Rotor size vs Front/Rear
#1
Older than dirt
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,342
Bikes: Too darn many.. latest count is 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Rotor size vs Front/Rear
Swapping one of my Gary Fisher's to Avid BB7's from Avid Single Digit V's. LBS gave me a great deal on the BB7's, but I realized that 1 is a 160mm and 1 is a 185mm. Bike will take either at either end from a clearance standpoint, but from a mechanical standpoint where am I going to benefit from the bigger rotor?
And yeah, I could just go back to the LBS and exchange the 185, but they said the 160's are on backorder so it would be a while..
Thanks.. I'm thinking bigger on the front due to the larger swept area, but threw this out for a sanity check since the arguement can be made that the rear sees heavier braking.
-R
And yeah, I could just go back to the LBS and exchange the 185, but they said the 160's are on backorder so it would be a while..
Thanks.. I'm thinking bigger on the front due to the larger swept area, but threw this out for a sanity check since the arguement can be made that the rear sees heavier braking.
-R
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 208
Bikes: Giant XTC Team Custom XC bike, Nashbar tourer custom commuter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've always heard bigger rotor up front, but I run matched anyways.... looks more normal.
Also, what's wrong with exchanging the 160mm for 2x 185s? If there's no clearance problems and no major weight concerns (as the difference isn't all that much), what's stopping you from getting a pair of the larger rotor versions?
Also, what's wrong with exchanging the 160mm for 2x 185s? If there's no clearance problems and no major weight concerns (as the difference isn't all that much), what's stopping you from getting a pair of the larger rotor versions?
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: A Coffin Called Earth. or Toronto, ON
Posts: 12,257
Bikes: Bianchi, Miyata, Dahon, Rossin
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times
in
5 Posts
larger for front.
__________________
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
https://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
Food for thought: if you aren't dead by 2050, you and your entire family will be within a few years from starvation. Now that is a cruel gift to leave for your offspring. ;)
https://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/arti...ger-photos.htm
#4
Older than dirt
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,342
Bikes: Too darn many.. latest count is 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
At least I'm honest about it
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A Latvian in Seattle
Posts: 1,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I put my 185 in front, since that does more of the braking, and my 160 in back. Similarly, you'll notice that cars normally have bigger/more powerful disc brakes on the front wheels than on the back.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
One has to ride very strangely if the heavier braking is on the rear. The front does probably 80% of the braking. I uses BB-7 with a 185 front and 160 rear. I went to the 185 as I do one finger braking and wanted faster response. I set my levers for maximum leverage which gives the maximum sensitivity (and the maximum lever travel). 185 on the rear is over-kill and will result in lock-ups which reduces control not to mention the trail damage.
Al
Al
#7
Older than dirt
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,342
Bikes: Too darn many.. latest count is 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Thanks all. With the 185mm on the front and the 160mm in the back it works great.
-R
-R
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times
in
222 Posts
Not really. During my most eager MTB days we rode a lot of really slippery trails, which meant that the rear brake certainly saw more action than the front brake.
On surfaces with decent friction, sure.
On surfaces with decent friction, sure.
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,895
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 67 Times
in
53 Posts
What's the bike and what brand/model fork do you have on it?
On some XC forks the manufacturers recommend that only 160mm be used, I guess that these forks aren't made to handle the extra forces that a larger size rotor might put on them.
On some XC forks the manufacturers recommend that only 160mm be used, I guess that these forks aren't made to handle the extra forces that a larger size rotor might put on them.
#10
Senior Member
The smaller diameter of discs is why you must have much more mechanical-leverage of the caliper for much higher squeezing-force than rim-brakes, which has a much, much larger diameter. You have to squeeze the disc-brake X-times harder than a rim-brake where X = the ratio of diameters of the rim versus disc.
Similarly, since the front-brake generates easily 10x more braking force than the rear (even more at maximum braking), you need a larger rotor in front. In fact, a lot of racing motorcycles have such small single rear-discs, they're actually about the same 200mm size you see on bicycles! While the front have dual 320-350mm rotors; some even in the 400mm sizes.
Last edited by DannoXYZ; 03-31-09 at 11:01 AM.
