Originally Posted by
MichaelW
The problem faced by tourists but not race or MTB riders is integration of the brake with all the other stuff: racks, fenders, lights etc.
Disc brakes can integrate well if they are placed correctly, ideally on the rear chainstay and at the front on the driveside, leading edge (ie opposite to a normal front disc). This gets stuff out of the way of fenders and reverses the forces on the axle so braking forces the axle into (not out of) the dropout.
Disc brake units are not designed for chainstay mounting so the cable run is at the wrong angle. As this mount becomes more common, I imagine that Avid will make a road version for this location.
Is there any debate regarding ISO vs post mount?
Forks need to be stiffer on a disc-equipped bike; how does that affect comfort?
I use Shimano centrelock disks but for travel, I think 6-bolt are better, you dont need a vice or long wrench to replace them.
Pads are easy to carry and can be quite cheap. In the UK we have a "no-brand" brand called Superstar who sell pads from the same Chinese factories as everyone else, at a fraction of the price of Shimano/Avid.
My canti setep drives me to distraction. Nothing plays well together and I cant buy the bits that I need to make it work. Cantis are going out of fashion and sooner or later, will drop out of the market altogether.
Hmm, was planning to get Avid BB7's for my Surly Disc Trucker (currently at Bilenky for S & S conversion)...I was under impression the BB7 rotors (as well as all disc rotors) were easy to remove/install. Googling that now it's not clear, apparently one needs a Torx wrench & also specifically a Torx torque wrench? I usually carry a good helping of small tools, probably more than I need...but tools are kind of heavy...seems like a long and/or torque wrench would be sort of heavy. Had no idea that some rotors required a vise, that's no fun on the road!
OTOH canti setup can have problems as you mention. My 2008 Randonee has Shimano cantis with STI levers where shifting cables stick out laterally getting in the way of handlebar bags or say a sleeping bag lashed to top of front rack. After the fall Blue Ridge Parkway ride where I had to scoot up a gravel runaway truck ramp to slow down I started to look out for tourers with discs, next week I saw a local guy riding an Independent Fabricators titanium tourer. Chatted for a moment, he said he loved the discs...OTOH
AFAIK he had the stock frame which didn't allow for fat tires.
Which brings me to your comfort note: some anti-disc tourers note that stiff disc-designed forks would cause a harsher ride. Might be true if not considering that touring bike makers often don't make bikes with a particularly comfortable ride. Many production tourers (& even customs) have frames that both have limited room for wide tires & unnecessarily tight frames. IMO they're wedded to the past of French-style randonneurs which were sort of detuned race bikes. My first really nice bike was a Gitane Tour de France (very similar to Peugeot PX-10) which had nearly similar angles/tolerances to some current tourers. Those bikes scored TDF wins despite relaxed angles/clearances...so IMHO current touring frames should offer more comfort since performance is not really an issue. Should be possible to have comfy ride & excellent brakes if they retool things.
Have ridden a friend's aluminum-framed Trek city bike & while it's aimed at recreational rider the front polymer-pad suspension with straight fork gave a very comfy ride. Weight of suspension negated by alu frame. Yet suspension is verboten on production tourers. Perhaps minimal front suspension & a sprung saddle/seatpost could help obviate rough road fatigue on tourers yet allow for stiff frame & higher-pressure tires?