Disc vs Rim brakes

doozerie

The safety, or not, of disc rotors is another area where discussion suffers from the polarised views. The reality is that rotors are a source of risk, and have caused harm in the past (Google will throw back examples if you feel like searching for disturbing images of what metal can do to flesh). But that same can be said of spokes, chainrings, saddles, etc.

There are many sources of danger on a bike, whether it's an off-road bike or a road bike, whether it has discs or not. Personally I think that the risk posed by disc rotors has been overstated, but claims that the risk is zero are not helpful either as it's clearly not true. Somewhere between those extremes of claims there is room for a reasoned discussion about "reasonable" risk, but quite often it just goes straight into a pointless argument between polar opposite views instead.

magicbastarder

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Disc brakes are:

1. Ugly
...
5. See number 1.

you know, when i'm worrying about what braking system to choose for my bike (or any mode of transport), the chief concern i have is 'do my brakes actually *look* good'.

though i'm intrigued by point 3 in the post i quoted (but failed to include in the quote) which suggests a disconnect between the rider and the brakes; if disc brakes offer better modulation, where does the disconnect occur?

xxyyzz

But we're still cool with bladed spokes, right?

Rokta

xxyyzz wrote: »

But we're still cool with bladed spokes, right?

Chainrings... they even resemble a circular saw.. sort off...

Lumen

As far as I can tell the only 6.8kg disc road bike in production is the FOCUS IZALCO MAX DISC Red eTAP at €6500, and that's only based on reviews of the more expensive Team version and assuming it's the same weight.

For €1500 less you can get a 6.3kg rim braked Canyon.

Disc braked bikes are still expensive lard arses.

Tenzor07

Lumen wrote: »

As far as I can tell the only 6.8kg disc road bike in production is the FOCUS IZALCO MAX DISC Red eTAP at €6500, and that's only based on reviews of the more expensive Team version and assuming it's the same weight.
For €1500 less you can get a 6.3kg rim braked Canyon.

Disc braked bikes are still expensive lard arses.

Focus Izalco Max ETAP non-disc is 6.4kg, 100g heavier than the Canyon with ETap, the Focus with Discs is 6.8kg...

So the difference between the super-lite caliper brake canyon and the disc brake Izalco is the difference between having a set of mudguards or not, and does anyone really notice that weight or affect them when we live in a mostly flat country?

But let's compare costs.. A caliper brake Giant TCR advanced with Etap costs €7,500, whereas the Izalco disc Etap costs €6,500

So to say disc brake road bikes are expensive lard asses doesn't ring true these days... And wheel manufacturers can make rims lighter than equivalent rim brake versions by having less reinforcement/alloy brake tracks.. and we all know that grams saved on the outer edge of the wheel is a lot more effective than a 100 grams or so on the frame!

jamesd

Should call a day to this thread at this stage lads.

rollingscone

Gleiwitz incident - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gleiw...
The Gleiwitz incident was a false flag operation by a pair of disc brakes posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia ...

But then rim brakes did nothing to stop the Sudetenland crisis.

Lumen

Tenzor07 wrote: »

So to say disc brake road bikes are expensive lard asses doesn't ring true these days

But they are, as evidenced by the fact that a disc-braked bike on the UCI limit costs €6500, whereas a rim-braked bike costs thousands less for the same weight (or is cheaper at the same money).

ULTIMATE CF SLX 8.0 DI2, 6.7kg, €3999
https://www.canyon.com/en-ie/road/ultimate/2016/ultimate-cf-slx-8-0-di2.html

or if I drop electronic shifting...

ULTIMATE CF SLX 8.0, 6.7kg, €3399
https://www.canyon.com/en-ie/road/ultimate/2016/ultimate-cf-slx-8-0.html

That's barely more than half the price of the Focus.

Feel free to find me a cheaper 6.8kg disc braked bike if you can.

You can argue that weight saving is marginal, but for decades people have paid megabucks for lightweight bikes, so it's clear that people do value lightness.

This is an entirely separate discussion from the qualities of braking, but for many people rim-brakes perform perfectly well, in the sense that they have all the braking they need and so there is absolutely no marginal gain to be had.

