disc on front only?

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Scribe2b, Jan 23, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scribe2b

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Urs Weder

    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 )
     
  3. David Kunz

    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
     
  4. Per Löwdin

    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
     
  5. Bill Wheeler

    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.
    :-]
     
  6. Veloracer

    Veloracer Guest

    G.T., jim lame, where r you when someone needs you?
     
  7. 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
     
  8. Muddy

    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.
     
  9. Shaun Rimmer

    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 dick of yourself.

    Shaun aRe
     
  10. Bill Wheeler

    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.
    :-]
     
  11. Spider

    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
     
  12. Shaun Rimmer

    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 fucking iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but you can take yer 'tyresome'
    and shove it up yer fat fucked slack arse. Cunt.

    > 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
     
  13. Spider

    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 fucking iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but you can take yer 'tyresome'
    > and shove it up yer fat fucked slack arse. Cunt.

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

    Spider
     
  14. Shaun Rimmer

    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 fucking iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but
    you
    > > can take yer 'tyresome' and shove it up yer fat fucked slack arse. Cunt.
    >
    > 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 fuckwit does most of the work for you...

    Later.

    Shaun aRe
     
  15. Spider

    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 fucking iddy-biddy-diddy arachniddy, 'twats' maybe, but
    > you
    > > > can take yer 'tyresome' and shove it up yer fat fucked slack arse. Cunt.
    > >
    > > 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 piss-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 fuckwit
    > 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 bullshit less. Oh, well.

    Spider
     
  16. Shaun Rimmer

    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 piss-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
    > > fuckwit 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 bullshit less. Oh, well.

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

    > Spider

    Later octoped.

    Shaun aRe
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...