hurting themselves because of their misplaced overconfidence. Then we'll have a dearth of posts about "OMG why didn't this work?"

In any case, good luck with that "slap on and ride" theory. It'll be easy to just stick a mount onto any old frame and go to town, I'm sure. And I'm sure it's going to be the greatest innovation since integrated shifting.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> I've repeatedly stated there's wonderful uses for discs...in 'cross. On the road...not so much. But hey, if you think it's something you need, I can't stop you from buying it. But to arbitrarily accept it as so many are doing without a good, long, hard look at the pros and cons of both the system and the integration of the system into current and future frames/forks/wheels is foolish.
> 
> Those will be the people who, like the article author, end up hurting themselves because of their misplaced overconfidence. Then we'll have a dearth of posts about "OMG why didn't this work?"
> 
> In any case, good luck with that "slap on and ride" theory. It'll be easy to just stick a mount onto any old frame and go to town, I'm sure. And I'm sure it's going to be the greatest innovation since integrated shifting.


An obtuse comment. Is this a competition for you? Fine, you win.

By the way, I have said a few times _in this very thread_ that I think this is a gimmicky idea to sell people more stuff.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

PlatyPius said:


> For general forum discussions, I reckoned that linear speed vs. tangential speed was a little too much.
> 
> But overall, wheel speeds are measured with RPM (linear speed). Bike speed is tangential speed.


You're actually missing the point of the argument; even if you only falsely consider the RPM of a wheel to be its velocity, the actual velocity is still greater at the rim, and that (for an example) if the coefficients of kinetic friction are similar between pad/rotor and pad/braking surface, that there will be much more heat generated at the rim. Granted, this greater heat is somewhat offset by the fact that rubber in a rim pad has a higher specific heat than the metal in a pad/rotor, and that the heat is dissipated across a greater area in the case of the rim vs. the rotor. However, the systems in place today on mountain can be easily translated to the road without any fear of safety concerns, because they have already been engineered to above six sigma tolerances to appropriately deal with any amount of fade. These systems, when taken in their entirety, not piecemealed together in untested and inappropriate configurations like the idiotic BikeRumor example, have been proven to work at the speeds and braking durations that road biking requires. The real question for most manufacturers and customers will be the weight penalty, something that will take real time and effort to work around.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

davidka said:


> An internet forum is not representative of the real world. For every report of a brake leaking there are 1000's of users not reporting that they are having no problems whatsoever.


Agreed, the usually the time I start a topic on the brake forum on mtbr.com is when I have an issue. Hummm, I think that's been 12+ months. I do go in there to help others with some issues I've had.

Of the problems I have posted about, they are not brake failures or major problems. Things like:
How to stop the "buzzing" I get on hard braking..............
Mixing pad types.............
Are the new R1 rotors worth the price...............


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

PlatyPius said:


> The speed for a wheel is RPM - Revolutions Per Minute.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> An obtuse comment. Is this a competition for you? Fine, you win.
> 
> By the way, I have said a few times _in this very thread_ that I think this is a gimmicky idea to sell people more stuff.


The only competition is to get the drooling masses who are ready to adopt new technology without second thought to think critically of the concepts.

Since people are so deceived by marketing, that's a difficult sell.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> The only competition is to get the drooling masses who are ready to adopt new technology without second thought to think critically of the concepts.
> 
> Since people are so deceived by marketing, that's a difficult sell.


Be sure that on your crusade, you don't become as reactionary as the early adopters.

But anyway, I don't think people are going to love these that much. Discs are really in-elegant compared to a rim brake. People love the soothing whir of a dialed-in road bike. Well guess what! That "tick tick tick" sound of rotor-brushing-brake-pad is almost impossible to avoid, since hard braking will warp even the highest quality rotor. So I agree with you, I don't think this is such a great application. But the engineering is figured out, and time will tell how well the marketing will play in the long run.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> I never had an issue in wet weather either, but that's just me.
> 
> I must be lucky.


Lucky, probably not. You are well skilled so luck isn't an issue. 

I have not bee riding road very long, but mtb much longer. The mtb skill transfered over rather well.

I have seen the panic braking resulting in a crash. I've seen people go over the double yellow, go off the road in to the shoulder, and the best one............a panic braking freak out and he unclipped as he was trying to stop 

All these were braking skill issues. You can't fix stupid.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

I would say this is really indicative of how dialed-in bicycles are getting, that major component manufacturers are starting to really grasp for new ideas and still use the old fall backs: shave some grams, add a speed, etc.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

foto said:


> hahaha
> 
> This is great! Do people still come here for "information"?


Hell No!!!!
I'm here with my popcorn and wine reading the verbal fireworks. I don't see why people pay for TV with this entertainment.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

DIRT BOY said:


> More like crap for though. He runs cyclocross brakes and very thin, ultralight rotors and wants to blame disc brakes in general?


Yeah, I noticed that too. Those rotors have more air space than my full suspension mtb shocks. I've only heard that brand mentioned in the weight weenie forum. There, weight is the only thing, function be damned. I was unofficially banned from the mtbr weight weenie forum because I bought a seat post that weighed 30 gr more than the one it replaced.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ziscwg said:


> Yeah, I noticed that too. Those rotors have more air space than my full suspension mtb shocks. I've only heard that brand mentioned in the weight weenie forum. There, weight is the only thing, function be damned. I was unofficially banned from the mtbr weight weenie forum because I bought a seat post that weighed 30 gr more than the one it replaced.


It does illustrate the difference between mountain bike and road bike discs. 

Chances are greater of overheating road discs on a 3 mile descent as opposed to overheating discs on a mountain bike. Sure, those rotors dissipate heat like sh!t, but are we sure the same wouldn't happen even with stock rotors?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> It does illustrate the difference between mountain bike and road bike discs.
> 
> Chances are greater of overheating road discs on a 3 mile descent as opposed to overheating discs on a mountain bike. Sure, those rotors dissipate heat like sh!t, *but are we sure the same wouldn't happen even with stock rotors?*


I am gonna go with "yes" on that one. Do you ever ride mountain bikes? There are such things as "multiple mile decents" on trails, and slowing down is _every bit as critical_ on a trail.

:yesnod:

Edit to add:

I mean come on, man! Aside from the other advantages, brake fade was *the big reason* discs became so ubiquitous. It is an issue on road bikes too, but not in the same way, for serious.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Royal28 said:


> You're actually missing the point of the argument; even if you only falsely consider the RPM of a wheel to be its velocity, the actual velocity is still greater at the rim, and that (for an example) if the coefficients of kinetic friction are similar between pad/rotor and pad/braking surface, that there will be much more heat generated at the rim. Granted, this greater heat is somewhat offset by the fact that rubber in a rim pad has a higher specific heat than the metal in a pad/rotor, and that the heat is dissipated across a greater area in the case of the rim vs. the rotor. However, the systems in place today on mountain can be easily translated to the road without any fear of safety concerns, because they have already been engineered to above six sigma tolerances to appropriately deal with any amount of fade. These systems, when taken in their entirety, not piecemealed together in untested and inappropriate configurations like the idiotic BikeRumor example, have been proven to work at the speeds and braking durations that road biking requires. The real question for most manufacturers and customers will be the weight penalty, something that will take real time and effort to work around.


I'm just being pedantic because you're a n00b.
I understand the argument/issue at hand.
Posting an "I agree!" reply isn't nearly as fun as a discussion about linear vs tangential, though.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> I am gonna go with "yes" on that one. Do you ever ride mountain bikes? There are such things as "multiple mile decents" on trails, and slowing down is _every bit as critical_ on a trail.
> 
> :yesnod:
> 
> ...


I spent quite a few years on mountain bikes, tyvm. No, I've never had issues on mountain bikes with brake fade, but then again, running 180mm rotors and not having to grab the brakes for every apex on a 3, 4 or 5 mile winding mountain road is a different critter. And brake fade prior to hydraulic discs was more a function of forearm fade than anything else.

I'm fully expecting to hear more stories like the one in that article. As was pointed out, these will not cover up poor technique; someone drags the brakes down a steep, winding road and those discs won't make a damn bit of difference. They can still overheat, they can still lose power. In some cases (as the author pointed out) that may happen faster than a rim brake, depending on the equipment and the circumstances.

Like I said...no real point in change for change's sake. This isn't cyclocross we're talking about.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> It does illustrate the difference between mountain bike and road bike discs.
> 
> Chances are greater of overheating road discs on a 3 mile descent as opposed to overheating discs on a mountain bike. Sure, those rotors dissipate heat like sh!t, but are we sure the same wouldn't happen even with stock rotors?


I reread the article and his braking technique was a contributing issue also. He should have been "pulsing" not doing a long continuous drag on the brake. 

However, I think he is just one of many that will go with disks thinking "anything will stop me". I'm sure a similar combo will be tried. 

IMHO, calipers leave you with little choice on what you can use. You are stuck with pad choice. I have run pads that faded on long downhills. Never a failure, but a fade none the less. 

With discs, you now can change the pad AND rotor. This will vary performance even more. If he would have gone with these Magura SL drilled rotors, I think his problems would have been way less. Sure they are heavier, but how much does breaking 5 ribs weigh? (rhetorical) 
View attachment 251073


There sure is a concern for people mismatching their pad, disc type, disc dia, for their ride/decent. I think we are already seeing a similar issue with carbon clinchers. I would love, and can afford, a set of carbon clinchers. However, with the hills and mtns around here that I love to ride, no way.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> I spent quite a few years on mountain bikes, tyvm. No, I've never had issues on mountain bikes with brake fade, but then again, running 180mm rotors and not having to grab the brakes for every apex on a 3, 4 or 5 mile winding mountain road is a different critter. *And brake fade prior to hydraulic discs was more a function of forearm fade than anything else.*
> 
> I'm fully expecting to hear more stories like the one in that article. As was pointed out, these will not cover up poor technique; someone drags the brakes down a steep, winding road and those discs won't make a damn bit of difference. They can still overheat, they can still lose power. In some cases (as the author pointed out) that may happen faster than a rim brake, depending on the equipment and the circumstances.
> 
> Like I said...no real point in change for change's sake. This isn't cyclocross we're talking about.