In other words you can deny the importance of price or weight, but it is unarguable that rim-braked bikes are lighter and cheaper.

Steve SilverMint

The anti disc brake agenda is laughable at this stage. The below clearly shows further attempts to tarnish disc brakes was complete bull****. Annoys me Doull had such an agenda, even taking to social media when his claims in reality are ridiculed.
http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9085549b89f3dcebcfc14f08f2cec54d74dce6a65043ecb37fefbac177a215e4.jpg

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

In other words you can deny the importance of price or weight, but it is unarguable that rim-braked bikes are lighter and cheaper.

Same argument goes for electronic shifting though, costs more and weighs more, weight weenies do a good comparison on the weight side. You could make the argument that people will accept extra weight and cost if it offers extra performance gains. Alternatively you could run with 'a fool and their money are easily parted'. Either works

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

In other words you can deny the importance of price or weight, but it is unarguable that rim-braked bikes are lighter and cheaper.

yeah, it's unarguable and no-one is arguing it.

xxyyzz

I get the feeling the whole peloton has a touch of a union about it where a noisy minority are anti-disc brakes and the rest of them would use them but just don't want to rock the boat. I think there definitely are riders who want to use them like Kittel bit obviously from his statements he feels it's not worth the grief from fellow riders. You'd have to feel sorry for Kittel because it looks unlikely that his bike caused the incident but he's being scapegoated for it. If this gets properly investigated like Ventoso's claim a while back, Doull is going to look a very silly boy.

The whole safety claims are ridiculous to be honest, most of them are riding with bladed spokes which are far more dangerous IMHO but nothing is made of them.

ford2600

For the ordinary road cyclist the main advantage of disc brakes is potentially wheels that will last almost indefinitely once hubs are serviced, quality bearings etc. It means also not having to clean rims if you are a busy commuter.

Braking with discs is much more powerful, even if that power is rarely if ever needed for an ordinary guy out for a Sunday spin. Nice but clearly not essential.

The main reason I wouldn't switch yet is it leaves a rider, especially with a few bikes with wheels which he/she can't swap around. As of yet there isn't a standarised means of securing wheels, be it qr or set size of thru axle; all still evolving.

They are the future primarily to drive new sales. I'll give the bike industry one thing, they can market. The amount of drivel on internet forums discussing the merits of how to move a chain a few mm and family like loyalty to brands is quite something.

xxyyzz

ford2600 wrote: »

The main reason I wouldn't switch yet is it leaves a rider, especially with a few bikes with wheels which he/she can't swap around. As of yet there isn't a standarised means of securing wheels, be it qr or set size of thru axle; all still evolving.

They are the future primarily to drive new sales. I'll give the bike industry one thing, they can market. The amount of drivel on internet forums discussing the merits of how to move a chain a few mm and family like loyalty to brands is quite something.

You are right about this but unfortunately this is being driven by the bike industry and it will not go away as it's not in their interest. MTB is a long way ahead in this regard and the bike manufacturers are doing everything in their power to stop making parts backwards compatible, you have 3 wheel sizes (4 if you count 27.5 plus wheels). You have the old fashioned quick release skewers, 15mm front axels and 20 mm front axels. There are at least 3 different hub width standards. Rockshox (SRAM) have just introduced a new rear shock sizing standard called metric which means that the new shocks won't match existing frames. XD freehub bodies vs the regular shimano compatible ones. It's laughable. Most of this is being driven by SRAM from what I can see. Shimano and fox rarely introduce products that are not backwards compatible.

smacl

ford2600 wrote: »

The main reason I wouldn't switch yet is it leaves a rider, especially with a few bikes with wheels which he/she can't swap around. As of yet there isn't a standarised means of securing wheels, be it qr or set size of thru axle; all still evolving.

