Corrected thread title: "Have you compared 160 mm and 180 mm disc brakes?" If so, which ones would you recommend? Is it a good idea to use a 180 mm for the back wheel and a 160 mm for the front wheel? And the other way round?
Have you compared 160 mm and 1809 mm disc brakes?
- Thread starter ludwigmass
- Start date
A bigger rotor rear is excessively pointless, as the rear wheel has far less braking power than the front.
A bigger front makes sense, as the braking power - on decent surfaces - is bigger at the front.
With decent hydros, 160 will be enough for many usages.
and you often find bikes set up 160-160, as 160 has become the baseline size.
it's possible to get 140 rears, to maintain the proportionality between rotor size and available braking power.
If you think you need more braking power, going to a bigger rotor(front) is the cheapest fix next to replacing pads and cleaning rotors.
A bigger front makes sense, as the braking power - on decent surfaces - is bigger at the front.
With decent hydros, 160 will be enough for many usages.
and you often find bikes set up 160-160, as 160 has become the baseline size.
it's possible to get 140 rears, to maintain the proportionality between rotor size and available braking power.
If you think you need more braking power, going to a bigger rotor(front) is the cheapest fix next to replacing pads and cleaning rotors.
Similar threads