I disagree about that. Oh, and what are you talking about? You don't have to grab your brakes for every turn on a trail??? Unless its a burmed up freeride trail, I would say yes you do. You sound like a noob. And I do fine with 160s by the way, on my 6" bike, too.

And you are saying two things here, so stop changing the subject. 1) you are saying this is a gimmick, I agree. 2) you are saying this may present serious engineering challenges, I would say, you cray cray. Stop trying to change the subject.

Oh, and by the way, I weigh 180lbs, and I love to fawkin BOMB! I ain't a god or nothing, but I can rip up a trail on a mountain bike, and you a dang fool if you think a road descent is harder on brakes.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

ziscwg said:


> I reread the article and his braking technique was a contributing issue also. He should have been "pulsing" not doing a long continuous drag on the brake.
> 
> However, I think he is just one of many that will go with disks thinking "anything will stop me". I'm sure a similar combo will be tried.
> 
> ...


Calipers leave you plenty of choice (as you stated at the end.) If you choose a carbon clincher rim, you're accepting the inherent issues with them. If you choose a metal braking surface, they essentially become a 700c disc brake. As for brake fade, I'm curious how the hydraulic rim calipers will fare: there should be zero issues with brake fade and should be boatloads of modulation for even the pickiest technophile. IMHO, those are the real winners out of all of this, not the disc "revolution."

As for his braking issues being less, if he was just dragging the brakes for a substantial distance, I'd be surprised if he didn't experience some sort of brake fade (maybe not complete loss, but fade nonetheless.)

On carbon clinchers, I agree. I'll leave it that they are another stupid recent marketing development that makes little sense, but such as it is.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> I disagree about that. Oh, and what are you talking about? You don't have to grab your brakes for every turn on a trail??? Unless its a burmed up freeride trail, I would say yes you do. You sound like a noob. And I do fine with 160s by the way, on my 6" bike, too.
> 
> And you are saying two things here, so stop changing the subject. 1) you are saying this is a gimmick, I agree. 2) you are saying this may present serious engineering challenges, I would say, you cray cray. Stop trying to change the subject.
> 
> Oh, and by the way, I weigh 180lbs, and I love to fawkin BOMB! I ain't a god or nothing, but I can rip up a trail on a mountain bike, and you a dang fool if you think a road decent is harder on brakes.


Try riding cable operated mountain bike brakes for a long descent. They are a pain in the ass for just the reason I spoke of. 

A road descent is far harder on brakes, because the brake application is for longer periods of time during each application. Speeds are unequivocally higher on road descents so more speed needs to be scrubbed to make safe turns. You're telling me you grab the brakes for 10 seconds every time you come to a turn on the trail? Interesting.

1) They are a gimmick
2) They do present engineering challenges to wheels, frames and forks, as well as producing lightweight, compact units that will appeal to the general populace. Are they serious? Maybe. Snapping a fork sure a hell would be serious enough, wouldn't it?

I'm sure you love to bomb. I'm sure you "rip up a trail." It doesn't change the fact that road descents require comparatively more braking to scrub greater speeds and typically for longer periods. I'm not sure what kind of roads you're riding, but the idea of just grabbing your road bike brakes like you would on a trail is a damn good way to get you seriously hurt, and you know that.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> He states numerous times he was the cause of the accident.
> 
> The meat of the article was industry input from everyone except SRAM on the challenges and potential pitfalls of discs on road bikes.
> 
> Critical thinking, please.


Should we talk about challenges and pitfalls of rim brakes on road bikes as well? Cables on road bikes? Talk about critical thinking :thumbsup:

ANY set-up on ANY bike has issues, period.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> Should we talk about challenges and pitfalls of rim brakes on road bikes as well? Cables on road bikes? Talk about critical thinking :thumbsup:
> 
> *ANY set-up on ANY bike has issues, period.*


So why don't you explain why disc brakes are the panacea to all braking problems on road bikes? Hm?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> *Try riding cable operated mountain bike brakes for a long descent.* They are a pain in the ass for just the reason I spoke of.
> 
> A road descent is far harder on brakes, because the brake application is for longer periods of time during each application. Speeds are unequivocally higher on road descents so more speed needs to be scrubbed to make safe turns. You're telling me you grab the brakes for 10 seconds every time you come to a turn on the trail? Interesting.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what kind of trails you're riding. Like I said, I ride down mountains. I grew up on the east coast, so I think it is fair to say that the mountains here are _significant_. A 5 mile descent is not that uncommon, and you better be careful letting yourself roll out too much. Why am I even argueing with you? I think you are trying to bait me or something.

And...... there is a difference between engineering challenges and serious consequences, lets not get started on that list, oi.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ziscwg said:


> Yeah, I noticed that too. Those rotors have more air space than my full suspension mtb shocks. I've only heard that brand mentioned in the weight weenie forum. There, weight is the only thing, function be damned. I was unofficially banned from the mtbr weight weenie forum because I bought a seat post that weighed 30 gr more than the one it replaced.


Yet these rotors work well for SOOOO many people on the MTB side for XC and AM riding. I have a customer in CO that rides some hairy terrain with them and has ZERO issues.

Again, making this guys blog report more crap that I care to read. Rider error and bad equipment choices, and maybe even lack of skills.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> I'm not sure what kind of trails you're riding. Like I said, I ride down mountains. I grew up on the east coast, so I think it is fair to say that the mountains here are _significant_. A 5 mile descent is not that uncommon, and you better be careful letting yourself roll out too much. Why am I even argueing with you? I think you are trying to bait me or something.
> 
> And...... there is a difference between engineering challenges and serious consequences, lets not get started on that list, oi.


Serious consequences often result from improperly resolved engineering challenges. But if you want to ignore that, be my guest.

Discs are still a stupid idea.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> So why don't you explain why disc brakes are the panacea to all braking problems on road bikes? Hm?


I already brought some reason WHY someone would want to switch and things it would remedy. Can't read? 

It's not for everyone and WILL NOT 100% replace caliper brakes, period.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> I already brought some reason WHY someone would want to switch and things it would remedy. Can't read?
> 
> *It's not for everyone and WILL NOT 100% replace caliper brakes, period.*


Ah yes, the infamous "carbon braking sucks." Yet, I guess aluminum rims don't exist....oh dear. 

Yet you and others keep claiming "its the future, deal with it" which is another BS cop out and you know it. 

Not much different from your claims that electronic shifting is the absolute future and will replace cables completely.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> *Serious consequences often result from improperly resolved engineering challenges*. But if you want to ignore that, be my guest.
> 
> Discs are still a stupid idea.


Again, an obtuse comment. A brake cable snapping can have pretty effin serious consequences, but I think the engineering issues are worked out. Or would you suggest that since the consquences of a snapped cable can be so great, we shouldn't encourage people to use brakes?

Jamming a toothbrush up your nose really hard can also have some serious consequences, but I think the whole personal dental hygenie "issues" are pretty well worked out at this point...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> Again, an obtuse comment. A brake cable snapping can have pretty effin serious consequences, but I think the engineering issues are worked out. Or would you suggest that since the consquences of a snapped cable can be so great, we shouldn't encourage people to use brakes?
> 
> Jamming a toothbrush up your nose really hard can also have some serious consequences, but I think the whole personal dental hygenie "issues" are pretty well worked out at this point...


Speaking of obtuse comments.... 

A snapped cable is not an engineering problem requiring the redesign of a frame, fork and wheelset to accomodate something.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Speaking of obtuse comments....
> 
> A snapped cable is not an engineering problem requiring the redesign of a frame, fork and wheelset to accomodate something.


It's true, the bicycle industry has some of the most retarded mechanical designers in the world.

"Oh no! Assymetrical loads! Waaa! Those are _so hard!_ I wanna go back to the bar tape division!"


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> It's true, the bicycle industry has some of the most retarded mechanical designers in the world.
> 
> "Oh no! Assymetrical loads! Waaa! Those are _so hard!_ I wanna go back to the bar tape division!"


I'm sure that's exactly what they say. 

Again talking about obtuse comments...


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

One more obtuse comment, and then I gotta go... 

Trail porn


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

PlatyPius said:


> I'm just being pedantic because you're a n00b.
> I understand the argument/issue at hand.
> Posting an "I agree!" reply isn't nearly as fun as a discussion about linear vs tangential, though.


If you claim to understand the argument, why don't you try to form a scientifically based response to my statement instead of calling names? I guess trying to engender a mature, fact-based conversation doesn't work here.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Ah yes, the infamous "carbon braking sucks." Yet, I guess aluminum rims don't exist....oh dear.
> 
> Yet you and others keep claiming "its the future, deal with it" which is another BS cop out and you know it.
> 
> Not much different from your claims that electronic shifting is the absolute future and will replace cables completely.


