rpenmanparker 

Actually you are producing the drama. His list was accurate. Your list is accurate. When you list cons, you get a list of cons. You don't say this is a negative, but I won't count it because there is also some negative for the other type of product. You just list all the negatives. You care about them or not, but the list is the list. What could you possibly be objecting to?

cruiserhead

RJM

Well, from the article one of the big cons to disk brakes is the safety issue related to having a hot, spinning knife-like rotor. The proximity of the riders to each other and how crashes happen in road racing (pile up crashes that seem to always happen at the beginning of the TdF, for instance) makes it a much different situation than mountain or cross races.

I'm kinda surprised at how many riders don't want them in the peloton. I figured they would be all about them.

himespau 

And then the rear triangle gets wider to a new standard and we start this all over again.

Leinster

Wider rear spacing means we can go to 12 speed and beyond!

bt

I was just trying to answer dvdslw's question, that's all.

pallen

I don't think there's anything unscrupulous going on, but you better believe they will market and try to increase sales and profits with new tech - they would be dumb not to. That's what drives development and eventually results in better bikes for all of us.

Roadbikedude

Disc brakes being UCI allowed is only a matter of time. If there is a benefit to the racers to use them, they will. It will be interesting to see if they will go with through-axel or quick release and also how much time difference it will be for changing a flat during a race. Probably need to be standardized so that the neutral Mavic cars can give anyone with a flat a new wheel. Cycling keeps evolving and some things are really cool, a.k.a. electronic shifting, custom fits for everyday riders, wider tires, unbelievable aero bikes and wheels and so forth.....as long as you still have to pedal to make you go, then let the evolution continue!!!

grolby

At this point I am so not interested in debating the technical merits, or not, of disc brakes. So much noise signifying nothing, especially given how weirdly emotional the topic is. At this point, we are going to find out, in the real world, how good or bad or whatever road discs really are. If they are not an improvement, or if they really do turn out to be the death traps that bt seems to think they are, they won't stick around. I suspect that disc brakes are going to win, and that most of the various challenges that they introduce will be solved. But really, it's no skin off my nose if I'm wrong.

Yeah... I think safety is an interesting question, though how large of an additional safety issue the brake rotors are remains to be seen. A 30 mph pileup is already incredibly unsafe and can result in serious injuries. How much added danger there is from brake rotors being added to the mix is really unclear. They are less accessible and exposed than, say, chainrings. Land wrong on a chainring and it can really **** you up. At last year's cross worlds, one of the Americans (Johnson, I think? Maybe Trebon) had to go to the hospital with a nasty laceration injury. There was all kind of sturm und drang about how this was the last straw, disc brakes are too dangerous, they cause nasty injuries in crashes... and then it came out that the injury wasn't from a disc rotor at all, it was from a chainring! That's not really evidence one way or another, but it's interesting that everyone immediately seized on disc brakes as the culprit.

That's pretty much my point. The view of the bike industry as a bunch of mustachio-twirling robber barons selling patent medicine and the view of the bike industry as a bunch of wide-eyed idealist engineers who do nothing but innovate every minute of every day are both overly simplistic. It's a for-profit business, but it's perfectly capable to market things and make a profit and believe that what you are selling really is a superior product. In fact, believing in your product makes for much more effective marketing.

RaptorDuner

EVERY non cyclist friend I have say if they buy a bike, they want disc brakes. They will bring that up without me asking. Bike manufacturers marketing dept. know this and will make models accordingly and if the novice cyclist started on discs my bet is they would stay with discs.

hueyhoolihan

i agree, it's probably true. of course, i don't have any friends so i can't say for sure.

StephenH

I think it's just as likely to be the opposite, where the majority of recreational riders have disc brakes and the pros don't. That is supported to some extent by the article, which mentions the technology trickling upward, from the recreational world to the pros, rather than the other way around.

From the recreational standpoint, consider this: I have disc brakes on my bike. They are there because the bike I liked happen to have them. That's all the thought that went into them. I suspect that's similar reasoning as used by a LOT of the 1200-mile-a-year riders.



Yes, but besides this, is there really a downside?

Jiggle

I can't imagine why anyone who knows the history of the UCI would say this. They are ban-happy curmudgeons who worship the God of Safety. If they can find a reason to ban something, they will ban it. If they don't like something, they will make up a reason to ban it. When in doubt, ban. That is how they roll.

UnfilteredDregs

... and the 2015 crock of s-h-i-t award goes to BT..

Jiggle

Except he is 100% correct. The only weight savings now is in carbon rims, it is minimal, and it will evaporate as carbon technology improves and heat dissipation becomes less of a problem.

UnfilteredDregs

He's not correct, he implies a basic assumption based upon poor maintenance practices and utter hyperbole founded upon the most ridiculous one offs.

