Another Op-Ed related to steel vs CF
#26
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,232
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2590 Post(s)
Liked 5,657 Times
in
2,927 Posts
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,082
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 1,568 Times
in
1,030 Posts
Road bikes have changed quite a bit since the adoption of discs. Not everyone has reason to like those changes - especially since they aren't optional.
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,457
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
It is part and parcel of disc brakes. Complaints about that, as it relates to disc brakes, are valid. Facts don't stop being facts just because they support a certain viewpoint.
Road bikes have changed quite a bit since the adoption of discs. Not everyone has reason to like those changes - especially since they aren't optional.
Road bikes have changed quite a bit since the adoption of discs. Not everyone has reason to like those changes - especially since they aren't optional.
#29
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,992
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10444 Post(s)
Liked 11,924 Times
in
6,105 Posts
I think this quote has some merit
"Mr. Weiss’s point that “a carbon bike is thrillingly cutting edge until it’s about two or three seasons old, at which point it becomes yesterday’s hunk of plastic and nobody wants it, including you,” is truer now than for any material in the past."
One of the things that attracts buyers to carbon frames is the more sculpted forms of the frame. These are usually claimed to have more aero properties and, if nothing else, do have unique shapes as compared to tube frames made from steel. Point being, the very thing that attracts many buyers to carbon frames, is what makes the latest frames designs more appealing than older designs. So, in fact we may lose our love for the older carbon frame, because it is, in effect, out of fashion.
I have two bikes with carbon frames, and my main one being a Trek Domane with a carbon frame. I absolutely love the bike. I really like the look of the frame, though there's nothing particularity radical in the shapes. But I accept the fact that in say 5 years, I may look at that frame as being out of date compared to whatever style frames are being made at that time.
It's of course silly to hold this against carbon as a material. It's this very flexibility of carbon that allows for the more complex shapes. This complexity allows for a wider range of designs. And then ultimately the wider range of designs opens the door to designs coming in and out of fashion.
"Mr. Weiss’s point that “a carbon bike is thrillingly cutting edge until it’s about two or three seasons old, at which point it becomes yesterday’s hunk of plastic and nobody wants it, including you,” is truer now than for any material in the past."
One of the things that attracts buyers to carbon frames is the more sculpted forms of the frame. These are usually claimed to have more aero properties and, if nothing else, do have unique shapes as compared to tube frames made from steel. Point being, the very thing that attracts many buyers to carbon frames, is what makes the latest frames designs more appealing than older designs. So, in fact we may lose our love for the older carbon frame, because it is, in effect, out of fashion.
I have two bikes with carbon frames, and my main one being a Trek Domane with a carbon frame. I absolutely love the bike. I really like the look of the frame, though there's nothing particularity radical in the shapes. But I accept the fact that in say 5 years, I may look at that frame as being out of date compared to whatever style frames are being made at that time.
It's of course silly to hold this against carbon as a material. It's this very flexibility of carbon that allows for the more complex shapes. This complexity allows for a wider range of designs. And then ultimately the wider range of designs opens the door to designs coming in and out of fashion.
Now, looking at the same idea from the other side, steel frames (and to some extent any tubular metal frame) all look alike, and have done for decades. That's why they didn't "go out of fashion". Bikes made of straight cylindrical tubes can only go so far. Even shaped tubing, like Columbus MAX, only changes things at the margin.
Second, hydroformed aluminum frames made currently are mimicking the carbon frames higher up in the range. Often they are impossible to tell from a distance.
I notice that the farther into the CF era we go, the more all road bikes look the same. They are all subject to the same physics, and maybe there's only one optimum solution for all the issues.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#30
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,111
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked 3,567 Times
in
1,793 Posts
If you add mounting flanges to your fork without otherwise stiffening it, you won't have a fork for very long. All disc road forks are much more rigid than the forks they replaced, and even understanding that need, many road and CX disc forks had failures...
I suspect that some of the crown and steerer tube failures of other disc bikes may have been from disc braking load.
I suspect that some of the crown and steerer tube failures of other disc bikes may have been from disc braking load.
But I don't see how disc braking puts added stress on the fork crown or steering tube. Those stresses ought to be the same for disc or rim braking.
Likes For terrymorse:
#31
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2022
Location: California's capital
Posts: 467
Bikes: Litespeed Firenze, Spot Acme, Specialzed S Works Pro Race, Davidson Stiletto, Colnago Superissimo
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked 304 Times
in
174 Posts
These obsessives provide the value of 1. helping the maker's bottom line and 2. providing a steady supply of The Good Stuff to the 2nd-hand market. Win-win.
Camera gear in this digital era is much, much worse, trust me.
Enjoy riding? Buy the bike that puts a smile on your face. It is not going to disintegrate while you sleep.
