# New contender in the Lightweight brake arena.



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

I just posted this over at weight weenies and want to post it here too!

I just received an order from wisecyclbuys and in the box was a flyer to a new lgihtweight brakeset. More information can be found at www.bc2adesign.com It appears that wisecyclebuys will be carrying it.


----------



## flying (Feb 17, 2004)

Did wise give any indication on price?
Thanks


----------



## jhbeeton (Dec 8, 2004)

*price*

The web site indicated $US 495... yikes!



flying said:


> Did wise give any indication on price?
> Thanks


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

I think they jumped in at the wrong end of the pool, especially when you can get two different flavors of ZG brakes (Ti and SS) for less weight and fewer payolas.

High perf, lightweight brakes is a competitive segment of the bike component game. ZG, M5, and AX Lightness all make brakes that are whispy light and powerful.

If a guy, gal, trannie, or hermaphrodite is willing to sacrifice a bit of weight, he/she/it can gete equal braking power for fewer pesos with Mavic SSC's. And if he/she/it is not concerned about weight at all, then there's plenty of power to be had in Dura Ace and Record brakes (as well as Ultegra and Chorus.....and models further down in the range).

I don't know that these Ti2 Racing brakes offer anything that really sets them apart and makes room for them in such a tight field.


----------



## trek828 (Mar 5, 2006)

Hi guys. Anyone here who has had the chance to try out the 3 top contenders: AX Orion, M5 Bram and ZG '05Ti and willing to comment on which has best overall performance vis-avis the price? Thanks!


----------



## woz (Dec 26, 2005)

trek828 said:


> Hi guys. Anyone here who has had the chance to try out the 3 top contenders: AX Orion, M5 Bram and ZG '05Ti and willing to comment on which has best overall performance vis-avis the price? Thanks!


Ive used all three. And I think that all 3 are good brakes. If money is no concern then I would rank them in order of weight, Ax, ZG, M5. Once you start to factor in price, the order changes to ZG, Ax, M5. Of course that's just my opinion.

Seriously all 3 brakes work great, so you just have to decide which one fits your budget and your fancy.


----------



## beantownbiker (May 30, 2002)

hell less that half that price you can get lightweight brakes from brew that weight less...
http://www.brewracingframes.com/id25.htm


----------



## wasfast (Feb 3, 2004)

Have you seen the Brew brakes in person? The picture makes the finish appear to be a robins egg blue which a bit wierd. Do they look "normal" or is that the color?


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Brew brakes*



wasfast said:


> Have you seen the Brew brakes in person? The picture makes the finish appear to be a robins egg blue which a bit wierd. Do they look "normal" or is that the color?


I have a set of Brew Brakes from a few years ago. They are a matte gray color. I think the color balance on the photo on the Brew web site is a bit off.

The Brew brakes, just like the Cane Creek BRS200SL brakes, are a "tuned" version of the Dia-Compe BRS200 single pivot brakes, with some machining of the calipers, and replacement of the (steel) bolts and fasteners with lighter aluminum and titanium parts.


----------



## littlelamb (Mar 14, 2006)

*cane creek/tektro carbon?*

what about the cane creek / tektro carbon brake calipers - I saw them somewhere and they seemed light...for the price...

thoughts?


----------



## -Anomie- (Nov 26, 2005)

I've tested the Ti2 Racing brakes that are in the original post, and they do work well. I'd put them on the same level as the M5's or Dura Ace calipers, although your choice of pads will obviously have an impact on how well they perform. Very nicely finished too, but not worth $500 when you consider the other less expensive options out there.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

on a lightspeed i think these brakes would look cooler than the black ZG's. But looks would have to be pretty important for the $$$.

The cane creek/brews dont stop well. I had the Cane creek brs200sl on a bike for awhile. I left the rear brake on there and put a Record on the front, and the stopping power was good again.

if you ride hills, i wouldnt use a single pivot brake.

jeremy


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Dual pivots not a necessity*



jeremyb said:


> if you ride hills, i wouldnt use a single pivot brake.


