How soon will disk brakes be used on road racing cycles?

[finnrambo]

Disk brake rotors and pads have to be broken in as well which takes a minimum of one week, therefore a wheel swap would make the brakes near powerless mid-race, you would have to stick with the same pad and rotor for a grand tour for braking performance. It is true that rim brake pads have to be worn in as well but this process is much shorter (5 minutes?), the rims themselves are ready to use out of the box. The brakes should make a short fad in endurance races but ProTour is where they will not stay long. One more issue with disks are the differance in performance from brands, in rim brakes Sram, Shimano and Campagnolo are about the same in power disk brakes are very different in different brands riders running Shimano will have the advantage where riders on Hayes are will be way behind(here comes a flame war).

 

[cloudhead]

I looked at a Volagi again today, and they actually make the entire wheel system themselves as well. They make their own hubs (they basically have to at this point) and their own rims without any brake surface on the rim.

I have to admit I am mesmerized by the bike myself. The shop owner, an avid velodrome racer, loves it for what it is, and offered to have Volagi send a bike in my size for a test drive (I politely declined because I would end up buying it when it's a bad time to unload $4K).

Will it be accepted in current races? Who knows. But I think it will help define some future races. I do think it's a bike that has to be ridden before it's criticized.

 

[finnrambo]

Originally Posted by cloudhead .

I looked at a Volagi again today, and they actually make the entire wheel system themselves as well. They make their own hubs (they basically have to at this point) and their own rims without any brake surface on the rim.

I have to admit I am mesmerized by the bike myself. The shop owner, an avid velodrome racer, loves it for what it is, and offered to have Volagi send a bike in my size for a test drive (I politely declined because I would end up buying it when it's a bad time to unload $4K).

Will it be accepted in current races? Who knows. But I think it will help define some future races. I do think it's a bike that has to be ridden before it's criticized.

true it is very good looking, I have to agree that it has to be ridden before criticized just like that south park episode with harbucks (aka starbucks), and just like aerobars.

 

[doiturself]

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif

I love Matt Stone and Trey Parker; Team America, World Police!!!

Originally Posted by finnrambo .





true it is very good looking, I have to agree that it has to be ridden before criticized just like that south park episode with harbucks (aka starbucks), and just like aerobars.

 

[finnrambo]

Originally Posted by doiturself .

/img/vbsmilies/smilies/ROTF.gif

I love Matt Stone and Trey Parker; Team America, World Police!!!

lol that movie was great, immature but great

 

[vspa]

lets see about this,
when Lemond won the 89 Tour with the triathlon bars everyone adopted them,
disc brakes have already been around for a while, there must be some reason why they are not used yet by the peloton,

 

[cloudhead]

had to bring this back up......

Just saw the new Calfee Adventure bike reviewed in the latest Bicycle Quarterly. Visiting their site, they have a disc brake model.

Bicycle Quarterly, which normally doesn't like anything that isn't a 1952 Rene Herse, gave it great reviews for long distance endurance rides. (they tested the non-disc model, however).

I think we're going to see a lot of these, relative to their price.

http://www.calfeedesign.com/carbon-fiber/model-calfee-adventure/

 

[dhk2]

That was a pretty low-key marketing video. Not sure what it was intended to illustrate, other than the fact that road bikes get flat tires on gravel roads.

Couldn't find the figures for the added weight of the fat fork and dual disc brakes on the website. They cleverly state that adding the mounting points to the fork only adds 63 grams, but what about that ENVE 2 fork compared to the standard road fork? Regardless, why offer a heavy fork and dual disc brake set up on an ultra-lightweight roadrace frame? Only explanation I can think of is that Calfee is betting a few of their weathly cruiser customers will want to pay more for something that is stylish and exclusive for the CA beach market. Imagine that front end paired up with the bamboo frame.....do they still say "*****in" and "totally rad"?

