its 2016, why arent you using disc brakes on road bike?
Why are you electing idiots?
![justin-trudeau-justin-trudeau-dont-know-whats-worse-a-world-2434134[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/liiGI8t.png "justin-trudeau-justin-trudeau-dont-know-whats-worse-a-world-2434134[1].png")
kek
Because I have allready bought 2 new bikes in the couse of a year. I'm gonna get disc brakes if I update to garbon at some point.
How do disk brakes actually work if not to clamp the wheel? Also my road bikes back is disk but not the front
>>961787
Because my regular brakes already have enough power to completely block the wheel.
ABS for bicycles when?
I don't like to get a whole new frameset just to install fucking disc brakes, i prefer to deal with a new wheelset each 3-4 years
Because I can already stop just fine.
>>961814
>I'm gonna get disc brakes if I update to garbon at some point.
just dont let the current year pass with rim brakes
>>961787
Test rode a Fuji sporting last night at the sport chalet closing sale was 65% off "or best offer"
But the brakes felt spongy. The shimano Sora with the paddle shifters were meh and i think it had one of those trash FSA gossamer cranksets
So the junk aluminum Fuji frame needed some serious components to be a good bike....
I just don't like disc in general unless it's for an29er hard tail
I bought a CX/Monstercross bike that came with Avid BB5 disc brakes. IMHO they're inadequate and poorly engineered.
The BB5 pads are way smaller than Shimano XT pads. Maybe they're okay in Fatland but they fade badly after 10+ minutes of braking during steep descending.
Also BB5 are single piston, meaning you have to basically align the fixed pad very close to the rotor, then the moving pad only had to deflect the rotor a little bit. Why were these models ever designed let alone sold?
I upgraded to Tektro TRP Spyre dual piston mechanical brakes and I would say they meet the minimum standard for road or CX brakes.
They're compatible with a standard Shimano pad so there a plenty of OEM and aftermarket pad choices; I like the standard Shimano M05 resin pads for M525/M515 calipers. I like that I can adjust the individual pad clearance on the Spyre so I never have to compromise caliper arm travel or brake lever travel.
I think hydraulic will probably be standard on race and enthusiast bikes, because of nice feel and self-adjusting pistons.
Maybe mechanical discs will be preferred for touring and adventure bikes because they can be more easily repaired or rebuilt.
>>961787
I don't know. I am fine with my rim brakes. I can't really imagine a situation where I'd go "wish I had disc brakes". Maybe if I was riding in rain for 3 hours so my rims would be thoroughly wet and then a kid would run right in front of me?
B A N N E D
A
N
N
E
D
Because I'm poor
Because campagnolo doesn't offer hydraulic discs. Once they release hydraulic discs with mechanical groupset I'll switch instantly, or at least as soon as they're available in record/chorus.
>>961787
-Road bikes don't need much brake performance (compared to downhill etc)
-Hydraulic brifters are kinda rare
-Muh grams
-UCI
-Roadside maintenance (for touring etc)
-Calipers (or even V-brakes) work pretty good
>have disks and love them, but could live without
>>961951
I wouldn't worry too much about roadside maintenance, even with hydraulics. A lot of people have been rigging mountain bikes for touring with those for kind of a while now.
When I eventually get a new bike it'll probably have hydro discs, but only due to the fact that I like the feel of em, rather than any performance-related thing.
>>961787
>why arent you using disc brakes on road bike?
Honestly? All my current bikes and the extra wheelsets are rim brakes only, the conversion kits suck, and I'm not throwing away all my bikes and wheelsets for the latest fad in cycling tech.
>>961900
This
Poverty sucks, not like I needed to go downhill in the rain anyway I guess
>>961951
>that pic
Hydraulic rim brakes? Ok for stopping power (still won't outperform hydro discs though) but the whole point of discs is moving the braking surface off the rim of the wheel. The benefit of that is superior wet weather braking (as it takes a fraction of a second to clear the discs of water) not to mention the modulation and outright power available. Also the wheel rim doesn't heat up under hard braking, which can lead to other problems.
