But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting
edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
On 2/23/2024 3:05 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
https://www.sram.com/en/sram/mountain/series/maven
The new DH and Enduro brakes been released, one big change seems to be
move
from dot to mineral oil be it their proprietary one.
It’s total overkill for me let alone Frank! As I’m quite happy with
Shimano
SLX and twin pots rather than 4 pots, and smaller pistons and calliper,
though I can see why folks who really push might well want more!
I still don't know anybody who complains about needing more braking
ability. I guess there must be some out there - or at least, some who
_think_ they do. The ad seems tailored for extreme mountain biking, so
maybe those guys?
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting
edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
Aside from that, some technical points:
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but the "Swinglink" sounds like it's
intended to increase overall mechanical advantage depending how much you
move the lever. That sounds similar to the non-linearity built into the infamous Campy Delta brakes. Maybe this system does it better? Or maybe not...
More basic: I detest their overuse and total misuse of the word "power."
In engineering, "power" has a very specific meaning: energy transfer per
unit time. I don't believe that's what they're talking about. They may
mean "force multiplication" or something similar, but it's hard to tell without wasting a lot of time decoding ad-speak.
Their use of power seems close to a kid discussing his favorite
superhero. "His power is that he can make fire shoot out of his palms."
Or whatever.
On 2/23/2024 3:05 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
https://www.sram.com/en/sram/mountain/series/maven
The new DH and Enduro brakes been released, one big change seems to be move >> from dot to mineral oil be it their proprietary one.
It’s total overkill for me let alone Frank! As I’m quite happy with Shimano
SLX and twin pots rather than 4 pots, and smaller pistons and calliper,
though I can see why folks who really push might well want more!
I still don't know anybody who complains about needing more braking
ability. I guess there must be some out there - or at least, some who
_think_ they do. The ad seems tailored for extreme mountain biking, so
maybe those guys?
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting
edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
Aside from that, some technical points:
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but the "Swinglink" sounds like it's
intended to increase overall mechanical advantage depending how much you
move the lever. That sounds similar to the non-linearity built into the infamous Campy Delta brakes. Maybe this system does it better? Or maybe not...
More basic: I detest their overuse and total misuse of the word "power."
In engineering, "power" has a very specific meaning: energy transfer per
unit time. I don't believe that's what they're talking about. They may
mean "force multiplication" or something similar, but it's hard to tell without wasting a lot of time decoding ad-speak.
Their use of power seems close to a kid discussing his favorite
superhero. "His power is that he can make fire shoot out of his palms."
Or whatever.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting
edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun
with.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun
with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly >transformative to be honest, its hardly high end stuff middle end at best >but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didnt die
in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
On 2/24/2024 5:51 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Power is Newtons there is graph comparing these to their older model on
More basic: I detest their overuse and total misuse of the word "power." >>> In engineering, "power" has a very specific meaning: energy transfer per >>> unit time. I don't believe that's what they're talking about. They may
mean "force multiplication" or something similar, but it's hard to tell
without wasting a lot of time decoding ad-speak.
all/most articles about them
https://bikerumor.com/sram-maven-dh-disc-brake-initial-review/
Nope. Power is energy transferred per unit time. Energy has units of
force times distance, so power has units of force times distance divided
by time.
In the SI system, Newtons measure _force_, not power. Distance is
meters. One Newton*meter is a Joule, the unit of energy.
Power is Newton*meter/second, or Joules/second, or Watts.
Their graph has two axes, each measuring force, not power. The graph is >really expressing the ratio of forces, AKA the mechanical advantage.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun
with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, its hardly high end stuff middle end at best >> but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didnt die >> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I keep thinking about converting to hydraulic brakes, I just haven't
gotten around to it. At my age, putting things off can lead to never
having to do them at all.
On 2/24/2024 5:51 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Power is Newtons there is graph comparing these to their older model on
More basic: I detest their overuse and total misuse of the word "power." >>> In engineering, "power" has a very specific meaning: energy transfer per >>> unit time. I don't believe that's what they're talking about. They may
mean "force multiplication" or something similar, but it's hard to tell
without wasting a lot of time decoding ad-speak.
all/most articles about them
https://bikerumor.com/sram-maven-dh-disc-brake-initial-review/
Nope. Power is energy transferred per unit time. Energy has units of
force times distance, so power has units of force times distance divided
by time.
In the SI system, Newtons measure _force_, not power. Distance is
meters. One Newton*meter is a Joule, the unit of energy.
Power is Newton*meter/second, or Joules/second, or Watts.
Their graph has two axes, each measuring force, not power. The graph is really expressing the ratio of forces, AKA the mechanical advantage.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Considering how you describe your rides not sure youd need them, they are >easier to live with in that they dont need maintenance bar, changing pads >with once every few years bleeding, less so with mineral than dot.
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>> with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, it?s hardly high end stuff middle end at best >>> but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn?t die >>> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I keep thinking about converting to hydraulic brakes, I just haven't
gotten around to it. At my age, putting things off can lead to never
having to do them at all.
For mine and similar folks cable was always a stop gap, particularly off
road good brakes make a huge difference.
Roger Merriman
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:11:32 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Considering how you describe your rides not sure youd need them, they are >> easier to live with in that they dont need maintenance bar, changing pads >> with once every few years bleeding, less so with mineral than dot.
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience. >>>>>I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding >>>>> experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very >>>>> newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>>> with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, it?s hardly high end stuff middle end at best >>>> but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn?t die >>>> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I keep thinking about converting to hydraulic brakes, I just haven't
gotten around to it. At my age, putting things off can lead to never
having to do them at all.
For mine and similar folks cable was always a stop gap, particularly off
road good brakes make a huge difference.
Roger Merriman
Nope, I don't need them at all, but they'd be something new and
different.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun
with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly transformative to be honest, it’s hardly high end stuff middle end at best but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn’t die in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 21:33:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/24/2024 5:51 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Power is Newtons there is graph comparing these to their older model on
More basic: I detest their overuse and total misuse of the word "power." >>>> In engineering, "power" has a very specific meaning: energy transfer per >>>> unit time. I don't believe that's what they're talking about. They may >>>> mean "force multiplication" or something similar, but it's hard to tell >>>> without wasting a lot of time decoding ad-speak.
all/most articles about them
https://bikerumor.com/sram-maven-dh-disc-brake-initial-review/
Nope. Power is energy transferred per unit time. Energy has units of
force times distance, so power has units of force times distance divided
by time.
In the SI system, Newtons measure _force_, not power. Distance is
meters. One Newton*meter is a Joule, the unit of energy.
Power is Newton*meter/second, or Joules/second, or Watts.
Their graph has two axes, each measuring force, not power. The graph is
really expressing the ratio of forces, AKA the mechanical advantage.
<Good grief>
Narcissists are known for being highly self-centered and for having an inflated sense of self-importance. They often seek out attention and validation from others and can become easily offended or upset when
they don’t get the attention they feel they deserve. This can lead to
them starting arguments with others in order to get the attention and validation they crave. Narcissists may also start arguments as a way
to control or manipulate others. They may do this by trying to provoke
an emotional response from the other person or by gaslighting them
into doubting their own memories or perceptions. Whatever the reason, narcissists starting arguments is a common occurrence that can be
frustrating and exhausting for those on the receiving end.
https://www.mentalhealthmatters-cofe.org/why-narcissists-start-arguments/
On 2/24/2024 6:06 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a
very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun
with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, it’s hardly high end stuff middle end at best >> but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn’t die >> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I have hydraulic discs on my FS and cable discs on my hardtail. There is
a noticeable difference, but I wouldn't call it 'transformative'. Very clearly this is a YMMV issue. For me, the 'transformative' experience
was simply switching to disc brakes. I converted my hardtail over from
rim brakes and the difference was, in fact (for me) 'transformative'.
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2024 6:06 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>> with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, it’s hardly high end stuff middle end at best
but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn’t die >>> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I have hydraulic discs on my FS and cable discs on my hardtail. There is
a noticeable difference, but I wouldn't call it 'transformative'. Very
clearly this is a YMMV issue. For me, the 'transformative' experience
was simply switching to disc brakes. I converted my hardtail over from
rim brakes and the difference was, in fact (for me) 'transformative'.
Possibly weight? I’m 95kg or thereabouts I have noticed some lighter roadies being fine with cable disks, where as I found even on road they
were subpar at least on the steeper wetter hills.
Clearly on flatter easier stuff like commuting or even club runs into the Surrey hills that’s fine, after all rims worked fine as well.
For me they where much closer to rim brakes ie the advantages of cable operated disks over rim was marginal bar the tire clearance and the frame being able to be upgraded easily.
Roger Merriman
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/25/2024 3:55 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 21:33:29 -0500, Frank KrygowskiYou are such a useless asshole. Now describing the the correct usage of
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/24/2024 5:51 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Power is Newtons there is graph comparing these to their older model on >>>>> all/most articles about them
More basic: I detest their overuse and total misuse of the word "power." >>>>>> In engineering, "power" has a very specific meaning: energy transfer per >>>>>> unit time. I don't believe that's what they're talking about. They may >>>>>> mean "force multiplication" or something similar, but it's hard to tell >>>>>> without wasting a lot of time decoding ad-speak.
https://bikerumor.com/sram-maven-dh-disc-brake-initial-review/
Nope. Power is energy transferred per unit time. Energy has units of
force times distance, so power has units of force times distance divided >>>> by time.
In the SI system, Newtons measure _force_, not power. Distance is
meters. One Newton*meter is a Joule, the unit of energy.
Power is Newton*meter/second, or Joules/second, or Watts.
Their graph has two axes, each measuring force, not power. The graph is >>>> really expressing the ratio of forces, AKA the mechanical advantage.
<Good grief>
Narcissists are known for being highly self-centered and for having an
inflated sense of self-importance. They often seek out attention and
validation from others and can become easily offended or upset when
they dont get the attention they feel they deserve. This can lead to
them starting arguments with others in order to get the attention and
validation they crave. Narcissists may also start arguments as a way
to control or manipulate others. They may do this by trying to provoke
an emotional response from the other person or by gaslighting them
into doubting their own memories or perceptions. Whatever the reason,
narcissists starting arguments is a common occurrence that can be
frustrating and exhausting for those on the receiving end.
https://www.mentalhealthmatters-cofe.org/why-narcissists-start-arguments/ >>
force vs power is an expression of narcissism? Is your life _really_
that vapid and useless?
No, this is just another example of you begging for franks attention and
approval. Gawd I hope I _never_ end up like you.
Hes really obsessed!
