Disc or V brakes??

hello, last September I bought a new Trek 4300 sl mountainbike with Shimano cable operated disc. Initially when the bike was new I wasn't quite impressed with the disc but I liked it, being my first disc brake bike. I don't think they quite live up to the hype. It's probably a heavier setup for sure. I put on Ritchey Tom slicks and have been doing winter commuting in Ma. On the rainy days or even wet road conditions once the disc gets wet it has all the same grabbing force possibly worse than any other brake, so much for consistant braking. Also I noticed that there is some flex in the disc when you squeeze the lever and I don't think thats right but rather a weak point in the design as the calipers are probably overpowering the thin metal rotors attached to the hub. I also noticed and this is probably due to winter is a rapid breakdown of the pads, I'm think road salt and wet sand and use just destroys the soft compound of the pad quickly. I bought this bike because of the disc brakes and my thinking was that I could have a one, two finger pulling brake even with less than true rims however they just
don't live up to the hype.

So in closing I would have to say what works for automobiles and motorcycles just doesn't seem to transcend in this regard of disc brakes for bikes. However I'm sure they may great were wieght isn't a factor and in the right conditions, say one of those downhill mountainbike types but for commuting I would stick to a v brake/ conventional setup.

The good thing about a disc is that you don't have to replace your wheelset when the braking surface wears out. If you use your bike in wet or muddy conditions, you want discs.

I have found that they brake well when wet or snowy.

A cable-operated disc is designed to flex. The brake's mechanism only moves one pad. The disc doesn't touch the other pad until it is pushed against it by the other pad. You'll wear the disc out long before you fatigue it from the flexing.

In general, though, a good set of v-brakes makes the bike lighter and allows for a stronger wheelset.

Thanks for your comments - appreciate your time.

The weight issue isn't that much when comparing the Scott Sportster P2 with the P1 (it's about 3/4s of a pound extra to have discs). Also, I beleive the discs on the P1 are hydraulic and NOT cable. I also have heard some bad comments regarding cable discs.

Most of my work will be commuting with some light off road now and again - so certainly V brakes will suffice. However, the P1 bike specifications improve all the running gear with the inclusion of disc brakes (better fork, headset, deraillrue, shifters, crankset, BB-set, H-stem & front and rear hubs) in comparison to the P2 specs.

Can someone provide some advice to me on whether I should purcahse the Scott P1 over the Scott P2 for the better running gear?

Thanks......Iain

I have no knowledge of hydraulic discs. They may or may not actuate both pads.

iain williams said:

Hi - New to biking and will be ordering either a Scott Sporster P1 or P2 on Tuesday. The P1 had disc brakes and the P2 has v brakes.

I've read a bit about disc brakes not being that great (dics wear prematurely, timely to service, more weight on bike, etc. As oppossed to v brakes which are pretty simple suckers!

The Sportster P1 has Shimano Deore BR-M 535 discs with a SM-RT62 centre lock. Are these pretty good brakes? 😕

Should my decision be swayed towards the bike with v brakes (Sportster P2).? Thank you....Iain

page 1

Hi - Well I finally decided and bought the Scott Sporster P1.
300 km on the clock to date and I'm very impressed.

Disc brakes, once worn in, are excellent. No cause for concern at all, although it took around 100mile for the discs to wear in appropiately enough for good braking action to occur.............Iain 😄