Also:
>Road bikes don't need much brake performance
They do. It depends on rider weight, conditions, gradient, weather... honestly if you cite this as a reason not the get discs, it just shows you either don't ride hard or fast enough, or in enough varied conditions. Just because discs don't suit you (not you personally, anyone), doesn't mean they're useless.
>>961951
I non ironically spent huge sums of cash on maguras for my full size trials bike and then on mountain bike in the 2000's. 4 point direct frame mounting was god tier, not that ugly 2 point cantelever qr mount.
I can never understand why maguras never caught on for road racing. Especially for big mountain stages. Was is some UCI bullshit ? I could almost see them crushing some zipp wheels.
Dick brakes are for faggots
Kool stop shitmemes can stop me, 200lbs in the rain, lock wheels if you want, instantly
Dick brakes are useless stupid garbage on road bikes
You all got meme'd
They will die and be a joke in 20 years.
PIC
R
E
LATED
if my rim brakes can bring me to a nicely modulated and quick stop after bombing down a 10% hill in freezing rain why the fuck do i need disc brakes
>>962115
>Also the wheel rim doesn't heat up under hard braking, which can lead to other problems.
Heat dissipation is a much bigger problem for disc brakes.
>>962136
I would remove the tube protectors spoke cards, lower the seat and ride the shit out of that
>>962148
Only if you're using discs that are too small and not ventilated properly for the intended use. When using proper discs overheating isn't a problem. At least if you use your brakes properly instead of sitting on them for entire descents.
It's always funny to see rim brake faggots squirming, trying to argue agains objective facts about this subject. Like all the arguments are basically " baww baww, I like my bike and I have stopped it with my rim brakes once! So i don't need superior brakes!"
Do you seriously think that effective braking power is measured how fast you can lock up your tires in the rain?
>>962136
>lock wheels if you want
if your front wheel is locked, you are out of control and your brakes are doing nothing. brakes dont stop you, tires do.
>2015 + 2 - 1
>Braking
WEW
>>961825
How the fuck do you not know how they work if you have one?
Because disc brakes, like most of cycling 'technology' is just a scam to separate chumps from their money.
The bicycle is durable, mature technology, so they have to come up with something to make you idiots keep spending your money.
>safety bicycle invented with single front chain ring
>Front derailleur invented, time for two front rings
>Triples become all the rage
>Triples are out of fashion, doubles are back in style
>Time to make more money, can we convince the plebs that a single front chain ring is something they should 'upgrade' to?
>>962250
Triples were never all the rage.
>>962136
While I dig the bb7s on my MTB, the cantis with koolstopbros on my cross bike are more than enough brake.
>>962250
I dunno, i really like the feel of the hydro discs on my new touring bike. I could get by with something else, but they really do seem a lot better, especially in rain and mud.
>>962252
On roadbikes, no. On mountain bikes, they were essentially the only thing you could buy for well over a decade.
I scored a screaming deal on a used cross bike with disc brakes back in January. It was all I rode until last month when I finally got around to pulling my road bike off the trainer where it had been since November. As soon as I pull out of my driveway I have to go down a very steep and very badly paved road where I have to be on the brakes hard the whole way. I thought my brake pads had turned to stone they took so much more hand effort than my disc brakes to keep me slowed down. Yes they would still lock a wheel up and after a short amount of time I got use to them again but when you have to get on the brakes hard or stay on them for a long time disc brakes are nice. Mine are just BB5 which aren't exactly great disc calipers either.
I'm also a mtn biker and all of my mtn bikes are hydraulic disc brakes so I'm very use to dealing with them. I also remember back when disc brakes starting taking over mtn biking and all the same anti-disc bitching you now hear for road bikes was used for mtn bikes too.
>>962937
They're still extremely common, aren't they?
Aside from 1x stuff for downhill, what do high end xc and enduro bikes run these days?
>>962969
Triples only come on really low end MTB's or hybrids. MTB's used exclusively for trails usually run 2x or 1x. Triples are too dangerous and really unnecessary for real mountain riding in my opinion, stay off the pavement and fire roads if you "need" a triple on a MTB.
