disc on front only?



Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scribe2b

Guest
is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on a hard downhill you dont need
the balanced braking that much in the turns, and 80 per cent of the braking load is in front. this
seems wrong, but is it? thanks and remember the ozone you spew in traffic helps defeat the
flourocarbons you spew when you rant jc
 
U

Urs Weder

Guest
Scribe2b wrote:
> is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on a hard downhill you dont
> need the balanced braking that much in the turns, and 80 per cent of the braking load is in front.
> this seems wrong, but is it? thanks and remember the ozone you spew in traffic helps defeat the
> flourocarbons you spew when you rant jc
On 2 bikes i have a disk on the front wheel only. On the rear i have a v-brake. That proofed to be
enough for me. You can test it yourself. Check how much brake force it takes to stop the real wheel
and compare to the front wheel (be careful with the front ;-)) I say also that 80% of the brake
power comes from the front brake.

Greetings, Urs

--
+-------------------------
| Urs Weder N 47°23'23" E 9°39'47"
+------------------------- ( modify address for return email )
 
D

David Kunz

Guest
Scribe2b wrote:
> is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on a hard downhill you dont
> need the balanced braking that much in the turns, and 80 per cent of the braking load is in front.
> this seems wrong, but is it? thanks and remember the ozone you spew in traffic helps defeat the
> flourocarbons you spew when you rant jc

I tried it and didn't like it. It's safe, but I found the feel to be so much different that I had
problems with control. Others are happy with it.

And, on the road, 80% of your stopping is in the front. In the dirt, it depends on the terrain and
control :).

David
 
P

Per Löwdin

Guest
> is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there?
Not really, it depends on if you are upgrading to a disc to get more braking power or buying or
building a new bike. If you are upgrading it makes sense to put a disc front only. Per
http://user.tninet.se/~ipg289h/fu99/MTB.html
 
B

Bill Wheeler

Guest
On 08 Dec 2002 16:36:50 GMT, [email protected] (Scribe2b) wrote:

>is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on a hard downhill you dont
>need the balanced braking that much in the turns, and 80 per cent of the braking load is in front.
>this seems wrong, but is it? thanks and remember the ozone you spew in traffic helps defeat the
>flourocarbons you spew when you rant jc

Although I have disc's all around now I'd only recommend going with the rear discs only if you
really want them. For my riding style the rear brake just gives me a little extra.

If you do go with rear disc I have to recommend the only discs I've ridden, Avid Mechs.

Peace, Bill

The mind serves properly as a window glass rather than as a reflector, that is, the mind should give
an immediate view instead of an interpretation of the world.
:-]
 
R

Russell.Pinder

Guest
Urs Weder <UrsWeder_at_hotmail_dot_com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Scribe2b wrote:
> > is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on
a hard
> > downhill you dont need the balanced braking that much in the turns, and
80 per
> > cent of the braking load is in front. this seems wrong, but is it? thanks and remember the ozone
> > you spew in traffic helps defeat the flourocarbons you spew when you rant jc
> On 2 bikes i have a disk on the front wheel only. On the rear i have a v-brake. That proofed to be
> enough for me. You can test it yourself. Check how much brake force it takes to stop the real
> wheel and compare to the front wheel (be careful with the front ;-)) I say also that 80% of the
> brake power comes from the front brake.

And if you really want to stop as fast as is possible (and assuming you have the bike control to do
so) it's 100%

Russ
 
M

Muddy

Guest
Bill Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On 08 Dec 2002 16:36:50 GMT, [email protected] (Scribe2b) wrote:
>
> >is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on a hard downhill you dont
> >need the balanced braking that much in the turns, and 80 per cent of the braking load is in
> >front. this seems wrong, but is it?

>
> Although I have disc's all around now I'd only recommend going with the rear discs only if you
> really want them. For my riding style the rear brake just gives me a little extra.

What?

> If you do go with rear disc I have to recommend the only discs I've ridden, Avid Mechs.