The end.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,956
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3957 Post(s)
Liked 7,311 Times
in
2,950 Posts
EVERY hobby has its obsessives who want the latest cutting edge stuff. Then there are those who "settle" for the generation immediately prior, or the 2nd tier of the current line. In road bikes that can be as simple as buying a $4k bike instead of a $14k model, which will deliver 95% [utterly arbitrary value] of the features and performance.
These obsessives provide the value of 1. helping the maker's bottom line and 2. providing a steady supply of The Good Stuff to the 2nd-hand market. Win-win.
Camera gear in this digital era is much, much worse, trust me.
Enjoy riding? Buy the bike that puts a smile on your face. It is not going to disintegrate while you sleep.
The end.
These obsessives provide the value of 1. helping the maker's bottom line and 2. providing a steady supply of The Good Stuff to the 2nd-hand market. Win-win.
Camera gear in this digital era is much, much worse, trust me.
Enjoy riding? Buy the bike that puts a smile on your face. It is not going to disintegrate while you sleep.
The end.
#33
climber has-been
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,111
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3432 Post(s)
Liked 3,567 Times
in
1,793 Posts
One of the things that attracts buyers to carbon frames is the more sculpted forms of the frame. These are usually claimed to have more aero properties and, if nothing else, do have unique shapes as compared to tube frames made from steel. Point being, the very thing that attracts many buyers to carbon frames, is what makes the latest frames designs more appealing than older designs. So, in fact we may lose our love for the older carbon frame, because it is, in effect, out of fashion.
My bike frame design was first released in 2007, and I'm still riding mine because it suits my needs. There's not an aero-shaped tube anywhere, all the cables are external, and it has (gasp) rim brakes. But it descends really well, and it's lighter than just about any production bike sold today. Besides, I don't care much about aero; I care about climbing fast.
The aero penalty didn't seem to bother Cavendish, who rode it in the grand tours and won several stages.
I rode by some teens the other day, and one of them said, "Dude, where's your disc brakes?" I replied, "Disc brakes are heavy."
Last edited by terrymorse; 02-11-24 at 01:06 PM.
Likes For terrymorse:
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,383
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2490 Post(s)
Liked 2,961 Times
in
1,682 Posts
(1) Rim brakes need apply only comparatively minimal braking force because the braking is taking place near the circumference of the wheel (in effect, at the end of the lever arm that the wheel represents).
(2) The point at which that minimal force is applied is very near the fork crown and steerer, so very little bending leverage is applied at that point.
(3) Disc brakes need to apply far more braking force than rim brakes because the braking is taking place near the center of the wheel; less leverage means more force must be applied.
(4) The greater disc braking force is applied at a greater distance from the fork crown and steerer; the bending force at the top of the fork can approach the force that front-end impacts sometimes exert (see the frequent refrain in the C&V "Are you looking for one of these?" thread: "Fork's bent!").
Likes For Trakhak:
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,082
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 1,568 Times
in
1,030 Posts
I’m not sure what the complaint is. I see stiffer forks as a positive feature. The usual rant from rim brake diehards is that they are heavier and less comfortable. Both of which tend to be insignificant in reality. I don’t ride my bike and wish it had lighter, more flexible forks. Nor do I worry about it assploding due to the braking torque.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,457
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
Well if you can call 30 mm tyres “huge” then sure. I also have carbon bars and stem, which are great at absorbing road buzz. Like I said, the relatively stiff carbon fork is not an inherent problem at all. But it doesn’t seem to stop people attempting to use it as a valid argument against disc brakes. Rim brakes are already history and are not going to make a comeback because of disc brake fork design limitations.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,956
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3957 Post(s)
Liked 7,311 Times
in
2,950 Posts
Well if you can call 30 mm tyres “huge” then sure. I also have carbon bars and stem, which are great at absorbing road buzz. Like I said, the relatively stiff carbon fork is not an inherent problem at all. But it doesn’t seem to stop people attempting to use it as a valid argument against disc brakes. Rim brakes are already history and are not going to make a comeback because of disc brake fork design limitations.
Likes For tomato coupe:
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,457
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
Yep. The argument usually goes along the lines of I’m never going to switch to disc brakes because they are heavier, harder to maintain, blah, blah, blah and the forks are too stiff. These things are apparently a big deal compared to the actual braking performance, which is what I prefer to focus on with brakes. When you stop worrying about a few extra grams of weight and whether or not your carbon forks are too stiff then disc brakes have a lot of inherent advantages, which is why they are now likely to dominate the market for probably the rest of this century.
#39
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,992
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10444 Post(s)
Liked 11,924 Times
in
6,105 Posts
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,496
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7653 Post(s)
Liked 3,485 Times
in
1,840 Posts
Nah ... electronic magnetic brakes reacting on tiny amounts of magnetic material embedded in the cf rim will be the end-of-the-century brake-through. No actual contact between the brake and rim. By that time every bike will have a tiny fusion reactor built into the bottom bracket so power won't be an issue.
