Disk vs. V-Brakes

In article <[email hidden]>,

mike said:

What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
disks do not get as wet on the trails?

After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
over 30mph.

Quoted message said:

From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger

range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
over the diameter of the disks).
Is this incorrect?

Any insight into this?

The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
effort) a lot more flexible

Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
maintenance reasons I think.

Quoted message said:

Most of my riding is cross-country, single track if I can find it.

The weight penalty is minimal, and there is a reason most non-XC MTBs
now use discs. But it sounds like you have your V-brakes set up just
fine, and they are more than adequate for your needs (unless the problem
was you couldn't stop for the dog...).

There isn't a decisive right answer in your case. If you race XC, I'd
say use the weight as an excuse to keep the Vs. If you add light hucking
or jumping to your rides, or ride in wet conditions much, I'd say go for
the discs. In all other cases, go for the cheapest option, which is
surely the Vs.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

mike said:

What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
disks do not get as wet on the trails?

After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
over 30mph.

Quoted message said:

From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger

range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
over the diameter of the disks).
Is this incorrect?

Any insight into this?

The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
effort) a lot more flexible

Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
maintenance reasons I think.

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
much more bling!

<snip>

Per Tosspot:

Quoted message said:

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

Bleeding comes to mind.

Why mineral oil "of course"? BCO water take-up by brake fluid?

I've got a hydraulic on the front - where the better modulation
is a significant benefit for me - and a mech on the rear.

Couple reasons for putting the mech on the rear, but one of my
after-the-fact rationalizations is that the different medium
gives a little more bullet-proofness. Never had - and still
don't have - a clue why this might be, but I assume that there
are variables that I know nothing about.
--
PeteCresswell

mike said:

After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

While there are undeniable benefits to disc brakes, personally I have
continued to use V-brakes simply because I have never had any need to
do otherwise. Braking has never been an issue for me, even at 120+ kg
riding in a variety of on and off-road conditions. They have been
reliable, inexpensive and easy to maintain.

I'd suggest the same test for you: have you ever experienced a need
for more or different braking? If the answer is yes, maybe think about
discs, but otherwise if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Either way, it's probably more important that what you have is
installed and set up correctly.

Regards,
Anthony

Tosspot said:

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

Hydraulics may require less routine maintenance, especially as most
(all?) are self-adujusting, but they're not necessarily as
field-serviceable.

For instance, a friend of mine once had his front brake line come loose
where it attaches to the caliper. Fortunately there were warning signs --
the brake felt very spongy -- so we played with it a bit in the parking
lot before hitting the trail. After a few good hard stops all the fluid
squirted out onto the rotor with a *pop*. Fixing that required new brake
fluid, new pads (the old ones were ruined by the fluid), a bleed kit,
and a torch to bake the fluid off the rotor. All that meant a two-hour
round trip to the nearest bike shop, since we weren't carrying that kind
of equipment. The closest equivalent task on a mechanical setup is cable
replacement, which doesn't require anything that won't fit easily in a
seat pack.

Tosspot said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
disks do not get as wet on the trails?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
over 30mph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
over the diameter of the disks).
Is this incorrect?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Any insight into this?

Quoted message said:

The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
effort) a lot more flexible

Quoted message said:

Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
maintenance reasons I think.

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
much more bling!

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that the "bling" factor is more a reason to aviod disk
brakes.
As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

The reason I am looking into the brakes, is that I have had to replace
a good part of my steering components and front rim (handlebars, stem,
headset...), and figured that this would be a good time to consider
alternatives to the current hardware.
The bike is 7 years old, and at the time of purchase, I could not
afford disk brakes (college student).

Mike

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Tosspot:

Quoted message said:

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

Bleeding comes to mind.

Why mineral oil "of course"? BCO water take-up by brake fluid?

Yep, the DOT stuff should be changed annually, and I'd do it because
water in it could be a big issue. Mineral, iirc, can go 5 years between
changes, and to be honest, I'm not sure why it couldn't go longer.

Quoted message said:

I've got a hydraulic on the front - where the better modulation
is a significant benefit for me - and a mech on the rear.

Couple reasons for putting the mech on the rear, but one of my
after-the-fact rationalizations is that the different medium
gives a little more bullet-proofness. Never had - and still
don't have - a clue why this might be, but I assume that there
are variables that I know nothing about.

<shrug> I'm partly convinced by this argument. A major snag on a
hydraulic system means no brakes, on a cable system you might be able to
cobble something together. Otoh, anyone totalled a cable system in
circumstances where they thought this was possible?

mike said:

Tosspot said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
>disks do not get as wet on the trails?

Quoted message said:

>After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
>am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
>bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

Quoted message said:

>My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
>as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
>current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
>over 30mph.

Quoted message said:

>>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
>range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
>over the diameter of the disks).
>Is this incorrect?

Quoted message said:

>Any insight into this?

Quoted message said:

The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
effort) a lot more flexible

Quoted message said:

Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
maintenance reasons I think.

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
much more bling!

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that the "bling" factor is more a reason to aviod disk
brakes.
As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

The reason I am looking into the brakes, is that I have had to replace
a good part of my steering components and front rim (handlebars, stem,
headset...), and figured that this would be a good time to consider
alternatives to the current hardware.
The bike is 7 years old, and at the time of purchase, I could not
afford disk brakes (college student).

<shrug> My mountain bike has Hopes, my commuting bike no-name V's (but
they are well setup), to be brutally honest, they're ain't much in it in
terms of braking, I might even go so far as to say the V's are better,
but I'm not *dead* confident I got the Hopes set up correctly.

So, for me, and this imho, for pure braking, then I'd say nothing in it.
To go to discs you need other reasons, maybe particularly muddy
trails, maintenance, you can ding a rim without affecting braking (or
even crisp one), and of course the aforementioned bling.