You miss his point completely; the fact that some people want to use carbon rims instead of aluminum rims yet still have good braking power and control on long descents, in the wet, etc. is a perfectly logical reason for a switch to discs.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Calipers leave you plenty of choice (as you stated at the end.) If you choose a carbon clincher rim, you're accepting the inherent issues with them. If you choose a metal braking surface, they essentially become a 700c disc brake. As for brake fade, I'm curious how the hydraulic rim calipers will fare: there should be zero issues with brake fade and should be boatloads of modulation for even the pickiest technophile. IMHO, those are the real winners out of all of this, not the disc "revolution."
> 
> As for his braking issues being less, if he was just dragging the brakes for a substantial distance, I'd be surprised if he didn't experience some sort of brake fade (maybe not complete loss, but fade nonetheless.)
> 
> On carbon clinchers, I agree. I'll leave it that they are another stupid recent marketing development that makes little sense, but such as it is.


I don't think caliper hydros will suffer from much fade from caliper heat as the piston is far from the braking surface. There could be some from pad/rim heat. I really don't think it will be much at all. Pad glazing could be an issue too. The nice thing about pad glazing it wears off with some mild pressure stops.

I like the Shimano Ice Tech mentioned in the article. It's an interesting idea I may have to try out. I have one mtb decent where my brakes get hot. It's never a full "to the bar" fade, but I can feel is some.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> You miss his point completely; the fact that some people want to use carbon rims instead of aluminum rims yet still have good braking power and control on long descents, in the wet, etc. is a perfectly logical reason for a switch to discs.


Sure it is. 

I'll repeat: there is nothing wrong with carbon braking in the wet, if your skillset doesn't suck.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Calipers leave you plenty of choice (as you stated at the end.) If you choose a carbon clincher rim, you're accepting the inherent issues with them. If you choose a metal braking surface, they essentially become a 700c disc brake. As for brake fade, I'm curious how the hydraulic rim calipers will fare: there should be zero issues with brake fade and should be boatloads of modulation for even the pickiest technophile. IMHO, those are the real winners out of all of this, not the disc "revolution."
> 
> As for his braking issues being less, if he was just dragging the brakes for a substantial distance, I'd be surprised if he didn't experience some sort of brake fade (maybe not complete loss, but fade nonetheless.)
> 
> On carbon clinchers, I agree. I'll leave it that they are another stupid recent marketing development that makes little sense, but such as it is.


This is also patently incorrect - the sole difference between hydraulic rim brakes and mechanical rim brakes is that the hand force required will be less for hydraulics. Any kind of disc brake will have more modulation and control than a rim brake because of simple physics - since the rim brake is farther from the center of the wheel, it actually brakes with more force than a disc brake closer to the hub - meaning that a rim brake will lock up the wheel with less force supplied than a disc brake will. This greater force required for a disc brake translates into a higher braking threshold (the point right before you lock up the wheel), which gives you more modulation, or control, in braking.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> This is also patently incorrect - the sole difference between hydraulic rim brakes and mechanical rim brakes is that the hand force required will be less for hydraulics. Any kind of disc brake will have more modulation and control than a rim brake because of simple physics - since the rim brake is farther from the center of the wheel, it actually brakes with more force than a disc brake closer to the hub - meaning that a rim brake will lock up the wheel with less force supplied than a disc brake will. This greater force required for a disc brake translates into a higher braking threshold (the point right before you lock up the wheel), which gives you more modulation, or control, in braking.


In theory, with all other variables the same, yes.

Disc pads =/= surface area of rim pads
Disc pads =/= material of rim pads
Disc caliper =/= same piston design as rim caliper

With such a long lever arm, you can easily build a caliper brake that ramps up leverage as the lever is pulled, resulting in both good modulation and high stopping power with little lever force necessary. And physiologically, grip pressure is much more easily modulated at lower pressures than high. Reduce the pressure necessary with the use of a hydraulic system and couple it to a ramping system like a cam, and you have a brake operable with one finger and excellent modulation.

t=Rf. To keep the same torque on a wheel of 3x the radius, you need 1/3 of the force. Most people would rather it take less force to brake than more.

But of course, it doesn't matter, because you've already decided you must have discs right? Must be a marketing thing...


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> In theory, with all other variables the same, yes.
> 
> Disc pads =/= surface area of rim pads
> Disc pads =/= material of rim pads
> ...


Again, incorrect assumptions: the friction force generated by disc brakes is necessarily greater than rim brakes as per my above post, and that force in and of itself will guarantee more modulation. Rim brakes will, in practice, never be able to sustain as high of a threshold as disc brakes will because of that lesser force - the difference in the coefficient of friction (call it mu) created by different materials and surface area plays an insignificant role in the force equation F= mu*normal force, the normal force being the opposition of the rotor against the force you supply to it through use of the levers and correspondingly the pads on the rim or disc caliper. Therefore, the force will always depend almost solely on the force supplied by the lever/caliper, not the pad material or difference in surface area between rim pad and disc pad.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> t=Rf. To keep the same torque on a wheel of 3x the radius, you need 1/3 of the force. Most people would rather it take less force to brake than more.


You're not entirely correct in your interpretation of torque here, but you grasp the basic principle. What you don't seem to understand is that the lesser force needed at the rim does not translate to a lesser hand force, but rather a lesser force required to lock the rim - a lower threshold. This means that with rim brakes you have lesser stopping power, which is exactly the opposite of what people want in a braking system.


----------



## tiflow_21 (Nov 21, 2005)

foto said:


> Be sure that on your crusade, you don't become as reactionary as the early adopters.
> 
> But anyway, I don't think people are going to love these that much. Discs are really in-elegant compared to a rim brake. People love the soothing whir of a dialed-in road bike. Well guess what! That "tick tick tick" sound of rotor-brushing-brake-pad is almost impossible to avoid, since hard braking will warp even the highest quality rotor. So I agree with you, I don't think this is such a great application. But the engineering is figured out, and time will tell how well the marketing will play in the long run.


'Rotor-brushing-brake-pad' is not impossible to avoid. It comes with knowing how to setup and true disc brake rotors. It takes awhile to learn how to work on disc brakes, but like anything once you know how to do it it's not a big deal.

I'm hearing a lot of the same arguments against disc brakes that I heard when mountain bikes originally started converting. There's a lot of speculation going on and not a lot of facts.

I'm a huge supporter of disc brakes on cross bikes. I'm not as completely sold on them for a road bike. However, if designed correctly and given some time to work out the initial kinks it wouldn't surprise me if discs end up making rim brakes obsolete on new road and cross bikes. Evolution is a good thing.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

tiflow_21 said:


> *'Rotor-brushing-brake-pad' is not impossible to avoid. It comes with knowing how to setup and true disc brake rotors. It takes awhile to learn how to work on disc brakes, but like anything once you know how to do it it's not a big deal.
> *
> I'm hearing a lot of the same arguments against disc brakes that I heard when mountain bikes originally started converting. There's a lot of speculation going on and not a lot of facts.
> 
> I'm a huge supporter of disc brakes on cross bikes. I'm not as completely sold on them for a road bike. However, if designed correctly and given some time to work out the initial kinks it wouldn't surprise me if discs end up making rim brakes obsolete on new road and cross bikes. Evolution is a good thing.


in the stand, yes. but after some good hard braking, when your rotor start to warp, it is a little harder...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

From the article, I find these points to be interesting



> When you take the braking surface off the rim on a mountain bike, you can reduce material there and weight. I don’t believe we can do that on a road bike. If you eliminate the brake surface on a road bike and reduce material, I think you’re going to make it too fragile. It would be unable to maintain its stability.


So for those who think that road wheels are going to get lighter, not so fast, according to Shimano.



> Magura: We’re only offering hydraulic RIM brakes for TT and Tri-bikes (at least at the moment, brakes for normal road bikes might follow!?!), no disc brakes. Hydraulic rim brakes are lighter than disc brakes if you look at the complete system. The brakes itself might be equal, but forks and frames for disc brakes have to be beafier and made stiffer to take the loads from disc brakes with their asymmetrical force input. The system of road frame and fork for discs is minimum 500gr heavier than for rim brakes. Weight on disc brakes depends also a lot on the rotor size, the bigger the rotor, the more weight. In order to achieve high heat loads on disc brakes, especially on longer, steeper descents, bigger rotors are neccessary, at least 180mm front, increasing the weight additionally. Rim brakes are more aerodynamic than disc brakes, they can be hidden in the same shape as frame and fork, Disc brake calipers and rotors always protrude the shape of frame and fork.
> 
> With rim brakes you already have the biggest possible rotor on a wheel: the rim!
> 
> Rim brakes don’t suffer from heat build up/overheating on the hydraulic system, as the distance friction partners (rim/pad) is really far away from the hydraulic piston, so no expansion chamber is even neccessary.


Interesting that Magura, one of the foremost authority in hydro disc in the MTB world, does not think hydro disc is the right application for road bike.



> BIKERUMOR: What about the bike frames themselves?
> 
> Shimano: Frames will have to be beefed up to handle the different torsional loads, particularly on the forks. If you just take a fork that’s developed for rim brakes and add disc mounts, that fork is not prepared to take the braking force on one side down at the end. And the rear spacing will have to change to 135mm. It’s a big deal. The other thing that people don’t think about is that you have to offset the front wheel. To handle the narrower spoke flange width, you’re going to either have to add four spokes to the front wheel or about 40g to the rim to make it strong enough. And you won’t be able to use certain types of spokes, meaning it’s not going to be as aerodynamic. As for material, a carbon frame isn’t going to dissipate heat from the caliper any.