Even if avid was the only disc brake i'd ridden, I still wouldn't recomend it!

>
> Peace, Bill

Come on Bill, Get of the city shopper, and put on big mud guards, think 1.8 inch tyres and try a
bridlepath.

<Here we go...> What you need is...Hope disc's, anything less than hydraulic disc and you might as
well stick to V's. If your running a cable disc, its the same as a rim brake but on a smaller
circumference. I've never felt a cable disc as snappy as a good setup V. Like the Avids.

The Hope Mini's are at a great price, very light weight, and even used as a freeride disc, as well
as a XC race brake.

Come on you lot, get a rear disc, cough up <cough>.

Muddy - mostly when giving advice.
 
S

Shaun Rimmer

Guest
Muddy <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 08 Dec 2002 16:36:50 GMT, [email protected] (Scribe2b) wrote:
> >
> > >is there a need for a disc on back, if good V's are there? it seems on
a hard
> > >downhill you dont need the balanced braking that much in the turns, and
80 per
> > >cent of the braking load is in front. this seems wrong, but is it?
>
> >
> > Although I have disc's all around now I'd only recommend going with the rear discs only if you
> > really want them. For my riding style the rear brake just gives me a little extra.
>
> What?

He's saying they're not as much of an advantage on the rear as they are on the front, because of the
proportional difference between breaking effectiveness between the two, therefore, if you don't
really want, or can't really afford, go with front disc only. Can you not read?

> > If you do go with rear disc I have to recommend the only discs I've ridden, Avid Mechs.
>
> Even if avid was the only disc brake i'd ridden, I still wouldn't recomend it!
>
> >
> > Peace, Bill
>
> Come on Bill, Get of the city shopper, and put on big mud guards, think 1.8 inch tyres and try a
> bridlepath.

C'mon Muddy, get off the skinny tyred bike and get on a beast with 2.6 + tyres, and really grip to
the wet, rock bridleways, single track etc........d'oh!

> <Here we go...> What you need is...Hope disc's, anything less than hydraulic disc and you might as
> well stick to V's. If your running a cable disc, its the same as a rim brake but on a smaller
> circumference. I've never felt a cable disc as snappy as a good setup V. Like the Avids.

Bollox - the Avid mech discs are superb by all accounts. Our own John G, a big lad, has used the
hope (enduro? DH?) 4's, and although he loved them, when he went to Avid mech discs, found he had
excellent braking force and control. Not all mechanical discs are created equal.

> The Hope Mini's are at a great price, very light weight, and even used as a freeride disc, as well
> as a XC race brake.

I have a Hope Mini up front, and I love it. I have V's at back, and they have _plenty_ of breaking
force for that wheel, and then some. The only reason I even _want_ to put a disc at the back, is so
I don't keep trashing rims from all the gritty mud around here.

> Come on you lot, get a rear disc, cough up <cough>.
>
> Muddy - mostly when giving advice.

Learn the differences between fact, opinion, first hand experience, second/third hand experience,
and anecdote, then give some advice. You might just make less of a **** of yourself.

Shaun aRe
 
B

Bill Wheeler

Guest
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:19:47 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:

>He's saying they're not as much of an advantage on the rear as they are on the front, because of
>the proportional difference between breaking effectiveness between the two, therefore, if you don't
>really want, or can't really afford, go with front disc only. Can you not read?

Thank you kindly, you are so eloquent.

Peace, Bill The mind serves properly as a window glass rather than as a reflector, that is, the mind
should give an immediate view instead of an interpretation of the world.
:-]
 
S

Spider

Guest
"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Bill Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:19:47 -0000, "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >He's saying they're not as much of an advantage on the rear as they are
> on
> > >the front, because of the proportional difference between breaking effectiveness between the
> > >two, therefore, if you don't really want, or
> can't
> > >really afford, go with front disc only. Can you not read?
> >
> > Thank you kindly,
>
> You are welcome. It was clear to me, however, from what you yourself wrote - only an eejit would
> need it re-explaining.