System misquoted me, my comments are regarding this:

Dave Mayer

This gets to the very heart of the matter. Most newb cyclists now want to be on a road bike, and being transplants from the MTB world, they naturally assume that bikes should have discs. The pros are focused on performance, so naturally they don't want discs. Hell even the vast majority of pro 'cross riders, who spend their weekends in ankle-deep mud don't use them.

Always remember that all high-level competition occurs on tubulars. Clinchers carry such an insurmountable weight and safety disadvantage, that this will always be the case. Always.

The discussion about discs always points to their apparent advantages such as better heat dissipation, or the ability to remove the braking track. But this does not apply as much to tubulars, since tubular rims are already superior in heat dissipation. Plus tubulars do not have the 2 rim hooks required to keep a clincher tire in place. So when applied to pros, the 2 key advantages of discs go away. And, do pros care about rim erosion caused by rim brakes? Hardly.

Add to that the significant weight penalty of discs and disc-enabled framesets, and slower wheel changes.

The only way that pro road riders will use discs is if the manufacturers dump a ton of money on the UCI, and all pros are required to use them to level the handicap.

GuyDebord

For a non-pro rider like myself hydraulic discs are superior in all aspects, I have never felt more confident in a downhill, cornering at fast speed or in the wet, disc brakes make me faster. I am 100% sold on disc brakes and will never go back to the old technology. This is not marketing, hydraulic discs are truly superior brakes and I dont give a damn about what the UCI thinks or does.

grolby

This is flat-out baloney. Tubular rims don't have any advantage in heat dissipation over clinchers. You could say that overheating is less dangerous with a tubular rim, and that would be a reasonable argument. A tire failure from too much heat is not as dangerous as on a clincher rim. A brake surface failure on a tubular rim is also arguably safer, since the tire is more likely to stay in place, where it is pretty much guaranteed to come off on a clincher. But a brake surface failure is still bad news, and not any less likely to happen. And brake fade from pad glazing is just as likely with a tubular rim, and just as dangerous.

There's no physical way that tubular rims could shed heat significantly faster than clincher rims, and they don't. If you want to argue that heat-related failures are less dangerous with tubulars, go nuts, that's true enough. Personally, I don't think that being less boned if you overheat a tubular rim is terribly relevant to the question of whether or not discs are a good idea, but as I already said, IDGAF what anyone thinks about that anymore.

I think the bone of contention in this thread was already sufficiently chewed-over in the article linked in the OP. It demonstrates pretty clearly that (surprise!) professional racers are group of people with diverse and varying opinions on disc brakes. Just like the BF Brain Trust. I could tell you that, of the pair young guns who are currently winning every cross race in sight, Mathieu van der Poel rides disc brakes exclusively, while Wout Van Aert seems to stick with cantis. That tells you... well, not a whole hell of a lot, really. One thing being better - whichever one it is - doesn't mean it's going to grant a race-winning difference every time. People still win bike races on non-aero bikes all the time. That doesn't mean that aero bikes don't actually have less drag than a non-aero bike. They do. It just means that there's a lot going on in a bike race and sometimes the differences in equipment are less than the winning difference. The difference is real nonetheless.

cruiserhead

It's the exact opposite
race tubulars (all carbon now) will have the greatest improvement and advantage. Heat is a major concern on long descents and bad weather.
The amount of time gained from far superior brakes will be far more than the slight weight penalty.

grolby

While my opinion, for what little it's worth, is that disc brakes are superior and are going to take over, I don't think it's this simple. A mass start bike race is a complex environment, and equipment features at the margins compared to fitness, tactics, drafting, rider skill, and so on. And if everyone goes to disc brakes at more or less the same time, which seems like a real possibility, there may not be such a difference to be made. Even if they don't, bike races are seldom won on descents. It happens, but the opportunities for discs to make a winning difference are probably scant.

cruiserhead

you completely miss the point
Yes, if everyone is on disc, it evens it out. Everyone HAS to if it happens- that would be the UCI regulation.

The point is no more rolled tubulars from cooking the glue off high speed braking
far more modulation for greater control- this is a tremendous value, for the diesel soaked roads they often race on and cobbles/dirt
far superior braking surface than carbon rims can offer - especially in the wet, where carbon rims brake for naught


If you are comparing rim to disc (as Dave Mayer was) than I am offering that weight is not the only major factor at play.
These other factors will negate the weight to a major extent.

For racer safety, it's no question. And, I think, faster racing as well.

Dave Mayer

Wrong. The braking track on clincher rims has only one path for heat dissipation. Tubulars have 2. Look at a cross section.

At least you recognise that tubulars are far safer when it comes to heat buildup. With tubulars, the inner tube is insulated from rim heating. With clinchers, it just heats up until it blows.

Jiggle

Well, you COULD die. That is always a possibility.

grolby

Bogus. The tire bed of a tubular doesn't magically make it better at dissipating heat than a clincher.