Workshop tales, trials and disasters.
Maintenance tips, techniques and myths.
Technical discussion, description and outright lies
OK, so discs still worked well, but the pads wore quicker than anticipated (because they hadn't encountered these conditions before) because the pad material was not suitable for the conditions.
So from the comment from rkelsen (thanks for that), were there hyd disc brakes in the race ? Or was it just supposition of how they'd potentially perform (sensible conclusion though) ? Mind you, no one mentioned that the disc pads fully wore out, just they wore pretty quick. Mind you, it also sounds like the 'pads' only covered half the race distance too.
It's called a learning experience.
Experience now is then to use different pads (ticker, better material, hydraulic system) for similar conditions.
Fix the CAUSE not the effect.
Going back to canti's is fixing the effect (whilst the pads may last longer, how well does the braking compare ?) and not the cause.
Thicker pads would weigh SFA compared to the extra mud that gets caked on the bike during the race ....
Since this thread is about disc brakes on road bikes, it isn't that relevant. However, if rim brakes were indeed better off-road, I'm sure MTB XC racing would be using them exclusively.
The largest obstacle to forward motion on a road bike is aerodynamics, since the average climbing of a road bike rider is ~1%.
I just weighed my new EBC sintered pads to find they are 24 grams. Most of that would be backing plate weight. I'm sure this would matter on the WW forums.
<dons flame suit>
A "road" bike with disc brakes is a CX bike. There are no road bikes with disc brakes, only CX bikes. Adding disc brakes to a road bike makes it a CX bike.
Absolutely. I'm sure that something good will come from this in the development space. It'll be interesting to watch how they handle it.
Bad brakes > No brakes... Particularly if you're in a hurry.
Oh well, there's some bikes below the manufacturers call road bikes, but you can call them CX bikes if you prefer. Either way people will buy them and ride them on the road. But then many people do that with MTBs too.
http://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/new ... ke-preview
Um the following bikes are NOT CX bikes in the slightest ;
Canyon's new roadie (don't remember name)
Handfuls of small manufacturer ones like Lynskey, Crumpton, Rose etc
and some others I can't remember
Oh, Nobody beat me to it ...
Adding fat knobby tyres to a road bike makes it a CX bike .
The only reason CX bikes have brakes any different to road bikes is that side-pull calipers don't fit over fat knobby tyres (and mud and grass pulp and small furry animals). So, when you add fat knobby tyres to a road bike and make it a CX bike, you necessarily have to figure out a way to make it stop. So that brings the most visible technical difference between road and CX bikes to the table - CX bikes have cantilever or disc brakes.
But that's not to say that road bikes can't have cantilever or disc brakes.
You're not going to fit knobby tyres on one of these:
You're not going to ride off-pavement on the 23mm slicks that fill the stays on that bike. It has disc brakes, but it is categorically NOT a CX bike.
who designed his disc braked road bike with more road-like geometry (short chain stays, low BB), because, even though it can fit >40mm knobbies, it's going to spend much more time riding road than it is racing CX. When I have road tyres on it, it's a road bike.
 of sorts. Not optimised in terms of geometry and features.
I think the issue was the pads wore so quickly that they went out of adjustment... ie hydraulic would have kept the pads close to the disc, but the cable systems obviously can't do that. Longer wearing pads would have helped slow the need for adjustment down.
Nobody, yes they were on CX bikes... but CX bikes being aloud to run discs in UCI events is one of the main reason manufacturers like SRAM are spending the money on development of these systems... which will obviously filter across to being used on the road only.
I love riding my road bike with hydraulic discs, I don't care what others may wish to call it - road bike/CX bike/piece of shite ugly bike what difference does it make??. Discs work, and are perfect for road bikes... I really don't get what all the fuss is about!
Its about picking the right tool for the job, at the moment there are a few little experiments being run, but we live and learn...
Santa Cruz Blur TRc XTR
Volagi Liscio Ultegra
Things are starting to blur.
Watch the Paris Roubaix and you will see quite a few riders still opt for cantis and this is really is a road race with dirt and cobbles. Blokes like Lars Boom (best name in cycling) who comes from a cyclocross background has ridden a cross bike in that race. Some even opt for cross top levers.
I doubt many cx riders really need solid/ hard braking and time will tell if in the mud it helps to have the braking surface on the rim or near the hub. Ice and frozen slush would never be good for mech brakes if it builds up around the pads and cables and this is probably why discs are rare in the euro pro circuit.
Discs are ideal in Aust type dirt gravel once you match the power to the correct tyres and psi
The point I see from the velonews bit is that in line adjusters really work for on the go bb7 adjustment and yes on longer (100k) dirt races I carry a torx key so you can adjust pads quickly if needed.
I haven't followed this thread much lately, so this may have been covered. I've but a BB7 and a 180mm disc on the front wheel of my Ti-framed road bike, and while it's good, I think that a hydraulic front disc would cope better with what seems to an inevitable small run-out in the disc. I almost never use the back brake. So what I would like is a single cable-to-hydraulic adaptor so I could fit a hydraulic front disc. It seems there's a kit for front and back, but I only want front. Any thoughts?
Sorry if this has been covered.
Please be nice to me, I'm not very bright.
It's like you read my mind. I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago. I'm happy to keep a rim brake on the back for now.