As I said, I'm no expert.

mike said:

Tosspot said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
>disks do not get as wet on the trails?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
>am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
>bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>My areas of concern with moving to disks, is the weight differences,
>as well as the stopping range between none, and fully locked. My
>current V-brakes are easly able to lock the tires up, even at a speeds
>over 30mph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>From my understanding, V-brakes should be able to provide a larger
>range of control over the disk (based on the diameter of the wheels,
>over the diameter of the disks).
>Is this incorrect?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Any insight into this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The confounding variable you are not considering is that discs can be
set so their pads run very close to the discs, thus allowing massive
leverage ratios. This makes every other variable (modulation, lever
effort) a lot more flexible

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Around here, the freeriders praise the easy modulation, light effort,
and consistent action (which I think is largely a function of staying
drier and less muddy than rim brakes) of discs. The current trend seems
to be to prefer cable-actuated discs over hydraulics, mainly for
maintenance reasons I think.

Quoted message said:

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

Quoted message said:

My objection is a bit more philosophical, I don't like my braking
surface to be a part of the wheel structure and anyway, disks have so
much more bling!

Quoted message said:

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

I believe that the "bling" factor is more a reason to aviod disk
brakes.
As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

The reason I am looking into the brakes, is that I have had to replace
a good part of my steering components and front rim (handlebars, stem,
headset...), and figured that this would be a good time to consider
alternatives to the current hardware.
The bike is 7 years old, and at the time of purchase, I could not
afford disk brakes (college student).

With all the parts you apparently need to replace, is costs an issue?
If so, how much would it cost to add disc brakes? For example, will
you need to replace the fork because of the damage? If not, then you
need to factor in the cost of a new fork that will accept disc
brakes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

After the recent run-in with a dog on a downhill stretch of trail, I
am now in the process of replacing my rims and brakes on my mountain
bike, and am looking into the possibility of going disk.

While there are undeniable benefits to disc brakes, personally I have
continued to use V-brakes simply because I have never had any need to
do otherwise. Braking has never been an issue for me, even at 120+ kg
riding in a variety of on and off-road conditions. They have been
reliable, inexpensive and easy to maintain.

I'd suggest the same test for you: have you ever experienced a need
for more or different braking? If the answer is yes, maybe think about
discs, but otherwise if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Either way, it's probably more important that what you have is
installed and set up correctly.

Regards,
Anthony

I agree. Sounds like it's the dog that's the problem.

Doug

mike said:

What are the benifits of disk brakes over V-brakes, other then the
disks do not get as wet on the trails?
....

In my experience--disks will stop better than V-brakes, even when both
are wet.

Disks will still stop pretty hard even in a pouring rain.

I've never had rim brakes that were real good when wet; the first couple
seconds of hard braking, rim-brakes seem to be just burning off water....
~

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mike said:

As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
horse ..; then, stop.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mike said:

As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
horse ..; then, stop.

The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
that, and you have to slow down.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

Quoted message said:

If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
horse ..; then, stop.

The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
that, and you have to slow down.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden]://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

The dog was a larger dog, I would guess about 80lb-90lb ( I could be
under estimating a bit, as I would have never have guessed my dog to
be 115lb).

As for the disk/v-brakes, I believe that I am going to stay with the V-
Brakes. I picked up some new pads that have a longer surface to them
( about 3 inches long), and in the little bit of testing I did before
bed, I found them to have a much better mid-range to full braking
ability. They do appear to be a much softer compound then the STX pads
I had on the bike, so I think I may be changing the pads on them a
little more often.

Mike

"Tosspot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Tosspot:

Quoted message said:

Eh? I thought (I'm no expert here) that hydraulic disk brakes actually
had *less* maintenance than their cable counterparts. No cable stretch,
no need to lube, no frayed ends. I'm assuming mineral oil of course.

Bleeding comes to mind.

Why mineral oil "of course"? BCO water take-up by brake fluid?

Yep, the DOT stuff should be changed annually, and I'd do it because water
in it could be a big issue. Mineral, iirc, can go 5 years between
changes, and to be honest, I'm not sure why it couldn't go longer.

Quoted message said:

I've got a hydraulic on the front - where the better modulation
is a significant benefit for me - and a mech on the rear.

Couple reasons for putting the mech on the rear, but one of my
after-the-fact rationalizations is that the different medium
gives a little more bullet-proofness. Never had - and still
don't have - a clue why this might be, but I assume that there
are variables that I know nothing about.

<shrug> I'm partly convinced by this argument. A major snag on a
hydraulic system means no brakes, on a cable system you might be able to
cobble something together. Otoh, anyone totalled a cable system in
circumstances where they thought this was possible?

I have hydraulic discs front and rear. If either went I could limp home on
the
other. Braking is bulletproof.

JP

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

mike said:

As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
end, the dog faked left, and went right.

If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
horse ..; then, stop.

The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
that, and you have to slow down.

How much does a border collie dress out to?

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
mike <[email hidden]> wrote:

> As for hitting the dog, the brakes might have been a little too
> touchy. After the whole thing, I looked back up the trail, and could
> see the 10+ feet long marks where I had both tires locked up. In the
> end, the dog faked left, and went right.

If it is smaller than you, then steer a straight course and allow
the more nimble, quick-eyed, low-mass/high-acceleration, critter
to pick his lane. If it is bigger than you; e.g. deer, moose, cow,
horse ..; then, stop.

The motorcyclist's rule of thumb is that you don't swerve for any animal
you could eat in one sitting (cats, squirrels, small dogs). Bigger than
that, and you have to slow down.

How much does a border collie dress out to?

Probably the same as or more than a turkey. I wouldn't try to eat it or
run it over.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos