Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Comedian wrote:LG wrote:What I struggle to understand is the immediate argument that a wound like this couldn't be caused by a disc rotor, it must have been something else unless all other theories are disproved. Have disc rotors not caused injuries in the past? I don't know, I wasn't there for this incident, but Katie rides a disc braked bike and is not advocating against the use of discs, the only mention is tangling with 2 other riders. Maybe it was on a hard surface or the edge of a barrier, I don't know, but cyclocross tracks often aren't the most solid surfaces. I'm not advocating for or against discs, as mentioned in numerous previous posts they are just one of innumerable possible way to be injured during a bike race.
What gets me about this thread and others.. is how the pro disc-ers will argue that adding discs to a road biking peloton does not create additional risk. I get that they might argue the quantum of that risk - but that it doesn't add some additional risk is beyond me. Typically they argue that because of the existing risks that the addition of however many riders x 2 disc rotors adds no risk whatsoever.
It's really only answerable with sufficient race accident data, which we will never see.
The use of disk brakes in road races can both add and reduce injury risk because there are various risk factors, some of which may be positively influenced by use of disk brakes, some negatively, others neutrally and a few factors will depend on the race scenario. What the overall difference is we'll likely never know due to the lack of data.
Couldn't agree more. You will see injuries like those to Katie, not commonly but they will occur, but better braking modulation will also provide more confidence descending which in theory will be safer.