I tend to agree Mark. Although I don't know a lot of people who ride in such conditions as you do. Paul touring cantis have been usually great, even in the rain. But with a good load on the bike, in the rain going downhill, rim brakes I can it quickly getting dicey. One of the many reasons I decided to put myself on the NFE list.
I think generally-speaking, bike manufacturers seem to slap disc brakes on everything to market it more versatile, but can't bother to add proper rack brazeons. And a lot of mid-level completes don't have quality disc brakes, and wheels are not true. On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 11:02:38 AM UTC-4, Mark Reimer wrote: > > This anti-disc, pro rim-brake argument feels like flogging a dead horse. > I've ridden more than enough disc brake bikes to know the appeal and > see/feel firsthand how they surpass rim brakes in so many ways. I'm in no > way anti-rim brake, in fact I'm usually the odd-man out on rides as the > only rim-brake guy, still race canti-brake CX bikes, etc etc etc. > > Just because rim brakes technically have more mechanical advantage, by way > of being further from the hub, doesn't mean anything positive or negative > on its own. Just because disc rotors are close to the hub and require more > stopping force and frame construction considerations also doesn't mean > anything positive or negative on it's own. So disc brakes frames need > stouter construction and re-enforcement....and? I find it particularly > amusing coming from Rivendell, who's frames are not exactly known for being > built to be light. Yes, discs put large forces on a frame, but who cares? > That can be mitigated by design. The fact is, while rim brakes work quite > well in most regular circumstances (dry, warm) discs have better and > stronger stopping power in lousy conditions than rim brakes will have. > > I remember coming down Rainier on my Atlantis while it was drizzling, > loaded with front panniers and saddle bags. Normally I can lift my rear > wheel off the ground with the Paul touring canti's, bike unloaded. I was > coming down at about 60km/h, not a crazy speed on a bike by any means, and > it took me probably 100 meters to come to a stop. I was shocked, and > getting ready to jump off my bike into the ditch as I realized I would be > sailing through the intersection at the bottom of the hill. Wet rims = > compromised braking. Wet rotors = basically no difference. > > > In winter, when I bring my bike outside into sub-zero temperatures, the > warm rims melt the snow as I ride. After applying the brakes, that melted > water is spread nice and evenly across the brake track, which freezes > shortly after. Many times I've had ZERO braking ability within two blocks > of leaving because of this issue. Discs don't run through the snow and are > way less susceptible to this problem. > > So basically, rim brakes work wonderfully, in some/most circumstances (If > I lived in Texas I'd probably never need discs). But disc brakes work just > as well in those circumstances, and better in the areas rim brakes fall > short, though require some frame construction considerations to be safe. I > think most people would agree with that. > > So, I fail to understand why any bike manufacturer would refuse to > consider building a bike with discs. If the drawback of discs are hubs > popping out of forks (lawyer lips, front-facing drop outs, and through > axles solved this already), and frame stress (build the frame accordingly, > like pretty much most frame builders out there are doing now), that seems > like a pretty paltry price to pay compared to the stated drawbacks of rim > brakes: possibly popping tubes and crashing form overheated rims (I know a > guy who had this happen on FLAT ground in Texas heat!), or having little to > no braking from wet/frozen surfaces, or compromised brakes as a result of > bent rims.... seems like an easy call? Disc = your frame needs heavy > re-enforcement. Rim = it almost always works, but when it doesn't you're in > for a RUDE surprise. Kinda reminds me of the argument Riv uses against > Carbon frames - they usually work, but when they fail, they fail > catastrophically.... > > One of the things i love about the Rivendell brand is championing bicycle > design that just works, stuff that makes sense and is no-nonsense. To me, > that is exactly what disc brakes are. I think that is why this debate irks > me (can you tell LOL), because I agree with pretty much all > Grant/Rivendell's opinions except this one. I love my Atlantis, most of the > time have no complaints about it's braking abilities, love the look of > canti's more than any other braking system, and will continue to have rim > brake bikes in the future I'm sure. But man... A disc option of this bike? > Or a disc Hunq? I'd be over the moon for that. > > On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 9:19:47 AM UTC-5, Will wrote: >> >> Might be nice to push back to GP and encourage more of these posts. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
