I use to race in the mountains of S Calif, and on some very hot days, I never had an issue where I wish I had a finned brake pad set. The real issue with overheating isn't the pads its the rims getting so hot they blow the tube, though I never had that happen either because I was taught early on to hit the brakes hard for about 5 seconds and then release which he called stab braking, which I found out years later semi trucks do the same thing when descending steep grades. So personally I think the finned pad set is more about looks then functionality.

"It's Not About the Bike", now who said that?

The general case is, there is a fixed amount of potential energy that needs to be dissipated somehow, during a descent. The higher the allowable maximum speed, the more of this energy can be dissipated via aerodynamic friction, not to mention tire friction and bearing friction. Let's hope bearing friction is inconsequential. Tire friction is probably a minor factor, otherwise we'd be overheating and blowing tires simply due to road friction (i.e. at high descent speeds).
If you can descend at terminal velocity safely, great, that means no energy absorption by the braking system.
To the extent that the safe speed is lower than the terminal velocity, the braking system must take up the slack. So called "stab braking" can take advantage of this, by allowing the actual velocity to exceed the terminal velocity momentarily, and reap the marginal benefit of the non-linear effect of aerodynamic drag during these moments. Furthermore, a braking system that is intentionally or accidentally optimized for stab braking, can take advantage of momentarily higher braking surface temperatures to dissipate marginally more heat to the environment, on average, compared with a system that has assymptotic surface temperature rise (i.e. due to steady braking to a defined terminal velocity). If any, the downsides to stab braking, especially if the system is not designed as such, are excessive peak temperatures (a likely concern), and excessive peak torques & other loads (a less likely concern). Keep in mind, the advantages are marginal, not fundamental.

That was a highly intellectual response, but in a nutshell from what I've learned off the internet (due to this subject here) and from 40 years experience riding mostly in mountains is that stab braking works. By hitting the brakes for 5 seconds then releasing for 5 seconds and repeat it allows time for the aluminium rims to cool down enough to prevent overheating the tires. I knew tandem riders who use this method all the time coming down mountains and didn't have a rear drag drum brake due to weight concerns for a racing bike. Of course this braking technique has to be used with some ahead thinking so that you hit the brakes at the right time when approaching a turn.

Another technique for braking we did was to use the front brake only for hard braking then for less braking to scrub off some speed use the rear, this allowed more time for the front to cool.

Both methods work because it allows the airflow to cool the rims, these methods do NOT work for carbon fiber rims because it takes much long for the CF rim to get rid of heat compared to aluminum rims.

^^ plus carbon rims don't brake nearly as well, which is why bikes equipped with carbon rims usually have disk brakes.

We make our judgment by comparing a set of ideals and elements on a bike. We make our favorite bike by choosing components to our liking, they can be anything from a specific technology, a futuristic look, to a more classic or vintage look. If the idea is a good weather bike for fun, the short ride into town, a shopper, or racer or a solid work horse, it makes the outcome. Most of us have an idea of how a bike should feel when riding, it's very individual. New materials are developed to weigh less and handle a lot of stress, but they are rearly made to last for more than a couple of years, and very few bikes are made to lessen upkeep and replacement of parts these days. I know the differece between steel, carbon and aluminium, and the three come in too many variations and qualities to be generalised. There are very nice steel frames still made, even though it's not the main focus of the marked neither among the competitive sports nor general consumer. I think Reynolds top of the range steel tubes are quite up to comparison with the best of titanium and carbon.

There are lots of not so good components on new bikes, low cost bikes with horribly heavy frames, childrens bikes that look very fancy but weigh more than a 50s roadster (!!). In my mind this is fault of the commercial marked, because there are much better equally low cost alternatives. In these cases, a used bike can be endlessly better in every way, maybe except for the brand new paint.

When it comes to fast and light nothing compares to the up to date racer bike. I love how the top of the range gears slide up and down seamlessly. It's so smooth I am impressed everytime. I also know it cost a lot, wears down and needs replacement parts quite often. I aslo like internal geared hubs, both old 3 speeds and the newer 7, 8 speeds as well as Alfine 11 speed. Sturmey Archer, Sachs and Sram are nice too, some feel a bit heavier than others but quite acceptable even by todays standard. I so get the idea of a light, minimal single speed, but when it comes down to my every day bike I have to compromise. I hate having that dusty or wet stripe up my back all the time (fenders!!), and I like a few gears too.

