RJM

Rim brakes don't work all that well in mud.

phughes

I was responding to a post talking about riding downhill in New England at 45 MPH, not mountain biking in the mud. That being said, my first mountain bike had rim brakes, as did all mountain bikes of the time, and my brakes worked fine, though disc brakes have the advantage there, and I have made no claims otherwise.

This thread is about Rivendell, and they build road bikes, not mountain bikes, and their bikes come with rim brakes. For that application, they are perfectly fine, and some may say they have an advantage. Disc brakes are great, but rim brakes work well, and have worked well for a very long time.

RJM

Rivendell does not just build road bikes. In the past they had the Bombadil, Hunqapillar, Clem Smith Jr., and now they are coming out with the Gus Boots which are all sold as off road bikes. Rivendell builds bikes that are all terrain bikes, or all road, or lets just call it very versatile bikes that you can setup to do ride a variety of terrain. They can, and do, ride most anywhere. In fact, look at the pictures of where they are riding their bikes on the website and Grant's blag and most are shown riding off roadways and on trails. Plus, mountain biking isn't the sole domain where a rider will encounter mud, or grime on the wheels. A rider can encounter that just riding fire roads, jeep trails, , and that's exactly the domain of Rivendell.

IMHO, canti brakes for bikes like that are not the ideal braking system because once you get mud onto the brake track, the braking suffers; once you have a wheel go untrue, your braking suffers; once you get grit into the brake pads, your rims suffer. Rim brakes do work fine for a road bike, but it's a different story for off road riding.

The post that you responded to outlined riding where disc brakes make more sense because they are a superior braking system for that riding. It's the reason they have taken over in the mtb and gravel worlds.

phughes

Read what I responded to again. "Just not interested. Mt bikes have had discs for years, trouble free and more power. Not interested in a disc/rim discussion. Winter riding, extreme tech, loaded touring. New England guy here. Lots of steep pitches up and down. I'm 235 lbs, the bike+gear is usually 50- 60 or so. Easily do 35-45 mph on the downhills. Add in mud, dirt roads, gravel and rain? No thanks. That's me, yes a far end of the scale. YRMV."

Now, also, please tell ne where I said cantis work better than discs, or where I said discs weren't good? That's right, I didn't, nor did I say cantis work better on mountain bikes or gravel bikes. What I did say was that rim brakes work fine, and have for many years, for loaded touring. I also said my original mountain bike had rim brakes. It did, and it worked well downhill here in Western PA, in all conditions. Did I say they worked better than discs in the same conditions? No.

I commented on the assertion that discs were necessary for downhills at 45MPH when fully loaded. They aren't. I did that daily for two years in the Ozarks. In fact, rim brakes are often nicer in those conditions because discs can sometimes suffer from brake fade on a long descent. Then again, I stay of the brakes for the most part, and simply enjoy the ride downhill, but when you really need to slow down, when you are behind slower cars, and that happens a lot in some areas, brake fade can occur. My cantis worked well in those conditions, even in the rain.

Now, I will try to make what I have said all a long more clear to you. I am not against disc brakes, in fact, I think they are fantastic. I do not believe though that rim brakes are bad, because they are not. They have been used for a very long time, with very good results. As for Rivendell, I understand they build bikes for all-terrain, but not all out mountain bikes. I ride my LHT off road on trails as well, in mud and muck, and I still ride and old Ross Mt. Rainier off road, with cantis, in the mud, in the rain, and i haven't had braing problems yet, and i haven't died, and the bike hasn't exploded.

So, yes, as I have said all along, disc brakes are great, and in many ways superior that rim brakes, but rim brakes still work, and can work well. There is no real reason to debate me, since I am not arguing that disc brakes are not any better than rim brakes.

Kapusta

First, I'll say that I do not doubt that rim brakes can work fine for pretty much any road application (and even some MTB applications), and that they are working for you in the conditions that you are describing.

That said, I will push back on one point.....
While it is true that discs can fade under long and hard braking, in general, the amount of braking needed to cause such fade is well beyond what would basically melt rim brakes.

Leebo

Ugg. So you are 235 lbs and the loaded bike weighs 60+ lbs? Hmm. Riv touts the off road experience. A lot. My bike packing tires are 3,4 and 5 inches wide. Rim brakes? Not. Back to the discussion, no Riv for me until they go disc and 1/18th in head tube. What if I wanted to run a sus fork? Currently building up my 4th Surly. Gone through 3 sets of rims, worn out. Just no. You do a lot of steep gravel roads in VT? Not. You have no clue. This ain't no commute. The grey dirt snot constantly builds up everywhere. Including the rims. Dude, just no. Go buy a riv or 3. Just not my cup of tea, for me and my conditions that I ride in. Surly for life, bro.