Bit of a pain ok. I'm currently tempted to pick up a spare set of wheels for the CX bike, so I can allow for muddy off road parts to my spin or not on the morning I head out, but reasonably priced wide thru axle centre lock wheels aren't that common. The other thing I dislike is ability to adjust the brakes to balance braking power front and back. As delivered, my front brake wasn't that responsive and my back brake would lock the wheel on a modest squeeze of the lever. I got it sorted and the adjustment screws are there, but well hidden and can need a bleed to reset properly. Cable actuation is much easier to adjust at present.

ford2600

xxyyzz wrote: »

You are right about this but unfortunately this is being driven by the bike industry and it will not go away as it's not in their interest. MTB is a long way ahead in this regard and the bike manufacturers are doing everything in their power to stop making parts backwards compatible, you have 3 wheel sizes (4 if you count 27.5 plus wheels). You have the old fashioned quick release skewers, 15mm front axels and 20 mm front axels. There are at least 3 different hub width standards. Rockshox (SRAM) have just introduced a new rear shock sizing standard called metric which means that the new shocks won't match existing frames. XD freehub bodies vs the regular shimano compatible ones. It's laughable. Most of this is being driven by SRAM from what I can see. Shimano and fox rarely introduce products that are not backwards compatible.

Gary Fisher and Tom Ritchey etc must be going "what the fcuk" did we start when they look at the multitude of mtb's available now.

ht, full sus, 3 wheel sizes, axles width, thru axles variations, steerer variations, fork travel, shock travel, 1by11, 1by 7 etc etc

I'm probably going to settle on one bike, something like a gravel bike which is rideable and enjoyable almost anywhere. They can get rich on somebody else. It'll will have discs though!

OleRodrigo

ford2600 wrote: »

For the ordinary road cyclist the main advantage of disc brakes is potentially wheels that will last almost indefinitely once hubs are serviced, quality bearings etc. It means also not having to clean rims if you are a busy commuter.

I'm not sure this is an advantage. While the rims may last indefinitely, a good rim with rim brakes on a road bike will last 30/40000 kms once its looked after. Its also cheap enough to replace. Its not much of an argument when the hub bearings will have to be serviced/ replaced anyway ( plus whatever maintenance is required on the rotor discs ). You may as well throw in a new rim. In fairness though, it is one aspect of disc brakes that could conceivably be considered as an advantage (at a stretch ) , but its hardly groundbreaking.

One interesting benefit will be for bike shops. If you're the type of roadie to buy disc brakes ( and presumably electric gears ), it will be unlikely you will service them yourself. This will present bike shops with an opportunity to make good money on specialized maintenance.

That's it though. Unless you're an elephant, you wont need the extra power. And they look like pie plates for heavy metal fans. All that extra cash for something that looks like its plucked out of a Transformers movie ? Puh-leeze.

ford2600

OleRodrigo wrote: »

I'm not sure this is an advantage. While the rims may last indefinitely, a good rim with rim brakes on a road bike will last 30/40000 kms once its looked after. Its also cheap enough to replace. Its not much of an argument when the hub bearings will have to be serviced/ replaced anyway ( plus whatever maintenance is required on the rotor discs ). You may as well throw in a new rim. In fairness though, it is one aspect of disc brakes that could conceivably be considered as an advantage (at a stretch ) , but its hardly groundbreaking.
QUOTE]

30k-40k km if you are putting out no power and/or are anal about rim maintenance.

If you just want to ride your bike a lot, especially day after day taking the time to clean rims and check pads (especially if using mudguards) is a pain.

On multi day audax/touring in crappy weather discs are an advantage. Use a decent lube and there is almost no maintenance needed

OleRodrigo

ford2600 wrote: »

OleRodrigo wrote: »

I'm not sure this is an advantage. While the rims may last indefinitely, a good rim with rim brakes on a road bike will last 30/40000 kms once its looked after. Its also cheap enough to replace. Its not much of an argument when the hub bearings will have to be serviced/ replaced anyway ( plus whatever maintenance is required on the rotor discs ). You may as well throw in a new rim. In fairness though, it is one aspect of disc brakes that could conceivably be considered as an advantage (at a stretch ) , but its hardly groundbreaking.
QUOTE]

30k-40k km if you are putting out no power and/or are anal about rim maintenance.

If you just want to ride your bike a lot, especially day after day taking the time to clean rims and check pads (especially if using mudguards) is a pain.