Hmmm.... Let's see.... The bicycle was invented about 140 years ago... The dual pivot brake became popular about 15 years ago... Clearly, cyclists didn't ride hills in the first 125 years of cycling!

There's really nothing wrong with single pivot brakes. They produce any less braking force than dual pivots, they merely require a harder squeeze on the levers to achieve it. There's a wider variation in performance between different brake pads than between different calipers. A set of good pads on a pair of single pivot brakes can serve quite well - even on steep hills.

I've got a set of Brew Lite brakes (close cousins of the Cane Creek BRS-200SLs), and have never had a problem with producing enough stopping power. On our clubs weekly hill training ride, I usually wait the longest at the end of the 40+ mph downhills to apply my brakes, and brake harder than the others at the intersections at the bottoms. My single pivot Brew Lite brakes (with Kool Stop Salmon pads) have never prevented me from stopping as fast or faster than anyone else.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

All I'm saying, is that I did not like my single pivot Cane Creeks, and would never use a single pivot brake like it again unless it was for a TT bike where weight was a factor and stopping wasnt. I felt a significant difference in braking with it versus the Record that replaced it.

Lastly, your logic is incredibly flawed....its as if youre saying that progress doesnt exist. 

Helmets didnt come to be used until about the last 10-15 years either (Derailleurs in the last 70+ years) if I had said, "if you ride hills, I'd wear a helmet". You might have answered: "Hmmm.... Let's see.... The bicycle was invented about 140 years ago... The helmet became popular about 15 years ago... Clearly, cyclists didn't ride hills in the first 125 years of cycling!" 

People have climbed Alpe d'Huez on a flip/flop doesnt mean its recommended.

jb


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

jeremyb said:


> All I'm saying, is that I did not like my single pivot Cane Creeks, and would never use a single pivot brake like it again unless it was for a TT bike where weight was a factor and stopping wasnt. I felt a significant difference in braking with it versus the Record that replaced it.


Ah, so it is a matter of you're personal preference then. So why are you saying I shouldn't do hills with single pivots? Besides, the differences in braking friction between different pads is far greater than the difference in leverage between different calipers, so how can you ascribe the entire difference in braking feel entirely to the number of pivots?



jeremyb said:


> Lastly, your logic is incredibly flawed....its as if youre saying that progress doesnt exist.
> 
> Helmets didnt come to be used until about the last 10-15 years either (Derailleurs in the last 70+ years) if I had said, "if you ride hills, I'd wear a helmet". You might have answered: "Hmmm.... Let's see.... The bicycle was invented about 140 years ago... The helmet became popular about 15 years ago... Clearly, cyclists didn't ride hills in the first 125 years of cycling!"


No, my logic is correct. People have been descending hills for decades with single pivots, and they have proven to be more than adequate to the task. Dual pivot brakes have a higher leverage ratio, so they require less hand force to produce a given caliper force - but once the force is at the caliper, they don't provide any additional stopping power to single pivot brakes.

And you probably shouldn't even bring in helmets - there have been no documented decreases in the rates of head injury or deaths since helmets became prevalent.


----------



## jeremyb (Jun 16, 2004)

First, ofcourse this is a matter of MY personal preference....didnt you read what I originally wrote: "if you ride hills, i wouldnt use a single pivot brake." NOT "if you ride hills research shows that single pivot brakes are horribly inadequate."

You did not hear the matter of personal preference implied in my statement? Why dont you read more carefully someone's statement before you jump on them about the science and leverage behind a brake design.