RJM

I did read what you responded to...a couple of times. You are telling another person who said cantis don't work for them because of mud, dirt roads, gravel, rain, extreme tech, loaded touring, a lot of ups and downs, and winter riding that he/she doesn't know what they are talking about because your canti'd LHT that you commute on works fine where you live. You were very clear about that.

Cantis on older mountain bikes did not work fine, which is why the entire world of mtb went to discs. I still have my '96 stumpy, still ride it sometimes, and the brakes don't work fine in the mud...they gum up with mud and you stop. So in a sense they do stop you, but they don't really allow you to go forward very well. Or, when the brake track gets slick with mud they barely work. So on your point that they worked fine back in the day I disagree with based on not only my own personal experience riding for decades, but also with the evidence that off road bikes have gone almost exclusively to discs...because they work better for the environment. My debate with you is your stance that rim brakes work fine in mud (which was a part of the post you initially commented on) because you haven't personally found a problem with them.

And, once again, Riv doesn't just make road bikes, they in fact make mountain bikes or all terrain bikes...whatever we call them, They will see rough, muddy conditions and the concern that the brakes aren't up to task for that environment has merit.

RJM

The new Gus Boots has 1 1/8" threadless steer tube. You're out of luck with the suspension fork though...probably not going to happen but it would be a fun project to stick one on a gus and see how it rides.

phughes

No, I'm not 235, but I have come close to the load you mention. I occasionally had to commute in the Ozarks with 85 pounds on the bike. I am 170, more with clothes, but I didn't add that in. My bike and bags comes in at 35 pounds, for a total of 290. The brakes worked fine.

I am not planning on buying a Rivendell anytime soon, but I do like what they make, and I like their company. Their bikes are not for everyone though, but I am glad they are still making bikes for those who like and can afford them.

For me, I am content with my Surly.

And again, I will once again say, I have not in any place made the assertion that rim brake work better than discs. Nowhere. Ride on.

phughes

LOL no, that won't melt rim brakes, unless you are using cheap, horrible pads. Too funny. I am not sure how we got along without disc brakes for so many years. You should probably talk to the thousands who have toured over the years, fully loaded, in the conditions we are talking about, long downhills, and ask them if their rim brakes melted.

Sorry, but once again, I will have to add, there is no reason to debate me, I have never said rim brakes are superior to disc brakes, in fact, I have said the opposite, disc brakes overall work better. What I have also said though, is that rim brakes can and do work very well, and you can use them on long descents at high speeds with no issues, even in the rain, if you use the right pads and have them set up properly. I have, and still do. Sorry, I have been using them for 50 years, and I have not died yet, and I have used them in some really bad conditions.

PS: I have made a section a little more prominent so you will stop trying to refute something I have not said. Have a good day.

Kapusta

You did not read what I actually wrote. Go back and try again.

phughes

Kapusta

phughes

No, I'm not confised at all about that. I am confused that you you claim you never said this: "While it is true that discs can fade under long and hard braking, in general, the amount of braking needed to cause such fade is well beyond what would basically melt rim brakes."

But you did. Sorry, but disc brakes have a much smaller surface area by which to dissipate heat, and they can, and do fade, much faster than a rim brake. I have seen it happen with disc brakes, but have not experienced it with rim brakes. I also have not experienced my pads "melting." All pads can glaze, including disc brake pads. I also have not experienced any braking issues with downhills with properly set up rim brakes, using good pads. The majority of current disc brakes though do not suffer from fade under the majority of conditions they are used, since they employ discs of a large enough diameter to dissipate heat, and the calipers are designed to act as a heat sink. Many employ a insulated brake piston as well. All these things work together to minimize the possibility of brake fade.

Once again though, I still have yet to say rim brakes are superior that disc brakes. Not once, so there is really no need to continue to debate something I have not said, or even implied. All I have said, is rim brakes work too, and they work well with good pads and when properly set up, but I did not say they were superior to disc brakes.

Anyway, have a good night. It is pointless to continue to debate this, since once again, I have not implied that rim brakes are superior to disc brakes.

Kapusta

My experience with both is that this is simply not true. What you may be missing here is that even though discs may get hotter, the pad materials are completely different, and disc pads can take the heat much better.

Well I have experienced it with rim brakes back when I ran them on my MTBs. And it happens more easily then with disc. I know because I run disc now and can brake a lot longer and harder without any fade. The reason you hear about it more with disc now is because almost nobody uses rim brakes for demanding mtb applications anymore.

My point was that your concern about discs fading is moot: if you are not braking hard and long enough to fade rim brakes (which you say you are not), then you are not braking hard and long enough to fade discs.

phughes

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I still have not said rim brakes are superior to disc brakes. I also went into detail about how the current disc brakes are designed to prevent fade, and the designs work really well. Fad is not a real issue with them. Please stop. My only point is that rim brakes still work, and can work well. Give it a rest.