Roger Merriman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Considering how you describe your rides not sure you’d need them, they are easier to live with in that they don’t need maintenance bar, changing pads with once every few years bleeding, less so with mineral than dot.
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience.
I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding
experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very
newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>> with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, its hardly high end stuff middle end at best >>> but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didnt die >>> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I keep thinking about converting to hydraulic brakes, I just haven't
gotten around to it. At my age, putting things off can lead to never
having to do them at all.
For mine and similar folks cable was always a stop gap, particularly off
road good brakes make a huge difference.
Roger Merriman
On 2/25/2024 8:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2/24/2024 6:06 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience. >>>>>I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding >>>>> experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very >>>>> newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>>> with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, it’s hardly high end stuff middle end at best
but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn’t die
in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I have hydraulic discs on my FS and cable discs on my hardtail. There is >>> a noticeable difference, but I wouldn't call it 'transformative'. Very
clearly this is a YMMV issue. For me, the 'transformative' experience
was simply switching to disc brakes. I converted my hardtail over from
rim brakes and the difference was, in fact (for me) 'transformative'.
Possibly weight? I’m 95kg or thereabouts I have noticed some lighter
roadies being fine with cable disks, where as I found even on road they
were subpar at least on the steeper wetter hills.
That's a valid point. You're a big boy, I'm one of those skinny little roadies you could never get draft from (~65Kg). Certainly the extra 30Kg
on a long steep downhill makes braking more challenging, but I think
that might be as much a function of the cable itself. I run a 1.8mm
cable vs a 1.5, then of course with cable brakes the routing can make a dramatic difference. Challenges like these go away (for the most part)
with hydraulics. When I grab a handful of brake on the cables vs
hydraulics, I _do_ feel a big difference, but 'panic' stops aren't
something I experience much off-road.
Clearly on flatter easier stuff like commuting or even club runs into the
Surrey hills that’s fine, after all rims worked fine as well.
That was the biggest difference for me - even with a 1.8 mm cable, the
rear brake sponginess from hosing flex and seat stay flex (my hard tail
is titanium) vs the disc mount was 'transformative'.
For me they where much closer to rim brakes ie the advantages of cable
operated disks over rim was marginal bar the tire clearance and the frame
being able to be upgraded easily.
I suspect if I was trying to stop an extra 30Kg on a steep downhill my experience would be different as well.
Roger Merriman
On Sun Feb 25 12:18:24 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:11:32 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Considering how you describe your rides not sure youd need them, they are >>>> easier to live with in that they dont need maintenance bar, changing pads >>>> with once every few years bleeding, less so with mineral than dot.
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cuttingI doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding >>>>>>> experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very >>>>>>> newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>>>>> with.
edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience. >>>>>>>
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly >>>>>> transformative to be honest, it?s hardly high end stuff middle end at best
but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didn?t die
in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I keep thinking about converting to hydraulic brakes, I just haven't >>>>> gotten around to it. At my age, putting things off can lead to never >>>>> having to do them at all.
For mine and similar folks cable was always a stop gap, particularly off >>>> road good brakes make a huge difference.
Roger Merriman
Nope, I don't need them at all, but they'd be something new and
different.
I guess really very few need them! Though as I have ridden off road with
various rim brakes which require quite a bit of hand force hence being
notorious for arm pump at bottoms of downhill runs!
And my Gravel bike did have cable disks, while it?s not a need it quite a
significant difference or upgrade.
Roger Merriman
The Shimano 10 speed rim brakes are very strong. Quite a bit better than Campy.
On 2/25/2024 7:32 AM, zen cycle wrote:
I have hydraulic discs on my FS and cable discs on my hardtail. There is
a noticeable difference, but I wouldn't call it 'transformative'. Very
clearly this is a YMMV issue. For me, the 'transformative' experience
was simply switching to disc brakes. I converted my hardtail over from
rim brakes and the difference was, in fact (for me) 'transformative'.
I suspect the biggest "YMMV" factor is true off-road mountain biking
with significant elevation changes, vs. road riding.
Back in my mountain biking days, I only rarely did off road rides in
really hilly country. Flatter terrain never demanded much of those brakes.
And I've done mountains and lots of steep hills on road bikes, including heavily laden with touring gear and/or on our tandem. Again, I never experienced brake problems. The only times I recall being somewhat
concerned was on one Rocky Mountain descent with full packs, and another similar but shorter one in West Virginia. I wondered "How hot will my
rims get?" But all was fine. I can't imagine many road riders have
greater demands.
Descending ski slopes on a mountain bike would be a different matter entirely, as would repeating steep off-road descents over and over.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/25/2024 7:32 AM, zen cycle wrote:
I have hydraulic discs on my FS and cable discs on my hardtail. There is >>> a noticeable difference, but I wouldn't call it 'transformative'. Very
clearly this is a YMMV issue. For me, the 'transformative' experience
was simply switching to disc brakes. I converted my hardtail over from
rim brakes and the difference was, in fact (for me) 'transformative'.
I suspect the biggest "YMMV" factor is true off-road mountain biking
with significant elevation changes, vs. road riding.
It’s less the numbers as you were but how, ie is it a fire road or a rocky track though the woods, does in drop off and so on.
Ie a fire road you can just roll on down might not need to brake at all bar the end, vs single track though the woods where as the trail winds it’s way down you’d need to brake repeatedly as you descend and certainly with older canti MTB you’d get arm pump by the end. Though this does depend on the rider clearly ie someone anxious pulling lots of brakes will get more that one more experience and so on.
Let alone muscle mass, number of fit roadies ie thin have remarked on
getting sore arms with gravel bikes, though I suspect the death grip
probably has more to that.
On 2/25/2024 4:11 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>Considering how you describe your rides not sure you’d need them, they are >> easier to live with in that they don’t need maintenance bar, changing pads >> with once every few years bleeding, less so with mineral than dot.
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:15:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
But one problem with bicycling marketing is that people who ride in a >>>>>> very ordinary way come to believe they must have the very newest cutting >>>>>> edge equipment, and that it will transform their riding experience. >>>>>I doubt anybody believes the new stuff will " transform their riding >>>>> experience," but sometimes it's just plain old fun to have the "very >>>>> newest cutting edge equipment" if you have money to have plain old fun >>>>> with.
The shift from cable to hydraulic disks on my Gravel bike was fairly
transformative to be honest, its hardly high end stuff middle end at best
but made a huge impact in both performance and maintenance, ie didnt die >>>> in the wet winter weather due to dirt ingress.
Roger Merriman
I keep thinking about converting to hydraulic brakes, I just haven't
gotten around to it. At my age, putting things off can lead to never
having to do them at all.
For mine and similar folks cable was always a stop gap, particularly off
road good brakes make a huge difference.
Roger Merriman
I changed out a worn shifter set Friday for an old customer
who had been on US national cycling team and had a stellar
cycling career in the 1970s/1980s. He asked about all the
new race bikes with fat (28mm) tires and disc brakes with
through axles. After reviewing discs features/foibles for a
few minutes I asked him if he had ever experienced a lack of
braking power or response.
He said no, and he noted that Mr Hampsten's impressive Gavia
descent (we both knew him well and we both worked with him)
in the snow was limited by body core and finger temperature,
not braking power.
On 2/27/2024 11:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/25/2024 7:32 AM, zen cycle wrote:
I have hydraulic discs on my FS and cable discs on my hardtail. There is >>>> a noticeable difference, but I wouldn't call it 'transformative'. Very >>>> clearly this is a YMMV issue. For me, the 'transformative' experience
was simply switching to disc brakes. I converted my hardtail over from >>>> rim brakes and the difference was, in fact (for me) 'transformative'.
I suspect the biggest "YMMV" factor is true off-road mountain biking
with significant elevation changes, vs. road riding.
It’s less the numbers as you were but how, ie is it a fire road or a rocky >> track though the woods, does in drop off and so on.
Ie a fire road you can just roll on down might not need to brake at all bar >> the end, vs single track though the woods where as the trail winds it’s way
down you’d need to brake repeatedly as you descend and certainly with older
canti MTB you’d get arm pump by the end. Though this does depend on the
rider clearly ie someone anxious pulling lots of brakes will get more that >> one more experience and so on.
Let alone muscle mass, number of fit roadies ie thin have remarked on
getting sore arms with gravel bikes, though I suspect the death grip
probably has more to that.
In my experience it's the hand position on drop-bars vs flat bars: more
of a leaned -over road position relying on arm strength to support the
body weight whereas the more upright MTB position allows for a balanced
upper body so the core does the majority of the work. My arms don't get nearly as sore after an MTB ride as opposed to a long CX/gravel ride.
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do >think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike buyers.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
only with discs.
Am Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:55:20 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do >>think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike buyers.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available >>only with discs.
About half of Germany (and Europe) is quite hilly and rainy throughout
a part of the year, so that reasoning doesn't usually apply here.
Being retired, I can easily avoid riding in the rain and do so for
various reasons. One of the reasons is that riding in the rain and then cleaning the bike is not an activity I like. So I could have done
without discs. Our new bikes got disks for the simple reason that rim
brakes aren't available anymore, for the kind of bike I built.
On the other hand, I often complained about my rim brakes during the
years I commuted the whole year long. In particular, slush or packed
snow that has thawed with salt can render the rim brakes completely ineffective. This also applies to pouring rain, when there is more
moisture added than the brakes can remove from the rims.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> writes:
Am Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:55:20 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do >>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike buyers. >>>
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
only with discs.
About half of Germany (and Europe) is quite hilly and rainy throughout
a part of the year, so that reasoning doesn't usually apply here.
Being retired, I can easily avoid riding in the rain and do so for
various reasons. One of the reasons is that riding in the rain and then
cleaning the bike is not an activity I like. So I could have done
without discs. Our new bikes got disks for the simple reason that rim
brakes aren't available anymore, for the kind of bike I built.
On the other hand, I often complained about my rim brakes during the
years I commuted the whole year long. In particular, slush or packed
snow that has thawed with salt can render the rim brakes completely
ineffective. This also applies to pouring rain, when there is more
moisture added than the brakes can remove from the rims.
True. I suspect that Mr. Krygowski really means that most cyclists in
rich countries do not ride in slush or pouring rain, which is also true.
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
I changed out a worn shifter set Friday for an old customer
who had been on US national cycling team and had a stellar
cycling career in the 1970s/1980s. He asked about all the
new race bikes with fat (28mm) tires and disc brakes with
through axles. After reviewing discs features/foibles for a
few minutes I asked him if he had ever experienced a lack of
braking power or response.
He said no, and he noted that Mr Hampsten's impressive Gavia
descent (we both knew him well and we both worked with him)
in the snow was limited by body core and finger temperature,
not braking power.