#11
Older than dirt
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,342
Bikes: Too darn many.. latest count is 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
It's a Marzocchi Atom Z2 Race (air) . It's on an older Gary Fisher Mt Tam.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Al
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times
in
222 Posts
The point I was trying to make was that all that is needed to encourage heavy use of the rear brake are slippery conditions (and maybe limited rider skills then). Doesn't qualify as strange IMO.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PNW (PDX)
Posts: 186
Bikes: 1999 Lightspeed Classic, Specialized Stumpjumper
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I thought that the only difference was in the mounting bracket? The calipers are the same, you just fit on different mounts to get the 160 or 185 (and isn't there even a 210)? oh yeah, and you need the corresponding rotor too, but those are available aftermarket...
anyway, oh yeah, go with the bigger in front.
anyway, oh yeah, go with the bigger in front.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ned Overend's book and video are excellent primers for all aspects of mountain biking including braking.
Al
#16
Pwnerer
Larger swept-area doesn't do anything for braking, just gives longer rotor and pad life. It's the diameter that generates the reverse-torque that slows the wheel down. For any given clamping-force from the caliper, a larger-diameter rotor will generate more reverse-torque. For example, if you've got a 100mm rotor on one wheel and a 200mm rotor on an identical wheel, the same finger-squeeze pressure on the 200mm rotor will generate twice as much braking force.
The smaller diameter of discs is why you must have much more mechanical-leverage of the caliper for much higher squeezing-force than rim-brakes, which has a much, much larger diameter. You have to squeeze the disc-brake X-times harder than a rim-brake where X = the ratio of diameters of the rim versus disc.
Similarly, since the front-brake generates easily 10x more braking force than the rear (even more at maximum braking), you need a larger rotor in front. In fact, a lot of racing motorcycles have such small single rear-discs, they're actually about the same 200mm size you see on bicycles! While the front have dual 320-350mm rotors; some even in the 400mm sizes.
The smaller diameter of discs is why you must have much more mechanical-leverage of the caliper for much higher squeezing-force than rim-brakes, which has a much, much larger diameter. You have to squeeze the disc-brake X-times harder than a rim-brake where X = the ratio of diameters of the rim versus disc.
Similarly, since the front-brake generates easily 10x more braking force than the rear (even more at maximum braking), you need a larger rotor in front. In fact, a lot of racing motorcycles have such small single rear-discs, they're actually about the same 200mm size you see on bicycles! While the front have dual 320-350mm rotors; some even in the 400mm sizes.
As always a great answer from Danno.
The other benefit of a larger rotor is more surface area for cooling. Those holes in the rotor are not for brake dust, they're to increase the surface area and lighten the disc.
Also, if you are using the rear brake more heavily than the front, please don't ride our trails.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Athens, Ohio
Posts: 5,104
Bikes: Custom Custom Custom
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I find that even a 160 rotor in the rear is more than plenty. You see some light XC rigs running 160 front, 140 rear.
#18
Pwnerer
Living in the Rockies, weighing in at 230, I like 160/185 for XC, 205/205 for DH
#20
Older than dirt
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winchester, VA
Posts: 5,342
Bikes: Too darn many.. latest count is 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Yup. 80mm XC. I'm probably going to switch the 185 rotor mounts and rotor to another GF I have that's running a Surly Instigator rigid front fork. I know that one will have no issue with the load.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times
in
222 Posts
It's easier to recover from a locked-up rear wheel skid than it is to recover from a front wheel skid, so it's my desire to avoid a faceplant that encourages me to use the rear brake, if conditions are slippery and the available braking distance allows it.
The front brake gets used too, but with more care and a bigger margin against lock-up than the rear during slippery conditions. It's a tradeoff between longer braking distance and a reduced risk of front wheel skid when riding at the limit of my ability. Seems like a good deal when circumstances allows it.
The front brake gets used too, but with more care and a bigger margin against lock-up than the rear during slippery conditions. It's a tradeoff between longer braking distance and a reduced risk of front wheel skid when riding at the limit of my ability. Seems like a good deal when circumstances allows it.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's easier to recover from a locked-up rear wheel skid than it is to recover from a front wheel skid, so it's my desire to avoid a faceplant that encourages me to use the rear brake, if conditions are slippery and the available braking distance allows it.
The front brake gets used too, but with more care and a bigger margin against lock-up than the rear during slippery conditions. It's a tradeoff between longer braking distance and a reduced risk of front wheel skid when riding at the limit of my ability. Seems like a good deal when circumstances allows it.
The front brake gets used too, but with more care and a bigger margin against lock-up than the rear during slippery conditions. It's a tradeoff between longer braking distance and a reduced risk of front wheel skid when riding at the limit of my ability. Seems like a good deal when circumstances allows it.
Al