It's ~90% 1x on high end XC and Enduro bikes these days, many frames don't even have front derailleur mounts. With a 42-50t granny gear in the back you only really need to run 1x up front.
>>962973
Doesn't that spin out really easy on descents? Or does that just not matter on trails.
Thanks for the info anon.
>>962969
I think only about one in five of my MTB-riding friends still have triples. I'm still rocking the 3x9 on both of my mountain bikes, though. Pretty much everyone has moved to 2x10 or 2x11. Several of my friends riding 1x11 setups, which I think is riding the meme/hype wave way too hard for the kind of riding we do. "But I don't drop chains anymore!" Neither do I with my triple, bro...
>>962973
>Triples are too dangerous
WUT
>>962975
They're dangerous...if you're retarded.
>>962974
After about 40kph you spin out but at that point it's either too fast and rough to pedal or faster to drop the saddle and aero tuck. You can do ~35kph easy with a 28t up front which is fast enough for most trails. A few pro DH riders are only running 32t up front for extra ground clearance.
>>962975
I have a couple grease tattoos from slipping onto big rings, people have been sliced open to the point of needing reconstructive surgery (see the UCI disc brake horseshit). I don't need that shit happening 20+kms from my car in Grizzly country. A big ass chainring on a MTB just gets in the way, not cool when you're riding along rocky exposed cliffs.
>>962976
see pic related. I'll stick with my babby chainring and bash guard tyvm.
If you go with Srams 11 speed cassette you get a 10 tooth cog in the back which helps with the top end if that is a problem for you. Top end is rarely an issue on my local trails. Them granny gears are more important.
I think this whole anti-triple thing is fewer people are doing adventure type all-terrain type riding where uphill and fire roads are a big part of it, and more and more people are doing MTB for gnarly descents, and don't give a shit about anything else.
>>962986
bingo
>>962980
That's great and all for you, but when I'm doing 50 miles out in the back country with some steep climbs, fast fire roads, and goals that are more along the lines of "arrive alive" than "let's see how fast I can rail this gnarly decent", a triple is great.
I'm not going to deny that 2x and 1x both have their place, because they do! All I'm asking is that you do the same; have some fucking perspective and try to understand that everyone doesn't ride exactly like you do on exactly the same terrain.
>>962986
Probably. For me mountain biking has been the way to adventure in the wilderness or local woods. If I'm going to be out the whole day I appreciate the more tightly paced casette, big ring for asphalt/gravel/fire road sections and granny ring for climbing up the hills at the end of the day. I understand 1x setups if riding is downhill oriented trail riding but if you go with double why not just go with triple? You can even add chainquard on triples - even the shitty hybrids have those. The weight difference is minimal and you still got the derailleur. And it seems that no one cares about weight outside XC-scene (check out this £2800 bike that weights almost 15 kg).
>>962980
what the fuck is that blue shit
>>962987
>when I'm doing 50 miles out in the back country with some steep climbs, fast fire roads, and goals that are more along the lines of "arrive alive" than "let's see how fast I can rail this gnarly decent", a triple is great.
The other guy was asking about XC and Enduro aka trail riding which for a 2x or 1x system is far superior. What you described is not really MTB or trail riding it's more gravel grindey/bikepackish which a triple is probably superior for I guess.
Grinding downhill on fire roads in the big ring is so 90's though, it's all about the enduro now brah.
>>962989
puss drainage
I run 1x10 (36x11-36) on my silly little gravelcross adventure thing because if I get to a hill where 36x36 isn't good enough, I'm probably going to be falling over backwards due to the wacky geometry of a bike that is way too small for me. Back when it was a 2x rig there was no point at all in having the smaller ring.
And goddamn it's a fun bike. It's just stupidly nimble. Sucks fucking dick for anything over 35 miles tho because the fit does not promote efficient pedaling.
