And? All I said was they banned discs after a rider was injured, which is a fact. Then someone made a failed attempt to say I was wrong so I posted irrefutable proof. Whatever happens after is another discussion.

You're a freaking "sack". Are you saying I wrote the article for cyclingnews and made up quotes from the president of the UCI equipment commission? Go away, drama queen.

No dude. I am saying---and it is a fact---that UCI never wanted discs and wanted an excuse to ban them. When Ventoso Falsely Claimed to have been cut by a disc, UCI had the ban ready and written and issued in a few hours.

And when the FACTS came out, that Nobody had been cut by a disc, UCI had to withdraw the ban.

Those are the facts. You know them, you choose to ignore them, and quote information based on lies and bias.

Your choice.

I posted proof of my statements. You're shown me nothing. All you've done is called me a lying sack. You must be a millennial.

Post proof that the UCI withdrew the ban because "nobody had been cut by a disc".

Or perhaps read the article 2 Piece posted, where it states that they reinstated them after a conference call with industry manufactures, who were in crises mode after the ban because they're trying to get their 2017 designs finalized.

The UCI banned them after a rider (or two) was injured and after they met with the cycling teams. They were reinstated not after they met with teams and listened to riders concerns, but after the bike manufacturers had a hissyfit.

Those are facts. You have no facts.

This is hilarious.

Fwiw, that has not been made official yet, so it is still nothing but a rumor.

Here is UCI's response to that article:

UCI responds to reports of disc brake trial reinstatement - News Shorts | Cyclingnews.com

I just posted one right before your post lol. That wasn't even the best megaavalache video I've watched, just funny and short. I've seen plenty of massive pileups in others I've watched.

That the UCI banned disks is a FACT indeed (actually, they suspended the trial, but ok.) That 'a rider (or two) was injured' I'm not sure I would call a FACT just yet, since there are rumors of a report from a doctor claiming inconsistencies. Still, if we're being lenient with truth, we could pass the Ventoso injury as FACT, but that another rider was injured is nothing but a rumor, so that one is not a FACT. The trial of discs has not been reinstated, so all that second sentence is not a FACT.

Was the rider sliced by one? It seems as if that contention is suspect at best. Teams cast doubts on whether disc brakes caused Francisco Ventoso's Paris-Roubaix injury - Cycling Weekly

Maybe it was a disk but I don't see why road pros would be more afraid of disks than other riders. It sounds a bit like when there was resistance to derailleurs in the pro peloton. Yes non professionals had derailleur bikes before the pros could use them. So there have been times when racing didn't drive the market.

Somehow the word Luddite comes to mind when it comes to this issue. It seems as if disks have seamlessly transitioned to MTB and CX racing. Perhaps non pros and the other cycling groups are just more flexible but I don't find it credible that the riders are afraid to express their displeasure to the teams or UCI. They have issued complaints before up to and including slowdowns.

Reading the responses from some of the manufacturers it seems as if road disks will be offered the the riding public even if the pro don't use them. And like when derailleurs were introduced the pros may be late adopters. But at this point it sounds like some want to worry now to avoid the rush. And if they are adopted, or not, this debate will soon be forgotten till the next advancement comes along.

Nobody here has seen his medical records. But the UCI banned discs in response to his injury and after meeting with cycling teams who did not want them. Some of you have serious reading comprehension issues. If it was actually caused by a disc or not is something the rest of you can cat fight about.

But when the UCI met with the cycling industry companies they said they would round off the rotors and maybe cover them.

Now why would they have to do that if they aren't injuring anyone?

True. So stating that he was sliced by a disc (or not) as FACT would be wrong.

FACT.

Grow up.

Allegedly.

Seems like a sensible thing to do, regardless of whether anyone has been injured or not. Wouldn't you agree?

It would have been "sensible" to do it when the first one appeared on a bicycle many years ago. It's the timing of this decision that's interesting. I thought that was obvious.

True. It is still sensible to do it today, is it not?

Here's my personal opinion that I believe is fact. First off, I seriously doubt that the "top riders /best riders" could really careless if they ride bicycles with disc brakes. When you are a professional, you have a job to do and you need to do it. Pros do not make excuses, they make results, it is always the next to best who make excuses why they are not best. Like Ricky Bobby says: 2nd place is 1st place Loser.
Secondly, I think this conspiracy is greatly fueled by all the want to be pros who just spent +$15,000.00 dollars within the last couple years on their prize possession with rim brakes just to find out it is now obsolete. ouch!

I already answered that. It's that reading comprehension deal that's the problem again.

I think the UCI was looking at a rider revolt who didn't want them on one side, and a historical hissyfit from the bicycle industry on the other so they told the industry that they had to make the rotors less sharp and find some way to cover them and prove to the riders that they aren't a danger if they wanted the ban lifted.