"...need it re-explaining"? Put that way, *I* need it re-explaining!

> > you are so eloquent.
>
> But I walk on two legs and I'm skinny. You calling me 'big nose'?

Err, elephino? :D

Let us not add Mr. Wheeler to the tiresome quartet of Rimmer, Harris, Chequer and Pritchard. Hmmm,
sounds like a law firm...

Blah, blah, blah, back and forth, tiresome twats on about nothing at all. It does have the salutory
effect of reducing Mr. Wheeler's one-line replies to something more fun. :)

To Muddy (an apt description of his thought processes):

I am running an Avid mech on the front, Avid Ti V on the back. I have not found hydro setups to be
so much better than this as to warrant the additional cost. The full Hayes hydro setup on my former
Kona FS was OK, but not so much better than my current set-up as to notice a big difference. There
*was* a difference, just not much of one. The Avid mech is easy to install and use, in comparison to
the cantis that used to grace this bike's fork. The disk brake is better than the V it replaces,
mostly in the area of modulation. It also doesn't surprise me with lack of initial power in the wet
like the Vs did. So far, I have been very pleased with this setup, and would recommend it to anyone
wanting to get into disks. (Anyone dumb enough to take a barney's advice on anything mtb, that is.)

BTW, my semi-slick road tires are wider than 1.8 - hell, I think even Rimmer is longer than that. A
1.8 tire is pretty puny.

Now back to your regularly-scheduled slagging match.

Spider
 
S

Shaun Rimmer

Guest
Spider <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Bill Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >He's saying they're not as much of an advantage on the rear as they
are
> > on
> > > >the front, because of the proportional difference between breaking effectiveness between the
> > > >two, therefore, if you don't really want,
or
> > can't
> > > >really afford, go with front disc only. Can you not read?
> > >
> > > Thank you kindly,
> >
> > You are welcome. It was clear to me, however, from what you yourself
wrote -
> > only an eejit would need it re-explaining.
>
> "...need it re-explaining"? Put that way, *I* need it re-explaining!

Bill had explained it clearly, re-explaining it should have been redundant, to all but an eejit. You
must be an eejit to need the re-explaing explaining, ya eejit.

> > > you are so eloquent.
> >
> > But I walk on two legs and I'm skinny. You calling me 'big nose'?
>
> Err, elephino? :D

Yer ok - I think they have a cure for that now.

> Let us not add Mr. Wheeler to the tiresome quartet of Rimmer, Harris, Chequer and Pritchard. Hmmm,
> sounds like a law firm...

Feck off before we prosecute _you_.

> Blah, blah, blah, back and forth, tiresome twats on about nothing at all.

Listen up, you ****ing iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but you can take yer 'tyresome'
and shove it up yer fat ****ed slack ****. ****.

> It does have the salutory effect of reducing Mr. Wheeler's one-line replies to something
> more fun. :)

Yeah - that guy could use more words ',;~}

> To Muddy (an apt description of his thought processes):

> BTW, my semi-slick road tires are wider than 1.8 - hell, I think even Rimmer is longer than that.
> A 1.8 tire is pretty puny.

6`1", hackshirley.

> Now back to your regularly-scheduled slagging match.

Bollox.

Shaun aRe
 
S

Spider

Guest
"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Spider <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Bill Wheeler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > >He's saying they're not as much of an advantage on the rear as they
> are on
> > > > >the front, because of the proportional difference between breaking effectiveness between
> > > > >the two, therefore, if you don't really want,
> or can't
> > > > >really afford, go with front disc only. Can you not read?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you kindly,
> > >
> > > You are welcome. It was clear to me, however, from what you yourself
> wrote -
> > > only an eejit would need it re-explaining.
> >
> > "...need it re-explaining"? Put that way, *I* need it re-explaining!
>
> Bill had explained it clearly, re-explaining it should have been redundant, to all but an eejit.
> You must be an eejit to need the re-explaing explaining, ya eejit.

