What size disc rotor?
11-08-12, 03:06 PM
#1
1, 2, 3 and to the 4X
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
What size disc rotor?
Any of y'all swapped out the 160 mm rotors your bike no doubt came with stock for larger rotors? If so, why and what rotor did you switch to? Was the decision out of weight concerns or simply wanting better stopping power?
11-08-12, 07:19 PM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 570
Bikes: Hollands Touring Bike, Schwinn mountain bike, folding bike, tandem and triple
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My Vaya uses 160 mm rotors and they seem to work fine for me and I am a Clyde. I have seen modern tandems with disks that are much bigger. I don't have a disk equipped mountain bike so I have no experience there.
11-08-12, 09:36 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm 250lbs and went with a disc trucker with avid bb7 road and STI shifters. Did a tour from nyc to joplin and had PLENTY of braking power with std 160mm rotors. Can't imagine anyone having any need to go larger. I estimate I must have been at about 340lbs total weight including the bike and the panniers. anybody much heavier than that aint getting up the hills that you need the brakes for!
11-08-12, 09:53 PM
#4
Shimano Certified
The larger rotors are good when you need to increase the mechanical advantage/heat dissipation such as what you would get from high speed trail use. I have raced XC with moderate downhill and never had a problem with 160mm. Recently I modified my main rig to 140mm rear with no detriment. I figured the lower mechanical advantage could aid anti-lock control and it has proved to be the case. Very balanced power. Short of a tandem or wild use 160 should be alright.
11-08-12, 10:14 PM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 2,468
Bikes: Co-Motion Cappuccino Tandem,'88 Bob Jackson Touring, Co-Motion Cascadia Touring, Open U.P., Ritchie Titanium Breakaway, Frances Cycles SmallHaul cargo bike. Those are the permanent ones; others wander in and out of the stable occasionally as well.
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 427 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 339 Times
in
229 Posts
The larger rotors are good when you need to increase the mechanical advantage/heat dissipation such as what you would get from high speed trail use. I have raced XC with moderate downhill and never had a problem with 160mm. Recently I modified my main rig to 140mm rear with no detriment. I figured the lower mechanical advantage could aid anti-lock control and it has proved to be the case. Very balanced power. Short of a tandem or wild use 160 should be alright.
11-09-12, 01:49 AM
#7
Banned
Seems, with 406 wheels my 160 discs on the bike friday PL
are relatively huge.
are relatively huge.
Last edited by fietsbob; 11-09-12 at 11:35 AM.
11-09-12, 05:13 AM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I progressed from 160 to 180 to 200mm up front, and 140 to 160 to 180mm in the rear. My routes have steep hills, pad glazing was frequent with the smaller rotors, no longer happens with the larger rotors; bigger is better on many levels, including on the rear.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
twocicle
Tandem Cycling
25
04-03-13 12:42 AM