> And then I talked to Hayes Brakes product manager Joel Richardson. Most people don’t associate Hayes with road bikes, but it turns out they may just have more experience with road bike disc brakes than anyone at the moment:
> 
> “About six years ago, we identified the road market as a very good application for disc brakes at a high level,” Richardson says. “We spent a good amount of R&D time and money to develop hydraulic and mechanical disc brakes for a major OEM manufacturer, one of the biggest. After a couple years of development, we hit major roadblocks. The biggest of which is packaging. The current mountain bike brake designs and mounting standards -six bolt rotors, flange offsets, 74mm direct post mount, etc.- just didn’t work for road. All of these were done for a reason with mountain bikes and they work there. The road we went down was a new standard for mounting the brakes. We were working with a major player in the road bike market, but even with their substantial clout, we found that the required packaging of the product didn’t mesh with what customers are likely to want (read: buy).
> 
> ...


Looks like Hayes found out 6 years ago that getting roadies to accept the change was hard. Why would it be any easier now 6 years later? Just because SRAM is doing it now? I don't think so.

Too bad SRAM refused for an interview!


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

robdamanii said:


> 1) They are a gimmick
> 2) They do present engineering challenges to wheels, frames and forks, as well as producing lightweight, compact units that will appeal to the general populace. Are they serious? Maybe. Snapping a fork sure a hell would be serious enough, wouldn't it?
> 
> I'm sure you love to bomb. I'm sure you "rip up a trail." It doesn't change the fact that road descents require comparatively more braking to scrub greater speeds and typically for longer periods. I'm not sure what kind of roads you're riding, but the idea of just grabbing your road bike brakes like you would on a trail is a damn good way to get you seriously hurt, and you know that.


The things you point out above are exactly the things that discs improve upon. Harder braking conditions will be better handled by discs. This is true of every other braking application that exists today. There are no engineering challenges. It has all been done on MTB frames and wheels. We've been riding rear wheels with ridiculous amounts of dish for years. No unacceptable problems.



robdamanii said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> I'll repeat: there is nothing wrong with carbon braking in the wet, if your skillset doesn't suck.


Carbon rims/braking in the wet absolutely sucks, so do alloy rims, they just suck less. You are the one and only person I have ever heard say otherwise.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

foto said:


> I mean come on, man! Aside from the other advantages, brake fade was *the big reason* discs became so ubiquitous. It is an issue on road bikes too, but not in the same way, for serious.


How do you come up with this stuff?

Fade has always been, and still is the one and only major downside to discs. Disc brakes solved the hand pump problem for mountain bikes. Working in the wet was probably the second benefit.

Are you guys really having that much trouble stopping? Are you ending rides with your hands screaming from death gripping the levers? I was on my mountain bike, im glad to have discs on it. Big discs at that. Ive never had hand pump on my road bike, even going through the mountains.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

aclinjury said:


> From the article, I find these points to be interesting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. Too bad the people running around clapping their hands with glee can't read.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Here's my thinking.

Pros/benefits of hydro disc:

- good modulation
- great wet & muddy application

===========================================================

Now for the argument against disc on road bikes (hydro and mechanical)

- frames and forks have to be made beefier, aka, heavier. We know this will not jive well in a weight-conscious weenie world. Maybe in a tandem, cyclocross, commuter world, but sorry not in weenieland.

- wheels can be made lighter. Sadly this won't happen, and if anything, Shimano seems to think the opposite will happen because wheels now need to take additional braking torque.

- disc size won't be a 140mm and it can't be a skinny one either. Disc size has to be 160mm minimum, and Magura seems to think 180mm is better, and discs have to be heavy enough (have enough mass), so that heat can be dissipated effectively. On the other hand, rim brakes don't have issues with heat.

- brake power from disc will not be stronger than what you can already get with caliper (according to Magura). Hydro will give better modulation yes, but not better power (unless you want use some 220mm+ rotors!)

- disc is not aero friendly

- disc will require a complete change of standard, meaning, it will present a huge investment hurdle. Guys already heavily vested in the current standard ain't going to want to suddenly dump their frames and components so they can try the latest trend.

- The guys from Shimano, Magura, Hayes, in the article don't actually seem all that excited about the possibility of using hydro disc on a road bike. If anything, these guys seem to a shrugging attitude, as if they have thought about it, been there, and now not as impressed as some segments of the general public.

- then there is the issue of aesthetic! This should NOT be so easily overlooked in the road world, where guys tend to be traditional, who like their bike sleek-lookin like a supermodel, where guys will match their color patter of their bike to their tights to their helmets and gloves. I mean half the joy of owning an expensive bike for these guys (me included) is to have a nice aesthetic piece of machine. Disc is ugly, they look ugly on my mtb bike, and can only look uglier on a road bike. On a sleek looking road bike, disc sticks out like a sore thumb.

So as a potential highend road bike buyer, who have invested in several expensive bikes and components, would like someone to persuade me why I should care for hydro disc on my road bike? I have absolutely no problem with stopping and descending, and I have ridden all the big mountain/hilly roads of Socal (eg, Palomar, GMR, Mt Wilson, Big Bear, Wrightwood (Mt High), Hwy 39, Hwy 38, all the steep hills of Malibu, Santa Monica, Calabassas). Tell me why I should need hydro disc? If you can't convince me, then I won't buy, and if I won't buy, then Shimano, Sram, Magura, Hayes, TRP surely ain't gonna produce them at a cheap enough price so that you hydro disc lovers could afford them either.

I will honestly say that I don't ride carbon rims, don't care for carbon rims that much. I don't ride in the wet. I'm in Socal, when it rains, I hit the gym and spin or do a body workout. Seeing that Socal is a pretty big market for highend bikes, I just don't see anyone here going for the hydro disc. That is my opinion based on my experience and location.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

TomH said:


> How do you come up with this stuff?
> 
> Fade has always been, and still is the one and only major downside to discs. Disc brakes solved the hand pump problem for mountain bikes. Working in the wet was probably the second benefit.
> 
> .


Disc brakes improved every aspect of MTB braking, fade included. Fade is not and not been a downside to disc brakes in a long time. In any situation you could cause a disc to face, a rim brake would deteriorate worse.

We see riders run wide and off the road altogether (sometimes to terrible consequences), in pro tour road racing all the time. Rider skill or brake fade?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

And another thing that will happen with disc brakes is squeal & squeak!
Steel disc and semimetallic pads will squeak MUCH MUCH more than rim pads. This tens to happen when the disc/pad get dirty, wet and then dry, humidity, and rotor warp (rotors will warp as they get used). In the MTB world, it already annoying, but MTB peeps tend to accept brake squeak as a part of life, and also because riding on dirt is noisy in itself so another noise is just part of life. In the road world, I imagine that all the weightweenies in GroupA1 aren't going to be happy if their bike squeak like a slaughtered pig!


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> I'll repeat: there is nothing wrong with carbon braking in the wet, if your skillset doesn't suck.


I hate to do this because if you read many of my post, I usually agree with you. However, full carbon/ cork pads suck royally in the wet. I had a pair of Zipp 404s and experienced that firsthand. I ride on my aluminum rims and sure I have to take into consideration that braking will be longer, but with those 404s, braking was almost non-existent. I switched for the 404s with aluminum braking surface because of that. Big difference....


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

davidka said:


> We see riders run wide and off the road altogether (sometimes to terrible consequences), in pro tour road racing all the time. Rider skill or brake fade?


99% time you run wide, it means you are trying to do something above your skill level. I can guarantee you 99% of those instances that hydro disc will not save a rider without the required skill at such speed.

The other factor you have to keep in mind is that professional racers who race to win at all cost will take risks and push beyond their skill. I see all the pro crashes on Youtube, and in every single instance, I'm saying to myself, "dude is overcooking the corner". Lights out!

MotoGP and F1 guys running the BEST brakes money can buy... crash into each other and into barriers at EVERY race (more so in F1). Why? Surely it's not because of the brakes right. It all comes down to skill and judgement. Ride smart, ride within your skill, then you'll live. Otherwise, you crash and burn. Always has been, always will be the case in racing.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Yep. Too bad the people running around clapping their hands with glee can't read.


In my opinion, if you can't construct your own fact-based rebuttal that isn't riddled with mistakes like the examples you've made, insulting other people's intelligences is slightly hypocritical. I for one welcome the chance to have a mature, open debate.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

aclinjury said:


> 99% time you run wide, it means you are trying to do something above your skill level. I can guarantee you 99% of those instances that hydro disc will not save a rider without the required skill at such speed.
> 
> The other factor you have to keep in mind is that professional racers who race to win at all cost will take risks and push beyond their skill. I see all the pro crashes on Youtube, and in every single instance, I'm saying to myself, "dude is overcooking the corner". Lights out!
> 
> MotoGP and F1 guys running the BEST brakes money can buy... crash into each other and into barriers at EVERY race (more so in F1). Why? Surely it's not because of the brakes right. It all comes down to skill and judgement. Ride smart, ride within your skill, then you'll live. Otherwise, you crash and burn. Always has been, always will be the case in racing.


If you run wide, you are exceeding the limitations of your equipment and the conditions. Part of riding skill is anticipating these limitations though none of this is any reason to continue to accept mediocre or to not improve braking performance on road bikes.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

davidka said:


> Carbon rims/braking in the wet absolutely sucks, so do alloy rims, they just suck less. You are the one and only person I have ever heard say otherwise.


Carbon rims have a different sensation of braking in the wet, but for the most part this is an issue of the rims having to be cleared of water before the pads can get a good grip on the braking surface. If you get some proper brake pads and very slightly adjust your braking style your carbon rims will work just as well as in the dry. 

Learning to lightly apply your brakes to dry the rim before needing to apply real braking power is a basic skill needed to ride carbon rims in the wet. In my opinion the way you brake in the rain is a skill that is used to suit a certain braking situation, just like learning to feather the brakes for riding a technical crit is a different skill than learning how to scrub speed quickly before a switchback. 