What an old road racer? Ie the type who are the most conservative of the
various roadie types though everything was fine as it was? To the point of >> disks are cutting riders and other excuses as they didn’t want them.
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
Which to be honest is fine and I’m unsure that for a road racer that disks >> are a net gain really, for others such as the commute/wet weather riders...
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike buyers.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
only with discs.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
that is.
People adapt, by not riding in the rain, by not riding fast, by avoiding riding downhill, by switching to other means of transport. When I was a child, there was nothing available but bicycles with steel rims. No
problem with that, I played outside mostly when it wasn't raining. And
when I did, it wasn't cycling what I did. A child learns quit fast that
knees scraped on wet dirt hurt. After having to ride downhill to
secondary school with my next, adult sized bike, I just took the bus,
when it was wet. Etc.
I'd perhaps have stayed with rim brakes for my new bike, because
maintainance is a lot easier. Disk brakes are delicate. Personally, I
don't care much about their ability to handle rain even better that
aluminium rims, for the very fact that I have enought reasons to avoid
riding in rain. Due to physical consequences of a old fall injury, I now strictly avoid the risk of falling. Riding in rain is somewhat risky.
Being retired, I just don't have a need to to that anymore. For an
ordinary whole year commuting bike I'd probably use disk brakes. I could easily do without, but my wife appreciates the reduced manual force
required.
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:I do
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and
buyers.think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
only with discs.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth withbikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racersand
the retrogrouches who didn’t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:buyers.
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do >>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available
only with discs.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth withbikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
the retrogrouches who didn’t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people
I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that
is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy
one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into
the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Contrary to much
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made:
rim brakes.hype, people have almost never complained about decent
complained
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never
that duty, and I doabout rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for
super-wet Portland)think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly,
sliver of bike buyers.found them quite valuable. But that's a very small
really benefit
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would
suddenly availablefrom discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are
only with discs.This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever
complained about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence thegrowth with bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it wasonly the racers and
the retrogrouches who didn’t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost
all the people I ride with are still using rim brakes and
are not complaining about them. The people with disc brakes
are all on relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years
old. And I never heard even those people complain about
their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of
dissatisfaction with their rim brakes. I believe they're on
discs because if you buy a new bike, it comes with discs.
The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to buy a new bike
with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only
going to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of
bikes.) "I'll get one with disc brakes." But she gave no
reason. I think that, like most people, she thought no more
deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into the
advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike
yet.)
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull >brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never >experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes >consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of >having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
the detriments?
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of >blinding other road users.
The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop >telepathic gear shifts?
So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000 >lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
advertising.
Most individuals are not so careful.
On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:and I do
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
buyers.think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland) >>> >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
available
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit >>> >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
only with discs.This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growthwith bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only theracers and
the retrogrouches who didnt.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining
about them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new
bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those
people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to
buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one
with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most
people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she
bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that
bike yet.)
and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
energy for this forum.
On 2/29/2024 10:10 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/28/2024 10:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:road discs]. Almost all the
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand [for
not complainingpeople I ride with are still using rim brakes and are
relatively newabout them. The people with disc brakes are all on
even thosebikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never heard
dissatisfaction withpeople complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of
you buy a newtheir rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if
discs. It's hard tobike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing
only going tobuy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm
"I'll get onebuy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.)
like mostwith disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that,
better." IOW, shepeople, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are
she's bought thatbought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think
bike yet.)
It just is. Neither 'good' nor 'bad' absolutely, with ahuge grey area
for personal taste.
While that's true, it doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't
discuss advantages and disadvantages here.
For example I bent a spindle on a car in 2016 and foundthat a new pair
pf spindles was about the same price as a disc brake kitwith disc
spindles. So I changed over, first time for one of mymany mid-60s GM
products. Most of the time, I don't even notice. Inextremis, discs are
really really nice. So nice that I remachined them forcorrect
clearance and moved them to a different car when the oldone (service
life 1992~2019) was used up.
http://www.yellowjersey.org/cars/66mal43.jpgCan I assume that mid-60s GM product has a rear mounted
six? ;-)
As it happens, last week one of my best friends let me drive
his 1964 Corvair Monza, with a 4 carb engine. He'd worked
about two years getting it road ready. (Still needs its
convertible top installed.) Mine was a 1966 version, 2nd
generation with the much improved rear suspension.
Driving his was a revelation! As in, "Holy cow, was my
steering that loose?" (Maybe not; I'd installed quick
steering arms.) "Did my gearshift feel so vague?" (He's had
his transaxle apart, but it seemed fine if vague.) "Did I
have to stomp so hard on the brakes?" (Mine had metallic
brake shoes.)
I did enjoy the drive and the sweet sound of the six. But it
certainly was a car that required driver involvement! Heck,
it didn't even have electronic "lane centering assist"!
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
the detriments?
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered
LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of blinding other road users.
The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gear
choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop telepathic gear shifts?
So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better night
lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000 lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
advertising.
Most individuals are not so careful.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say notThe biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers >(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the >neutral service bike more challenging.
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
the detriments?
And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes >it an expensive upgrade and so on.
Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get >once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last >time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
that.
With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty >rides could trash remarkably quickly!
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better toDifficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
Thats a new one on me!
Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno poweredWhile a Dynamo doesnt kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of
blinding other road users.
to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in >the 200 ish range or less.
As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed >off road and it doesnt keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off >road than on.
Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be >blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles. >Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gearReally? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your >range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
telepathic gear shifts?
have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes >2*10s
So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better nightIn my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of >technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one
can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000
lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be
very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
advertising.
Most individuals are not so careful.
Roger Merriman
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
I remember how pleased I
was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
enough to justify the detriments?
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:and I do
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much >>>> >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes. >>>> >>
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained >>>> >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
bike buyers.think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland) >>>> >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
available
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit >>>> >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
only with discs.This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growthwith bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only theracers and
the retrogrouches who didnt.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
bought that bike yet.)
:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
energy for this forum.
I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:and I do
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
;I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much >>> >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
;
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained >>> >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
bike buyers.think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland) >>> >> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
available;
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit >>> >> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
only with discs.This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
;
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growthwith bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only theracers and
the retrogrouches who didn’t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
bought that bike yet.)
:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
energy for this forum.
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:bike buyers.
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
;I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much >>>> >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes. >>>> >>
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained >>>> >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, >>>> and I do
think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
available;
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
only with discs.This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
;
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growthwith bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only theracers and
the retrogrouches who didnt.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
bought that bike yet.)
:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
energy for this forum.
I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
doing it all wrong.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
Did you complain about them? Did you hear your contemporaries
complaining?
I remember how pleased I
was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road
bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my
experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are
problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
enough to justify the detriments?
It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to maintain consumer
choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money. If a
significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake bikes, then an alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not seem to be happening.
What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to buy an old
one. Where is my choice?
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:00 -0500,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:and I do
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much >> >>>> >> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes. >> >>>> >>
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained >> >>>> >> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty,
bike buyers.think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of
available
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly
only with discs.This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growthwith bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only theracers and
the retrogrouches who didn?t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the
people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never
heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a
new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's
hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going
to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get
one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like
most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better."
IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's
bought that bike yet.)
:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating
energy for this forum.
I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
doing it all wrong.
Wait, aren't you constantly telling Frank he's doing it wrong?
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:buyers.
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes.
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do >>>>> think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland) >>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit >>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available >>>>> only with discs.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth withbikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and >>>> the retrogrouches who didnt.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people >>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about
them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that >>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain
about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new
bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to
buy a new bike with rim brakes.
Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets >>yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available, >>and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable.
Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped >>in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just >>a new thing!
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy >>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with
disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people,
she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into >>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.)
Dont assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they >>arent.
Roger Merriman
Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
them too.
But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:40:19 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:41:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, >>>>> that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull >>>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking >>>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never >>>> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say notThe biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers >>>(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the >>>neutral service bike more challenging.
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes >>>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in >>>> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of >>>> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with >>>> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify >>>> the detriments?
And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes >>>it an expensive upgrade and so on.
Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get >>>once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last >>>time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do >>>that.
With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty >>>rides could trash remarkably quickly!
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better toDifficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon? >>>Thats a new one on me!
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound >>>> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered >>>> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm betterWhile a Dynamo doesnt kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get >>>to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in >>>the 200 ish range or less.
yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of >>>> blinding other road users.
As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for >>>the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed >>>off road and it doesnt keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot >>>newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off >>>road than on.
Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be >>>blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles. >>>Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gearReally? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your >>>range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I >>>have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they >>>> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
telepathic gear shifts?
But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes >>>2*10s
So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better nightIn my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of >>>technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one >>>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000 >>>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be >>>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
advertising.
Most individuals are not so careful.
Roger Merriman
Most people are wise enough to decide for themselves how, when, where,
and with what equipement to ride their bicycles. It's not rocket
science.
Haven to Betsy! Do you mean that it is possible to determine what sort
of bicycle brakes are best.... without Frank's assistance?
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 05:35:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:buyers.
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much >>>>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes. >>>>>>>
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained >>>>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland) >>>>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit >>>>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available >>>>>>> only with discs.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with >>>>> bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
the retrogrouches who didn’t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people >>>>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about >>>>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that >>>>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain >>>>> about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new >>>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to >>>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets >>>> yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available, >>>> and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable. >>>>
Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped >>>> in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just
a new thing!
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy >>>>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with >>>>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people, >>>>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into >>>>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.) >>>>>
Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
aren’t.
Roger Merriman
Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy.
Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode
them too.
But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
Krygowski a reason. How dare she.
The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.
A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)
On 2/29/2024 4:52 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever
complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple
fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't
complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't
an alternative,
that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in
general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long
reach
centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
Did you complain about them? Did you hear your
contemporaries
complaining?
I remember
how pleased I
was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced
total brake
failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when
rims were wet,
but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost
all road
bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody
complained, in my
experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but
I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that
effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each
bike design
in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides
the
detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the
frame, there are
problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's
less visibly
obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for
bleeding,
etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they
matter
enough to justify the detriments?
It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to
maintain consumer
choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money.
If a
significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake
bikes, then an
alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not
seem to be
happening.
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are
being told by advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are
way better. They stop you faster" or other nonsense. And
almost all new bikes come with discs. Few consumers have the
background knowledge to even question the "better" claim.
What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to
buy an old
one. Where is my choice?
With cars, the benefits of discs (at least in front) are
significant. My main point is that it's not true for road
bikes. But you can still buy plenty of cars with drums in
the rear. And many heavy trucks still use drum brakes, as do
their trailers.
Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your
road bikes have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones
that have rim brakes?
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by >advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop you >faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with discs. Few >consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better"
claim.
On 2/29/2024 5:13 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:07:00 -0500,
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:54:53 -0500, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 6:57 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2024 11:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:and I'd imagine you tried to talk her out of it
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
;I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much
hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes. >>>>>>> >>
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained
about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, >>>>>>> and I do
think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland)
found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of >>>>>>> bike buyers.
;
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit
from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly >>>>>>> available
only with discs.
;
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained
about their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth >>>>>>> with bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the >>>>>>> racers and
the retrogrouches who didn?t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the >>>>>>> people I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not
complaining about them. The people with disc brakes are all on
relatively new bikes - that is, just a few years old. And I never >>>>>>> heard even those people complain about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with >>>>>>> their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a >>>>>>> new bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's >>>>>>> hard to buy a new bike with rim brakes.
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going >>>>>>> to buy one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get >>>>>>> one with disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like >>>>>>> most people, she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." >>>>>>> IOW, she bought into the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's >>>>>>> bought that bike yet.)
:-) Actually, no. Believe it or not, I save almost all of my debating >>>>> energy for this forum.
I imagine that many of the curmudgeons heard from here are, in real
life, mild mannered and easy to get along with.
Most people prefer to do what they want to do and aren't happy about
people who come along, stick their noses in it and tell that the're
doing it all wrong.
Wait, aren't you constantly telling Frank he's doing it wrong?
:-) The Florida guy isn't exactly excellent regarding self awareness!
But the occasional comment from him or from others saying "Just let
everyone decide everything on their own"
or hinting "All opinions are
valid" pretty much violates the reason for a _discussion_ group!
It makes me wonder why such a person bothers to read posts here.
On 2/29/2024 4:52 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, >>>> that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
Did you complain about them? Did you hear your contemporaries
complaining?
I remember how pleased I
was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road
bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my
experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are
problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
enough to justify the detriments?
It is not up to any individual bicycle producer to maintain consumer
choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money. If a
significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake bikes, then an
alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not seem to be
happening.
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop you faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with discs. Few consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better"
claim.
What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to buy an old
one. Where is my choice?
With cars, the benefits of discs (at least in front) are significant. My
main point is that it's not true for road bikes. But you can still buy
plenty of cars with drums in the rear. And many heavy trucks still use
drum brakes, as do their trailers.
Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your road bikes
have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones that have rim brakes?
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 03:09:46 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by >>>advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop you >>>faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with discs. Few >>>consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better" >>>claim.
I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
are simply producing what the majority of people want.
One thing about being old... you remember things, and I remember when
bar end shifters first became common. "So much better shifting, never
take you hand off the bars, etc." Just like the loud noises about disc
brakes today. Of course the difference is that Frankie fell for the
bar end shifters years ago and can conveniently forget the advertising >campaign that convinced him to buy the shifters while the disc brake
adverts are relatively recent and he can loudly rant and rage about >advertisement!
As for me? I didn't fall for it and still have my down tube shifters
on my Bangkok Bike :-)
On 2/29/2024 3:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, >>>> that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull >>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking >>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say notThe biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of
having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with
noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
the detriments?
(road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the
neutral service bike more challenging.
And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes >> it an expensive upgrade and so on.
Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get >> once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last >> time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
that.
With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty
rides could trash remarkably quickly!
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better toDifficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
That’s a new one on me!
Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno poweredWhile a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get >> to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in >> the 200 ish range or less.
LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm better
yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of >>> blinding other road users.
As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for
the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed >> off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot
newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off >> road than on.
Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be >> blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles. >> Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gearReally? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your >> range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they
shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
telepathic gear shifts?
have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes >> 2*10s
So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better nightIn my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one >>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000 >>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be >>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
advertising.
Most individuals are not so careful.
technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
I can discuss each of the analogous examples I gave, if you want; but
that's getting pretty far into the weeds and away from my point that not every "improvement" is worth accepting. One really should consider
whether benefits are really significant; and one should also pay
attention to associated detriments.
As to your last point: Younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches for
the same reason they tend to be Swifties. They are very susceptible to advertising and other promotion, and they are short on decades of
experience. They go for what's shiny and new.
On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better.
They stop you
faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come
with discs. Few
consumers have the background knowledge to even question
the "better"
claim.
Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time
now, so a bike
having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding
any advertising
focused on disks at this point!
I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the
industry campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially
the default choice on a new road bike, and I think one would
have to search out much less common models to get a new road
bike with rim brakes.
The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the
change - either the shop dude or some fine print saying,
effectively, "Of COURSE you want disc brakes! They're
better!" The consumer just nods.
The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear
cogs, etc. And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that
level. "Of COURSE you want these, for safety! We have them
for only $$$." I suspect that in a year or two, that $$$
will be built into the cost of the bike, because the lights
will be built-in to the bike.
This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories
does one no
favours.
If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period
when consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put
disc brakes on it?" I don't think that was the case.
On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop you >>>> faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with discs.
Few
consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better"
claim.
Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a bike
having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any advertising
focused on disks at this point!
I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the industry
campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially the default choice
on a new road bike, and I think one would have to search out much less
common models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the change - either
the shop dude or some fine print saying, effectively, "Of COURSE you
want disc brakes! They're better!" The consumer just nods.
The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear cogs, etc.
And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that level. "Of COURSE you
want these, for safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in
a year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the bike,
because the lights will be built-in to the bike.
This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no
favours.
If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period when
consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put disc brakes on
it?" I don't think that was the case.
It is the case. People did and do regularly ask that. It's almost
always infeasible, at least for a total price the inquirer finds
acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade, brake mounts, paint, braking
system, often new shifters, new wheels...).
Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual decisions in millions of situations, drawing from billions of prior experiences and
within millions of economic scenarios. You may be right and you are probably equally wrong, depending.
Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around telephones or electric autos, BTW.
On 3/1/2024 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way
better. They stop you
faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes
come with discs. Few
consumers have the background knowledge to even
question the "better"
claim.
Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time
now, so a bike
having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding
any advertising
focused on disks at this point!
I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because
the industry campaign has been completed. Discs are
essentially the default choice on a new road bike, and I
think one would have to search out much less common
models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the
change - either the shop dude or some fine print saying,
effectively, "Of COURSE you want disc brakes! They're
better!" The consumer just nods.
The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+
rear cogs, etc. And Daytime Running Lights are
approaching that level. "Of COURSE you want these, for
safety! We have them for only $$$." I suspect that in a
year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost of the
bike, because the lights will be built-in to the bike.
This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy
theories does one no
favours.
If it were consumer led, there would have been a long
period when consumers could say "I like this bike, but
can you put disc brakes on it?" I don't think that was
the case.
It is the case. People did and do regularly ask that.
It's almost always infeasible, at least for a total price
the inquirer finds acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade,
brake mounts, paint, braking system, often new shifters,
new wheels...).
Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual
decisions in millions of situations, drawing from billions
of prior experiences and within millions of economic
scenarios. You may be right and you are probably equally
wrong, depending.
Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around
telephones or electric autos, BTW.
There was a local frame builder in Lowell MA who was brazing
disc mount tabs on steel frames for a while.
Before that, he was modifying road frames for CX before real
CX frames were readily availability (This would have been in
the late 80's/early 90's). He did that for me for the first
CX bike I ever had - I found a Schwinn Tempo for cheap. He
brazed canti mounts onto the fork and seat stays, and
pinched the chainstays in a bit so I could fit a knobby
tire. I did a few CX races on it (there weren't many to do
back then) but mostly rode it as a winter beater.
It met a untimely(?) demise one crisp october morning on my
way to work - the city of Cambridge had put in new curbing
with 'bump outs' leading into the cross walks. With the sun
at the perfect angle to glare out my riding glasses, I hit
one of the new bump-outs at full clip, tossing me endo into
mailbox. I was unscathed save a scraped knee and elbow. I
got back up and checked the bike - the front wheel was still
inflated and spun true. It wasn't until I tried to saddle up
when I realized - the downtube had acted as a crumple zone.
It has creased at enough of an angle that it was hitting the
sidewall of the tire. I was still a few miles from work, so
I deflated the tire which allowed the steering to center but
even the deflated tire was rubbing the downtube. By the time
I made it to work, the paint had been completely worn off
the downtube where the tire was rubbing.
On 2/29/2024 4:52 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Did you complain about them? Did you hear your contemporaries
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, >>>> that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach
centerpull brakes operating on steel rims.
complaining?
I remember how pleased IIt is not up to any individual bicycle producer to maintain consumer
was with my first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical
improvement. The braking was smoother, quieter and more
reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never experienced total brake
failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze harder when rims were wet,
but that was manageable. And it was manageable for almost all road
bicyclists, even those of us riding tandems. Nobody complained, in my
experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design
in a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the
detriment of having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are
problems with noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly
obvious and trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding,
etc. Do the purported benefits really matter, and do they matter
enough to justify the detriments?
choice, it is their job to sell bicycles and make money. If a
significant number of customers refused to buy disk brake bikes, then an
alternative would be certainly be produced. That does not seem to be
happening.
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop
you faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with
discs. Few consumers have the background knowledge to even question
the "better" claim.
What if I wanted to buy a drum brake car? I would have to buy an old
one. Where is my choice?
With cars, the benefits of discs (at least in front) are
significant. My main point is that it's not true for road bikes. But
you can still buy plenty of cars with drums in the rear. And many
heavy trucks still use drum brakes, as do their trailers.
Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your road bikes
have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones that have rim brakes?
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 05:35:29 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:57:43 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/28/2024 6:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:buyers.
On 2/27/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I think Andrew is making the same point I've made: Contrary to much >>>>>>> hype, people have almost never complained about decent rim brakes. >>>>>>>
Even those commuters and wet weather riders almost never complained >>>>>>> about rim brakes. Yes, discs are somewhat better for that duty, and I do
think that Jay Beattie (daily commuter in hilly, super-wet Portland) >>>>>>> found them quite valuable. But that's a very small sliver of bike
This is circular and clearly due to your fixed view.
Compare that tiny percentage of bike buyers who would really benefit >>>>>>> from discs, to the huge percentage of bikes that are suddenly available >>>>>>> only with discs.
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
But realistically there was an untapped demand Hence the growth with >>>>> bikes
used by fast commuters or more relaxed roadies it was only the racers and
the retrogrouches who didn’t.
