Originally Posted by Rolla

Cool that you got to participate in that experiment! I think manufacturers have addressed brake/rotor overheating since then, with what success I don't know.

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

The only real advantage to disk brakes on a bike is that if you are riding through standing water that is high enough to submerge the rims, well that won't happen with the disks.

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

The only real advantage to disk brakes on a bike is that if you are riding through standing water that is high enough to submerge the rims, well that won't happen with the disks.

Originally Posted by Rolla

I haven't found this to be the case; when riding in a constant rain (as opposed to through a puddle), braking ability remains significantly diminished.



I think there are other advantages, including a lighter touch at the lever and the ability to brake well if the rim gets significantly out of true. In the end, I find their performance to be confidence-inspiring in all conditions, and I would choose to spec disc brakes on any bike I purchase going forward. Others can and should make their own determination for their own specific needs, of course.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue this overly-debated topic. Cheers, and thanks for your participation.

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

IF it's raining a lot the disk rotors also get wet which diminishes the performance of disk brakes, which I already addressed that, and I own a bike with disk brakes. And if you use KoolStop Salmon pads with rim brakes you won't experience what you experienced with your rim brakes. If your wheel gets significantly out of true, as you worded it, the wheel won't pass between the fork blades anyways.

I'm not arguing about this subject either, just stating the facts

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

IF it's raining a lot the disk rotors also get wet which diminishes the performance of disk brakes, which I already addressed that, and I own a bike with disk brakes.
I'm not arguing about this subject either, just stating the facts, CHEERS to you to.

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

Back in 2018 or 19 I actually tested my Lynskey road bike with rim brakes against a guy who bought a brand new bike with hydro disk brakes to see who would stop the fastest. I had 23mm tire on the front and 25 on the rear Vittoria Rubino tires, he had Conti 4000s 25 mm tires all round; I had Shimano 105 rim brakes, my pads were Kool Stop Salmon, and he had DA Hydro disks with factory pads; the total weight of our bikes and body weights were within 5 pounds of each other; we inflated our tires according a tire calculator for a our size of tires and weight; the only rule we had was that we had to stay on our seat and not slide our butts off the back of the saddle to put more weight on the rear this way there was no ability of one person being able to slide further off the rear than the other person could. The test was going to be 3 sets of 3 runs, 1st run was at 15 mph, the 2nd at 20, and the third at 25. The results were interesting, on the first 2 sets we stopped within a foot of each other, sometimes I stopped a tad faster and sometimes he did, that was probably due to reaction time variance; the last set got interesting, the first stop I stopped about a foot and half faster, not a big deal but the second stop I stopped about 3 feet faster, and the last stop I was nearly 7 feet shorter. What happened we asked ourselves? so he touched his front disk rotor and singed his finger and left a whitish burn mark, but didn't singe his finger when he touched my rim though it was hot. What we determined was that the smaller rotor could not dissipate the heat as fast as the much larger rim could and thus he suffered brake fade. The reality is that all a rim represents is a disk, thus rim brakes are actually disk brakes, but the size of rim allows for more surface cooling and thus less chances for brake fade.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

Doubtful. An 80 kg rider on a 10 kg bike traveling at 11 m/s (25 mph) has a kinetic energy of 5445 J. In an absolute worst-case scenario, where all that energy is dumped into one (i.e. front) 100g brake rotor and the rotor does not dissipate any heat to the surrounding air, the temperature of the rotor would increase about 115°C. That's very unlikely to cause brake fade. And, if the rear brake contributes some braking and the rotors dissipate heat to the surrounding air, the temperature increase is even less.

Originally Posted by rekmeyata

Believe whatever the falk you want, but until you try the experiment yourself don't bother commenting! good nite.

Originally Posted by big chainring

I dont ride bikes newer than 1975. Euro parts only. 5 speed freewheels...6 speeds are cheating. Sew-ups preferably. Reynolds 531 or french gaspipe. Centerpull rim brakes for the win.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

New stuff is great, but I don't use anything that hasn't been invented yet.

Originally Posted by rsbob

Just wondering how old is your oldest car? Does it have disc brakes?

Originally Posted by Rolla

Over the last several years, I've seen the light on tubeless tires, thru-axles, dropper posts, and hydraulic disc brakes -- to the point where I can't ever imagine buying a bike that doesn't have these features. But I'm still retro-grouchy about a lot of other things, like carbon frames and wheels, suspension stems, Strava, power meters, and electronic shifting. It's conceivable that I'll eventually come around to some of them, but I'm way past my racing days and I'm quite happy being a steel frame/alloy wheel/cable-actuated luddite.

So I'm curious: What's your limit on bike technology, if you have one? Where do you draw the line on the newfangled, and what old-school stuff do you remain devoted to?

No need to argue, persuade, or ridicule, btw -- we can all respect each other's preferences, right?

Originally Posted by rsbob

i am drawing the line at e-shifting. It may be fantastic and fast, but I have enough items on the bike to charge now but having the shifting mechanism run out of juice whem I am several miles out or having it throw an error or malfunction. I know what this makes me sound like, but so be it.

Originally Posted by 63rickert

Fully sealed drive train was produced by Sunbeam 100 years ago. Chain ran in an oil bath. Sunbeams were the most expensive English bike made. Many originals still exist, a few remain in use, the oil bath chaincases are still tight. The famous statue of Sir Richard Elgar with his bicycle - that is his Sunbeam.

Only problem with the Sunbeam was removing rear wheel to change a flat. Of course any who owned one had a mechanic. It was a lot of work. Solution for that would be an arrangement like the Cinelli Bivalent hub. When you opened the quick release on a Cinelli hub and dropped the back wheel the entire drivetrain remained in place. It would not be that difficult to go from there to an enclosed drivetrain on a fairly normal useable bike.

Another feature that would make enclosed drive more useful would be chain and sprockets that did not wear out. Of course simply being enclosed would limit wear considerably. Next step would be reduced chain pitch. Coventry Chain produced 8mm pitch ‘Chainette’ from 1909 to 1939. Thousands of races were won on that chain, most notably by Freddie Grubb and Sir Hubert Oppermann. When Shimano tried this some sixty years later they touted stiffness and completely missed the idea. Coventry used chainwheels and sprockets with a far higher tooth count, which meant smoother operation and far less load and less wear on each tooth. There are a variety of chain designs more efficient and less prone to wear than current bicycle chains but all of them require minimum sprocket tooth count higher than now used by bicycles. With shorter pitch chain the required tooth count would be simple. For most users the result would be chain and sprockets that lasted the life of the bicycle.

There are lots of ways to improve bicycles that are entirely overlooked. Innovations come from the sales department, not from engineers. Customers are easily hypnotized by advertising and accept rubbish that should have been discarded long ago, celebrate novelties of no particular benefit.