Kapusta

I never said you did, and I am not arguing whether or not they are. I even prefaced my post saying that rim brakes work fine for any road application. I am just responding to a specific point you made about disc being more prone to fade under your conditions.

livedarklions

OK, I have to say this is the first BF "debate" I've seen where two people can't even agree that they disagree and on what.

Kapusta

greatscott

Ok, I have never been real clear on threaded vs threadless, I have both types, and personally I can't tell the difference how the bike handles etc; what I do know, at least from my experience, is that the treaded system is actually easier to adjust and work on, I can make small adjustments to the height of a quill stem where I can't do that with a threadless without trying to find a spacer the right size. I get really messed up when I have to dink with my threadless system, plus the threadless system doesn't look as nice. Not only that but with a threaded system I can remove the stem and not bother with removing the headset. I think the only reason threadless came out was because of aluminum and carbon fiber frames, a bike company couldn't make the headtube light enough in the case of aluminum because the headtube would have to be thicker to prevent the quill's wedge from damaging the headtube as you tighten it down to secure it; and in the case of carbon fiber you would have to use a thick steel or aluminum insert to prevent damaging the CF again defeating the purpose of trying to get the bike frame lighter. I guess if you're into cutting your own fork the threadless system is a lot easier in that regard to prepare a fork for a frame. Then if you over tighten a threadless you can damage the headset and or the head tube. Some of these threadless designs are proprietary systems that only the bike manufactures headsets will work.

Here is an example of someone that had an issue with a threadless design that ruined his frame: https://forums.roadbikereview.com/bi...set-18745.html And I've heard of this issue on more than just one occasion. There was some issues similar to this with wedge system on quill stems when steel manufactures came out with too thin of headtube walls and a person over tightened the quill making the wedge bulge out the headtube, but I have a feeling that was extremely rare, not sure how rare the damage of a threadless design as I mentioned above is.

Kapusta

RJM

You need rather large wrenches to adjust a threaded headset, where threadless only takes some allen keys. If you happen to be away from your workstation and the headset loosens up, you are generally out of luck until you get back. Changing bars is sort of a pain with threadless because the stems generally do not have remove-able face plates, so you have to go through and untape and remove everything from at least one side of the stem to get the bar out of the stem.

But honestly, I like the way threaded looks and they aesthetically compliment a bike like Rivendells. Height adjustment is easier and I think there is an amount of flex built into the system that is actually beneficial when riding over rough surfaces like gravel roads. I think that the vibrations are lessened and hand fatigue sets in later.

I'll ride both and personally don't use what headset the bike has as a purchasing criteria...so yeah, to each his own.


On the brake fade issue...both systems can apparently fade, however, with rim brakes it is possible to blow the tire off the rim due to heat buildup on the rim. Every time you brake you are creating heat right next to the tire, on the surface the tire actually connects to. Not that I've personally done this as I generally do not ride down mountain roadways, but there have been stories in the road forum and elsewhere of members having it happen. Also, with rim braking, rims are an expendable item meant to eventually be replaced because the brake track becomes too thin. With disc wheels, the rim lasts.

Happy Feet

Having just come from a bike show I'm kinda glad companies like Riv exist simply for offering an alternative to the same ol same ol each other manufacturer doles out with slightly different paint schemes and decals.

Riv seems to suggest just loving your bike as being unique (rather than trying to make it the same as everyone else's but with unique to you bar tape) and to invest in it as a long term riding partner. Better than the 3- 5 year cycle of new tech making the by then old tech seem obsolete, less than and unattractive.

cs1

ljsense

Here's the top of an email I got from Rivendell recently:

So, if they could only ride, say, an OPEN U.P. they'd never get on a bike again? If they were only allowed to ride a Di2 Madone SLR with 700x28 tires, no more bike riding?

For a lot of people, the idea of a Rivendell bike is appealing. Twine, leather, steel, platform pedals, California sand roads, seersucker shirt, picnic basket, cork in the wine and on the bars. It's nice. But if I were to ever buy a Rivendell, it would be my fifth or sixth bike -- it's just not my regular life as a rider; not every day is a rambling picnic day.

Yes, if the only bikes available were Rivendell bikes, I would wash my beard in pine tar soap and saddle up. But that's not the world we live in. In the real world, modern bikes do everything a Rivendell bike does, just way better. And in the real world, you can buy a cool used steel framed bike that fits wide tires on eBay or your local swap for less than $200. That leaves about $2,000 for cork, chrome, leather, etc.

My advice for Rivendell would be to keep selling a vision, an aesthetic. But don't pretend the real world isn't out there; it is -- at best, they can offer an escape from it, not a whole substitution.