Sorry, I'm not seeing evidence of untapped demand. Almost all the people >>>>> I ride with are still using rim brakes and are not complaining about >>>>> them. The people with disc brakes are all on relatively new bikes - that >>>>> is, just a few years old. And I never heard even those people complain >>>>> about their old bikes' brakes.
So I don't believe they're on discs because of dissatisfaction with
their rim brakes. I believe they're on discs because if you buy a new >>>>> bike, it comes with discs. The industry is pushing discs. It's hard to >>>>> buy a new bike with rim brakes.
Only for some sectors within road bikes, ie bikes with upper end groupsets >>>>yes it is becoming less but this after 10+ years of disks being available, >>>>and since disks have outsold rim broadly similar with electronic vs cable. >>>>
Ie consumer are making a choice and with disks manufacturers have stopped >>>>in some areas as consumers choice is clear, and over many years ie not just >>>>a new thing!
I have precisely one friend who omce said "I think I'm only going to buy >>>>> one more bike." (Meaning for her stable of bikes.) "I'll get one with >>>>> disc brakes." But she gave no reason. I think that, like most people, >>>>> she thought no more deeply than "Discs are better." IOW, she bought into >>>>> the advertising. (And BTW, I don't think she's bought that bike yet.) >>>>>
Don’t assume your experience and views are unbiased or universal hint they
aren’t.
Roger Merriman
Years ago I rode a bike with a "Coaster Brake" that you pedaled
backward to slow. And people rode them and were happy. Then years
later in Japan there "rod" brakes and people rode them and were happy. >>>Then, of course the rim brakes and all the variations and people rode >>>them too.
But now we have Disc Brakes as we shouldn't ride them????
Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
Krygowski a reason. How dare she.
The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.
A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)
On 3/1/2024 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:
The give away is the statement, "I have precisely one friend" :-(
But more to the point, , 'Why not disc brakes?" They don't stop? Or
equally, "What's better about rim brakes?"
Or is it just another arrogant ass trying to influence people to
listen to his song and dance?
John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?
On Fri Mar 1 03:09:46 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:levers may work nominally.
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 21:33:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop you
faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with discs. Few
consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better"
claim.
I think the situation is the exact opposite. I think the manufacturers
are simply producing what the majority of people want.
--
Standing on the tracks to stop the train is not a viable position to
take just because you don't want to ride the train and they won't let
you drive it.
That is definitely NOT what Frank is doing. I think that your Catrike has discs on the later models but they lend no improvements at all. And setting them up for a double wheels is absolutely not what the drop bar levers are created for. Though flat bar
You have to remember that very few people ride trikes and recumbentws.
People do not "want" disc brakes.They couldn't care less, They want adequate brakes and that is rim brakesz.
On 3/1/2024 6:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:23:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?
If you want to discuss something, don't start by saying everybody that
doesn't do what I do is too stupid to know what best for them.
Either link to the post of mine that you're _pretending_ to paraphrase,
or be honest and apologize.
Or, third possibility, just shut up. Your posts seldom rise to a level >appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You add nothing of
value here.>appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You
add nothing of value here.
On Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:54:32 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:23:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/1/2024 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:If you want to discuss something, don't start by saying everybody that >>doesn't do what I do is too stupid to know what best for them.
The give away is the statement, "I have precisely one friend" :-(
But more to the point, , 'Why not disc brakes?" They don't stop? Or
equally, "What's better about rim brakes?"
Or is it just another arrogant ass trying to influence people to
listen to his song and dance?
John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you? >>
How about trying something like, "I prefer rim brakes because....."
But, but, but... Frankie is the epitome of bicycle knowledge thus if
he doesn't use discs then obviously discs are NOT the best selection
and thus the popular use of discs MUST be due to evil advertising and >propaganda.
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 21:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/1/2024 6:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:23:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?
If you want to discuss something, don't start by saying everybody that
doesn't do what I do is too stupid to know what best for them.
Either link to the post of mine that you're _pretending_ to paraphrase,
or be honest and apologize.
Or, third possibility, just shut up. Your posts seldom rise to a level >>appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You add nothing of
value here.
Ah, I guess you aren't the guy that said, "It's not happening for the
usual reasons. Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop
you faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with
discs. Few consumers have the background knowledge to even question
the "better" claim.
And you object to my paraphrasing your posts?
Or you object to being reminded of what you said?
Or you object to anyone daring (the vary idea!) to object to your
drivel?
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull >brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never >experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes >consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
a way that was not true of caliper brakes.
And besides the detriment of
having the disc "choice" baked into the frame,
there are problems with
noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
the detriments?
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike.
And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches,
difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Which suggests it was somewhat self selecting.
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about >>>>>> their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative, >>>>> that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull >>>> brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking >>>> was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never >>>> experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say notThe biggest technological challenges for disk has always been pros racers >>> (road) and mainly around wheel changes and multiple standards making the >>> neutral service bike more challenging.
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes >>>> consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in >>>> a way that was not true of caliper brakes. And besides the detriment of >>>> having the disc "choice" baked into the frame, there are problems with >>>> noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify >>>> the detriments?
And clearly if you have lots of spare wheels as an amateur racer this makes >>> it an expensive upgrade and so on.
Other stuff is largely overstated, maintenance is largely change pads, get >>> once every few years needs to be bleed as my commute beast needs now, last >>> time was a few years before COVID and as such will let the bike shop do
that.
With my off road focus I get better pad life with disks than rims, gritty >>> rides could trash remarkably quickly!
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better toDifficulty in fitting mudguards? And transportation by car if carbon?
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound >>>> bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike. And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches, difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
That’s a new one on me!
Or how about headlights? Is it better to have 60 lumens (a dyno powered >>>> LED lamp) vs. 30 lumens (halogen)? Yes, I'd say so. Is 100 lm betterWhile a Dynamo doesn’t kick out much power, it can with the right lamp get
yet? Perhaps. Do we need 500 or 1000 lm? For road riding, that output
level probably precludes dynamo lights, so it imposes the need to
remember to charge batteries, the need to remember to carry the
headlight (few of those are permanently attached), plus the real risk of >>>> blinding other road users.
to 800 lumen clearly an expensive bit of kit and most are fair bit lower in >>> the 200 ish range or less.
As ever generally depends on what the light is used for, light i use for >>> the commute kicks out 600 and is absolutely fine for that, use it at speed >>> off road and it doesn’t keep up hence I bought its MTB cousin also lot >>> newer which will kick out 2.400 lumens and a beam shape shaped more for off >>> road than on.
Yes some folks have cheap lights with improbable lumen claims! Which can be >>> blinding this said same is true of the much more regulated motor vehicles. >>> Which are far more challenging to deal with than a bikes light.
The same situation applies for other factors such as, how many gearReally? If anything the move to 1by has simplified things depending on your >>> range you need/want depends on how new or rather what speed cassette, I
choices and how many rear cogs do we really need? How easily must they >>>> shift? Is moving a finger too difficult, and should someone develop
telepathic gear shifts?
have 1 by 9 on the commute bike, which works for flat ish london.
But mates Gravel bikes running 1 by 12 are close enough to my Gravel bikes >>> 2*10s
So whether one desires easier stopping, less weight, better nightIn my experience lot of this is word of mouth in terms of adoption of
lighting, more gear choices, better puncture protection or whatever, one >>>> can always envision something "better" - a ten pound bicycle with a 3000 >>>> lumen headlamp and 47 speeds with solid rubber tires ...
I think that at some point it's wiser to say "That has disadvantages
that offset its advantages. This is good enough."
Of course, that point varies with individuals. But individuals should be >>>> very careful about accepting claims coming from fashion and from
advertising.
Most individuals are not so careful.
technology. Remember younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches.
I can discuss each of the analogous examples I gave, if you want; but
that's getting pretty far into the weeds and away from my point that not
every "improvement" is worth accepting. One really should consider
whether benefits are really significant; and one should also pay
attention to associated detriments.
Unless you have spare wheelset’s the it’s fairly hard to find disadvantages
for disks they are a touch heavier, less than 100g between them on groupset that support both. Which really isn’t something measurable in terms of performance, ie not even marginal gains, at least for most even racers.
Most of the disadvantages boil down to it’s different to what I’m used to which is a valid argument.
Ie for most folks they don’t have spare wheels or so on, so for them it’s fairly hard to tease out disadvantages, and most will get a gain of better performance, the exception being probably uk hill climb championships which this year was won by a disk bike but that’s more due to newer high end bikes models are starting to be sold as disk only.
Clearly these are outlier with 5/6kg bikes that are stripped down.
More they will try stuff, and experiment with it and others ie they are curious. Vs at the other end folks who know what they like and like what
As to your last point: Younger folks tend not to be retrogrouches for
the same reason they tend to be Swifties. They are very susceptible to
advertising and other promotion, and they are short on decades of
experience. They go for what's shiny and new.
they know.
It’s more sane somewhere in the middle ie give new technology a year or so to mature and so on.
Roger Merriman
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give >>>Krygowski a reason. How dare she.
The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.
A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)
I think you refer to Herr Strobl.
I think that even if he might not,
others might opt to just take the bus when it snowed,
instead of riding
the bike.
I confess that when it looks likely to rain heavily or snow,
I tend either to not ride or at least not ride very far and do it
slowly.
On 3/1/2024 1:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 3/1/2024 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/1/2024 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/1/2024 4:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They
stop you
faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with
discs. Few
consumers have the background knowledge to even question the "better" >>>>>> claim.
Disk have been around for road bikes for quite some time now, so a
bike
having disks is hardly a new feature, good luck finding any
advertising
focused on disks at this point!
I suspect that discs are not heavily advertised because the industry
campaign has been completed. Discs are essentially the default
choice on a new road bike, and I think one would have to search out
much less common models to get a new road bike with rim brakes.
The marketing that remains is just confirmation of the change -
either the shop dude or some fine print saying, effectively, "Of
COURSE you want disc brakes! They're better!" The consumer just nods.
The same situation applies to much else: helmets, 10+ rear cogs,
etc. And Daytime Running Lights are approaching that level. "Of
COURSE you want these, for safety! We have them for only $$$." I
suspect that in a year or two, that $$$ will be built into the cost
of the bike, because the lights will be built-in to the bike.
This is and was consumer led, peddling conspiracy theories does one no >>>>> favours.
If it were consumer led, there would have been a long period when
consumers could say "I like this bike, but can you put disc brakes
on it?" I don't think that was the case.
It is the case. People did and do regularly ask that. It's almost
always infeasible, at least for a total price the inquirer finds
acceptable (new chainstay/fork blade, brake mounts, paint, braking
system, often new shifters, new wheels...).
