indyfabz

Good God! His comment will definitely be the most illogical thing I will read all week--in both respects.

WhyFi

Are you saying that it might not be a good idea to be strapped to a motorcycle? What could possibly go wrong?

mstateglfr 

This comparison is a touch dramatic.



Cant believe I missed on such an eventful and entertaining disc thread up til now! With posts like this, i regret not seeing it sooner.

indyfabz

That's one of the things I am saying. Score one for the "nanny state."

mstateglfr 

Of all the cyclists I know, I am really not sure if I know anyone who decides to go for a ride in the rain. Obviously rain can start when you are already out on a ride, but even then, the % of riders I know who will start a ride with 80% rain storms predicted for the next few hours is pretty small.
My experience is that recreational and enthusiast cyclists arent going to ride in the rain if they can help it because, you know, its not much fun and this is a hobby.

I mention this because an often repeated benefit of discs is that they perform better in the rain. And sure thats true at the start of braking, but once the rim pads have removed the immediate water, its pretty much pad against aluminum just like normal.

But hey- I live in an area without extended hills, so that too may be why I look around in confusion when i hear the 2 most repeated reasons for brakes- safety in rain and hills. I just dont see many cyclists in rain and dont see extended descents that go on for minutes on end.

mstateglfr 

Disc brakes are, to me, an additional tool for cyclists. They are beneficial in situations.

I also think that like a lot of technology, disc brakes have been added to things outside of the beneficial situation because they are a way to differentiate and justify sales thru 'innovation'.
Its totally understandable- this happens in industries all the time. Marketing and advertising exist to drive interest in products we didnt know we needed(and often times dont need, but just want).


I have hydraulic brakes on my MTB. I ride that thing probably a dozen times a year and always in dry conditions...its incredibly unnecessary to have hydraulic disc brakes based on how I ride, but its also my 1st new bike in 25 years, so it came with disc since thats what is on a bike with an air fork, 1x11 drivetrain, etc. Discs dont help me around here...at all. Even the most technical singletrack in the region can be ridden perfectly fine with V brakes since its only ridden in dry enough conditions to not ruin the trail.

I will build a gravel frame this fall to replace my current gravel bike and itll have disc brakes. Right now i plan on QR discs because I dont think I need a massively stiff 44mm head tube to handle a TA tapered fork. I want disc brakes because I am curious if its any 'better' than my canti brakes that have kept me safe all these years. I doubt itll be better, but I still want to see because I have an itch to build a frame.

I just built a road frame last year and it has calipers since I dont choose to ride in rain storms and dont have descents that make caliper brakes feel dangerous. All the rest of my road frames are from 1990 or earlier so no discs there. Perhaps I will move to disc brakes on my road bikes, but i cant imagine itll be soon.
With no interest or need to buy a new bike from a shop, change will come slowly.

OBoile

You still need a seat belt. Going face first into the windshield at 25 mph is going to do terrible things to your body.

kingston 

I'm kind of a daredevil so I'm willing to take the sort of risks that may seem insane to some people. Like driving 4 blocks from the library to the grocery store without my seatbelt.

And riding a bike with rim brakes.

When rim brakes are outlawed only outlaws will ride rim brakes.

mstateglfr 

I always chuckle when the term 'nanny state' is used. Its pretty much a guarantee for an entertaining emotional post.

The argument against seatbelts is usually because the person should be able to choose how they protect themselves and that they arent harming anyone else so the gubmint should stay outta their personal lives!

Reality is that you are potentially harming others if you are in an accident and not wearing a seatbelt. Your injuries are paid for by insurance. If someone hits you and you werent wearing a seatbelt, the odds are high that you will sustain more/greater injuries if you are not wearing a seatbelt. You absolutely financially harm others by being injured more than otherwise needed.

