Old 08-07-17 | 11:49 AM
  #33  
Abe_Froman's Avatar
Abe_Froman
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 57
From: Chicago

Bikes: Marin Four Corners, 1960's Schwinn Racer in middle of restoration, mid 70s Motobecane Grand Touring, various other heaps.

Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
Do you just crash into things when you want to stop? I wore out the brake track in a set of Fulcrum Racing 7s in fewer miles than that.

If I lived in Florida, I wouldn't need anything lighter than an extracycle, but I wouldn't think everybody should ride an extracycle or get mad at people who don't.

Disc brakes give you better control over how much power you apply. That's a fact. They perform more consistently across a wide variety of conditions, including rain and dirt and mud. They do not chew rims up. The aerodynamic penalty is vanishingly small (seconds on a 40k) and the weight penalty is less than 3/4 of a pound, which is meaningless to anyone who isn't riding hilly enough terrain to think they'd benefit from discs. They're a better way. You may or may not appreciate their advantages, but they have clear advantages that are beyond debate.

That's why a lot of people like using them. Nobody is being forced to, but a lot of people are coming into a thread where somebody is asking for advice and for people to share their experience, and instead just mooning the OP.
I'm not doing that at all. If I rode down mountain roads in the rain, I'd get disc brakes in a heartbeat. I was just making the point that there really is no need for them in Chicago. And yea....I don't really use my brakes much at all. On a 45 mi ride yesterday morning.....I used my brakes maybe a couple dozen times, and even then only after coasting down to ~10mph.
Abe_Froman is offline