Could be. But first, could you re-explain what "re-explaing" means?

> > Blah, blah, blah, back and forth, tiresome twats on about nothing at all.
>
> Listen up, you ****ing iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but you can take yer 'tyresome'
> and shove it up yer fat ****ed slack ****. ****.

Ooooo, a good one. Damn, I thought you had spent yourself on Stupidski.

Spider
 
S

Shaun Rimmer

Guest
Spider <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > Bill had explained it clearly, re-explaining it should have been
redundant,
> > to all but an eejit. You must be an eejit to need the re-explaing explaining, ya eejit.
>
> Could be. But first, could you re-explain what "re-explaing" means?

It _means_ I made a typo - hell fire you're being stooopid today Spidey!

> > > Blah, blah, blah, back and forth, tiresome twats on about nothing at all.
> >
> > Listen up, you ****ing iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but
you
> > can take yer 'tyresome' and shove it up yer fat ****ed slack ****. ****.
>
> Ooooo, a good one. Damn, I thought you had spent yourself on Stupidski.

Heheheh, nicely sarcastic there Spidey - you know I only fished a crumb out for that tired and
pathetic little child, heheheheh - c'mon, even an eejit [like me] could dance all over his sorry
self without thinking - the silly ****wit does most of the work for you...

Later.

Shaun aRe
 
S

Spider

Guest
"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Spider <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > Bill had explained it clearly, re-explaining it should have been
> redundant,
> > > to all but an eejit. You must be an eejit to need the re-explaing explaining, ya eejit.
> >
> > Could be. But first, could you re-explain what "re-explaing" means?
>
> It _means_ I made a typo - hell fire you're being stooopid today Spidey!

You're the one with grammar and spelling, ummm, well, errr, whatever and you're throwing around
words like "stooopid?" Tsk, tsk.

> > > > Blah, blah, blah, back and forth, tiresome twats on about nothing at all.
> > >
> > > Listen up, you ****ing iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but
> you
> > > can take yer 'tyresome' and shove it up yer fat ****ed slack ****. ****.
> >
> > Ooooo, a good one. Damn, I thought you had spent yourself on Stupidski.
>
> Heheheh, nicely sarcastic there Spidey,

No, no - I really *did* like it. I'm having a bit of a ****-take and you are rising to it
quite nicely.

> you know I only fished a crumb out for that tired and pathetic little child, heheheheh - c'mon,
> even an eejit [like me] could dance all over his sorry self without thinking - the silly ****wit
> does most of the work for you...

*sigh*

'Tis true. You'd think after getting his head handed to him on more than one occasion he'd learn to
listen more and spew ******** less. Oh, well.

Spider
 
S

Shaun Rimmer

Guest
Spider <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > It _means_ I made a typo - hell fire you're being stooopid today Spidey!
>
> You're the one with grammar and spelling, ummm, well, errr, whatever and you're throwing around
> words like "stooopid?" Tsk, tsk.

Yes, I corrupted the word 'stupid' for purposes of emphasis and expression.

> > > Ooooo, a good one. Damn, I thought you had spent yourself on
Stupidski.
> >
> > Heheheh, nicely sarcastic there Spidey,
>
> No, no - I really *did* like it. I'm having a bit of a ****-take and you are rising to it
> quite nicely.

Carry on - I'm having great fun, thankyouverymuch ',;~}

> > you know I only fished a crumb out for that tired and pathetic little child, heheheheh - c'mon,
> > even an
eejit
> > [like me] could dance all over his sorry self without thinking - the
silly
> > ****wit does most of the work for you...
>
> *sigh*
>
> 'Tis true. You'd think after getting his head handed to him on more than one occasion he'd learn
> to listen more and spew ******** less. Oh, well.

Yeah, well - s'pose not evryone can be as wise as us eh? ',;~}

> Spider

Later octoped.

Shaun aRe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.