Anyway, 1x, 2x, and 3x all have their place. Fuck, even 4x. Even a Pinion 18x. Especially 18x.
back in the day when triples were the norm on mtn bikes you only had 7-9 speeds in the back and you were limited to 11-28/32/34 or if you could find one a very heavy 11-36 9 speed cassette. With 10 speed now you can get a 11-36/40/42, the bigger ones being ad on cogs or Sunrace's new cassttes, and 11 speed is 11-40/42 and you can add a 45. Then there is Srams new 12 speed that is going 11-50. You get nearly the same range as you would with a double or triple but with the loss of close spacing. Having close spacing is going to be more important to some people than others. For me whenever I shift I'm usually grabbing 2 or 3 gears at a time anyway so it isn't important.
My mtn bikes are used only for mtn biking and my local trails I'm doing very well if I can break a 8.5mph average by the end of a ride so a big ring up front is useless. I can handle the vast majority of the climbs with my 1x setups but I still have a 2x bike and it comes in handy on rides when I know there will be lots of climbing.
If I'm doing an adventure ride I'll use my cross bike with it's 2x11 roadie setup.
>>962994
would you even be able to go fast enough to stay upright with that tiny ring
>>962980
>grease tattoo
I have one on my head. Hidden in my hair tho. Tightening the towball nut of a bikerack with bikes on it and the spanner slipped off the nut and i fell forwards into the chainring. Nek minit blood running down my face haha. Only a small cut in the end tho.
>>962994
Does that bike even have downtube? Or if it has where's the chainstays?
>>962987
Idk I don't find a triple good for that, either. I got a 3x9, 22/32/42 up front. Honestly the 42 on offroad is just not necessary, if I had a 22/36 with a 10 speed cog in the back I'd never feel the need for it. The big cog would be usable only downhill, and you probably don't want to pedal much there, to avoid pedal strikes.
>>963005
Check the wheel in the background, it's some sort of trike, possibly a recumbent.
>>962115
>>Road bikes don't need much brake performance
>They do. It depends on rider weight, conditions, gradient, weather...
If your brake's grip on the rim exceeds your tire's grip on the road, going disc isn't going to help.
So yeah, rim brakes aren't always adequate, but in those cases disc brakes aren't going to help.
>>963029
A lot of people don't seem to understand that it's not just about the maximum braking force.
Discs, hydraulic especially, require less force at the lever for the same braking force, have better modulation, keep the braking surface away from the dirt and water, aren't reliant on having a completely true rim, handle heat better over prolonged braking, and probably other things that I'm forgetting.
>>963031
OK, lots of that might be true, but considering how well rim brakes work, disc is at best a case of diminishing returns, and at worst it's a solution in search of a problem.
Maybe rim wear is the best reason to use disc.
>>963029
>>963036
Would you rather
>buy $2500 wheelset
>use rim brakes
>rims get worn out
>buy new $2500 wheelset or $1000 rims
>continue buying new wheelsets/rims everytime your rims get worn
Or
>buy $2500 wheelset
>use disc brakes
>rotors get worn
>replace rotors for pocket change
>continue using the same $2500 wheelset
On top of that hydro discs provide much better modulation, better stopping power in wet conditions, and won't overheat the rims and cause your tires to either pop out or puncture.
>>963036
It depends on what type of bike you're riding. With flat bars a set of hydraulic discs are fairly cheap, for drop bars they're stupidly expensive and not many people will want to spend that much on a non-race bike and you can't race with discs now. Cable disc calipers are also fairly cheap and are compatible with regular brifters, but for the roadies they're still going to have to buy a new frame, fork, and wheels.
That's why for my first road bike (flat bar) I went straight for discs, after using them on my mountain bikes I knew I'd want them and didn't want to have to upgrade down the road and essentially have to buy a new bike again.
>>963039
>>buy $2500 wheelset
No thanks, I'm heterosexual.
>>continue buying new wheelsets/rims everytime your rims get worn
My current front wheel is getting pretty worn, but I've had it for just over 37,000 miles, and I do a fair amount of gravel/dirt roads, even in the rain.
>On top of that hydro discs provide much better modulation, better stopping power in wet conditions, and won't overheat the rims
But modulation and stopping power are more than adequate with my rim brakes.
These don't need improving.
>won't overheat the rims and cause your tires to either pop out or puncture.
I've never even heard of this happening.
It's nice that you drank the kool-aide and all, but don't expect us all to do the same.
>>963042
>I only ride flats
In your case rim brakes may well be adequate. Besides carbon rims get worn much faster than alloy rims. And even if you have cheapo $500 chink carbon wheelset having to replace a perfectly good set of wheels just because you cheaped out and didn't get discs hurts.
>>963045
>>I only ride flats
No, I ride in the Appalachians.
>Besides carbon rims get worn much faster than alloy rims.
>buys carbon rims
>says "disc brakes aren't just throwing piles of money at a non-existent problem"
lol
>>963040
Flat bar bike isn't a road bike. And most of you with "road bikes" that shipped with discs are on sport fitness or cyclocross bikes
The one exception is the guy who said he had a caad12 everyone else is on entry level upright geo frames with drops on the
>>963054
Was gonna make a rebuttal, then I noticed you're Sieg.
>>963042
>>963042
>But modulation and stopping power are more than adequate with my stamped 1970s single-pivot brakes.
>These don't need improving.
There's a lot of kool-aide to drink in the cycling industry, but hydraulic disc brakes do represent an important technological step forward. They're just plain better in every way. The difference in functionality is even greater than the difference between shitty old stamped single-pivots and modern dual pivots - which is often considered a mandatory upgrade for people buying an OTS.
You're not going to buy into the hype right now? Totally understandable. But a number of years down the road, maybe it'll be time to buy a new bike. When that day arrives, I think you'll get it.
>>963057
>They're just plain better in every way.
Except cost, maintenance, field serviceability (including home in my garage), and weight.
Even if it weren't for this, you're "fixing" a non-existent problem.
Aside from replacing my front rim every 40,000 miles, there's no real downside to rim brakes.
>maybe it'll be time to buy a new bike. When that day arrives, I think you'll get it.
More likely I'll be forced to drink the kool-aide because I won't be able to buy what's currently a "normal" bike.
>>963064
>Except cost
They're no more expensive than comparable calipers, and getting cheaper all the time as they become standard.
>maintenance
Non-issue. Comparable or lower maintenance needs than mech calipers.
>field serviceability (including home in my garage)
Again, they're no more difficult to work on than mech calipers. I would wager money that you've never had to work on a brake of any kind while out for a ride.
>weight.
Caliper and lever weight are comparable, unless you are rocking those ridiculous 60 gram carbon calipers. Hoses and fluid might be very slightly heavier than cables + housing + ferrules. I believe it's within a few grams.
Anyway Muh Grams hasn't been a problem for quite a few years. It's trivial to build a bike that hits the UCI weight minimum - which is the whole point of having that limit.
It's so easy now that "motor doping" has become a problem - people can fit a fucking battery and an electric motor onto a bike that bottoms out the weight limit.
This is just you being afraid of change.
>>963064
one of the main problems with hydraulic brakes on bikes today is that they use o-rings to seal the brake caliper and piston junction unlike car calipers which use a forged fluid boss and flexline (stainless braided on performance cars)
bikes have so much flex, use mineral oil unlike dot 4 fluid (in ferrari and porsche) or dot 3 in honda toyota etc etc
and are harder to bleed than a car's brakes
so people use the comparison "it's closer to a car so it's better"
it's not at all related to a car
and if you leave your bike sitting outside in a humid environment mineral oil will draw that water
and mineral oil will eat away at the seals
so in 5-6 years from now you'll see your bike sitting in the garage puking all it's brake fluid everywhere
>>963074
I wonder if you're this retarded on purpose.
>>963074
I have a set of pic related. 10 years old at this point. They still work perfectly.
>>963074
>and are harder to bleed than a car's brakes
That varies greatly depending on the brand of brakes.
