| |
Main
Date: 07 May 2007 07:10:40
From: mike
Subject: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
disks do not get as wet on the trails?
After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
over 30mph.
>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
over the diameter of the disks).
Is this incorrect?
Any insight into this?
Most of my riding is cross-country, single track if I can find it.
Mike
mlawrenc(at)gmail.com
|
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 13:34:11
From: mike
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
On May 8, 3:44 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1178625684.276006.60...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 7, 9:31 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > > In article <rubrum-ACC424.16544907052...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <1178567329.851807.252...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> > > > > touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> > > > > see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> > > > > end, the dog faked left, and went right.
>
> > > > If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
> > > > the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
> > > > to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
> > > > horse ..; then, stop.
>
> > > The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
> > > you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
> > > that, and you have to slow down.
>
> > The dog was a larger dog, I would guess about 80lb-90lb ( I could be
> > under estimating a bit, as I would have never have guessed my dog to
> > be 115lb).
>
> So you were stopping. Wise.
> You swerved. Usually unwise.
> Is there anything else? It is good to analyze these incidents for
> yourself so you can make plans. Good luck.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I was almost perfectly straight. The mistake was that both
tires where locked when I hit the dog on the left side of the front
tire/forks, sending it out from under me. (This was downhill, on
gravel, at a good speed.)
I have since changed the brake pads to a softer compound, and adjusted
everything so that if I am going to lockup the tires, I have to use
more then 3/4 of the lever travel (more like braking in a car).
Mike
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2007 05:01:24
From: mike
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
On May 7, 9:31 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <rubrum-ACC424.16544907052...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1178567329.851807.252...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> > > touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> > > see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> > > end, the dog faked left, and went right.
>
> > If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
> > the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
> > to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
> > horse ..; then, stop.
>
> The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
> you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
> that, and you have to slow down.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@sfu.cahttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
> to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
The dog was a larger dog, I would guess about 80lb-90lb ( I could be
under estimating a bit, as I would have never have guessed my dog to
be 115lb).
As for the disk/v-brakes, I believe that I am going to stay with the V-
Brakes. I picked up some new pads that have a longer surface to them
( about 3 inches long), and in the little bit of testing I did before
bed, I found them to have a much better mid-range to full braking
ability. They do appear to be a much softer compound then the STX pads
I had on the bike, so I think I may be changing the pads on them a
little more often.
Mike
|
| | |
Date: 08 May 2007 19:44:59
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
In article
<1178625684.276006.60000@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 9:31 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <rubrum-ACC424.16544907052...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <1178567329.851807.252...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> > > > touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> > > > see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> > > > end, the dog faked left, and went right.
> >
> > > If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
> > > the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
> > > to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
> > > horse ..; then, stop.
> >
> > The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
> > you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
> > that, and you have to slow down.
> >
>
> The dog was a larger dog, I would guess about 80lb-90lb ( I could be
> under estimating a bit, as I would have never have guessed my dog to
> be 115lb).
So you were stopping. Wise.
You swerved. Usually unwise.
Is there anything else? It is good to analyze these incidents for
yourself so you can make plans. Good luck.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 18:19:19
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
mike wrote:
> What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
> disks do not get as wet on the trails?
> ....
>
In my experience--disks will stop better than V-brakes, even when both
are wet.
Disks will still stop pretty hard even in a pouring rain.
I've never had rim brakes that were real good when wet; the first couple
seconds of hard braking, rim-brakes seem to be just burning off water....
~
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 15:38:11
From:
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
> > After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
> > am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
> > bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
>
> While there are undeniable benefits to disc brakes, personally I have
> continued to use V-brakes simply because I have never had any need to
> do otherwise. Braking has never been an issue for me, even at 120+ kg
> riding in a variety of on and off-road conditions. They have been
> reliable, inexpensive and easy to maintain.
>
> I'd suggest the same test for you: have you ever experienced a need
> for more or different braking? If the answer is yes, maybe think about
> discs, but otherwise if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
> Either way, it's probably more important that what you have is
> installed and set up correctly.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
I agree. Sounds like it's the dog that's the problem.