Your helmet statement is laughable. ive broken a Giro Pneumo in 4 places when I flew over the bars going 25mph downhill in a road race, landed on the cement and smacked my head. The helmet saved my life. I dont need "documented decreases in the rates of head injury" to tell me that I would have been much more injured had I not been wearing one. Tell Fabio that helmets dont work: https://glycs015.ext.lycos.de/start...a_files/pic/casartelli_9289894.onlineBild.jpg

jb

lastly, I think this issue has significantly been beaten enough.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Laughable statements*



jeremyb said:


> First, ofcourse this is a matter of MY personal preference....didnt you read what I originally wrote: "if you ride hills, i wouldnt use a single pivot brake." NOT "if you ride hills research shows that single pivot brakes are horribly inadequate."
> 
> You did not hear the matter of personal preference implied in my statement? Why dont you read more carefully someone's statement before you jump on them about the science and leverage behind a brake design..



Then you should have said, "If _I_ ride hills, I wouldn't use a single pivot brake". Instead you said "If _you_ ride hills...", which implies that your statement applies to me, when it most certainly does not.



jeremyb said:


> Your helmet statement is laughable. ive broken a Giro Pneumo in 4 places when I flew over the bars going 25mph downhill in a road race, landed on the cement and smacked my head. The helmet saved my life. I dont need "documented decreases in the rates of head injury" to tell me that I would have been much more injured had I not been wearing one.


No, it is your statement that is questionable. You offer a mere anecdote - you can't say for sure what would have happened if you had not been wearing the Pneumo. Regardless, the fact remains there has been no change in the number of head injuries since helmets became popular. I'm not just making this up, it is sustained by data from many sources. Here is just one of many sources of helmet use and head injury data, that shows no significant change in overall rates of head injury as helmet usage increases.

Rather than just spout off based on speculation and belief, you might want to do a little research first, so you can bring something of substance to the table.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Mark McM said:


> No, it is your statement that is questionable. You offer a mere anecdote - you can't say for sure what would have happened if you had not been wearing the Pneumo. Regardless, the fact remains there has been no change in the number of head injuries since helmets became popular. I'm not just making this up, it is sustained by data from many sources. Here is just one of many sources of helmet use and head injury data, that shows no significant change in overall rates of head injury as helmet usage increases.
> 
> Rather than just spout off based on speculation and belief, you might want to do a little research first, so you can bring something of substance to the table.


Normally, you're spot on with analysis, but here, you're wrong. Such statistical data says nothing about the efficacy of helmets. To truly find out whether a helmet helped or not, the study would have to include an analysis by the attending physician of the injury and whether or not the helmet contributed to, lessened, or did nothing with respect to the injury. Also needed would be data on the dynamics of the accident itself: velocity of cyclist, velocity of other vehicles if involved, other obstacles, impact sequence of the cyclist, and so on.

Statistical studies such as the one you included really only serve either a political function or no function at all since they really don't say anything about the function of a helmet in a given accident scenario.

It has been my experience that statistical studies don't often mirror that medical facts of a given case. When I say my medical experience, I mean my experience as a paramedic and as someone who also worked in an ER.

Similar studies have been offered up by motorcyclists against compulsory helmet use.

Most importantly, statstics only speak to trends. However, to the person on a bike or en route to a hospital, those trends bear no signicance to their condition.

I'm pointedly not saying outright that helmets do or don't help. People will find case studies where they did and where they didn't. I am saying that statistics such as those you referred to say zero about the protection a helmet offers or doesn't offer.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Lack of positive data*



alienator said:


> Normally, you're spot on with analysis, but here, you're wrong. Such statistical data says nothing about the efficacy of helmets. To truly find out whether a helmet helped or not, the study would have to include an analysis by the attending physician of the injury and whether or not the helmet contributed to, lessened, or did nothing with respect to the injury. Also needed would be data on the dynamics of the accident itself: velocity of cyclist, velocity of other vehicles if involved, other obstacles, impact sequence of the cyclist, and so on.


