Originally Posted by CrashVector

Interesting thread.

the reason I say this is because I actually did some testing of my hayes hydros today vs my old linear brakes.

Why? Because my wife insisted that the disc brakes were only for looks.

The setup: Empty country road in West Baton Rouge parish. Ride until I reach 25 mph and then SLAM on the brakes. Measure the distance with my trusty STANLEY tape measure. Note that for accuracy's sake, the disc brakes on my new bike are NOT broken in yet. A Nissan Sentra (the wife's car) verified the 25mph speed.

First my Kona with hayes discs: 25mph - a dead stop in 12 feet approx 4 inches.

Wife's Trek 3900 with linear brakes: 25mph - dead stop in 21feet approx 7 inches.

Note that this was on pavement (asphalt) and not gravel. In BOTH cases, had it been gravel or even hardpack the distances not only would have been longer, but the distance difference would have been less due to tire slide.

In either case though, BOTH brakes will hold their respective bikes at a dead stop on a 40-45degree levee with no problem.

I dont think the issue is that discs are better in every way....they are better if shorter stopping disatances are the most important thing. HOWEVER, linear brakes modulate MUCH better, they just aren't as strong.

My opinion on the matter would be that if you wanted to use the money to upgrade a different component, I see no problem with using linear brakes and forgoing discs to get a better fork or rear shock or crankset, etc. If you already have the bike set with all the components you wanted, and you find you have a REAL NEED for disc brakes, then go ahead and get them.

I can honestly say from my experience thusfar that 90% of ppl with a bike do NOT need disc brakes. If you DO have a real "OH CRAP!!" moment and jam the brakes, the discs won't stop you any faster if the wheels are sliding on loose stuff anyhow.

I find they are most useful because the disc being wet doesnt affect braking power as greatly as a wet rim does linear brakes.