Doug
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 15:18:53
From: bfd
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
On May 7, 12:48 pm, mike <mlawr...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 7, 2:26 pm, Tosspot <FrankDotLe...@esa.int> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > In article <1178547040.638282.155...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
> > >>disks do not get as wet on the trails?
>
> > >>After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
> > >>am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
> > >>bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
>
> > >>My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
> > >>as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
> > >>current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
> > >>over 30mph.
>
> > >>>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
> > >>range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
> > >>over the diameter of the disks).
> > >>Is this incorrect?
>
> > >>Any insight into this?
>
> > > The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
> > > set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
> > > leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
> > > effort) a lot more flexible
>
> > > Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
> > > and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
> > > drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
> > > to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
> > > maintenance reasons I think.
>
> > Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
> > had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
> > no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
>
> > My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
> > surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
> > much more bling!
>
> > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I believe that the "bling" factor is more a reason to aviod disk
> brakes.
> As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> end, the dog faked left, and went right.
>
> The reason I am looking into the brakes, is that I have had to replace
> a good part of my steering components and front rim (handlebars, stem,
> headset...), and figured that this would be a good time to consider
> alternatives to the current hardware.
> The bike is 7 years old, and at the time of purchase, I could not
> afford disk brakes (college student).
>
With all the parts you apparently need to replace, is costs an issue?
If so, how much would it cost to add disc brakes? For example, will
you need to replace the fork because of the damage? If not, then you
need to factor in the cost of a new fork that will accept disc
brakes.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 12:48:49
From: mike
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
On May 7, 2:26 pm, Tosspot <FrankDotLe...@esa.int > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <1178547040.638282.155...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
> >>disks do not get as wet on the trails?
>
> >>After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
> >>am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
> >>bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
>
> >>My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
> >>as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
> >>current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
> >>over 30mph.
>
> >>>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
> >>range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
> >>over the diameter of the disks).
> >>Is this incorrect?
>
> >>Any insight into this?
>
> > The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
> > set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
> > leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
> > effort) a lot more flexible
>
> > Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
> > and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
> > drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
> > to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
> > maintenance reasons I think.
>
> Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
> had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
> no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
>
> My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
> surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
> much more bling!
>
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe that the "bling" factor is more a reason to aviod disk
brakes.
As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.
The reason I am looking into the brakes, is that I have had to replace
a good part of my steering components and front rim (handlebars, stem,
headset...), and figured that this would be a good time to consider
alternatives to the current hardware.
The bike is 7 years old, and at the time of purchase, I could not
afford disk brakes (college student).
Mike
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 16:54:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
In article
<1178567329.851807.252720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com > wrote:
> As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> end, the dog faked left, and went right.
If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
horse ..; then, stop.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 08 May 2007 01:31:18
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
In article <rubrum-ACC424.16544907052007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1178567329.851807.252720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> > touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> > see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> > end, the dog faked left, and went right.
>
> If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
> the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
> to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
> horse ..; then, stop.
The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
that, and you have to slow down.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 May 2007 22:15:58
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
In article <rcousine-279C31.18311807052007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <rubrum-ACC424.16544907052007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1178567329.851807.252720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> > > touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> > > see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> > > end, the dog faked left, and went right.
> >
> > If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
> > the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
> > to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
> > horse ..; then, stop.
>
> The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
> you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
> that, and you have to slow down.
How much does a border collie dress out to?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 May 2007 02:46:10
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
In article <rubrum-56CA9B.15155808052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article <rcousine-279C31.18311807052007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > In article <rubrum-ACC424.16544907052007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <1178567329.851807.252720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> > > > touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> > > > see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> > > > end, the dog faked left, and went right.
> > >
> > > If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
> > > the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
> > > to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
> > > horse ..; then, stop.
> >
> > The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
> > you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
> > that, and you have to slow down.