The argument that "I can't brake well in the rain!" is like complaining about how difficult and dangerous crit corners are because you grab a handful of brake before every turn. Learn proper technique and that issue goes away. 

I raced in the rain several times in France while using Reynolds carbon rims. In all those races the vast majority of riders were running aluminium wheels, but I was still dropping the entire field through every corner because my braking technique in the rain allowed me just as much control as in the dry. 

Changing over to disc brakes does not offer any real advantage that a proper set of braking skills cannot offer.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

chase196126 said:


> Carbon rims have a different sensation of braking in the wet, but for the most part this is an issue of the rims having to be cleared of water before the pads can get a good grip on the braking surface. If you get some proper brake pads and very slightly adjust your braking style your carbon rims will work just as well as in the dry.
> 
> Learning to lightly apply your brakes to dry the rim before needing to apply real braking power is a basic skill needed to ride carbon rims in the wet. In my opinion the way you brake in the rain is a skill that is used to suit a certain braking situation, just like learning to feather the brakes for riding a technical crit is a different skill than learning how to scrub speed quickly before a switchback.
> 
> ...


I rest my case on the "carbon in the wet" braking issue.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> I rest my case on the "carbon in the wet" braking issue.


It may be that rim-braked carbon wheels, treated with special coatings on the braking track, have an equal stopping power to rim-braked aluminum wheels. *However*, disc brakes will still have greater stopping power in any situation, as demonstrated by my above posts and data from the field. Given greater stopping power, downhills can be taken faster by anyone, be it a pro or a recreational rider.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

chase196126 said:


> Carbon rims have a different sensation of braking in the wet, but for the most part this is an issue of the rims having to be cleared of water before the pads can get a good grip on the braking surface. If you get some proper brake pads and very slightly adjust your braking style your carbon rims will work just as well as in the dry.
> 
> Learning to lightly apply your brakes to dry the rim before needing to apply real braking power is a basic skill needed to ride carbon rims in the wet. In my opinion the way you brake in the rain is a skill that is used to suit a certain braking situation, just like learning to feather the brakes for riding a technical crit is a different skill than learning how to scrub speed quickly before a switchback.
> 
> ...


I'll just go ahead and disagree that there is any technique that makes a (any) rim brake works as well in the wet as it does in the dry, that's just false. 

Nobody is disputing that an amount of conditions specific skill is required in the wet, braking being just one aspect of that but your argument is just like saying that indexed shifting is unnecessary because a skilled rider can shift adequately with a friction setup.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> It may be that rim-braked carbon wheels, treated with special coatings on the braking track, have an equal stopping power to rim-braked aluminum wheels. *However*, disc brakes will still have greater stopping power in any situation, as demonstrated by my above posts and data from the field. Given greater stopping power, downhills can be taken faster by anyone, be it a pro or a recreational rider.


Right, so instead of learning proper technique, just rely on your machine to do it for you.

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

davidka said:


> If you run wide, you are exceeding the limitations of your equipment and the conditions. Part of riding skill is anticipating these limitations though none of this is any reason to continue to accept mediocre or to not improve braking performance on road bikes.


If the improvement is 10% faster on the descent (and I'm being generous on the 10%) but the cost of improvement requires a complete change in standard, with the money involved in changing standard (eg, frame makers will need to spend a lot on R&D testing the new standard, and this cost surely will be passed down to the buyers)... do you think people will

a) go 10% slower on the descent
b) run out and upgrade to the new standard, pay a load of money, so they can go 10% faster on the descent then their buddies?

Based on Shimano and Magura response, a disc equipped road bike is not lighter but heavier than a caliper equipped bike. Then would it be scientific to say that whatever a caliper equipped bike gives up on the descent, it'll make up for it on the climb?

Let's not forget the weight factor, aesthetic factor, the sleekness factor, the sexiness factor, and the traditions factor, which should not be dismissed lightly in the road world. 
Somehow, I think not a lot of roadies are gonna rush out and embrace hydro disc.

And based on Hayes unenthused response, they don't care much for hydro disc on road bike because they think what didn't work 6 years ago probably will not work 6 years later.

Shimano, Magura, Hayes, TRP, have much financial to gain should everyone embrace the hydro disc standard. They would get new revenue avenues. Yet, I find it pretty interesting that these same players are being pretty reserved in the Bikerumor article regarding hydro disc and road bikes.

Let's wait and see. Right now, I do not plan to put a dime into the new standard.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Right, so instead of learning proper technique, just rely on your machine to do it for you.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


Wrong - the better technology will *positively augment* technique, not become a replacement for it. When LeMond started using aero bars, he didn't stop training for time trials. How can you possibly misconstrue my statements so greatly?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> Wrong - the better technology will *positively augment* technique, not become a replacement for it. When LeMond started using aero bars, he didn't stop training for time trials. How can you possibly misconstrue my statements so greatly?


Physiological training and skills training are two completely different things, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out the difference.

This:


> Given greater stopping power, downhills can be taken faster by anyone, be it a pro or a recreational rider.


...very obviously intimates that weak stopping power is what's limiting recreational riders in their descending. Never mind the fact that if they took the time to learn how to use the brakes they DO have, they'd be far faster than they will be if they drop a few Ks to put discs on their bike.

Lack of skill will not be covered up by equipment, despite what you think.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

aclinjury said:


> If the improvement is 10% faster on the descent (and I'm being generous on the 10%) but the cost of improvement requires a complete change in standard, with the money involved in changing standard (eg, frame makers will need to spend a lot on R&D testing the new standard, and this cost surely will be passed down to the buyers)... do you think people will
> 
> a) go 10% slower on the descent
> b) run out and upgrade to the new standard, pay a load of money, so they can go 10% faster on the descent then their buddies?
> ...


I would not read too much into what Hayes and Shimano have said. Both have released new road-pull cable discs and you can bet that both companies have hydraulic road brakes on top of the project list. It doesn't benefit them at all to be on the hype bandwagon without a product to participate in the marketplace.

As for weight/benefit, MTB has already proven that bikes can be built extremely light with disc brakes. Pro's are already adding weight to their bikes to make the minimum. True, there is a weight stigma in road, sometimes misguided. Aerodynamic efficiency has long been proven to be more beneficial than lighter weight in all racing conditions outside of an uphill TT, yet riders still hold light weight high on the pedestal.

I also agree with you on the tradition factor but history has shown that these standards will fall away (not many steel bikes being made, nor 32h wheels these days) but I believe that the capable brands will bring out disc equipped bikes that will ooze sleek and performance with discs. I expect the integration to be pretty refined.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

chase196126,

Just a quick question...one of which you may or may not be able to answer honestly considering the team you ride for.

... Is your defiance of disc brakes for road bikes based on sponsorship? 

Bissel is sponsored by Campy, which to my knowledge doesn't have a large background in disc brake design and likely doesn't want to put resources toward the usage of disc brakes given they just spent a lot of time working on their electronic shifting system.

Everybody and I mean everybody that has ridden carbon rims in the wet know they don't stop as well, or even close to that of an aluminum rim...and compared to a disc equipped wheel the aluminum rim isn't even close. Now, if you have really good mechanics that are scrubbing the rims and creating better braking surfaces before each race...that's a bit of an edge compared to other, non sponsored riders. 

Sure...technique helps when descending, in fact the less you have to use your brakes the faster you will generally get down the mountain...so braking force isn't the end-all-be-all of descending debate.

Given your situation...I can understand if you are "Somewhat" required to shoot down the disc/rim brake argument given a direct competitor in the component market is coming out with them this year and their other direct competitor is likely coming out with them next year...which will put Campy a bit behind when it comes to braking systems of the future.

I can also understand the incompatibility you will have to deal with while racing...which for the first several years would be quite a hassle...assuming the UCI allows them in road racing...but that doesn't lessen the fact that they are coming and will be integrated into road bikes of the future.


robdamanii,

We get it...you don't like disc brakes...good for you...don't buy a bike with them when they come out. If all bikes end up with them, I guess you will either have to make the switch, stick to old bikes or just give up riding.

We do have a very experienced frame maker on this forum who is all for the idea of disc brakes on road bikes...and he seems to feel they will be very beneficial and doesn't see a problem building bikes to handle the new forces exerted on them. So your argument there is invalid.

It simply comes down to this...If you don't like them, don't buy them! Stop trying to persuade those that do want them from wanting them...it's completely redundant at this point.

chase196126...maybe your thought process will change as your teams change and the equipment you are required to ride changes...It wouldn't be the first time I've heard a pro shoot down a piece of equipment...change teams...then all the sudden praise that same piece of equipment


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Granted technique is important, but I think descending speed is most dependent on the size of your gonads. If you overcook entry into a turn, the best brake in the world isn't going to get you out the other side, because at that point it's too late. And should God decide to malevolently place some gravel at the apex of the turn... well, it's just not going to be a good day!


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> chase196126,
> 
> Just a quick question...one of which you may or may not be able to answer honestly considering the team you ride for.
> 
> ...


I can say with 100% honesty that it has nothing to do with the fact that I ride for a Campy sponsored team. The thoughts and concerns I have expressed are all my own. Personally I think the new hydro rim brakes are a really cool idea, and I wouldn't mind giving them a try at all, I just don't don't like the idea of the sport going to discs. 

As I have said in previous posts, my main concerns are compatibility for neutral support, aerodynamics, etc. I also don't like the idea of fundamentally changing the way road bikes work by changing to a completely new braking system. I just don't see a need for it when the equipment that is out now works just fine (at least for me). 

My other reasons are less able to be backed up with data or technical reasons. The idea of crashing into a pile of guys with sharp rotors on every wheel scares me. I don't like the idea of giving excitable guys in the field a brake that can be locked up even more quickly than a rim brake can. The final reason, and the one with the least real sense behind it, is that I simply don't like the way discs look...


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Physiological training and skills training are two completely different things, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out the difference.
> 
> This:
> 
> ...


Again, I didn't say that it should or will cover up bad skill. My original point that you have yet to refute is that discs have greater stopping power than rim brakes. How (short of the few, harebrained people that given *any* new technology will use it as a crutch instead of improving in skill) is it possibly bad to have greater stopping power?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> Again, I didn't say that it should or will cover up bad skill. My original point that you have yet to refute is that discs have greater stopping power than rim brakes. How (short of the few, harebrained people that given *any* new technology will use it as a crutch instead of improving in skill) is it possibly bad to have greater stopping power?


Because (which you can't get through your thick skull) you don't NEED more bloody stopping power if your have a properly set up brakeset and good technique.

You only NEED more power to cover up your inadequacies, Tim Taylor.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Because (which you can't get through your thick skull) you don't NEED more bloody stopping power if your have a properly set up brakeset and good technique.
> 
> You only NEED more power to cover up your inadequacies, Tim Taylor.


As we enter page 11 on a topic that you totally don't get, nor a technology you have no use for, I think you "fail" in regards to telling someone else they have a "thick skull."

Carry on.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

88 rex said:


> As we enter page 11 on a topic that you totally don't get, nor a technology you have no use for, I think you "fail" in regards to telling someone else they have a "thick skull."
> 
> Carry on.


Yes. Shades of Kanye - "Imma let you finish"


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

88 rex said:


> As we enter page 11 on a topic that you totally don't get, nor a technology you have no use for, I think you "fail" in regards to telling someone else they have a "thick skull."
> 
> Carry on.


Rep for the truth being told here :thumbsup:


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

chase196126 said:


> I can say with 100% honesty that it has nothing to do with the fact that I ride for a Campy sponsored team. The thoughts and concerns I have expressed are all my own. Personally I think the new hydro rim brakes are a really cool idea, and I wouldn't mind giving them a try at all, I just don't don't like the idea of the sport going to discs.
> 
> As I have said in previous posts, my main concerns are compatibility for neutral support, aerodynamics, etc. I also don't like the idea of fundamentally changing the way road bikes work by changing to a completely new braking system. I just don't see a need for it when the equipment that is out now works just fine (at least for me).
> 
> My other reasons are less able to be backed up with data or technical reasons. The idea of crashing into a pile of guys with sharp rotors on every wheel scares me. I don't like the idea of giving excitable guys in the field a brake that can be locked up even more quickly than a rim brake can. The final reason, and the one with the least real sense behind it, is that I simply don't like the way discs look...


Fair enough...Had to ask though :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

88 rex said:


> As we enter page 11 on a topic that you totally don't get, nor a technology you have no use for, I think you "fail" in regards to telling someone else they have a "thick skull."
> 
> Carry on.


Ahh, classic. I don't share your opinion so I don't get it. Like abortion, right?


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Ahh, classic. I don't share your opinion so I don't get it. Like abortion, right?


This thread's an abortion.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Ahh, classic. I don't share your opinion so I don't get it. Like abortion, right?


Considering the manner in which you conduct yourself and the eloquence of your arguments, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a Freudian slip.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Royal28 said:


> Considering the manner in which you conduct yourself and the eloquence of your speech, it wouldn't surprise me if this was a Freudian slip.


Go read PO.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Because (which you can't get through your thick skull) you don't NEED more bloody stopping power if your have a properly set up brakeset and good technique.
> 
> You only NEED more power to cover up your inadequacies, Tim Taylor.


I dont see how it would cover up anything. Squeeze the lever, the bike stops. Theres not a ton to it. If you had more power, the tires just lock up easier.. I can lock my rim brakes just fine (all though doing so doesnt make much sense). 

You'd really get the same amount of stopping power with discs. Right before lockup you've got the most stopping power, and rim brakes will do that all day long. It'll take less hand effort to get there, but it goes back to the hand fatigue thing.. is anyone really having issues with that on the road?


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Go read PO.


On the contrary; I find that trying to make sense of your posts is a much more challenging mental exercise.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

chase196126 said:


> I raced in the rain several times in France while using Reynolds carbon rims. In all those races the vast majority of riders were running aluminium wheels, but I was still dropping the entire field through every corner because my braking technique in the rain allowed me just as much control as in the dry. .


Thank you for some actual input from the peloton. I always like your posts.

Others have said that "the pros" will all be switching over to discs. I'm wondering how discs will affect wheel changes. Some mechanics can change wheels in a heartbeat, but will having a disc slow the change down too much?


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

TomH said:


> I dont see how it would cover up anything. Squeeze the lever, the bike stops. Theres not a ton to it. If you had more power, the tires just lock up easier.. I can lock my rim brakes just fine (all though doing so doesnt make much sense).
> 
> You'd really get the same amount of stopping power with discs. Right before lockup you've got the most stopping power, and rim brakes will do that all day long. It'll take less hand effort to get there, but it goes back to the hand fatigue thing.. is anyone really having issues with that on the road?


To refer to my earlier post - Any kind of disc brake will have more modulation and control than a rim brake because of simple physics - since the rim brake is farther from the center of the wheel, it actually brakes with more force than a disc brake closer to the hub - meaning that a rim brake will lock up the wheel with less force supplied than a disc brake will. This greater force required for a disc brake translates into a higher braking threshold (the point right before you lock up the wheel), which gives you a greater stopping power than a rim brake.

This is one of the reasons why mountain bikes went over to discs - they could brake harder than v-brakes (like the ones on my 1993 Merlin hardtail) because it takes a greater force for them to lock up the wheel.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Thank you for some actual input from the peloton. I always like your posts.
> 
> Others have said that "the pros" will all be switching over to discs. I'm wondering how discs will affect wheel changes. Some mechanics can change wheels in a heartbeat, but will having a disc slow the change down too much?


That's up in the air - if the disc caliper gets accidentally closed while the wheel is off they'll be SOL, but if they do make the switch, they'll probably find a workaround.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Royal28 said:


> That's up in the air - if the disc caliper gets accidentally closed while the wheel is off they'll be SOL, but if they do make the switch, they'll probably find a workaround.


Right! Like if the rider accidentally touches the brake lever with the wheel out!!! Have fun catching back on now, after the mech fishes around for a screwdriver out to separate the pads.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Royal28 said:


> To refer to my earlier post - Any kind of disc brake will have more modulation and control than a rim brake because of simple physics


You've taken half the equation and ignored (completely) the rest. Remove your road wheel and squash your fingers between the brake pads with the lever.. its not too bad, you've got tons of control before it really starts hurting. Put something between a disc caliper and its going to squeeze the living hell out of it immediately. Thats the other part of the equation..

Theres lots of good discs with really great modulation, but they've put some effort to get modulation down. With calipers, you've got modulation because you dont have that much power. 


> - since the rim brake is farther from the center of the wheel, it actually brakes with more force than a disc brake closer to the hub


This would only be true if clamping force was the same.. but its not, not even close.


> This is one of the reasons why mountain bikes went over to discs - they could brake harder than v-brakes (like the ones on my 1993 Merlin hardtail) because it takes a greater force for them to lock up the wheel.


They can apply tons more braking force with drastically less hand effort, thats why mountain bikes went to discs. It takes SO much less force to lock up a wheel. The "one finger braking" term is widely used with discs.. you can stop a 45lb dh bike going full speed with one finger without really squeezing very hard.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii gave me negative rep. Unbelievable!


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

TomH said:


> You've taken half the equation and ignored (completely) the rest. Remove your road wheel and squash your fingers between the brake pads with the lever.. its not too bad, you've got tons of control before it really starts hurting. Put something between a disc caliper and its going to squeeze the living hell out of it immediately. Thats the other part of the equation..
> 
> Theres lots of good discs with really great modulation, but they've put some effort to get modulation down. With calipers, you've got modulation because you dont have that much power.
> 
> ...


The "clamping force" is the same, again see above: Rim brakes will, in practice, never be able to sustain as high of a threshold as disc brakes will because of that lesser force - the difference in the coefficient of friction (call it mu) created by different materials and surface area plays an insignificant role in the force equation F= mu*normal force, the normal force being the opposition of the rotor against the force you supply to it through use of the levers and correspondingly the pads on the rim or disc caliper. Therefore, the force will always depend almost solely on the force supplied by the lever/caliper, not the pad material or difference in surface area between rim pad and disc pad. 

In short, if you grab the levers of identical systems wired to a disc brake and a rim brake with identical force, the force transmitted to the caliper and thus to the rim or rotor is the same; because the coefficients of friction are close to each other, the friction force (quantitatively) will be the same. However, as above, the force supplied at the rim will have a greater effect than the force supplied at the rotor and will lock up the wheel easier. The distance the pads have to close to the rim/rotor is irrelevant in terms of the normal force created through repulsion. 

The reason that mountain bike brakes have become so "easy" or "light" (in terms of hand force) to operate is the implementation of hydraulic systems, which provide an advantage to the force you supply at the lever, effectively multiplying it and at the same time giving an entirely different curve for force supplied/friction force produced.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

foto said:


> robdamanii gave me negative rep. Unbelievable!


Me too - I can't fathom why!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

foto said:


> robdamanii gave me negative rep. Unbelievable!


Must be due to some chinese bibs...


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> Ahh, classic. I don't share your opinion so I don't get it. Like abortion, right?