Regarding frames, I don't mind steel at all, some lugged frames are very nice and are up to speed as far as my standard goes. When it comes to stiffness, flexing and "sluggishness" of the material I feel it's down to the finer points and I can't always afford take advantage of them. Add a geared hub with coaster brakes, or any hub break and it cancells out the finer point by far. I hesitate a bit when it comes to carbon fiber, very light, and cool look, but I worry about all the beating it has to take. I know some have had their carbon frame for years, but I aslo know of several guys who have ruined their very expensive bikes in less than 18 months. Ideally my bike should last a life time with a bit of upkeep, I know it's asking a lot and it depends quite a bit on luck too. On the other hand like to try the new advancement in material and technology, and some times it means a brand new bike, other times only a new set of wheel. I can't have every type of bike out there, but I can have two or three and it allows for a bit of experimenting and different approaches ;-)

My view on what's best is not either nrw or old, but more like it depends on what you want from the components. Top quality is very expensive, ordering custom parts is too, a vintage bike much older than me can often be ideal for my purpose.

Yup, but there are a lot of carbon rims made and being used before disk brakes took off. Keep in mind too that with disk brakes they get blistering hot due to less surface area for cooling than a rim, which is even more critical when doing a lot of mountain riding, and that heat transfers right onto the hub which in turn can fry the grease and bearings, at the very least give hubs a shorter life than they would with rim brakes.

^^ Yup. They sure get to squealin' too!

Keep in mind too that most companies don't want you to able to ride a bike (or anything else for that matter!) for entire lifetime which is why aluminum bikes are still the most common frame sold because they're cheap and every 10 years give or take 5 years you have to buy another. My Scandium bike only lasted 18 months and about 4800 miles before a crack appeared at the top of the head tube to which the bike manufacture responded it was due to wear and tear or fatigue and not covered. The world's economy is being held together by inferior product life which in turn forces you to keep having to rebuy stuff over and over and over. I too have known quite a few guys who ruined expensive CF bikes, most of these guys had money so they just went out and bought another CF bike, I can't see the logic in that but to each their own.

I too have either ridden or owned steel, stainless steel (top of the line Reynolds), aluminium, carbon fiber, and titanium, and by far the ride quality of titanium exceeds any of those, but life expectancy for any steel or titanium will be forever...assuming no crashes or mistreatment of steel and allowing it to rust.

I think there are some good ideas that came out with new school stuff, such as tires, saddles, pumps, rims, and cables are far superior to old school stuff. Pedals is a wash for me, I think modern pedals are indeed easier to get into but there is the constant wear of the cleats and the wear out of most pedals that have moving parts which is why I have Speedplay to eliminate that aspect at least. I still think after trying many groups that the old SIS system is superior to the newer way in not only reliability (which actually friction wins here by a small margin) but also for quickness of the shift.

People have gotten weaker and less coordinated over the years, LOL! well it does seem that way, people are scared to take their hands off the bar to either make a shift or grab a water bottle and when they try they're weaving all over the road like a drunk; and they can't squeeze a water bottle anymore, I can't count the times I've read of roadies complaining about how hard it is to squeeze a Polar bottle...odd, my 7 year old son does it all the time and never complains about how hard it is! I think evolutionary we're going backwards.

Evolution going backwards is similar to how it looks to be in many cases too. There were finely tuned bikes 80 years ago, steel frames, simple aluminium rims, improvements were gradually added over the decades, but the average bike sold today is not superior to a good vintage. Really good derailleur is way above what was in the past, but if anyone here is familiar with the 5 or 10 gear derailleur from the 1970-80, they know it was a thing you had to develop a feel for, but hopefully discovered too, that chaning gears worked fine and they lasted trouble free many times longer than what we get today. I don't know if technology always improved the general situation, in some ways yes, in others it was a turn for the worse; especially the average bike. For decades Sachs/Sram, Shimano, and Sturmey Archer have had very dependable 3 speeds and coaster brake hubs. They still do, but lately I have come across 2-3 year old Shimano hubs very poorly made. It's like the game is to have a very low quality range of products along with the better, like a pecking order of bike parts. These hubs aren't that cheap to buy, just to make. When they have a good production, they can turn out good quality for a good price, it's like they deliberately choose not to in some cases.