>
> How much does a border collie dress out to?
Probably the same as or more than a turkey. I wouldn't try to eat it or
run it over.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 22:02:01
From: Tosspot
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
mike wrote:
> On May 7, 2:26 pm, Tosspot <FrankDotLe...@esa.int> wrote:
>
>>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1178547040.638282.155...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> mike <mlawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
>>>>disks do not get as wet on the trails?
>>
>>>>After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
>>>>am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
>>>>bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
>>
>>>>My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
>>>>as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
>>>>current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
>>>>over 30mph.
>>
>>>>>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
>>>>range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
>>>>over the diameter of the disks).
>>>>Is this incorrect?
>>
>>>>Any insight into this?
>>
>>>The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
>>>set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
>>>leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
>>>effort) a lot more flexible
>>
>>>Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
>>>and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
>>>drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
>>>to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
>>>maintenance reasons I think.
>>
>>Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
>>had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
>>no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
>>
>>My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
>>surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
>>much more bling!
>>
>><snip>- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> I believe that the "bling" factor is more a reason to aviod disk
> brakes.
> As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> end, the dog faked left, and went right.
>
> The reason I am looking into the brakes, is that I have had to replace
> a good part of my steering components and front rim (handlebars, stem,
> headset...), and figured that this would be a good time to consider
> alternatives to the current hardware.
> The bike is 7 years old, and at the time of purchase, I could not
> afford disk brakes (college student).
<shrug > My mountain bike has Hopes, my commuting bike no-name V's (but
they are well setup), to be brutally honest, they're ain't much in it in
terms of braking, I might even go so far as to say the V's are better,
but I'm not *dead* confident I got the Hopes set up correctly.
So, for me, and this imho, for pure braking, then I'd say nothing in it.
To go to discs you need other reasons, maybe particularly muddy
trails, maintenance, you can ding a rim without affecting braking (or
even crisp one), and of course the aforementioned bling.
As I said, I'm no expert.
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 12:29:46
From: Anthony DeLorenzo
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
On May 7, 7:10 am, mike <mlawr...@gmail.com > wrote:
> After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
> am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
> bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
While there are undeniable benefits to disc brakes, personally I have
continued to use V-brakes simply because I have never had any need to
do otherwise. Braking has never been an issue for me, even at 120+ kg
riding in a variety of on and off-road conditions. They have been
reliable, inexpensive and easy to maintain.
I'd suggest the same test for you: have you ever experienced a need
for more or different braking? If the answer is yes, maybe think about
discs, but otherwise if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Either way, it's probably more important that what you have is
installed and set up correctly.
Regards,
Anthony
|
| |
Date: 07 May 2007 17:25:18
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
In article <1178547040.638282.155750@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com > wrote:
> What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
> disks do not get as wet on the trails?
>
> After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
> am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
> bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
>
> My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
> as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
> current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
> over 30mph.
>
> >From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
> range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
> over the diameter of the disks).
> Is this incorrect?
>
> Any insight into this?
The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
effort) a lot more flexible
Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
maintenance reasons I think.
> Most of my riding is cross-country, single track if I can find it.
The weight penalty is minimal, and there is a reason most non-XC MTBs
now use discs. But it sounds like you have your V-brakes set up just
fine, and they are more than adequate for your needs (unless the problem
was you couldn't stop for the dog...).
There isn't a decisive right answer in your case. If you race XC, I'd
say use the weight as an excuse to keep the Vs. If you add light hucking
or jumping to your rides, or ride in wet conditions much, I'd say go for
the discs. In all other cases, go for the cheapest option, which is
surely the Vs.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2007 20:26:50
From: Tosspot
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <1178547040.638282.155750@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> mike <mlawrenc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
>>disks do not get as wet on the trails?
>>
>>After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
>>am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
>>bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.
>>
>>My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
>>as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
>>current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
>>over 30mph.
>>
>>>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
>>range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
>>over the diameter of the disks).
>>Is this incorrect?
>>
>>Any insight into this?
