View Single Post
Old 07-19-19, 03:26 PM
  #19  
jlaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 988

Bikes: 2015 Spec. AWOL Elite,2022 Spec. Diverge, 1984 Trek 620 1985 Trek 620, 1979 Trek 710

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked 194 Times in 110 Posts
Originally Posted by conspiratemus1
Evidence for that? Where does the additional "power" come from that hydraulics supposedly have? Not disputing that hydraulics do have some advantages over cables, just don't see where they have more power, is all. If they were drawing extra energy (power x time) from the airflow (like speed brakes on airplanes) or from the weight of the bike descending (like dynamic brakes on locomotives) I could see it. But the only source of power into any bicycle brake is from squeezing the levers.
This is not merely to be argumentative. The OP and his crew face design constraints on their ability to adopt hydraulic brakes. It is not helpful to suggest something that will not fit their bike unless there is clear evidence that they should abandon those design contraints and adopt hydraulics anyway. Besides, I don't think they were asking for suggestions, just very kindly and helpfully relating something bad that happened to them that thankfully was not a whole lot worse.

Really really glad you guys are OK!
The design of a hydraulic brake uses the properties of a non-compressible fluid to multiply the effort that the user applies with his fingers on the lever. This is why motor vehicles have brakes that use DOT fluid and a system that vastly multiplies the effort you exert stepping on the brake pedal. It would take a mile to stop a car that used a cable to connect the brake pedal to the calipers.

I have hydros on my downhill bike and TRP Spyre cable-actuated on a road bike - huge difference in braking power for a given input of effort.

Give them a try for yourself.

Last edited by jlaw; 07-19-19 at 03:32 PM.
jlaw is offline