Actually, I think your suggestion is actually a worse way to determing the efficacy of helmets. It is true that statistics may not tell the whole story, or that they can be manipulated, but your suggestion basically relies on fabricated data. Scientific conclusions are based on observations, but you can't observe what hasn't happened. You can only know for sure what injuries occurred, you can only guess at what injuries were prevented. In order to try to figure out how much injury was prevented by a helmet, you have to already have a fore-knowledge of how much injury helmets can prevent. This is circular reasoning, and can not prove anything.




alienator said:


> Statistical studies such as the one you included really only serve either a political function or no function at all since they really don't say anything about the function of a helmet in a given accident scenario.


If done right, statistical studies can be very effective in showing a great many things. It is true that they can't predict individual outcomes, but they can certainly highlight the range of expected outcomes.

Clearly, the best way to prove how effective helmets are is to get a large group of cyclists, divide them into two equal groups, put helmets on one group, and then have them crash into vehicles, stationary object, each other, etc., and measure the amount of head injury suffered by each group. Unfortunately, we can't do that, so we have to resort to other means.

The next best way is to find a large population of cyclists, and measure the change in rate of head injuries suffered with a large change in the rate of helmet usage. This has been done in Australia and New Zealand, when compulsary helmet laws went into affect, and the rate of helmet usage by cyclists suddently increased. Gathering all the available evidence from hospital admissions and emergency room data, no change in the rate of head injury per cyclist could be found.



alienator said:


> Most importantly, statstics only speak to trends. However, to the person on a bike or en route to a hospital, those trends bear no signicance to their condition.


That may be true, but that is after the fact data - who knows how different an outcome would be with small changes in the many variables. But I think you'll have to agree that recognizing trends hardly un-important when judging the effectiveness of a safety device. When you look at the bulk of the evidence, it is not clear that helmets can even offer much protection to begin with. Firstly, helmet test standards are actually quite low - most only require limited g-forces to below the threshold of serious injury during a test that simulates a person falling down and hitting their head. They do not, nor do they even try, to simulate conditions that would occur if the bicycle was moving at any meaningful speed. Next there's the real world trend data (or lack of it) - there is little if any large population evidence that shows that the rate of head injury of helmet users is any lower than for non-helmet users (all else being equal).

An interesting analogy to helmets as a safety device is anti-lock brakes in cars. Anti-lock brakes are intended to help prevent accidents, or least lessen their severity. They work great in the lab. They appear to work as intended on test tracks. The theory behind them seems to be sound. And yet, studies to measure their effectiveness in real life have shown that cars equipped with anti-lock brakes do not have any fewer accidents, nor are accidents any less severe, than cars of the same models without anti-lock brakes. See the IIHS research and statistics on anti-lock brakes for more information. Maybe there is some similar phenomonom with bicycle helmets.


----------



## alienator (Jun 11, 2004)

Mark McM said:


> Actually, I think your suggestion is actually a worse way to determing the efficacy of helmets. It is true that statistics may not tell the whole story, or that they can be manipulated, but your suggestion basically relies on fabricated data. Scientific conclusions are based on observations, but you can't observe what hasn't happened. You can only know for sure what injuries occurred, you can only guess at what injuries were prevented. In order to try to figure out how much injury was prevented by a helmet, you have to already have a fore-knowledge of how much injury helmets can prevent. This is circular reasoning, and can not prove anything.


What fabricated data? What you have to realize is that there is nothing in the statistics that says ANYTHING about the efficacy of helmets. Full stop. Helmets are NOT made to make injury or death go away. They are made to reduce injury and reduce the chance of death. And part of that reduction is reducing the severity of an injury. There is no to know, beforehand, what injuries a helmet can prevent. If you'd like to see just how controversial helmet studies are, look at the ever ongoing debate about which motorcycle helmet cert. is better: SNELL or DOT. There is no data to say which is better. Moreover, there are goups, ABATE, for one, who claim that motorcycle helmets are of no good, and these groups also have their pet studies.

The problem with studies, like the one you cited, is that it in no way addresses the question of whether or not helmets reduced injury. Full stop. To determine whether a helmet reduced injury does require a judgement call of sorts. Now that judgement call can be tempered by comparing the accident in question to accidents with similar dynamics and injury groupsets.