Shimano brakes are dirt simple to bleed and way WAY easier than car brakes. Just helped my friend bleed his rear brake and just gravity bleed it. Using Shimano's bleed cup thingy which cost $6 makes it even easier but I haven't gotten around to buying one yet.
Avid/Sram brakes on the other hand are a PITA to bleed. They also use Dot 5.1 brake fluid.
Pretty much everything you posted isn't a real issue.
Don't reply to the Sieg, he knows nothing.
>>963106
i probably have built more bikes than anyone on /n/
you buy entry level road bikes and take it to a LBS for service right?
who knows more here
>>963074
unpopular opinion time:
imho hydraulic brakes are freaking overrated. I get the benefits for race use ONLY but for everyone else mechanicals are better. TRP Spyre/Spykes are good designs, if Shimano and SRAM poured their funds in dual caliper self adjusting mech brakes I'm sure we'd see huge improvements.
I mean the only REAL benefit of hydraulics is the better modulation and self adjustment, pretty much. Mechanicals brake just as hard if properly mantained, their shortcomings are mostly derived from the shitty single caliper brakes that are a pain to keep adjusted and brake marginally worse.
On the other hand, hydraulics add a whole lot of unwanted maintenance (yeah they might be sealed and good to go, but they won't always be like that for everyone and forever. Long term, mechs win, and on VITAL components like brakes you damn better want them to be field serviceable.) and they suffer from a lot of issues, like fluid boiling. If you fall and a hydraulic cable gets punctured, you're out of brakes. If you fall and a mechanical brake gets frayed, nothing happens except that you need to change the cable once you safely get back.
tl;dr I don't think hydros are worth the hassle except for short races. Even for enduro races I'd rather have mechanicals. Downhill? Sure, go with hydros.
>>963110
>their shortcomings are mostly derived from the shitty single caliper brakes
This is absolutely true.
>If you fall and a hydraulic cable gets punctured
This is absolute nonsense. Testing has shown that hydraulic lines are WAY the fuck more resilient than cables + housing.
In real-world riding conditions it's almost impossible to damage a hose without destroying the bike entirely in the process.
>>963110
Hydraulics feel so much better, there's a lot less friction to deal with and no cable stretch or housing compression so it takes less effort and feels consistent (when I had cable discs the front was okay, the rear felt like shit due to the longer awkward cable run).
I replaced the front with an old hydro I had (probably a decade old if not more) and the difference was massive. Then I replaced both with even better ones and now my brakes are fantastic.
As for all the maintenance related stuff, sure if you're touring in the mountains miles and miles away from a single bike shop then go with cable discs. In the extremely unlikely even that one of my brakes dies I can easily make it home with the other and repair it. I've yet to have any of my 7 brakes completely fail, the worst was one of the really old ones had a sticky piston and would drag on the disc.
>>963115
>feel so much better
Ya, this. I'm pure casual, just ride around on pathways and pick up groceries and stuff. On my fancy hydraulic disks. A coaster brake would get the job done but the hydros (and the whole bike, really) are just a tactile pleasure to use.
>>963000
gotta practice that high cadence shit bruh
>>961951
>Hydraulic brifters are kinda rare
What's wrong with cable-actuated disc brakes? I love mine.
>>961787
here, in Bikestealers country, having discbrakes is like inviting burglars
because I bought my mountain bike in late 1997
>>963039
DESU while I had no beef with rim performance, I spend a good few hundo replacing otherwise perfect rims because of the braking surface and saw the appeal of discs. My MTB has BB7s and I love them. With the 3" tyres I just have incredible amounts of stopping power.
My GF bought a mid-priced MTB recently and the extra $100 for pretty modest Tektro discs was definitely worth it. Discs do have merit, although I prefer the rim brakes for the Brompton because I think those dick breaks would get bent up.
>>961787
Enjoy your huge gash when you crash!!
>>961787
They are ugly af
>>961830
Attached to the hub of the wheel.
>>963723
You're probably more likely to have the chain ring tear you a new asshole than the brakes.