People will still be moaning the loss of rim brakes.
People will still be moaning the loss of rim brakes.
Likes For Maelochs:
#41
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,992
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10444 Post(s)
Liked 11,924 Times
in
6,105 Posts
Nah ... electronic magnetic brakes reacting on tiny amounts of magnetic material embedded in the cf rim will be the end-of-the-century brake-through. No actual contact between the brake and rim. By that time every bike will have a tiny fusion reactor built into the bottom bracket so power won't be an issue.
People will still be moaning the loss of rim brakes.
People will still be moaning the loss of rim brakes.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,496
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7653 Post(s)
Liked 3,485 Times
in
1,840 Posts
^ See how people distort what I say? I never said ocean-going bikes would have reactors ......
Likes For Maelochs:
#43
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,992
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10444 Post(s)
Liked 11,924 Times
in
6,105 Posts
#44
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,992
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10444 Post(s)
Liked 11,924 Times
in
6,105 Posts
Noting, however, that TMI is/was a FISSION reactor, whereas the pictured blast is from a FUSION reactor - albeit a very shortlived one. IIRC, while it's possible to have a controlled fission reaction, so far fusion reactions tend be a bit more...violent.
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,496
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7653 Post(s)
Liked 3,485 Times
in
1,840 Posts
Actually a safe fusion experiment was recently sustained for a few seconds,. and produced a lot of power .... so in a number of years, fusion might well be a safe and reliable power source .... but probably not because humans tend to suck.
I recall many years ago when the Turkey Point reactor station in Florida was one of the most heavily cited and fined .... for things like "No operators on duty during a shift" and "No certified operators on duty during a shift." I mean, it is just a two-reactor nuclear power station ... what could go wrong? Go, sneak off out back ans smoke a joint ... oh, if you are scared something will happen, tell the janitor to stay in the control room ......
The scientists dream up all this awesome stuff and hand it to people who cannot understand how to merge in traffic.
I recall many years ago when the Turkey Point reactor station in Florida was one of the most heavily cited and fined .... for things like "No operators on duty during a shift" and "No certified operators on duty during a shift." I mean, it is just a two-reactor nuclear power station ... what could go wrong? Go, sneak off out back ans smoke a joint ... oh, if you are scared something will happen, tell the janitor to stay in the control room ......
The scientists dream up all this awesome stuff and hand it to people who cannot understand how to merge in traffic.
#46
Senior Member
Back to the original topic: carbon vs. other.
Carbon is superior to every other frame construction material, as it is a stronger per unit of mass, and it can be shaped & tuned to provide the optimal mix of strength, weight and compliance. There is nothing you can do in steel, titanium, alu (or whatever) that you cannot do better in carbon. There is a lot of vague arm-waving about the magic properties of other materials, such as the “ride quality”, but that is overwhelmingly a function of tire size and construction, tire inflation pressure and your saddle. I have multiple bikes in every of the above frame materials, and carbon simply does it better.
Bike Snob NYC was just trying to stir the pot.
As far as disc brakes on road bikes, maybe if you are doing bike camping in the rain, then I would recommend discs, but for a performance go-fast bike, discs are not worth the weight penalty. As with other nonsense such as tubeless and fat (>28mm tires) they are just an inappropriate port-over from mountain bikes, designed to appeal to new road riders who don’t know any better.
The disc penalty is not just about the weight of the rotors, hydraulic lines, heavier calipers etc., but the frame reinforcements required to withstand the braking forces of discs. As mentioned earlier, the forces from braking on discs travels from the ground to the fork ends and then to the frame, an inferior path than with rim brakes. So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. Plus you have to add more crossed spokes in disc wheels, again more weight at the worst possible place on a bike.
In addition to the weight penalty, manufacturers have to add $500 to the cost of each new bike with discs, regardless of the cost, for no other reason that they can.
Carbon is superior to every other frame construction material, as it is a stronger per unit of mass, and it can be shaped & tuned to provide the optimal mix of strength, weight and compliance. There is nothing you can do in steel, titanium, alu (or whatever) that you cannot do better in carbon. There is a lot of vague arm-waving about the magic properties of other materials, such as the “ride quality”, but that is overwhelmingly a function of tire size and construction, tire inflation pressure and your saddle. I have multiple bikes in every of the above frame materials, and carbon simply does it better.
Bike Snob NYC was just trying to stir the pot.
As far as disc brakes on road bikes, maybe if you are doing bike camping in the rain, then I would recommend discs, but for a performance go-fast bike, discs are not worth the weight penalty. As with other nonsense such as tubeless and fat (>28mm tires) they are just an inappropriate port-over from mountain bikes, designed to appeal to new road riders who don’t know any better.