No, not like abortion. This thread is primarily adults trying to discuss something, and you're the little whiny brat who continues to run around the room making a ruckus. You whine about something (this time its disc brakes) for no apparent reason, and make arguments when none are there. Then you carry crap from other threads all over the forums. It's clear you can't have a civil discussion, and the fact that you would even remotely bring up abortion only goes to show that you've got nothing left to even discuss here. If you had posted half of the insulting crap you posted in this thread in PO you would have already been banned.



foto said:


> robdamanii gave me negative rep. Unbelievable!





Royal28 said:


> Me too - I can't fathom why!


One of my only neg reps has come from Robdamanii, and that was over a "discussion" about Garmin racing. It should not suprise anyone that someone who posts negatively ad nausem is the biggest spreader of neg rep.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> Must be due to some chinese bibs...


No, it was due to a dillhole.


----------



## mattsavage (Apr 25, 2007)

chase196126 said:


> The idea of crashing into a pile of guys with sharp rotors on every wheel scares me. I don't like the idea of giving excitable guys in the field a brake that can be locked up even more quickly than a rim brake can.


But you're not afraid of a 53 tooth chainring to the knee or face...?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mattsavage said:


> But you're not afraid of a 53 tooth chainring to the knee or face...?


He didn't say he was afraid of the chainring. I'm guessing what he really meant is that he rather not deal with another sharp edge that can slice your face up like hot knife thru butter.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> ....
> 
> Everybody and I mean everybody that has ridden carbon rims in the wet know they don't stop as well, or even close to that of an aluminum rim...and compared to a disc equipped wheel the aluminum rim isn't even close. Now, if you have really good mechanics that are scrubbing the rims and creating better braking surfaces before each race...that's a bit of an edge compared to other, non sponsored riders.


If you read the article by Rodamii, the Magura rep has said that in term absolute braking power, rim and hydro disc are pretty much equal. So if absolute power is what you want, disc won't give that. The argument of going to disc at this point is

1) better braking for carbon wheels
2) better modulation (while better, it's also questionable as a need because competent riders are fine with rim brake on aluminum rim)


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Some of you (I remember who) have stated the argument that hydro disc is and therefore will allow a rider to descend faster.

Here's the thing.

1) most riders (aside from racing) won't care about descending a few % quicker. If they DO care, then their enjoyment in the sport is very misplaced, and their risk of crashing out just increased tremendously. A poor braker is a poor braker no matter what.

2) I really fail to see how a hydro disc system will enable a rider to descend faster now. When descending (in the dry) at speed of anywhere from 35-45-50 mph, you CAN already safely use and modulate the current rim brakes. The idea is to scrub off enough speed from afar so that you can setup your turn safely (which is already being done). So how is hydro disc can do any better. I would like to hear from someone who actually has the balls to hit 60 mph on the straight and 50 mph around a sweeper... regularly... and hear his perspective. Most of us in here have never attend such performance, so... excuse for saying it.. but your opinion is just not as valuable if you're lacking experience.

Now in my limited experience on BMX racing as a kid, and then some motorcycling on a track, yes modulation is important, and the faster you go, the more you will want to be able to modulate, but this modulation is probably most important when you want to OVERTAKE someone going into a corner (call it a block-pass), and this is only something you SHOULD do in a racing situation.

My stance comes down to this. For 99% of the non-racers, most of us will NEVER achieve the kind of speed, nor willing to take the kind of risks going into corners like the some pro racers (not all pro racers take high risks), then we will never realize the potential of hydro disc modulation. You do need to going at certain speed to realize this. Heck I'm not a racer by any means, but at the same time I don't consider myself to be a "slow poke" on the descend either, yet I have never gotten into a situation (in the dry) where I wished I wanted more brake power or modulation. A few times my bike did get airborned by some bumps while I was braking, and it did cause my wheels to wobble when they landed because the pre-braking wheel speed and post-landing braking wheel speed is not completely out of sync with the speed I was going,,, in this scnenario I do wish my hands would somehow magically release the brake levers while the bike was airborne for that 10 millisconds! But hydro isn't going to do it either!


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> most riders (aside from racing) won't care about descending a few % quicker. If they DO care, then their enjoyment in the sport is very misplaced, and their risk of crashing out just increased tremendously. A poor braker is a poor braker no matter what.


As somebody who loves the descents...and makes up time lost on the climbs during races on the descents...my enjoyment of the sport is far from "Misplaced".

The faster I can get down a hill and latch back onto a group the more ground I can give up on a climb...it all adds up.



> 2) I really fail to see how a hydro disc system will enable a rider to descend faster now. When descending (in the dry) at speed of anywhere from 35-45-50 mph, you CAN already safely use and modulate the current rim brakes. The idea is to scrub off enough speed from afar so that you can setup your turn safely (which is already being done). So how is hydro disc can do any better. I would like to hear from someone who actually has the balls to hit 60 mph on the straight and 50 mph around a sweeper... regularly... and hear his perspective. Most of us in here have never attend such performance, so... excuse for saying it.. but your opinion is just not as valuable if you're lacking experience.


I regularly hit 50+ mph on descents and have hit 60 before...going faster than that is pretty difficult unless it's a long and steep descent..

For most descents rim brakes are fine...however there are occasions where I'm sure I'm very close to blowing a tire off the rim because the braking surface has heated to the point of blowing the tube. This most often happens during "Steep" descents with stops at the bottom (I have several in my area)...where the grade is 15% or so and you are riding your brakes very hard just to stop and doing so for an extended period of time.

In reality...the fastest descender are the ones that touch their brakes the least and know how to scrub speed through other means such as getting out of a tuck prior to a turn and using the air as a brake.

Also...all braking for a corner should take place "BEFORE" the corner...I see so many people riding their brakes through the corner, which reduces cornering traction.

With that said...I've had both rim and disc brakes on road bikes...and I'll take disc brakes over rim brakes any day.



> My stance comes down to this. For 99% of the non-racers, most of us will NEVER achieve the kind of speed, nor willing to take the kind of risks going into corners like the some pro racers (not all pro racers take high risks), then we will never realize the potential of hydro disc modulation. You do need to going at certain speed to realize this.


You are correct that 99% of those that ride bikes will never use their brakes to their fullest potential...but that doesn't negate the need for them to be as good as possible.

However...99% of those that ride will find themselves in less than ideal conditions from time to time where having that disc brake will be beneficial. Nobody needs great brakes all the time...but when you need them, you need them and need them to work!

That's the part I think most people forget. For most people they will never take their bikes, cars, motorcycles, feet...what ever they are using to their fullest potential...but when you need things to work and work properly in that .1% situation...you need them to work! That's where the rim brakes tend to fail compared to disc brakes.

I know guys that own very high powered cars and motorcycles, but have never taken them past 75 mph, nor put them under full acceleration. Other than status they have no need for the car...but it's nice to have the abilities of the car "If" they ever need it.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Love it, but I gotta go for real this time.


----------



## mattsavage (Apr 25, 2007)

aclinjury said:


> He didn't say he was afraid of the chainring. I'm guessing what he really meant is that he rather not deal with another sharp edge that can slice your face up like hot knife thru butter.



yeah, no kidding? The (absurd) point is, he believes something shouldn't be allowed in racing because he's afraid of hurting himself on it when he crashes...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Just curious, what part of the woods are you riding in?

I live and ride in Socal, ridden all of the big mountain roads, and steep hills. Seen 15 - 17% on most descent regularly, and some 20% steep into a hairpin. Before this, I rode in Colorada area for a year. And never (and I mean NEVER) have I run into a situation that made me wished I wanted more brake. I'm a featherweight, so maybe this has something to do with me not wanting more brake. The other thing is, I trail brake into and around corners more than I should (I should listen to myself more), but I do so with most of the speed already scrubbed off, but still I realized it's not a good idea for my longevity and health.

I supposed if you're a heavy guy, I can see the point of wanting more brake. But here's where I'm contentenious about:

1) more brake means you should want bigger tires to make the braking more effective. I'm talking about 28c and bigger. Don't even heavy roadies are warm to the idea of 28c tires.

2) you still need to learn techniques for effective braking, or risk overheating and boiling the fluid. I don't see most casual roadies will dedicate the time to learn braking. Just not gonna happen.

So your notion that for that .1% of the time when you DO need it, it's nice to have... is really a false sense of security... and it may even enourage poorly-skilled riders to push the limits too much.. beyond they are capable of saving.

As a sidepoint, I notice that in many discipline involving speed and high power equipment, where they have some of the best equipment around, guys are still crashing their cars or motorcycle (and taking lives!) because they were partly encouraged into thinking that superior equipment will enable them to "save it". It don't. Like I keep alluding to, if you're a poor performer on equipment X, you'll most likely be poor on equipment Y and Z too, and this is very true when it comes to braking on 2 wheel.

So I don't think hydro disc will "save it" for you in a situation that couldn't be saved with rim brake, 99% of the time. For that 1%, I'll just go slower, rather than accept a complete change in standard.

As for you thinking your tires might blow off due to heat from the rim, without data and inspection I don't have much to debate about. But I've descended a 4 mile stretched of road averaging 11% where you have to brake almost the whole way down, in 95-96F wheather, and I do inspect my tires and pads right after the descend, and found them not to be in any shape indicating a failure. Maybe as a featherweight, I'm not hard on my brake. But I can see a 200# guy heating his rim/pads more, but how much more? I donn't know.



Wookiebiker said:


> As somebody who loves the descents...and makes up time lost on the climbs during races on the descents...my enjoyment of the sport is far from "Misplaced".
> 
> The faster I can get down a hill and latch back onto a group the more ground I can give up on a climb...it all adds up.
> 
> ...


