does road bike disc brake make sense?
07-22-15, 01:20 PM
#101
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,303
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times
in
372 Posts
when you make assumptions, instead of really paying attention, it just seems like you're trolling.
The entire point of 142 is to make space for the recesses in the rear dropouts where the wheel hub drops in perfect every time.
It does not depend on you to align the wheel.
You don't have the qr axle in the way, so it's actually easier and faster to change the wheel
142 otherwise doesn't change any critical hardpoints- q factor, wheel dish, chainline, etc
but you get super beefy axles and a really great foundation for disc brakes.
Put the wheel in- it's centered. that's what 142 bought you in width.
slide in the axle,
spin it closed.
The entire point of 142 is to make space for the recesses in the rear dropouts where the wheel hub drops in perfect every time.
It does not depend on you to align the wheel.
You don't have the qr axle in the way, so it's actually easier and faster to change the wheel
142 otherwise doesn't change any critical hardpoints- q factor, wheel dish, chainline, etc
but you get super beefy axles and a really great foundation for disc brakes.
Put the wheel in- it's centered. that's what 142 bought you in width.
slide in the axle,
spin it closed.
Afraid you're the one making the assumption.
I own a bike with 142 through axle. When you put the wheel in, it takes a bit of effort to get it to slot into the recesses for the lever to screw in.
QR, with a bike on the ground, not in the stand, you just put the bike on the ground and wheel slots right in. Do that with through axle, and it will push the axle out of the slots if you put any pressure on it.
Take a look at the american Flyer clip I referenced and tell me with a straight face you can change a wheel that fast with a trhrough axle.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
07-22-15, 01:23 PM
#102
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,303
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times
in
372 Posts
I hear from my MTB friends that wheel changes with a thru-axle aren't much slower, and having seen it demonstrated, that seems true. Though that's for the front wheel, where the lawyer lips really slow things down. I suppose it will inevitably be slower in the rear, but with the manufacturers motivated to produce quick-change axles, I think it will get closer. It's not as though a wheel change is going to take an extra 30 seconds. When time is of the essence, bike swaps are already faster and the preferred method in high-pressure situations.
It may not be 30 seconds, but it's likely 10-15 seconds.
Not having the luxury of a bike swap, there have been races I've been in where I got a wheel from the wheel truck and chased back on.
Ten seconds could be enough to be the difference from getting back on and not.
I think you're right that what we'll see in the Pro peleton if discs become the norm is full bike swaps more often than wheel changes.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
07-22-15, 01:27 PM
#103
Senior Member
Since I've haven't been closely following the bike industry for the last few hours, it appears I've missed some major developments in new 'standards'. The buzz now is 142mm rear stay spacing for mountain bikes.
According to the industry propaganda, which obviously has to be filtered carefully for real information, a 142mm 'standard' will allow:
- "To make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system"
- "Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature".
The unstated benefit will be to make several generations of previous frames and wheelsets 'obsolete' so we can buy new stuff. Second, we can now add more gears to an even wider cassette, which will render that ancient 11-speed drivetrain crap 'obsolete'. A new arms race of increasing cassette cogs can now folllow.
And of course it will be 'stiffer', which unknown to me, I seem to be missing in my rear-end. The vague, immeasurable objective of 'stiffness' seems to the mantra of bike marketing these days.
Is this a just an elaborate joke, or am I missing something? And how does this apply to road bikes, which are fundamentally performance disadvantaged when fitted with disk brakes?
According to the industry propaganda, which obviously has to be filtered carefully for real information, a 142mm 'standard' will allow:
- "To make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system"
- "Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature".
The unstated benefit will be to make several generations of previous frames and wheelsets 'obsolete' so we can buy new stuff. Second, we can now add more gears to an even wider cassette, which will render that ancient 11-speed drivetrain crap 'obsolete'. A new arms race of increasing cassette cogs can now folllow.
And of course it will be 'stiffer', which unknown to me, I seem to be missing in my rear-end. The vague, immeasurable objective of 'stiffness' seems to the mantra of bike marketing these days.
Is this a just an elaborate joke, or am I missing something? And how does this apply to road bikes, which are fundamentally performance disadvantaged when fitted with disk brakes?
07-22-15, 01:31 PM
#104
I'm doing it wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875
Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times
in
1,664 Posts
Since I've haven't been closely following the bike industry for the last few hours, it appears I've missed some major developments in new 'standards'. The buzz now is 142mm rear stay spacing for mountain bikes.
According to the industry propaganda, which obviously has to be filtered carefully for real information, a 142mm 'standard' will allow:
- "To make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system"
- "Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature".
The unstated benefit will be to make several generations of previous frames and wheelsets 'obsolete' so we can buy new stuff. Second, we can now add more gears to an even wider cassette, which will render that ancient 11-speed drivetrain crap 'obsolete'. A new arms race of increasing cassette cogs can now folllow.