On multi day audax/touring in crappy weather discs are an advantage. Use a decent lube and there is almost no maintenance needed

I dont think any of those points are convincing. There is a rich history of rim brakes being perfectly suitable for audax, and canti-levers for loaded touring.

Bike cleaning takes seconds. You're only cleaning after every ride during the winter.

doozerie

I’ve seen and heard it said more than once that disc brakes make for little or no maintenance. Perhaps I’m missing something here but I haven’t found that to be true. I’ll qualify that by saying that I’ve had minimal exposure to hydraulic disc brakes to date, but some things are obviously common to both hydraulic and mechanical.

Brake pads wear, whether rim pad or disc pad, so you have to monitor the rate of wear. The likes of sintered pads may wear less quickly than any rim pad but the rate of wear isn’t entirely predictable and therefore it’s risky to make assumptions. As an example, I recall reading of one extremely mucky CX race in the US last year where the (pro) riders had to have new disc brake pads fitted after every lap. They may have been organic pads, I don’t know, but the point is that circumstances dictate a lot and therefore it is hard to generalise.

As pads wear you may have to adjust your cable tension to compensate, if you want to maintain consistent braking performace. Well maintained hydraulic brakes should handle that well, given that they automatically adjust, but mechanical disc brakes and particularly those where one pad is fixed don’t auto adjust. And given that some disc calipers have no (tool-less) cable adjustment mechanism built into the caliper itself you’ll either need inline adjusters or you re-tension the cable at the caliper with an allen key. No big deal really, but that’s a hassle that annoyed me with cantilevers and it remains with mechanical discs.

With hydraulic you have to keep track of the fluid and replace it if needed, or bleed the brakes if needed. I swapped hydraulic cables recently from one brake lever to the other, it was my first time ever doing so but fortunately it went smoothly - if you find rim brakes to be a hassle to deal with then you’ll find this kind of “maintenance” on hydraulic brakes to be at least as much hassle and perhaps more. If it hadn’t gone so well then the maintenance effort would have increased dramatically.

And you have to be careful not to pull the brake lever of hydraulic brakes with the wheel removed and nothing sitting between the pads, or you’ll have made some work for yourself to open and re-centre the pads again. Not a major headache, but certainly hassle.

And then there is the potential for warped rotors (more of a problem off-road) so maintenance might be required there. And the pressure that disc brake usage puts on the wheels themselves can place more emphasis on the quality of the wheel build so you are arguably introducing a potential headache there longer term - so choose your wheels wisely or live with an increased risk of regular fettling of the spokes. And the pressure on the frame leads to beefed up forks and the likes of thru axles, which while they may not add maintenance as such, they make things “different”, for better or worse. Etc.

I don’t see disc brakes as eliminating maintenance, and while they may reduce the effort needed in some areas they increase it in others. Whether the balance works in your favour depends on many variables, plus it is very subjective anyway.

xxyyzz

To be honest on an mtb, Shimano brakes are fire and forget. I have never had to bleed a set and they have taken unmerciful abuse compared to what they would get on a road or CX bike. You would get 6 months to a year out of a set of sintered pads for regular trail riding, if you are a downhiller riding in the alps or some equally long tracks then obviously you'd burn through them more quickly. There is very little maintenance with modern hydraulic brakes. The old SRAM avid brakes were an unmitigated disaster regarding reliability but they have come on ligth years since then.

doozerie

In a similar vein, decent road rim caliper brakes require very little maintenance too (by contrast, I've always found cantilevers and v-brakes to require regular tweaks and adjustment and when needed it was always fiddly and tedious).

To take an extreme case, I'm still using the same set of brake pads and cables on my (road) race bike for about 7 years now and they are still working very well without any adjustments needed on the levers or calipers in all that time. Those brakes don't get subjected to the same harsh conditions as an off-road bike would, although I have ridden that bike in all sorts of weather, but basically they fall squarely within the definition of "little or no maintenance brakes that work extremely well".

Basically, as I see it, the ideal brakes are the ones that work best for you and since everyone is different then what constitutes "work best" varies from one person to another. For some people that'll be disc brakes, for others it'll be rim brakes. And thankfully we get to choose (although that's less and less of an option with MTB's I guess). So I take no side in the argument of whether discs are better than rim brakes, there is no one size(/shape) fits all as far as I am concerned.