Seatbelt laws may have originated due to trying to legislate behavior, but morons who drive around without a seatbelt absolutely affect others.
Also, anyone who buckles in their kids and then doesnt buckle themselves is really just the peak of moron mountain. That is so laughably dumb that i probably couldnt even hear the lame attempt at justifying because I would be laughing too hard.

noodle soup

This might also be the reason that insurance companies don't fight for motorcycle helmet laws.

jefscolnago

Did you give up, or did she give up? Their reluctance to learn is only because they know there is a way for them to drive without having to shift manually. IMHO people will have a much better skill set when it comes to driving in general if they know how to shift gears. To understand about shifting, you understand just a little bit more about how your car operates and that can never be bad.

To me, it's kind of like doing rollers instead of stationary trainers. Sure, you can get anaerobic on both, but how are trainers going to help your balance and reaction time when on the road?

OBoile

I'd use a different (and much less flattering) word than "daredevil" to describe someone who doesn't wear a seat belt. That really isn't comparable to rim vs disc breaks.

jefscolnago

I have a friend who thought the same thing. He was just blocks away from his home and didn't feel the need for his seatbelt, either. He's now a quadraplegic.

OBoile

Not to mention, by not wearing a seat belt, you put other people in the car with you at risk. When you go flying at high speed into another person, it's going to hurt both you and them a lot.

kingston 

She gave up. In fact she did say something about it being easier to just drive the other car with the automatic. Interestingly, my 17 year old son who grew up riding off-road motorcycles with me and already knows how to shift and use a clutch has no interest in driving the manual transmission car.

seypat

In 1987 I rear ended a stopped line of cars in an emergency situation doing about 40mph. It was less than a mile from my house. Luckily, I had a seatbelt on. I walked away with only some bruises. I did have to go to the hospital and get my tongue sewed back together. I nearly bit it in two at impact. Half of it was just dangling by a shred. People rolled up to see about me and I couldn't talk. Like one of those Medieval mutes in a show like GOT. Without the belt, I would have died that day.

Back to the topic. If discs are such an improvement, it appears that group/pace riding would be more dangerous unless everyone is either riding discs or not. Mixing the two would seem to create some inconsistent braking problems when the group as a whole has an emergency situation. Do all of the disc riders have to stay together and avoid the rim brakers? Do you have to put a buffer between you and a disc rider so you won't run over him when your rim brakes are not up to task? You can laugh and roll your eyes, but those might be serious issues according to the disc camp.

Psimet2001 

Inferior rim brakes would be Campagnolo Deltas or the cheap stamped steel ones that are on Walmart bikes. I've worked on a lot of inferior disc brakes as well.

Are hydraulic rim brakes "inferior" in your opinion?

indyfabz

Or when you are ejected from the car (which probably happens more than you think), causing another vehicular accident.

indyfabz

Guy I worked with a few decades ago was on a grocery run a few miles from home and not belted in. His worst injury (a broken leg) resulted from him being thrown about the car, not directly from the impact of the other vehicle.

seypat

People can die when the car rolls over them after they are ejected. That happens.

noodle soup

This just isn't an issue for most road cyclists

Seattle Forrest

I dislocated my sternoclavicular joint in a car accident when I was young. Driver wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Car flipped onto the passenger side, he landed on my shoulder.

That was 15 or 20 years ago. Still gives me slight trouble occasionally. It doesn't hurt but is very uncomfortable when the joint needs to "pop."

Seattle Forrest

True. Seatbelts were invented to save lives, disc brakes were invented to kill. Spinning death knives!

seypat

If we are honest with ourselves, that's probably why most have not made the switch. Who wants to end up like the Black Knight?

63rickert

You've put your finger on it. The situation you describe simply does not occur. If discs had any objective superiority in stopping distance that would be advertised endlessly. There are no such braking tests. There are lots of reasons why some might prefer discs. Stopping distance is not one.

For myself I just got off the bike with the Reynolds Super Resilient fork blades. The other main choices here are Diadrant/Reynolds forks or Rubis Leger fork blades with 65mm of rake. When I can find a road suspension fork that never needs maintenance, operates silently, weighs under 700 grams, is available in a wide choice of rake, then I'll consider disc. Until then disc would mean a huge sacrifice in ride quality and comfort.