And of course it will be 'stiffer', which unknown to me, I seem to be missing in my rear-end. The vague, immeasurable objective of 'stiffness' seems to the mantra of bike marketing these days.
Is this a just an elaborate joke, or am I missing something? And how does this apply to road bikes, which are fundamentally performance disadvantaged when fitted with disk brakes?
According to the industry propaganda, which obviously has to be filtered carefully for real information, a 142mm 'standard' will allow:
- "To make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system"
- "Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature".
The unstated benefit will be to make several generations of previous frames and wheelsets 'obsolete' so we can buy new stuff. Second, we can now add more gears to an even wider cassette, which will render that ancient 11-speed drivetrain crap 'obsolete'. A new arms race of increasing cassette cogs can now folllow.
And of course it will be 'stiffer', which unknown to me, I seem to be missing in my rear-end. The vague, immeasurable objective of 'stiffness' seems to the mantra of bike marketing these days.
Is this a just an elaborate joke, or am I missing something? And how does this apply to road bikes, which are fundamentally performance disadvantaged when fitted with disk brakes?
07-22-15, 01:33 PM
#105
pan y agua
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 31,303
Bikes: Willier Zero 7; Merlin Extralight; Calfee Dragonfly tandem, Calfee Adventure tandem; Cervelo P2; Motebecane Ti Fly 29er; Motebecanne Phantom Cross; Schwinn Paramount Track bike
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1447 Post(s)
Liked 727 Times
in
372 Posts
^ Based on riding MTB's with disc brakes, with both regular QRhubs and through axle hubs, I'm willing to believe there's enough of an advantage to through axle that it makes sense for disc brakes, particularly if you're not road racing with a wheel truck following you.
But that all begs the question of whether you need the disc brakes in the first place.
But that all begs the question of whether you need the disc brakes in the first place.
__________________
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
You could fall off a cliff and die.
You could get lost and die.
You could hit a tree and die.
OR YOU COULD STAY HOME AND FALL OFF THE COUCH AND DIE.
07-22-15, 01:37 PM
#106
Senior Member
Since I've haven't been closely following the bike industry for the last few hours, it appears I've missed some major developments in new 'standards'. The buzz now is 142mm rear stay spacing for mountain bikes.
According to the industry propaganda, which obviously has to be filtered carefully for real information, a 142mm 'standard' will allow:
- "To make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system"
- "Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature".
The unstated benefit will be to make several generations of previous frames and wheelsets 'obsolete' so we can buy new stuff. Second, we can now add more gears to an even wider cassette, which will render that ancient 11-speed drivetrain crap 'obsolete'. A new arms race of increasing cassette cogs can now folllow.
According to the industry propaganda, which obviously has to be filtered carefully for real information, a 142mm 'standard' will allow:
- "To make thru-axles as quick and easy to use as a quick release system"
- "Stiffness of a 12 mm thru-axle, but with a quick release's wheel self centering feature".
The unstated benefit will be to make several generations of previous frames and wheelsets 'obsolete' so we can buy new stuff. Second, we can now add more gears to an even wider cassette, which will render that ancient 11-speed drivetrain crap 'obsolete'. A new arms race of increasing cassette cogs can now folllow.
And of course it will be 'stiffer', which unknown to me, I seem to be missing in my rear-end. The vague, immeasurable objective of 'stiffness' seems to the mantra of bike marketing these days.
Is this a just an elaborate joke, or am I missing something? And how does this apply to road bikes, which are fundamentally performance disadvantaged when fitted with disk brakes?
It's not like qr is going away anytime soon.
07-22-15, 01:40 PM
#107
Senior Member
Afraid you're the one making the assumption.
I own a bike with 142 through axle. When you put the wheel in, it takes a bit of effort to get it to slot into the recesses for the lever to screw in.
QR, with a bike on the ground, not in the stand, you just put the bike on the ground and wheel slots right in. Do that with through axle, and it will push the axle out of the slots if you put any pressure on it.
Take a look at the american Flyer clip I referenced and tell me with a straight face you can change a wheel that fast with a trhrough axle.
I own a bike with 142 through axle. When you put the wheel in, it takes a bit of effort to get it to slot into the recesses for the lever to screw in.
QR, with a bike on the ground, not in the stand, you just put the bike on the ground and wheel slots right in. Do that with through axle, and it will push the axle out of the slots if you put any pressure on it.
Take a look at the american Flyer clip I referenced and tell me with a straight face you can change a wheel that fast with a trhrough axle.
I don't find the same issue as you do with thru axle and you can change a 12mm pretty quickly.
why do you keep referencing that old movie when you can see real wheel changes in any tour de france video.
Yes, I bet those guys will change wheels just as fast with 12mm.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
saabtour
Classic & Vintage
19
05-14-19 08:31 AM
Silvercivic27
Road Cycling
5
05-27-17 07:57 PM