Much is necessarily unknown about millions of individual decisions in
millions of situations, drawing from billions of prior experiences
and within millions of economic scenarios. You may be right and you
are probably equally wrong, depending.
Nothing you wrote would be inappropriate to walk-around telephones or
electric autos, BTW.
There was a local frame builder in Lowell MA who was brazing disc
mount tabs on steel frames for a while.
Before that, he was modifying road frames for CX before real CX frames
were readily availability (This would have been in the late 80's/early
90's). He did that for me for the first CX bike I ever had - I found a
Schwinn Tempo for cheap. He brazed canti mounts onto the fork and seat
stays, and pinched the chainstays in a bit so I could fit a knobby tire.
I don't doubt that there were some riders who had their frames
customized. I very much doubt that happened with even 1% of bikes - or
even 1% of avid riders' bikes.
And even if, as Andrew says, people "regularly" asked for discs on a
road bike ("regularly" being one every month??), the question for a
technical discussion group should be "Why?" Was it because of problems
they had with rim brakes? Or was it because discs were "new and shiny"?
It might be good to ask (again): How many posting here are still running
rim brakes on their bikes used on-road? Have _all_ of the disc advocates switched over completely to discs?
Am Thu, 29 Feb 2024 12:10:51 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 2/29/2024 3:47 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:24:42 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
? It's not circular that only a tiny percentage ever complained about
their rim brakes. It's simple fact.
Perhaps. It depends on the understanding of "simple fact" and
"complained", though. People around here didn't complain about rim
brakes on steel rims, either. As long as there wasn't an alternative,
that is....
Let's expand on that thought, to discuss improvements in general.
I don't think that discussing improvements in general is useful in this particular case. Specifics matter and so do use cases.
I remember very well the troubles I had with weak, long reach centerpull
brakes operating on steel rims. I remember how pleased I was with my
first bike with aluminum rims, a very practical improvement. The braking
was smoother, quieter and more reliable. Unlike the steel rims, I never
experienced total brake failure in a thunderstorm. I had to squeeze
harder when rims were wet, but that was manageable. And it was
manageable for almost all road bicyclists, even those of us riding
tandems. Nobody complained, in my experience.
Well, I have often complained about the black abrasion of those aluminum rims. As I already mentioned, we didn't have had any kind of dress code
at my workplace at that time. But it was not appreciated at all if you
turned up to a meeting with dirty hands and clothes. Actually, I
switched from the Peugeot I bought in 1978 to a Dutch type bicycle with
steel rims, in about 1994. Problem solved. To be more precise, it was partially solved, for a while. As always, technical solutions are a compromise, goals and circumstances vary. On the surface, drum brakes
are not sensitive to moisture. But when they are, it can get very messy, figuratively speaking.
Steel rims don't suffer from dirty abrasions, only aluminium rims do.
But these wear out too, and quite fast, given the right circumstances. Personally, I had to replace the rim of a front wheel only once, long
ago. But I knew people who, different from me, didn't switch bicycles
over the year and for different purposes, who rode a lot more than me, causing more abrasion and having to to change rims almost as often as
people change discs. In theory, replacing a rim isn't that difficult, I
got it right the first (and last) time I tried. But I rather replace a
disc than a rim. Can do without even having to inflate the tire, again.
Do discs make things better yet? In some ways, yes - but I'd say not
enough to justify a major industry shift, one that effectively removes
consumer choice, because the "choice" is built into each bike design in
a way that was not true of caliper brakes.
Agreed, at least in part. And it confirms my statement, by the way.
Rim brakes came in different designs over the years, too. Each time when
I had to buy a new bike because the old one was worn out, brake
technology had changed. Each time I accumulated enough anger about the
bad braking performance on my commute in winter, rim brake technology
was different, and, of course, "better". When I replaced the original
Mafac brakes on my Peugeot PR60/L, I had to grab the long version of
Shimano 105 dual pivot calipers from the rummage table of a bicycle
dealer, drill a 8mm hole through the originally 6mm mounting hole in the front fork. When the center-pull brakes on the 1996 touring bike built
by a local bike shop became a nasty maintenance problem due to wear on
all parts, I had another bike shop replace them with Magura hydraulic
brakes. Unfortunately, I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake - neither did the dealer. Finally, after a lot of unsuccessfull fiddling, I replaced the entire front brake, brake lever,
cable and brake body, with a short V-brake. This worked well enough, for
me.
And besides the detriment of
having the disc "choice" baked into the frame,
Not necessarily. Frames for rim brakes still exist and even those have a
lot of design choices baked into them, even wrt. those rim brakes. And,
of course, those have the rim brake "choice" baked in. While in
principle, a frame could be build with mounting holes for both rim and
disc brakes, I'm not aware of any such frame. Didn't look for that,
though, when looking for frames for our new bikes.
there are problems with
noise, short pad life, a mechanism that's less visibly obvious and
trickier to diagnose, special equipment for bleeding, etc. Do the
purported benefits really matter, and do they matter enough to justify
the detriments?
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I have given examples from my
own experience for both cases.
Similar "improvements" happen with other bike items. Is it better to
have less weight? Generally yes, but the difference between a 35 pound
bike and a 25 pound bike is much more significant than the difference
between an 19 pound bike and a 17 pound bike.
Hard to say. I'll have to convert that to SI units to make an educated
guess. :-)
Since my wife and I are neither tall nor heavy, size and weight matter
for us, but we actually had more problems with size than we did with
weight when we were looking for frames for our bikes to build. Alas, 26"
road frames for adults are somewhat hard to find, nowadays.
And that latter change
imposes all sorts of detriments, like delicacy of carbon fiber,
requirements for carbon paste and torque wrenches,
Applying carbon paste isn't that hard and use of a torque wrench is recommended anyway, when building a bike. With a luggage scale and a
little math, you can even do without a torque wrench. When one our sons bought a set of carbon wheels, he had to mount discs. Knowing that he
doesn't own a torque wrench strong enough for that, I wondered, how he
did it and asked. :-)
difficulty fitting
racks and fenders, more difficulty transporting the bike by car, etc.
Fitting racks and fenders is less difficult with disc brakes, because
there is no brake body getting in the way.
Transporting inside a car is indeed more difficult, even with a station
wagon like ours. Older European cars are not that large. That's
currently a problem for us. We don't transport our bikes by car, the exception being moving us, our baggage and our bikes into France or
Italy for vacation. But we prefer to carry the bikes inside, instead of
using a rack. Our new bikes are just a tiny amount too long to still
fit the available space. Disc don't have anything to do with that,
though. Making space for racks and fenders on the frame does. The
frames I used are gravel bike frames of the variant called "randonneur"
in past times, having space and mounting points for racks and fenders. I
just didn't install fenders and racks. No relation to the choice
between disc and rim brakes.
Same for headlights, number of gears or shifting comfort.
But as you mentioned it: I currently always carry an Aura 100 blaze link (headlamp in the saddle bag, taillight mounted) even though I rarely
ride during darkness, anymore. The weight is negligible, the headlamp
also functions as a flashlight and the brake light is very useful at
dusk. Twelve gears easily shifted wirelessly with two buttons, of a
range similar to an even more expensive Rohloff hub gear (1:5.2), easily adapted to different terrains by just changing the chainring, all this
isn't neccessary, but it is nice to have, too.
I wouldn't build a bicycle that way for a tour around the world,
including covering deserts. Far from it. Neither would I build a bike
using such components to just carry me to the gare and leaving it at the station for days. Or a bike that I would take on the train. Or a bike specifically for competetive sports and training. But for an all year
bike for my former commute, given a choice between rim brakes and disc brakes? Today, after some more research, I'd probably opt for the
latter.
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 03:32:42 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 21:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/1/2024 6:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:23:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?
If you want to discuss something, don't start by saying everybody that >>>> doesn't do what I do is too stupid to know what best for them.
Either link to the post of mine that you're _pretending_ to paraphrase,
or be honest and apologize.
<eyeroll> You're too deep into your narcissism to even recognise that
you're doing it.
Right in this very thread you claim over and over again that people
who buy disk brakes are being suckerered by advertisements.. i.e. not
sharp enough to figure out, as you have, that they dont work any
better than your rim brakes.
You're not discussing pros and cons of disk brakes, you're discussing
(berating) people who don't do as you do.
Of course that's a long standing habit with you... trying to build
yourself up by berating other people.
Or, third possibility, just shut up. Your posts seldom rise to a level
appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You add nothing of
value here.>appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You
add nothing of value here.
That's from the guy who posted the following...
there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling.
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/phkWDoYngY0/m/sSpJLrQKvKQJ >>
Narcissists are known for being highly self-centered and for having an
inflated sense of self-importance. They often seek out attention and
validation from others and can become easily offended or upset when
they don’t get the attention they feel they deserve. This can lead to
them starting arguments with others in order to get the attention and
validation they crave. Narcissists may also start arguments as a way
to control or manipulate others. They may do this by trying to provoke
an emotional response from the other person or by gaslighting them
into doubting their own memories or perceptions. Whatever the reason,
narcissists starting arguments is a common occurrence that can be
frustrating and exhausting for those on the receiving end.
People on the narcissism spectrum, from those who display narcissistic
traits to those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder
(NPD), may have an intense desire to win fights to keep their egos
intact.
When arguing with narcissists, you should expect them to be
provocative and nasty. They are made to be physically abusive by their
nature. They want you to respond to them. If it’s not positive, they
can use it to get more attention.
https://www.mentalhealthmatters-cofe.org/why-narcissists-start-arguments/
In reading Frank's whining there is one thing that sticks out like a
stop sign. Frank states, over and over again that people
who buy disk brakes are being suckered by advertisements.. i.e. not
sharp enough to figure out, as you have, that they don't work any
better than your rim brakes."
Now stop and think a bit. Does your local bike shop try to con you
into buying stuff that you don't need for over rated prices? Mine
doesn't and I'll bet if we ask others they'd say the same... So what
sort of shop does Frank hang out at that is trying to con their
customers? Is Frank getting back handlers for helping the shop defraud
their customers?
On 3/2/2024 6:58 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 3/1/2024 10:03 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Unless you have spare wheelset’s the it’s fairly hard to find
disadvantages
for disks they are a touch heavier, less than 100g between them on
groupset
that support both. Which really isn’t something measurable in terms of
performance, ie not even marginal gains, at least for most even racers.
Most of the disadvantages boil down to it’s different to what I’m used to
which is a valid argument.
+1
'well-thought and well-written'
Other than the possibility of obsoleting every other set of wheels one owns, there are no real disadvantages to disc brakes.
I'd say obsoleting every other set of wheels counts as a significant disadvantage!
But my main point has not been disadvantages of discs. It's been that
for almost all road cyclists, there's no significant advantage. That's
why I point out that I've never heard road cyclists complaints about
their rim brakes.
In fact, it might be interesting for someone (Jeff?) to scour back
through decades of pre-disc postings here to see how many complaints
there were about badly performing rim brakes. (I won't bother looking,
since I'm not convinced that needle is in this haystack. )
Yes, arguments
have been made that they are more difficult to set up and require more maintenance - this is not my experience other than the initial
experience with hydraulics (which was no problem since I've done my own brake work on my cars for the past 45 years). Quite frankly, I've been frustrated setting (and resetting, and resetting, and resetting....) toe and camber on cantilevers as the pads wear far more than any issues I've had with disc brakes.
Cantilevers do take some fussing to get right. So many degrees of
freedom!
But IME, once set they're good for a long, long time. When they
start to squeal, I re-adjust toe in, being very careful to change only
that angle.
On 3/2/2024 5:39 AM, John B. wrote:
Now stop and think a bit. Does your local bike shop try to con you
into buying stuff that you don't need for over rated prices?
My current local bike shop does not do that. One younger salesperson has
a slight tendency in that direction, but it is slight and I can easily
ignore her.
But other (now defunct) shops in our area absolutely tried that with me
and with others I know. One example I described long ago: A teenage guy
we knew pretty well asked my advice about buying a bike. I asked him to >describe what type of riding he planned on doing. His described long
relaxed rides in the country, perhaps heading to our hilly east to visit
his girlfriend many miles away, possibly doing some camping. I gave
advice based on that.
The shop sold him a tight-geared lightweight racing bike that fit him
poorly.
Some shops will do that sort of thing.
On Sat Mar 2 03:32:42 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 21:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 3/1/2024 6:54 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 15:23:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
John, you're really baffled by the idea of a _discussion_ group, aren't you?
If you want to discuss something, don't start by saying everybody that
doesn't do what I do is too stupid to know what best for them.
Either link to the post of mine that you're _pretending_ to paraphrase,
or be honest and apologize.
<eyeroll> You're too deep into your narcissism to even recognise that
you're doing it.
Right in this very thread you claim over and over again that people
who buy disk brakes are being suckerered by advertisements.. i.e. not
sharp enough to figure out, as you have, that they dont work any
better than your rim brakes.
You're not discussing pros and cons of disk brakes, you're discussing
(berating) people who don't do as you do.
Of course that's a long standing habit with you... trying to build
yourself up by berating other people.
Or, third possibility, just shut up. Your posts seldom rise to a level
appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You add nothing of
value here.>appropriate for an 8th grade classroom discussion. You
add nothing of value here.
That's from the guy who posted the following...
there are others who have examined my
bicycling qualifications, tested me and proclaimed that I do, indeed,
know what I'm talking about regarding bicycling.
Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/phkWDoYngY0/m/sSpJLrQKvKQJ >>
Narcissists are known for being highly self-centered and for having an
inflated sense of self-importance. They often seek out attention and
validation from others and can become easily offended or upset when
they don?t get the attention they feel they deserve. This can lead to
them starting arguments with others in order to get the attention and
validation they crave. Narcissists may also start arguments as a way
to control or manipulate others. They may do this by trying to provoke
an emotional response from the other person or by gaslighting them
into doubting their own memories or perceptions. Whatever the reason,
narcissists starting arguments is a common occurrence that can be
frustrating and exhausting for those on the receiving end.
People on the narcissism spectrum, from those who display narcissistic
traits to those who suffer from narcissistic personality disorder
(NPD), may have an intense desire to win fights to keep their egos
intact.
When arguing with narcissists, you should expect them to be
provocative and nasty. They are made to be physically abusive by their
nature. They want you to respond to them. If it?s not positive, they
can use it to get more attention.
https://www.mentalhealthmatters-cofe.org/why-narcissists-start-arguments/
Frank can't help himself, but remember that since you're riding a bike that doesn't fall over, your view is heavily prejudiced.
Am Fri, 01 Mar 2024 16:21:29 -0500 schrieb Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net>:
John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:55:04 -0500, Catrike Ryder
...
Some woman wanted a new bike with disk brakes and she didn't give
Krygowski a reason. How dare she.
The purpose of my little ,story above was to try and demonstrate how
really negligible brakes are in the scheme of thing.
A German (I believe) bloke has posted about riding discs in ice in
snow, for example. Would he abandon riding a bicycle if there were no
disc brakes made? I doubt it. History shows that people that want to
ride a bicycle do ride a bicycle.... "Mr. Muzi, and I'm sure others,
have been known to ride bicycles with no brakes at all :-)
I think you refer to Herr Strobl.
?? You may call me Wolfgang, master Shouman. :-)
I certainly haven't posted about riding with discs brakes in ice and
snow, because I haven't ridden on ice and though snow for almost two
decades, now. But I commuted a lot by bike til 2011, on ice and snow
during winter, since 1978 - using rim brakes. Disc brakes didn't exist during most of that period.
There are many failure modes of rim brakes, when riding on ice and snow,
I experienced most of these during those times. Now that I have the
choice between disc and rim brake and experience with both, I believe
that disc brakes would have had quite an advantage on ice and snow.
Alas, due to an injury, I have no choice anymore. Being retired, I fortunately also don't have a need for riding on ice and snow, either.
I think that even if he might not,
others might opt to just take the bus when it snowed,
An so I did, after getting that injury. But waiting in the cold for
hours isn't joy. So I prefered having a 45 minute workout during winter,
as long as I could, instead of freezing my ass off while walking and
waiting more than an hour for train and bus, or sometimes even more than
two hours.
instead of riding
the bike.
Since 2011, I didn't ride outside during winter or to my workplace,
anymore. But I still profit up to today from the fitness I aquired from
all those whole year intense bicycle rides while commuting by bike over decades.
I confess that when it looks likely to rain heavily or snow,
I tend either to not ride or at least not ride very far and do it
slowly.
The distance of my commute didn't change in winter. :)
The ascent to our campus was notorious for cars getting stuck there. And
if there was a bus or truck that got stuck across the road, things often didn't work for a long time. No problem getting past it on my bike. On
days like that after the first day of snow, I was always one of the
people who arrived on time for meetings.
On 3/1/2024 4:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told by
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop
you faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with
discs. Few consumers have the background knowledge to even question
the "better" claim.
Those who actually use disk brakes seem to disagree with yout.
On road bikes? I'm not hearing it. Granted, most of my riding buddies
still use rim brakes. One of the few on disks mentioned that it took the
shop where he bought it multiple tries go stop weird noises from the
rear disc. One tourist who we put up overnight complained about pads
wearing out rapidly during one hilly tour. Others haven't said anything
about their disc brakes at all.
Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your road bikes
have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones that have rim brakes?
I have explained several times to you specifically that I am cheap,
lazy, and hate change. Hence I have no bikes with disk brakes. But
it's not all about me, is it? It's also not all about you.
It's not _all_ about you, of course. But you're one of countless data
points indicating that rim brakes work fine for almost all road
cyclists. If that were false, you'd have switched, whatever your
personal traits.
On 3/2/2024 12:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/2/2024 6:58 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 3/1/2024 10:03 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:used to
Unless you have spare wheelset’s the it’s fairly hard to find
disadvantages
for disks they are a touch heavier, less than 100g between them on
groupset
that support both. Which really isn’t something measurable in terms of >>>> performance, ie not even marginal gains, at least for most even racers. >>>>
Most of the disadvantages boil down to it’s different to what I’m
which is a valid argument.
+1
'well-thought and well-written'
Other than the possibility of obsoleting every other set of wheels one
owns, there are no real disadvantages to disc brakes.
I'd say obsoleting every other set of wheels counts as a significant
disadvantage!
Which is why I haven't made the leap on the road.
But my main point has not been disadvantages of discs. It's been that
for almost all road cyclists, there's no significant advantage. That's
why I point out that I've never heard road cyclists complaints about
their rim brakes.
The same could be said for _any_ performance upgrade. A Specialized
S-works Tarmac 8 offers a significant performance advantage over a
Canondale CAAD13. Will the average rider be able to tell the difference? likely not.
In fact, it might be interesting for someone (Jeff?) to scour back
through decades of pre-disc postings here to see how many complaints
there were about badly performing rim brakes. (I won't bother looking,
since I'm not convinced that needle is in this haystack. )
Yes, arguments
have been made that they are more difficult to set up and require more
maintenance - this is not my experience other than the initial
experience with hydraulics (which was no problem since I've done my own
brake work on my cars for the past 45 years). Quite frankly, I've been
frustrated setting (and resetting, and resetting, and resetting....) toe >>> and camber on cantilevers as the pads wear far more than any issues I've >>> had with disc brakes.
Cantilevers do take some fussing to get right. So many degrees of
freedom!
You call it 'degrees of freedom'. I call it "pain in the ass set-up'.
But IME, once set they're good for a long, long time. When they
start to squeal, I re-adjust toe in, being very careful to change only
that angle.
and revisit the pain in the ass set up. After 7 years of disc brakes on
my mountain bikes, the worst incident was a small chunk of detritus
caught in the caliper on my hard tail that took a 5 minute trailside removal/reattachment of the caliper. Readjusting disc calipers, in my experience, is easily orders of magnitude simpler and more reliable that canti adjustments.
On 3/1/2024 4:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
It's not happening for the usual reasons. Consumers are being told byThose who actually use disk brakes seem to disagree with yout.
advertising and shop salesmen that "Discs are way better. They stop
you faster" or other nonsense. And almost all new bikes come with
discs. Few consumers have the background knowledge to even question
the "better" claim.
On road bikes? I'm not hearing it. Granted, most of my riding buddies
still use rim brakes. One of the few on disks mentioned that it took
the shop where he bought it multiple tries go stop weird noises from
the rear disc. One tourist who we put up overnight complained about
pads wearing out rapidly during one hilly tour. Others haven't said
anything about their disc brakes at all.
Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your road bikesI have explained several times to you specifically that I am cheap,
have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones that have rim brakes?
lazy, and hate change. Hence I have no bikes with disk brakes. But
it's not all about me, is it? It's also not all about you.
It's not _all_ about you, of course. But you're one of countless data
points indicating that rim brakes work fine for almost all road
cyclists. If that were false, you'd have switched, whatever your
personal traits.
On 3/1/2024 4:21 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I confess that when it looks likely to rain heavily or snow,
I tend either to not ride or at least not ride very far and do it
slowly.
Me too these days, and I'm sure that's very common.
For me, exceptions were mostly riding home from work on days I guessed
wrong about weather, and riding on long tours when one pretty much has
to accept whatever weather comes along.