I think the 80's was the best time period for components especially Suntour in the friction units and Shimano in the SIS units. My 84 Suntour Superbe components have over 160,000 miles on them and the stuff still works, it also shifts in close comparison to modern STI! (in the hands of someone who is well acquainted with friction). I can guarantee that no modern STI or Ergo will last anywhere near even 60,000 thousand not alone another 100,000 miles.

Excellent point.

I'm half way there with my Ergos. I'll let you know when you are wrong.

Half way to where? 60,000 or 160,000? Please let us know when you get there. So far the most I've heard has been maxing out at around 30,000 miles before something needed to be replaced, mostly briftors and bottom brackets seem to fail first and frequently.

The Rohloff 14-speed hub is something new that is better than anything that proceeded it.

To get around the non-reliability of derailluers and carbon I got a Reynolds 935 stainless frame set up for a Rolhoff. Admittedly the bike is heavy compared to carbon machines, but its lighter than my 68 Paramount and will likely last decades. Most of all though it fits me correctly and so is comfortable. And if you have been riding a while you know that weight is not a big deal as long as its not in the wheels as far as speed is concerned. But I wanted a more relaxed geometry and something I could tour with rather than the fastest thing around. I'm of the opinion that if you are comfortable, many miles down the road you are also faster...

Has there been any long term reports on the reliability of those Rohloff hubs?

Huh? The parallelogram derailleur is one of the most reliable pieces of equipment in bicycling. My 44 year old Nuovo Record derailleurs have put in tens of thousands of miles without skipping a beat.

Therein lies the reason why it hasn't skipped a beat...it's 44 years old! But a modern mechanical derailleur is essentially unchanged over all those years so it's quite feasible that a new school one could last just as long, it's the briftors and bottom brackets that seem to be having issues with longevity. Don't even get me started with the new electronic derailleurs, there is no way that stuff will last.

My Ergo is solid like a rock. Not even a creak in the BB.

Just like my 7-year-old aluminum frame. Cheap Taiwanese frame I beat on my commute. Even crashed it. Dent in the top tube ang going strong.

Unlike mt friend's steel Benotto 3000. BB shell crapped out just looking at it.

As long as you have your crystal ball out, help a brother out with some winning lotto numbers.

Hasn't been my experience so far since the only frame and fork failures I've had have been of steel frames and the bike which has lasted the longest is the only aluminum one I've had (145,000 miles over 25 years so far).

Again, let me know when your STI briftors reach 100,000 miles without any issues. (cables excluded of course)

As far as other posters aluminium bikes going 145,000 miles, I seriously doubt that, or the frame is as dead as door knob. It is very well known and an accepted fact that aluminum fatigues the fastest of any frame material ever made...well accept for someone who tried to make a cardboard frame, not sure about the fatigue life of it. If you been around bikes for more than a year you should know this too.

I certainly agree that "the frame is as dead as [a] door knob." None of my bicycles have ever shown any signs of being alive - i.e. active metabolism, ability to reproduce, etc. The bike in this case is a 1990 (made in '89) Cannondale SR900 'criterium' model with a relatively short wheelbase and stiff frame. I've found it to be an excellent bike for anything from fully loaded touring to fast group rides.

They've been around for a while now and are strong enough to be used with tandems.

After having a Shimano unit attempt to wrap itself about the freewheel the wrong way, I simply don't agree with this. Essentially the derailleurs are the least reliable aspect of almost any machine. There are huge variances in derailleurs; some, like the old Campys, hold up rather well and other simply don't. If the bike is dropped on the drive side, please don't try to tell me that you would have absolute confidence in riding it without checking to see if unit is going to drive the chain into the spokes, no matter what brand or model! Durability is an aspect of reliability, and we have lived with derailleurs so long that we take for granted that if the bike gets dropped on the wrong side we can expect trouble.

Derailleurs require occasional adjustment and the chain wears due to the movement it has to make. The smaller cogs on the cassette or freewheel wear the quickest; with any IGH the chain lasts much longer. In the case of the Rohloff, once set up no further adjustment is ever required. It just works.

Look, these bikes have sex in the factories and millions are produced all looking like the parents, so no they reproduce just fine without the help of Viagra either.