 

[cloudhead]

Calfee has a little bit of history with interesting new materials and designs that end up working well. But I think this bike isn't aimed so much to the beach cruiser crowd as it is the randonneur crowd, where a standard racing bike (and rider of it) would crumble apart a quarter ways into the ride.

 

[dhk2]

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't Calfee showing the fork/disc brake setup on an ultra-light CF road frame? Still doesn't make a bike suitable for touring. And of course lots of people ride the ultra brevets on regular road bikes. A buddy here has ridden the 1200K PBP and BMB non-stop funfests on his CAAD frame from the 90s. Nothing crumbled apart. He's got a full-on touring bike, but said it's not worth taking the extra weight on a brevet (with a time limit) when you only need to carry keep-warm clothes.

Calfee may be a great company, but this innovation just leaves me scratching my head. What's the point, really, other than marketing something different? Again, maybe I'm missing something.

 

[grandamn]

more parts = more problems. I have a 2004 Pontiac Grand Am with a 2.2 manual no abs, traction control, or any other goodies. I'm up to 150k miles and have had no problems. Still runs like a champ.

 

[alienator]

Fortunately, bicycles are not as complicated as cars, so they've got that goin' for 'em. Also, there happens to be no real truth behind more parts equals more problems, certainly not as applied to bicycles. Neither cable disk brakes nor hydraulic disk brakes cause any substantial complications. After all, hydraulic disk brakes have been a staple of cars and motorcycles for many decades, and cable and hydraulic disk brakes have become a staple of mountain bikes. Both types of systems are exceedingly simple systems.

Disk brakes will certainly become popular if not the dominant braking system on touring bikes and possibly tandems. How long before that happens is up in the air. Disk brakes will also penetrate the other road bike "disciplines", but how much is also one of those unknowns. They may not always be the best solution on some road bikes or with some riders. With my bike, achieving maximum braking (rear tire starts to lift) is easy with my Mavic SSC brakes on alloy rims. When you start to consider riders who aren't able to brake so well (due to physical issues, lack of experience, or _______), disks may be the preferred choice. In the wet, there's no doubt that disks will provide better braking; however, using that better braking may not possible with the decreased tire traction. Disk brakes do not necessarily have to have better modulation, especially since what is "better" modulation is largely dependent on the rider and what sort of brake feel they like.

Disk brakes certainly will help the penetration of CF rims into the market, especially CF clinchers. Gone will be the worry of heat buildup and rim/brake track failure due to that heat build up.

I'm gonna sit on the fence, watch, and wait to see what happens. I've no issues with braking, be it in the wet or day, but I am open to new ideas. That's one thing that Mistress Giselle always liked about me.

Speaking of new ideas, here's my new idea for the perfect top tube pad:

 

[cloudhead]

Originally Posted by dhk2 .

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't Calfee showing the fork/disc brake setup on an ultra-light CF road frame? Still doesn't make a bike suitable for touring. And of course lots of people ride the ultra brevets on regular road bikes. A buddy here has ridden the 1200K PBP and BMB non-stop funfests on his CAAD frame from the 90s. Nothing crumbled apart. He's got a full-on touring bike, but said it's not worth taking the extra weight on a brevet (with a time limit) when you only need to carry keep-warm clothes.

Calfee may be a great company, but this innovation just leaves me scratching my head. What's the point, really, other than marketing something different? Again, maybe I'm missing something.

Bicycle Quarterly did a review of the adventure frame in their latest issue, and that's a magazine who's favorite bike ever is a 1952 Rene Herse, and the editor uses scientific methods when reviewing a new bike or frame. They didn't consider it a touring bike because of the lack of eyelets. He did see it as a great bike for the RAMROD (Ride Around Mt Rainier in One Day), or other ultra brevets. Touring bikes are fully different animals--I have one of those and yeah its heavy, and its steel, so it can be repaired out in the middle of nowhere if necessary. In the end they did give the bike a fantastic review. However, this version did not have centerpulls but Velo Orange long-reach sidepulls (actually Tektro's made thicker, and VO-branded).

