There's been a lot of argument about disc brakes lately, and it feels like both sides talk past each other a bit -- maybe one side more so than the other.
After just reading yet another post with a blanket condemnation of disc brakes, I thought I would start this thread. Below are descriptions of my two disc brake bikes and the reasons
why I choose discs.
1) One of the disc brake bikes is a dedicated gravel race rig, on which I normally run tires in the 40mm-44mm wide range. Disc brakes have the following advantages, IMO:
-- They don't limit tire width
-- They stop better than rim brakes (esp since they are hydraulic discs), which is kind of useful
-- They work far better than rim brakes with cf rims, which are stronger than alloy rims...That's useful for the type of riding I do on this bike
-- They allow one-finger braking, which I've found makes it much easier to pick my line while scrubbing off speed on steep, long, rough, rocky, potholed descents. (In the last 5-6 years, I've been in two gravel races in which riders have broken their necks - literally - on such descents. So I'm kind of interested in controlling my bike.)
2) The other disc brake bike is my "all road, all weather" bike which is equipped with fenders and 35mm wide tires. The advantages are:
-- Again, no issues with squeezing tires past rim brakes and additionally fitting fenders in there
-- They work better in rain and mud - which are part of the bike's use-case
Advantage for both bikes:
-- No worries about wearing out rims, which is useful since these are both high-mileage bikes which are ridden in wet and dirty conditions.
If any of you naysayers think my reasons for running disc brakes (on two of my five bikes) are stupid, ill-informed, whatever, let's hear it right here. I'm eager to process your logic.