>
>
> The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
> set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
> leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
> effort) a lot more flexible
>
> Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
> and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
> drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
> to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
> maintenance reasons I think.
Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
much more bling!
<snip >
|
| | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 19:42:09
From: Steve Gravrock
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
On 2007-05-07, Tosspot <FrankDotLeake@esa.int > wrote:
> Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
> had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
> no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
Hydraulics may require less routine maintenance, especially as most
(all?) are self-adujusting, but they're not necessarily as
field-serviceable.
For instance, a friend of mine once had his front brake line come loose
where it attaches to the caliper. Fortunately there were warning signs --
the brake felt very spongy -- so we played with it a bit in the parking
lot before hitting the trail. After a few good hard stops all the fluid
squirted out onto the rotor with a *pop*. Fixing that required new brake
fluid, new pads (the old ones were ruined by the fluid), a bleed kit,
and a torch to bake the fluid off the rotor. All that meant a two-hour
round trip to the nearest bike shop, since we weren't carrying that kind
of equipment. The closest equivalent task on a mechanical setup is cable
replacement, which doesn't require anything that won't fit easily in a
seat pack.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 14:39:20
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
Per Tosspot:
>Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
>had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
>no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
Bleeding comes to mind.
Why mineral oil "of course"? BCO water take-up by brake fluid?
I've got a hydraulic on the front - where the better modulation
is a significant benefit for me - and a mech on the rear.
Couple reasons for putting the mech on the rear, but one of my
after-the-fact rationalizations is that the different medium
gives a little more bullet-proofness. Never had - and still
don't have - a clue why this might be, but I assume that there
are variables that I know nothing about.
--
PeteCresswell
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 21:55:06
From: Tosspot
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Tosspot:
>
>>Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
>>had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
>>no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
>
>
> Bleeding comes to mind.
>
> Why mineral oil "of course"? BCO water take-up by brake fluid?
Yep, the DOT stuff should be changed annually, and I'd do it because
water in it could be a big issue. Mineral, iirc, can go 5 years between
changes, and to be honest, I'm not sure why it couldn't go longer.
> I've got a hydraulic on the front - where the better modulation
> is a significant benefit for me - and a mech on the rear.
>
> Couple reasons for putting the mech on the rear, but one of my
> after-the-fact rationalizations is that the different medium
> gives a little more bullet-proofness. Never had - and still
> don't have - a clue why this might be, but I assume that there
> are variables that I know nothing about.
<shrug > I'm partly convinced by this argument. A major snag on a
hydraulic system means no brakes, on a cable system you might be able to
cobble something together. Otoh, anyone totalled a cable system in
circumstances where they thought this was possible?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 May 2007 19:05:15
From: JP
Subject: Re: Disk vs. V-Brakes
|
"Tosspot" <FrankDotLeake@esa.int > wrote in message
news:f1o07m$isc$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per Tosspot:
>>
>>>Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
>>>had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
>>>no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.
>>
>>
>> Bleeding comes to mind.
>>
>> Why mineral oil "of course"? BCO water take-up by brake fluid?
>
> Yep, the DOT stuff should be changed annually, and I'd do it because water
> in it could be a big issue. Mineral, iirc, can go 5 years between
> changes, and to be honest, I'm not sure why it couldn't go longer.
>
>> I've got a hydraulic on the front - where the better modulation
>> is a significant benefit for me - and a mech on the rear.
>>
>> Couple reasons for putting the mech on the rear, but one of my
>> after-the-fact rationalizations is that the different medium
>> gives a little more bullet-proofness. Never had - and still
>> don't have - a clue why this might be, but I assume that there
>> are variables that I know nothing about.
>
> <shrug> I'm partly convinced by this argument. A major snag on a
> hydraulic system means no brakes, on a cable system you might be able to
> cobble something together. Otoh, anyone totalled a cable system in
> circumstances where they thought this was possible?
I have hydraulic discs front and rear. If either went I could limp home on
the
other. Braking is bulletproof.
JP
|
|