Mark McM said:


> If done right, statistical studies can be very effective in showing a great many things. It is true that they can't predict individual outcomes, but they can certainly highlight the range of expected outcomes.


Well, the cited study doesn't do that. And the range of expected outcomes will always be the same, ranging from no injury to death. Moreover, no where in the study is "outcome" correlated with accident dynamics or other contributing factors.

Also, whereas in a typical scientific experiment, an individual outcome might be considered an atypical outcome, outside the std. dev., in medicine, the individual outcome is the one that counts.

I crashed a superbike at 100+ mph on a racetrack in the south. Wearing armored leathers and a helmet, I sustained multiple thoracic and cervical fractures, as well as a subdural hematoma. Now using the logic of some helmet foes or analysts, it could be said that the helmet did no good because I ended up having a closed head injury and that the armored leather did no good because I ended up w/ multiple fractures. It could equally be said that a subdural hematoma was a good outcome because the outcome could have easily been a subarachnoid bleed and that those multiple fractures were a good outcome because none of them pierced vital organs or severed large blood vessels. The nature of medicine is that there will always be some subjective analysis.



Mark McM said:


> Clearly, the best way to prove how effective helmets are is to get a large group of cyclists, divide them into two equal groups, put helmets on one group, and then have them crash into vehicles, stationary object, each other, etc., and measure the amount of head injury suffered by each group. Unfortunately, we can't do that, so we have to resort to other means.
> 
> The next best way is to find a large population of cyclists, and measure the change in rate of head injuries suffered with a large change in the rate of helmet usage. This has been done in Australia and New Zealand, when compulsary helmet laws went into affect, and the rate of helmet usage by cyclists suddently increased. Gathering all the available evidence from hospital admissions and emergency room data, no change in the rate of head injury per cyclist could be found.


Well, that's not the best solution for a medical study. That might be the best solution for a political study. Again, such studies say nothing about how an injury was reduced or how instead of death someone ended up with a serious injury. Sorry.




Mark McM said:


> That may be true, but that is after the fact data - who knows how different an outcome would be with small changes in the many variables. But I think you'll have to agree that recognizing trends hardly un-important when judging the effectiveness of a safety device. When you look at the bulk of the evidence, it is not clear that helmets can even offer much protection to begin with. Firstly, helmet test standards are actually quite low - most only require limited g-forces to below the threshold of serious injury during a test that simulates a person falling down and hitting their head. They do not, nor do they even try, to simulate conditions that would occur if the bicycle was moving at any meaningful speed. Next there's the real world trend data (or lack of it) - there is little if any large population evidence that shows that the rate of head injury of helmet users is any lower than for non-helmet users (all else being equal).


No, actually I don't think the trends are of use at all because NOWHERE in the trends is there any indication as to why the trends are the way they are. None. They're certainly curious, but without any studies on individual case bases, the studies really don't say anything. Again, with respect to medicine, the reduction in injury severity can be key.




Mark McM said:


> An interesting analogy to helmets as a safety device is anti-lock brakes in cars. Anti-lock brakes are intended to help prevent accidents, or least lessen their severity. They work great in the lab. They appear to work as intended on test tracks. The theory behind them seems to be sound. And yet, studies to measure their effectiveness in real life have shown that cars equipped with anti-lock brakes do not have any fewer accidents, nor are accidents any less severe, than cars of the same models without anti-lock brakes. See the IIHS research and statistics on anti-lock brakes for more information. Maybe there is some similar phenomonom with bicycle helmets.


Well, considering there is no test that completely removes subjectivity from helmet studies, then we may as well piss up a rope if that's what we're waiting for. Experiments done in a physics or chemistry lab are not the same as studies done on live humans.

As much as you argue that helmets are not proven to help, someone else could argue from the same statistics, that helmets do no harm. There is no absolute proof of either, so using these "studies" is pointless as they address nothing w/ respect to the actual efficacy of a helmet.


----------