Calfee is innovating just like anyone else is in modern times. I mean, from 1937 to 1987 or so, bikes were essentially the same, and then POW. But what I like about Calfee's innovation is that they don't try and sell you on it like you must have it, but they have it as yet another option when building a custom bike. The "Adventure" geometry was always an option, but they have had increased demand for the geometry so it's now it's own model.

By the way, for the Paris Brest Paris, Jan from Bicycle Quarterly went with a custom Boulder-built Rene Herse with old Mafac centerpulls and 650b wheels. It's in the same issue. I bet it rides like it's on silk. Yowza.

 

[alienator]

Originally Posted by cloudhead .




Bicycle Quarterly did a review of the adventure frame in their latest issue, and that's a magazine who's favorite bike ever is a 1952 Rene Herse, and the editor uses scientific methods when reviewing a new bike or frame. They didn't consider it a touring bike because of the lack of eyelets. He did see it as a great bike for the RAMROD (Ride Around Mt Rainier in One Day), or other ultra brevets. Touring bikes are fully different animals--I have one of those and yeah its heavy, and its steel, so it can be repaired out in the middle of nowhere if necessary. In the end they did give the bike a fantastic review. However, this version did not have centerpulls but Velo Orange long-reach sidepulls (actually Tektro's made thicker, and VO-branded).

Calfee is innovating just like anyone else is in modern times. I mean, from 1937 to 1987 or so, bikes were essentially the same, and then POW. But what I like about Calfee's innovation is that they don't try and sell you on it like you must have it, but they have it as yet another option when building a custom bike. The "Adventure" geometry was always an option, but they have had increased demand for the geometry so it's now it's own model.

By the way, for the Paris Brest Paris, Jan from Bicycle Quarterly went with a custom Boulder-built Rene Herse with old Mafac centerpulls and 650b wheels. It's in the same issue. I bet it rides like it's on silk. Yowza.

And what metrics are they measuring when they evaluate frames "scientifically" and how do they correlate those metrics with anything meaningful for bike people?

 

[cloudhead]

Originally Posted by alienator .

And what metrics are they measuring when they evaluate frames "scientifically" and how do they correlate those metrics with anything meaningful for bike people?

A lot more scientific than posting a photo of someones butt.

"Butt" anyways, I'm not going to go through their whole process since it is straying off-topic, but they ride before they test or measure, at least 2 people ride the bike, located in Seattle which is a good place to test a bike. Good roads, nasty weather, nd they perform tests over multiple days for different conditions. They do a performance test after a normal ride, share their views with other testers. They predict the bikes geometry when riding it and then measure (impressive), check the weight, check to see if the specs match what the manufacturer listed, write about it, and then the coolest thing: they give the manufacturer/builder a chance to review the test reports and give them space in their magazine for their own opinion or rebuttal. (That was great in regards to the Calfee, as BQ wanted some eyelets for racks, and Craig Calfee explained that with the failure mode of carbon fiber would put too much stress, and P-clamps are better used.)

Their ads are minimal--probably due to their lack of bias or support for any manufacturer. In my opinion, I find their reviews extremely meaningful. Maybe that's why I like this Calfee...I've read so much about it in a single article that I feel like I've already test-ridden it.

 

[alienator]

So their scientific testing relies on subjective judgement, right?

There's a lot of scientific measurement of the physical characteristics of some bikes. Unfortunately, a lot of those characteristics have no proven correlation with improved bike performance. Aero characteristics, rolling resistance, and bearing drag are some of the very few characteristics that translate directly to some change in performance. It's important to keep in mind that scientific testing isn't really useful without valid scientific conclusions.

 

[dhk2]

Originally Posted by cloudhead .

A lot more scientific than posting a photo of someones butt.

