Originally Posted by BlazingPedals

What I want to know is this: If they're called "disc brakes" then why is the disc-shaped thing that gives them their name called a "rotor?"

Originally Posted by BluesDawg

Brakes are overrated. All they do is slow you down.

Originally Posted by sam_cyclist

Show me the data. Do clipless pedals make riders any more efficient? No, they do not.

Do discs offer shorter stopping distances? No, they do not.

Do discs offer better "modulation?" Quantify it, test it and show me the results.

Do discs work better in the wet? I don't go for rides in the rain very often. Don't care.



Do discs work better in the snow? Don't care.

Originally Posted by sam_cyclist

I test rode a road bike with mechanical discs a few weeks ago. The brakes literally would not stop at all. I grabbed both levers and squeezed them as hard as I could just to slow the bike down. They were incredibly weak stoppers. I WALKED the bike back to the shop.

The employee gave me some lame excuse about the brakes not having been broken in. I feel sorry for anyone who bought that bike.

Originally Posted by JanMM

My technique with friction-shifting downtube levers was to reach down, move the lever and hope the chain ended up on approx. the gear I was hoping for. Can't imagine that working very well with greater numbers of more-closely-spaced cogs.

Originally Posted by Biker395

But I'll say this ... one advance that would be huge would be some sort of antilock and/or automatic brake proportioning system. And that ain't gonna happen with standard cable driven rim brakes.

Originally Posted by Retro Grouch

It's been done - just not too effectively. Some linear pull brakes had a springy link on the front brake cable to limit front brakeing force.

Originally Posted by pursuance

Some of yous act as if you are being forced to buy into disc brakes on bicycles. Take comfort in the fact you are not. Now take that nap and suck your thumb.

Originally Posted by cale

Having tried to rescue my first road bike, also steel bought with allowance savings in the 70's, I "lost" mine to a racing accident. I would have been better off not riding it that day.

I moved several times, which makes the accumulation of bikes difficult, but, more importantly, I'm not much of a sentimentalist where bikes are concerned. I have two, a aluminum one and a"plastic" one.

What I am curious about is the fixie and simplicity. I don't think I've ever felt "encumbered" by gears but freely admit to sticking with a single gear combination for the duration of a segment if not the ride. I don't really see how a SS makes a bike simple unless you mean in that very obvious way, IT HAS 1 GEAR. Other than that, it isn't any simpler to ride. If anything, it's more complicated due to the talent required for leg braking.

I am an argumentative cuss, so I apologize in advance (LOL), but the fact you don't need brake advancements is because they wouldn't add to your bike owning pleasure. That, my friend, is what lifestyle riding is all about.

Originally Posted by cale

I think I get it.

"I have a bike but it doesn't have a name on it because it's a "rescue" frame and I'm helping save the planet by rescuing one steel frame at a time."

"My bike only has one gear to free me to pursue other activities."

"My bike only has one brake because I had a close call and I'm too chicken-**** to ride without brakes anymore."

"My bike is heavy because it is something you can't tell from looking at it. I really only care what you think."

I think this thread is of limited use to owners of "lifestyle" bikes.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Single speed coaster also makes possible coasting downhill, as well as riding downhill at any speed without spinning legs around like crazy as well as taking tight turns at speed without worrying about pedals hitting the ground. Trying to keep speed down to avoid the issues created by the fixed gear does not sound like simplifying riding to me.

Personally I cannot figure out the importance or significance of the one-to-one connection of your legs to the road. Is it part of man-machine synergy thing I've been hearing so much about?

Originally Posted by Retro Grouch

Nope, I don't think that you guys "get it" at all. The thing that you're overlooking is that bike's only purpose is to make BigAura, not you, happy.

Originally Posted by Digital Gee

So, should I get disc brakes or not?

Originally Posted by Digital Gee

So, should I get disc brakes or not?

Originally Posted by cale

if disc brakes don't make you happy, they will be of limited value. It's a lifestyle choice and has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting technology. It's an aesthetic.

Originally Posted by Digital Gee

So, should I get disc brakes or not?

Originally Posted by JanMM

Didn't you just get a brightly-colored bike with V-brakes? n+1 kicking in already?

Originally Posted by Retro Grouch

So there it is, Deege, it's a question that only you can answer. Let us know what you decide.

Originally Posted by sam_cyclist

I test rode a road bike with mechanical discs a few weeks ago. The brakes literally would not stop at all. I grabbed both levers and squeezed them as hard as I could just to slow the bike down. They were incredibly weak stoppers. I WALKED the bike back to the shop.

The employee gave me some lame excuse about the brakes not having been broken in. I feel sorry for anyone who bought that bike.

Originally Posted by Digital Gee

Yep. I went with conventional brakes. But did I do the right thing???

Originally Posted by Retro Grouch

Of course you did, Deege. You've ridden bikes with conventional brakes so you know what you're getting AND, you're still around to talk about it. You'll continue to be fine.

If you'd been dissatisfied in the past, you would have opted for the discs. If that were the case, that decision would have been the right one too.