I'd also prefer a converter instead of a full master cylinder lever as my shifters are inboard of the levers (DA DTs on Kelly Take Offs). Therefore the last time I crashed and wrecked a lever, it only cost me $25 for new levers. Even if I were to use STI/Ergo, a mechanical lever is going to be cheaper to replace after a crash than a hydro lever. I'd say in CX, crash replacement may be a factor which keeps converters being sold.
I hope that someone decides to sell them individually in the future. Or maybe that new TRP HY/RD could be a hydro option (from page 45 of this thread).
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/n ... kes-36104/
USE were talking about twin converters a couple of years ago. haven't heard anything for a while.
http://road.cc/content/news/45111-cycle ... -converter
A smaller rotor will cope better with runout.
I had a relatively flexy fork on one of my MTBs, which had a 180mm rotor. It scraped and rubbed and pinged all over the place. I converted down to a 160mm rotor and it was perfect.
Just the extra diameter means any relative runout is, effectively, amplified at the braking surface. And any flex, leading to small angular misalignment between the fork leg (= caliper mount) and the rotor, will also be amplified at a bigger diameter.
I'm running 160mm rotors on my road bike because that's what came in the box. They rub a little, occasionally, but they're still bedding in and they rub less every tweak. I reckon they'd be even less prone to rubbing with 140mm rotors... with the corresponding trade-off in performance, of course. I'm happy with the 160s for now.
I'm loving my rear disc probably more than the front - for really gentle drags, to control speed gently in a bunch. That's where the modulation of discs is awesome. precise progressive control from almost nothing, right up to lockup.
Of course, there's no real reason to do these drags on the rear. It's just habit, to stay off the front brake unless I really need some serious stopping power. But I'm lovin' me some double-disc braked roadie
haven't seen anything that will do a single front only.
One thing that may be worth trying is a different style of rotor - maybe the Shimano Ice-Tech or a Hope floating rotor may solve some of the issues ?
Cost is minimal, and is an easy way to try.
Still hasn't artrived yet, but frames are meant to be landing about end of the month
Whilst mine will have different running gear, I reckon the frame paint scheme I'll get is the same as use on the Rival setup. It will match the rest of the components well ;
High level spec will be as follows (with balance of weight and price as key factors) ;
FS Carbon 29er rims 28/32 spoke with CM hubs - 1,421g
SRAM Red BB30 Crank with Praxis rings (compact)
Ultegra 6700 shifters, FD & RD
Brooks Team Pro Ti saddle
3T Ergonova Team Bars & Stem
TRP Parabox hydro converter
RT86 Ice-Tech discs (180/160mm)
Michelin Optimum Pro 25C tyres
Tillquist Garmin mount
Should be well under 7.5kg all up, ready to ride
Can't wait .....
Hmm same here, rare to use the front only and really do use the rear only way more often than the front or even in combo.
Simple to control and take off speed, still have front to use when really needed.
Yet I'm almost the opposite.
Use the rear brake a bit, but it's more like 80/20 Fr/Rr
Then again, I'm more than different ....
Road disc frame available from HongFu - FM166
Looks really interesting.
Anyone know anything else about it ?
A bit more chatter
Road discs - Industry led bling or the next use of a proven technology?
The industry seems to want them, some riders don't. Personally, I do. There are problems, but they're not insurmountable.
Road discs then. Everyone's talking about them, and quite a lot of people are trying to make them. But they're not ready, yet. Why is that? Personally, I think it's because making discs work in a road bike situation has been a bit harder than people expected. Even though the technology is well proven in a MTB context, there are different considerations and the usage is significantly altered on the road.
http://road.cc/content/blog/73731-road- ... technology
and yet what was old, is new again......
Blanco team bikes also sub in team-only machined aluminum linear-pull brakes instead of the molded carbon composite arms used on production Giant Propel Advanced SL. The material change and chunkier shape certainly add weight – and look to possibly impact the aerodynamic performance, too, at least on paper – a quick pull of the lever reveals that they work quite a bit better, too.
Lever feel is firmer and more positive than on production bikes we've ridden, the cable anchor uses a bigger and more cable-friendly clamp design, and the fully enclosed stainless steel noodle locks into a more secure socket. Team brakes sport a dual-position noodle anchor, too, to more easily accommodate narrow and wide-profile rims without requiring additional adjustment.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro ... n=features
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pho ... -sl/249247
that's a great idea, thanks, I'll try a Hope floating rotor.
Hope all is well with you,
Please be nice to me, I'm not very bright.
I had a 160mm rotor and wanted more braking, so I went to 180. I would use 200 but it doesn't fit. 160 doesn't give anything like enough braking, for me.
Please be nice to me, I'm not very bright.
I am after a road disc fork with a 370-380mm axle to fork crown measurement for my Azzurri primo, that is now a commuter. It needs to have eyelets for a mudguard also.
the closest I can find so far is this It is very heavy, nice and cheap however which is a good thing.
Does anyone know of a reasonably priced, lighter alternative?
TPR self adjusting dual mechicals plus full cable hydros.....
http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/01/29/trp ... /#comments
Quite like the thinking of the mechs, size looks right too. Prices will probably keep me sitting on my hands
now we're getting somewhere
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Dave_C