My personal preference for my road bikes remains rim brakes. That may change, but in the meantime I'll only start to get really fired up on the topic if manufacturers start to eliminate rim-brake bikes from their range. I'm stocking up on righteous anger ahead of that.

String

Im looking for a new road bike and considering disc. I mainly do sportives so the space for 28 tyres will be nice. I can only afford mechanical however so Im going back and forth over mech disc or rim. Is it a straightforward upgrade from mechanical to hydraulic when the frame is designed for discs or do the frame and forks differ? It may be better for me to get disc to future proof the bike as I wont be buying a nice one again for a long time. Also im afraid of the disc standards changing and making my frame obsolete the next time a new disc technology comes out.

Edit: also at the back of my mind is sportives not allowing disc in the future if one freak accident happens

magicbastarder

don't forget if you buy a bike with mechanical disc brakes, you'll have to upgrade the shifters too when you go hydraulic.

or else look at one of the hybrid options; i have them on my bike, cable operated hyraulic brakes.

cython

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't forget if you buy a bike with mechanical disc brakes, you'll have to upgrade the shifters too when you go hydraulic.

or else look at one of the hybrid options; i have them on my bike, cable operated hyraulic brakes.

Out of interest, how do you find that hybrid system? Kind of toying with the idea of replacing/upgrading my commuter with a disc-braked variant, and the Giant Conduct variant of what you describe seems interesting. Is it that you have, or some other manufacturer's version? Main reasons for eyeing a switch in my case are more consistent braking in the wet, and rim wear, having knackered 2 rear rims in 2 years of commuting Now have two near-perfect front wheels, so just got a cheapo rear off Bee Cycles this time around! Think it may be a differnece that I have a mudguard on the rear, but not the front, so possibly more crud gets on that wheel, as I was consciously braking less on the rear the last time around!

magicbastarder

it's the TRP hy-rd system i have - only have the bike less than two months, brakes work fine for me. slightly less refined feeling than the full hydraulic system i have on my MTB, but certainly not significantly so.

jamesd

String wrote: »

Im looking for a new road bike and considering disc. I mainly do sportives so the space for 28 tyres will be nice. I can only afford mechanical however so Im going back and forth over mech disc or rim. Is it a straightforward upgrade from mechanical to hydraulic when the frame is designed for discs or do the frame and forks differ? It may be better for me to get disc to future proof the bike as I wont be buying a nice one again for a long time. Also im afraid of the disc standards changing and making my frame obsolete the next time a new disc technology comes out.

Edit: also at the back of my mind is sportives not allowing disc in the future if one freak accident happens

The idea of sportives banning disc's crossed my mind too as 2 of my bikes are disc now but I think covers will be released for them and that will then allow them for use anywhere.

Alek

I use Hy/RD for over 2 years now (on 2 bikes) and have to say that while I still fancy going full hydraulic (for the feel and even less maintenance), these brakes come very close.

1. Mechanical Spyres tend to seize from (off)road grit over time and the cleaning is very laborious
2. Hy/RD have only one point I had an issue with - the cable arm pivot that got stuck a bit over winter, preventing full return of the arm. It took a few drops of silicone oil and perhaps 5 min of moving to get it back to operation. This happened on 3 calipers, but they've been fine since.
3. The power is closest to MTB hydraulics from all road disc brakes I've tried, but definitely not there. Maybe that's good - I tend to lock the rear wheel easily in the wet.
4. Rear cable length may be an issue due to friction if you use anything less than compressionless Jagwire. I have terrible experience with Sram Slickwire in example...

String

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't forget if you buy a bike with mechanical disc brakes, you'll have to upgrade the shifters too when you go hydraulic.

or else look at one of the hybrid options; i have them on my bike, cable operated hyraulic brakes.

I was toying with the idea of new giant contend sl2 for this reason but its a bit out of my budget. I think I could upgrade the groupset for cheaper but it looks like the resivour is built into the handlebar and stem? So i wouldnt b able to change them in the future? I might just save couple more months and think about it more