"Butt" anyways, I'm not going to go through their whole process since it is straying off-topic, but they ride before they test or measure, at least 2 people ride the bike, located in Seattle which is a good place to test a bike. Good roads, nasty weather, nd they perform tests over multiple days for different conditions. They do a performance test after a normal ride, share their views with other testers. They predict the bikes geometry when riding it and then measure (impressive), check the weight, check to see if the specs match what the manufacturer listed, write about it, and then the coolest thing: they give the manufacturer/builder a chance to review the test reports and give them space in their magazine for their own opinion or rebuttal. (That was great in regards to the Calfee, as BQ wanted some eyelets for racks, and Craig Calfee explained that with the failure mode of carbon fiber would put too much stress, and P-clamps are better used.)

Their ads are minimal--probably due to their lack of bias or support for any manufacturer. In my opinion, I find their reviews extremely meaningful. Maybe that's why I like this Calfee...I've read so much about it in a single article that I feel like I've already test-ridden it.

You obviously are a lot more impressed with bike reviews in magazines than I am. Call me a cynic, but it seems to me a lot of this stuff is just marketing hype. The magazines are given bikes to ride and write about, and aren't going to write a negative review for fear they would lose advertizing revenue. 90% of what they write is just perceptions which we know can be easily influenced by expectations as set up by the marketing types. And I have to laugh at Craig Calfee's explanation of why he doesn't put eyelets for racks on a CF bike frame, yet he's willing to put eyelets on a CF fork to mount a disc brake caliper.

 

[AlanG]

On my commute I have about 4 miles on packed dirty gravel before I hit some more miles on pavement.

Today way raining pretty hard and my wheels and brakes were pretty dirty and gritty. I ride this commute on a Fuji Cross Pro that has cantilever brakes with Koolstop red and black pads and Aksium Race wheels. When I got to the paved roads and had to do some braking, it was OK, but just OK. I had to squeeze quite a bit harder than normal to stop, but it did stop. I understand that some cross bikes now use disk brakes.

My question is, "Would disk brakes be better in this circumstance?" A little better? A lot better? Does it matter much if they are hydraulic or cable?

 

[alienator]

Originally Posted by AlanG .

On my commute I have about 4 miles on packed dirty gravel before I hit some more miles on pavement.

Today way raining pretty hard and my wheels and brakes were pretty dirty and gritty. I ride this commute on a Fuji Cross Pro that has cantilever brakes with Koolstop red and black pads and Aksium Race wheels. When I got to the paved roads and had to do some braking, it was OK, but just OK. I had to squeeze quite a bit harder than normal to stop, but it did stop. I understand that some cross bikes now use disk brakes.

My question is, "Would disk brakes be better in this circumstance?" A little better? A lot better? Does it matter much if they are hydraulic or cable?

Disk brakes would, all else being equal, perform better. Disc brake pads typically have a significantly larger area than the contact surface of a rim brake pad. This increase the amount of force applied. In nasty conditions, you don't necessarily need greater braking, but that extra force from disk calipers does clean the rotor more quickly than rim brakes. Some disk makers claim that the holes in disk rotors shed water more quickly, thus cleaning the rotor more quickly than a solid rotor or a rim brake track, but there is some question of whether that's the case or not. Perhaps the most significant feature of disk brakes in the wet and nasties is that they're farther from the ground and much less likely to get splashed with water and muck than rim brakes. Also, the disk brakes will have much more consistent performance.

 

[Eichers]

Originally Posted by alienator .
Disk brakes would, all else being equal, perform better. Disc brake pads typically have a significantly larger area than the contact surface of a rim brake pad. This increase the amount of force applied. In nasty conditions, you don't necessarily need greater braking, but that extra force from disk calipers does clean the rotor more quickly than rim brakes. Some disk makers claim that the holes in disk rotors shed water more quickly, thus cleaning the rotor more quickly than a solid rotor or a rim brake track, but there is some question of whether that's the case or not. Perhaps the most significant feature of disk brakes in the wet and nasties is that they're farther from the ground and much less likely to get splashed with water and muck than rim brakes. Also, the disk brakes will have much more consistent performance.

+1