Which is what should have happened in the first place.

Care to quote where you answered that? Or you could just say 'yes' or 'no.'

Getting there...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...aGatNU6KDBNFXs

You know guys this has been fun but we will have the answer one way or the other by the end of this racing season. At least we will have the answer for a season or two. Then the ones that guessed correctly can come back and say I told you so. But until then we are all guessing to motives and wants of people we hardly know.

I can wait.

Wouldn't the next gen. anti lock brakes that are in the works solve some of these problems?

What are the "problems"?

One problem might that manufacturers are pushing gear on riders that riders do not want and which riders think will Decrease performance (more weight, less aero, slower wheel changes ... and not appreciable braking improvements at their level.)

Another problem might be that UCI is not sufficiently courageous to tell the manufacturers that bike racing does not exist to help manufacturers sell their products (though off course, for the manufacturers, that is all it is for.)

Another problem might be that the riders are atavistic, unwilling to try new technology ... this is not a new phenomenon.

Another problem might be that discs could be dangerous in a pileup.

And yes, Canker, in the few pileups in other disciplines, it hasn’t happened ... but such pileups are regular occurrence in road racing. Just as few pro riders get cut by chain rings or even crank ends, it does happen, simply because there are so many major pileups in road cycling ... one every or every other event, it seems. So the risks could be higher.

Anti-lock brakes? How much more silly will it get? Everywhere anti-lock brakes make a real difference, braking forces and braking distance s are considerably larger (stopping cars, trucks, and airplanes.) Brake lock is Not a large contributor to bike crashes; excessive speed is, proximity of other riders is, road furniture is ... the red mist of competition can be.

Most times when braking is an issue in a wreck it is a rider carrying too much speed into a downhill turn, and the problem is that the rider simply runs out of road. Cutting another six inches off his/her braking distance would rarely make a difference ... and would probably be offset by the increased braking distance caused by the weight of the technology.

Maybe road-racers need to rin fat-bike tires to improve braking, if it is such an issue ... or maybe it really isn’t an issue, which is what the riders have been saying all along.

The racer/sanctioning body/manufacturers tensions will never be resolved by any technology, because each group has its own ends, and they only slightly overlap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2 Piece (Post 18766776)

I thought the limit on stopping power on a bicycle was the tires??

---

The friction limits on a roadway are related to the type of material used to build the road surface. Different roads have different drag factors (coefficient of friction adjusted for super elevation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flinstone (Post 18766824)

On road bikes aboslutely not. You cannot lock up a front wheel on smooth dry pavement.

---

I used to think that as well until I observed a gentleman ride a motorcycle and bicycle and lock up the front wheel on both. The front lock-up on the bicycle caused the tire to wash out and he fell. On the motorcycle, since the C of G was much lower, he was able to stop safely. The point is that it can be done, but you will most likely crash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpeshulEd (Post 18766912)

Yeah you can. Try harder.

You might not want to lock up the front wheel or else you'll have to deal with the impending doom of flying over the handlebars, but you can totally lock the front wheel.

---

Depending on where your weight on the bike is located. C of G is important. IE: Ladies have a lower C of G t due to their body type. Some men do as well J

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2 Piece (Post 18766951)

Well your equations are all good if you lived in a perfect world, moot if you do not. What is the coefficients on wet asphault or wet concrete? What about cobble stones? Is the concrete textured or is it worn smooth? Is the asphalt worn as well? Physics is kind of a neat science, but not always applicable. Bumble bees should not fly, but they do.

---

Physics is always applicable.
http://www.livescience.com/33075-how-bees-fly.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flinstone (Post 18768217)

And it should be fairly obvious that cars (even most SUV's) have a MUCH higher endo limit, allowing one to take advantage of much higher deceleration rates. They also have MUCH more mass meaning the force required to reach 0.6 g, F= m*0.6g is MUCH larger. There is no comparisson. For cars the absolute limit in ideal conditions absolutely is the tire friction, which is closer to 1g than 0.6 g in good tires.


The argument there though also isn't about increased stopping force. It's about better control and better fade etc. Like I said, I'm open to that kind of argument, but just saying "they work better on cars" is a silly diversion. It's an entirely different situation. Cars don't even have rim brakes to compare to.

---

Cars rarely generate 1g of stopping due to the frictional limits of the roadways, not the tires. I have personally tested very expensive sports cars with on board instrumentation have only been able to get one car, with the ABS turned off near 1G.

And this is just cool

Video shows how bumblebees fly: The creatures' muscles oscillate 'spontaneously' | Daily Mail Online

So it appears that the UCI lied to try to keep cycling and bikes in the dark ages of 1895. This doesnt suprise me!!!!!

If aviation followed UCI rules, we would still be flying biplanes with fabric covered wings!!!!

Yeah. Brakes are over rated anyway. All they do is slow you down.