On 3/2/2024 3:03 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
Could you elaborate on that? The mounting point on the fork
is the same for either caliper.
On 3/2/2024 8:12 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
I don't understand what you're complaining about. It seems very unlikely
you'll ever buy a new road bike, why should you care whether rim brakes
would be an option on a hypothetical purchase?
I'm mostly reacting to the ideas that "Disc brakes are SO much better!"
and "You GOTTA get disc brakes." It's just not true for the vast
majority of riders.
I'm also displeased by the lack of standards for disc pads, and theThis is mostly on the MTB side where brakes and shifters are separate even
plethora of incompatible shapes and sizes. I can envision someone ten
years from now having a bike that's useless (temporarily or permanently) because he was unlucky enough to buy a bike with disc brakes whose pads
are unavailable (temporarily or permanently).
Again, I was talking mostly about road bikes. Do all your road bikes >>>>> have discs? Have you really thrown out the ones that have rim brakes? >>>> I have explained several times to you specifically that I am cheap,lazy, and hate change. Hence I have no bikes with disk brakes. But
it's not all about me, is it? It's also not all about you.
It's not _all_ about you, of course. But you're one of countless data
points indicating that rim brakes work fine for almost all road
cyclists. If that were false, you'd have switched, whatever your
personal traits.
If I were to buy a new bicycle, I would prefer to buy one with disk
brakes. If I had to ride my bicycle every day, regardless of the
weather, I would buy a bicycle with disk brakes.
Yes, but the fact that you continue riding with rim brakes indicates
your rim brakes work well for the riding you actually do. I'm betting
they have always worked well enough for you.
Rim brakes work fine until they don't...
Isn't that true for every manufactured item in the world?
Am Sat, 2 Mar 2024 09:11:59 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:
On 3/2/2024 3:03 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
(and the bike shop mechanic who installed the brake didn't know either).
Could you elaborate on that? The mounting point on the fork
is the same for either caliper.
Sure the two mounting points are the same. But the Magura HS33 isn't a cantilever brake. It works well even withouth a brake booster under
normal conditions, but fails in a hard to debug way, given some
difficult conditions, when braking with a wet or icy rim on a surface
that has enough grip. Say, for example, braking downhill during winter
on a cleaned and heavily salted road. In that case, you need to apply a
lot more force to get sufficient deceleration. Problem: In this case,
both fork legs of the steel fork rotated far enough to limit the force
of the brake caliper. Hard to detect even if you know what to look out
for.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/IMG-2461.jpeg>
The bike shop had fitted what looked like a brake booster on superficial inspection, but wasn't one. Unfortunately, I was quite busy during those years and had no time for more than a cursory inspection. If I'd had the time, I would have done the work myself and acquired the necessary
knowledge beforehand.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 2 Mar 2024 09:11:59 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:Ah interesting while I have seen them in the flesh never used one. I
On 3/2/2024 3:03 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
(and the bike shop mechanic who installed the brake didn't know either).
Could you elaborate on that? The mounting point on the fork
is the same for either caliper.
Sure the two mounting points are the same. But the Magura HS33 isn't a
cantilever brake. It works well even withouth a brake booster under
normal conditions, but fails in a hard to debug way, given some
difficult conditions, when braking with a wet or icy rim on a surface
that has enough grip. Say, for example, braking downhill during winter
on a cleaned and heavily salted road. In that case, you need to apply a
lot more force to get sufficient deceleration. Problem: In this case,
both fork legs of the steel fork rotated far enough to limit the force
of the brake caliper. Hard to detect even if you know what to look out
for.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/IMG-2461.jpeg>
The bike shop had fitted what looked like a brake booster on superficial
inspection, but wasn't one. Unfortunately, I was quite busy during those
years and had no time for more than a cursory inspection. If I'd had the
time, I would have done the work myself and acquired the necessary
knowledge beforehand.
believe they have found a niche for some urban bikes.
Roger Merriman
On 3/3/2024 7:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 2 Mar 2024 09:11:59 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:Ah interesting while I have seen them in the flesh never used one. I
On 3/2/2024 3:03 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
(and the bike shop mechanic who installed the brake didn't know either). >>>
Could you elaborate on that? The mounting point on the fork
is the same for either caliper.
Sure the two mounting points are the same. But the Magura HS33 isn't a
cantilever brake. It works well even withouth a brake booster under
normal conditions, but fails in a hard to debug way, given some
difficult conditions, when braking with a wet or icy rim on a surface
that has enough grip. Say, for example, braking downhill during winter
on a cleaned and heavily salted road. In that case, you need to apply a >>> lot more force to get sufficient deceleration. Problem: In this case,
both fork legs of the steel fork rotated far enough to limit the force
of the brake caliper. Hard to detect even if you know what to look out
for.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/IMG-2461.jpeg>
The bike shop had fitted what looked like a brake booster on superficial >>> inspection, but wasn't one. Unfortunately, I was quite busy during those >>> years and had no time for more than a cursory inspection. If I'd had the >>> time, I would have done the work myself and acquired the necessary
knowledge beforehand.
believe they have found a niche for some urban bikes.
My best riding friend at the time (1990s) installed hydraulic rim brakes
on his tandem at one point. For some reason that I don't recall, he
didn't like them and returned them very quickly.
He had a tendency to play with new, shiny technology. As an example, for
a while he and his wife had microphones and earpieces so they could talk
more easily while riding the tandem. My wife and I have never needed
such a thing.
On 3/2/2024 5:23 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
But in the decades I’ve had disk bikes all I’ve ever done or needed to do
was change pads, i did need to get the rotor straightened last year which
was a first for me! All other times it wasn’t the disk calliper but the
wheel hub/axel needing servicing etc and starting to rub.
And bleeding is infrequent enough to get the bike shop to do it as I’m no >> buying tools to be used every 5 years or so!
Well, with the cantilevers on my Cannondale, here's what I do to
increase toe-in when they squeal: Insert 6mm allen wrench into the pad's mounting screw head with the long end of the wrench as near horizontal
as possible, and hold it very steady; use a box-end wrench to loosen the
nut on that screw; carefully swing the allen wrench horizontally to add
a bit of toe in; tighten the nut. Done. And that will last about a year before needing done again. The shoes themselves will last for many, many years.
If the squealing problem or any other problem arose on a long ride or on
a distant vacation, I could do it using the tools I had on the bike.
I've never taken that bike to a bike shop for any brake work - or any
other work, come to think of it.
But whatever. We're all allowed to buy the style of brake we prefer.
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 2 Mar 2024 09:11:59 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:Ah interesting while I have seen them in the flesh never used one. I
On 3/2/2024 3:03 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
(and the bike shop mechanic who installed the brake didn't know either).
Could you elaborate on that? The mounting point on the fork
is the same for either caliper.
Sure the two mounting points are the same. But the Magura HS33 isn't a
cantilever brake. It works well even withouth a brake booster under
normal conditions, but fails in a hard to debug way, given some
difficult conditions, when braking with a wet or icy rim on a surface
that has enough grip. Say, for example, braking downhill during winter
on a cleaned and heavily salted road. In that case, you need to apply a
lot more force to get sufficient deceleration. Problem: In this case,
both fork legs of the steel fork rotated far enough to limit the force
of the brake caliper. Hard to detect even if you know what to look out
for.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/IMG-2461.jpeg>
The bike shop had fitted what looked like a brake booster on superficial
inspection, but wasn't one. Unfortunately, I was quite busy during those
years and had no time for more than a cursory inspection. If I'd had the
time, I would have done the work myself and acquired the necessary
knowledge beforehand.
believe they have found a niche for some urban bikes.
<https://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/en/about-us/historie.php>
Am Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:23:45 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:
Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
Am Sat, 2 Mar 2024 09:11:59 -0600 schrieb AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>:Ah interesting while I have seen them in the flesh never used one. I
On 3/2/2024 3:03 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
"I didn't know that the fork wasn't strong enough
for this type of brake "
(and the bike shop mechanic who installed the brake didn't know either). >>>
Could you elaborate on that? The mounting point on the fork
is the same for either caliper.
Sure the two mounting points are the same. But the Magura HS33 isn't a
cantilever brake. It works well even withouth a brake booster under
normal conditions, but fails in a hard to debug way, given some
difficult conditions, when braking with a wet or icy rim on a surface
that has enough grip. Say, for example, braking downhill during winter
on a cleaned and heavily salted road. In that case, you need to apply a >>> lot more force to get sufficient deceleration. Problem: In this case,
both fork legs of the steel fork rotated far enough to limit the force
of the brake caliper. Hard to detect even if you know what to look out
for.
<https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/IMG-2461.jpeg>
The bike shop had fitted what looked like a brake booster on superficial >>> inspection, but wasn't one. Unfortunately, I was quite busy during those >>> years and had no time for more than a cursory inspection. If I'd had the >>> time, I would have done the work myself and acquired the necessary
knowledge beforehand.
believe they have found a niche for some urban bikes.
Well, urban bikes aren't niche, around here. But hydraulic rim brakes
like those from Magura were and still are somewhat expensive, compared
to ordinary rim brakes.
For example, a large bicyle shop ("Fahrrad XXL Feld") in my region that expanded its business by integrating some fifteen separate family shops
into a chain of sixteen branches over all of Germany during the last
~fourty decades, still sells a biycle quite similar to a a bike my wife
got almost thirty years ago and still uses it for shopping and other
short local trips.
<https://www.fahrrad-xxl.de/vsf-fahrradmanufaktur-t-300-hs22-m000060584>
This bike uses a cheaper Magura HS22.
<https://magura.com/en/EUR/HS22/p/hs22>
For comparison
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/20201008/P1260059.jpg>
A picture of my wifes bike, taken in 2020, when it got a new saddle.
When we bought it, Fahrradmanufaktur was still a small, independent and
very renowned manufacturer of bicycles located in Bremen. They have been aquired later, I don't know who builds their bikes now, but it seems
that vsf keeps the brand and seems to keep the concept, too. Don't know
about quality.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20000311074708fw_/http://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/fr_treck.htm>
Her bike is similar to the T 200 with SRAM 3x7 shown on that page.
<https://www.fahrradmanufaktur.de/en/about-us/historie.php>
On 3/7/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
But yes lot are marketing as sport etc bikes, though most can have
panniers/mudguards and so on added, my commute bike is old MTB modified to >> be better at utility cycling ie Big Apple tires, mudguards panniers and bar >> bag, lights etc.
https://bicyclinglife.com/PracticalCycling/JoyofFenders.htm
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 299 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 75:21:07 |
| Calls: | 6,695 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,228 |
| Messages: | 5,347,205 |
| Posted today: | 2 |