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

Interesting thread. For me it comes down to this:

Rim brakes suck in the rain. I don't ride in the rain often, but I still do on occasion. My last century ride it was raining most of the time. I still remember the shock the first time I hit my brakes in the wet and very little happened to my speed.

I don't really care about better modulation. I don't care about the extra weight. What I care about is stopping as fast as safely possible under the worst conditions in which I ride. If disc brakes help solve that problem, I'm for them.


----------



## Royal28 (Feb 9, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> Just curious, what part of the woods are you riding in?
> 
> I live and ride in Socal, ridden all of the big mountain roads, and steep hills. Seen 15 - 17% on most descent regularly, and some 20% steep into a hairpin.


There are no roads anywhere in the state of California that are "regularly" a 15-17% or greater grade - unless you're talking about the three-hundred meter long streets around SF or LA that go straight up the side of a hill. I'd like to see any road descent over a mile that averages fifteen percent or greater.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

mattsavage said:


> yeah, no kidding? The (absurd) point is, he believes something shouldn't be allowed in racing because he's afraid of hurting himself on it when he crashes...


The crashing issue isn't the main reason I don't like the idea of discs, it is just one extra thing that makes me nervous. My previous post mentions this if you go back and read it.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> Just curious, what part of the woods are you riding in?


Portland, OR metro area...We have a few descents around here that are not that long, but fairly steep, especially in sections.

As for my size...Off season 210-220 range, in season 190 pound range...so yea, I'm a bigger guy who likes to bomb a descent.



> 1) more brake means you should want bigger tires to make the braking more effective. I'm talking about 28c and bigger. Don't even heavy roadies are warm to the idea of 28c tires.


Not really...I can't do nose wheelies on my road bike, so I can't lock it up, which means I could use more braking power. What I have now is adequate, but not super. Bigger tires won't help much, but 25c tires make more sense for me at my weight anyway.



> 2) you still need to learn techniques for effective braking, or risk overheating and boiling the fluid. I don't see most casual roadies will dedicate the time to learn braking. Just not gonna happen.


I already have effective techniques for braking...I've been riding for a "LONG" time both on and off road (before they had suspension forks for MTB's).

As I said...the best descenders are the ones that use their brakes the least. They know how to scrub off momentum without touching the brakes...but having them when needed is vitally important.



> So your notion that for that .1% of the time when you DO need it, it's nice to have... is really a false sense of security... and it may even enourage poorly-skilled riders to push the limits too much.. beyond they are capable of saving.


Living in SoCal I wouldn't expect you to understand...but we get a pretty significant amount of rain here and many times early season races take place in the rain. Braking performance suffers greatly, especially on some of the courses that have gravel road sections on them.

Disc breaks would be of significant benefit here.

Remember...just because "you" don't see a need for them...doesn't mean there "Isn't" a need for them.



> As a sidepoint, I notice that in many discipline involving speed and high power equipment, where they have some of the best equipment around, guys are still crashing their cars or motorcycle (and taking lives!) because they were partly encouraged into thinking that superior equipment will enable them to "save it". It don't. Like I keep alluding to, if you're a poor performer on equipment X, you'll most likely be poor on equipment Y and Z too, and this is very true when it comes to braking on 2 wheel.


Of course they are crashing...they are trying to win, which means pushing your equipment to it's absolute edge and in some cases beyond. Even the best equipment in the world won't save you from every situation...however, it will allow you to push the boundaries farther, and for those not pushing the boundaries...give you a safer experience.

Without all those people crashing their cars, motorcycles, etc. we wouldn't have many of the safety improvements in vehicles we have today. You can thank those guys for making things safer for you...even if you don't feel or didn't realize you needed it in the first place.



> As for you thinking your tires might blow off due to heat from the rim, without data and inspection I don't have much to debate about. But I've descended a 4 mile stretched of road averaging 11% where you have to brake almost the whole way down, in 95-96F wheather, and I do inspect my tires and pads right after the descend, and found them not to be in any shape indicating a failure. Maybe as a featherweight, I'm not hard on my brake. But I can see a 200# guy heating his rim/pads more, but how much more? I donn't know.


When I'm braking long enough and hard enough my rim brakes are fading significantly...I know my rims are "Very" hot. I haven't blown a tire yet...but it's always in the back of my mind on certain descents.

And to reiterate...I am a bigger rider.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

mattsavage said:


> yeah, no kidding? The (absurd) point is, he believes something shouldn't be allowed in racing because he's afraid of hurting himself on it when he crashes...


That's not an absurd point at all.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> When I'm braking long enough and hard enough my rim brakes are fading significantly...I know my rims are "Very" hot. I haven't blown a tire yet...but it's always in the back of my mind on certain descents.


Rolling a tub used to be common in racing. Miguel Indurain surprised everyone when he showed up for a mountain stage on Campagnolo clincher rims. Next thing you know, everyone was doing it.


----------



## MichaelB (Feb 28, 2010)

*TRP Parabox fitted and operational !!!!*



PlatyPius said:


> The TRP kit isn't that much when you consider that it includes calipers and all that.
> 
> Volagi has models coming out with the TRP hydraulic setup soon. The TRP is in my catalogs, but not available wholesale yet. Dammit. I want it for my Redline.


I just fitted the TRP Parabox to my Kona Honky Inc last week, and paired it with Shimano RT86 Ice-Tec rotors.

The setup is now bedded in and works a treat. Braking overall is on par with the BB7's and G2 Cleansweep rotors that it replaced, but modulation & lever feel is a smidgen better.

Overall weight difference between the BB7 setup and the Parabox/Ice-Tec rotors is that I added a PALTRY 19 g.

BTW, I run a 180mm front and 160mm rear. Landed, the kit cost me AU $335 

The only, and I mean ONLY gripe that I have is that the kit is setup for US lever pairing, and Australia is opposite, meaning that the noodles used to feed the cable in to the master cyl cross over and interfere a tad. A bit of 'taking availability of the natural plasticity within the noodles' solves this issue.

The quality of the kit is great, and it looks much better than the BB7's (apart from the blob underneath the stem, but it aint that bad).

Looking fwd to more hills riding and getting the system fully bedded in and lots of km on the bike as Summer finishes and Autumn arrives

Cheers

Michael B


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Royal28 said:


> There are no roads anywhere in the state of California that are "regularly" a 15-17% or greater grade - unless you're talking about the three-hundred meter long streets around SF or LA that go straight up the side of a hill. I'd like to see any road descent over a mile that averages fifteen percent or greater.


I didn't say average 15%, but plenty of roads with 15-20% grade segments.
Mt Baldy, Mt Wilson, Tuna Canyon, Corral Canyon, Decker Canyon.... come to mind.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*where else*



foto said:


> Magura has been making hydraulic rim brakes even longer than road discs have been around. In the dirt world, the only enduring application of rim crushers is on trials bikes, because they have even more stopping power than discs, and they load the frame evenly, instead of on one side as in discs.
> 
> However, we saw in that silly little video those guys doing abubaca stalls on road bikes with dual pivot caliper brakes. Anybody here intend on doing fufanus and abubacas with their new Di2 setups, once they come out?
> 
> Edit to add: SRAM has plenty of hydraulic disc experience, but the shifter/brake application in this case is *really ugly*. They couldn't figure this out without putting a big square box on the end of the brake hoods???


are they going to put the hydro reservoir? outboard?
bulky and heavy

I remember the rim crushers, those were wicked brakes


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> *are they going to put the hydro reservoir? outboard?
> bulky and heavy*
> 
> I remember the rim crushers, those were wicked brakes


I don't know. It's not my job to figure it out.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> are they going to put the hydro reservoir? outboard?
> bulky and heavy
> 
> I remember the rim crushers, those were wicked brakes


As electronic shifting becomes more standard...the ugliness of the hoods becomes less of an issue since they are pretty much empty. All that space makes it much easier to hide the reservoir in the hoods with no modification of the look needed...Unlike the first ones shown in the picture here.

I've seen some Dura-Ace pictures that look similar...but I'm not sure if they were mechanical or electronic. If they were electronic...I'm not sure why they put the reservoir there instead of hiding it away in the hood.

Essentially though...as with all things...they will progress and the aesthetics will get better with time.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> It does illustrate the difference between mountain bike and road bike discs.
> 
> Chances are greater of overheating road discs on a 3 mile descent as opposed to overheating discs on a mountain bike. Sure, those rotors dissipate heat like sh!t, but are we sure the same wouldn't happen even with stock rotors?


Hummmm
I have a number of 3+ mile mtb descents here. There's this one 4 miler that is 10-25% grade the whole way. Braking skills are a must. Does my rear brake get a tad squishy? Yep, but never a failure. A few seconds of proper cooling and it's back to full power.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Calipers leave you plenty of choice (as you stated at the end.) If you choose a carbon clincher rim, you're accepting the inherent issues with them. If you choose a metal braking surface, they essentially become a 700c disc brake. As for brake fade, I'm curious how the hydraulic rim calipers will fare: there should be zero issues with brake fade and should be boatloads of modulation for even the pickiest technophile. IMHO, those are the real winners out of all of this, not the disc "revolution."
> 
> As for his braking issues being less, if he was just dragging the brakes for a substantial distance, I'd be surprised if he didn't experience some sort of brake fade (maybe not complete loss, but fade nonetheless.)
> 
> *On carbon clinchers, I agree. I'll leave it that they are another stupid recent marketing development that makes little sense, but such as it is.*


Well, they have their place in flatter areas. If I lived in Austin, I'd have some. There are not many long hills there.


----------