The disc penalty is not just about the weight of the rotors, hydraulic lines, heavier calipers etc., but the frame reinforcements required to withstand the braking forces of discs. As mentioned earlier, the forces from braking on discs travels from the ground to the fork ends and then to the frame, an inferior path than with rim brakes. So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. Plus you have to add more crossed spokes in disc wheels, again more weight at the worst possible place on a bike.
In addition to the weight penalty, manufacturers have to add $500 to the cost of each new bike with discs, regardless of the cost, for no other reason that they can.
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,457
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4420 Post(s)
Liked 4,873 Times
in
3,017 Posts
Back to the original topic: carbon vs. other.
Carbon is superior to every other frame construction material, as it is a stronger per unit of mass, and it can be shaped & tuned to provide the optimal mix of strength, weight and compliance. There is nothing you can do in steel, titanium, alu (or whatever) that you cannot do better in carbon. There is a lot of vague arm-waving about the magic properties of other materials, such as the “ride quality”, but that is overwhelmingly a function of tire size and construction, tire inflation pressure and your saddle. I have multiple bikes in every of the above frame materials, and carbon simply does it better.
Bike Snob NYC was just trying to stir the pot.
As far as disc brakes on road bikes, maybe if you are doing bike camping in the rain, then I would recommend discs, but for a performance go-fast bike, discs are not worth the weight penalty. As with other nonsense such as tubeless and fat (>28mm tires) they are just an inappropriate port-over from mountain bikes, designed to appeal to new road riders who don’t know any better.
The disc penalty is not just about the weight of the rotors, hydraulic lines, heavier calipers etc., but the frame reinforcements required to withstand the braking forces of discs. As mentioned earlier, the forces from braking on discs travels from the ground to the fork ends and then to the frame, an inferior path than with rim brakes. So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. Plus you have to add more crossed spokes in disc wheels, again more weight at the worst possible place on a bike.
In addition to the weight penalty, manufacturers have to add $500 to the cost of each new bike with discs, regardless of the cost, for no other reason that they can.
Carbon is superior to every other frame construction material, as it is a stronger per unit of mass, and it can be shaped & tuned to provide the optimal mix of strength, weight and compliance. There is nothing you can do in steel, titanium, alu (or whatever) that you cannot do better in carbon. There is a lot of vague arm-waving about the magic properties of other materials, such as the “ride quality”, but that is overwhelmingly a function of tire size and construction, tire inflation pressure and your saddle. I have multiple bikes in every of the above frame materials, and carbon simply does it better.
Bike Snob NYC was just trying to stir the pot.
As far as disc brakes on road bikes, maybe if you are doing bike camping in the rain, then I would recommend discs, but for a performance go-fast bike, discs are not worth the weight penalty. As with other nonsense such as tubeless and fat (>28mm tires) they are just an inappropriate port-over from mountain bikes, designed to appeal to new road riders who don’t know any better.
The disc penalty is not just about the weight of the rotors, hydraulic lines, heavier calipers etc., but the frame reinforcements required to withstand the braking forces of discs. As mentioned earlier, the forces from braking on discs travels from the ground to the fork ends and then to the frame, an inferior path than with rim brakes. So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. Plus you have to add more crossed spokes in disc wheels, again more weight at the worst possible place on a bike.
In addition to the weight penalty, manufacturers have to add $500 to the cost of each new bike with discs, regardless of the cost, for no other reason that they can.
Likes For PeteHski:
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,956
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3957 Post(s)
Liked 7,311 Times
in
2,950 Posts
There is a lot of vague arm-waving about the magic properties of other materials, such as the “ride quality”, but that is overwhelmingly a function of tire size and construction, tire inflation pressure and your saddle.
...
So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. .
...
So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. .
Likes For tomato coupe:
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,261
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18428 Post(s)
Liked 15,582 Times
in
7,337 Posts
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,910
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,933 Times
in
2,558 Posts
...
The disc penalty is not just about the weight of the rotors, hydraulic lines, heavier calipers etc., but the frame reinforcements required to withstand the braking forces of discs. As mentioned earlier, the forces from braking on discs travels from the ground to the fork ends and then to the frame, an inferior path than with rim brakes. So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. Plus you have to add more crossed spokes in disc wheels, again more weight at the worst possible place on a bike.
...
The disc penalty is not just about the weight of the rotors, hydraulic lines, heavier calipers etc., but the frame reinforcements required to withstand the braking forces of discs. As mentioned earlier, the forces from braking on discs travels from the ground to the fork ends and then to the frame, an inferior path than with rim brakes. So you have to reinforce the forks, leading to a stiffer less compliant ride. Plus you have to add more crossed spokes in disc wheels, again more weight at the worst possible place on a bike.
...