Rear disc brakes

(Flat Eric) said:

Am thinking of upgrading to hydraulic discs on my MTB

Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc brakes
really neccessary?

Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner.

Quoted message said:

I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have thought
the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

Exactly. Any brake should easily lock up the rear wheel with very little effort. In fact, I much
prefer having a canti brake on the back because it gives you much more "disc-like" braking
modulation and control (and with much less cost, complexity and weight).

Quoted message said:

Does anyone out there run a V brake on the back and a disc on the front?

Lots of us do that (or, like I said, use a canti).

The one advantage the disc does have on the back is that it stays cleaner in wet, sloppy conditions
(not that I worry much about THAT in Arizona).

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

diy-<< Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc
brakes really neccessary? >><BR><BR>

Advantages of any disc is they work in the wet/mud better and if you have a big chance to wack a
rim, they aren't affected by that.

diy<< I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have
thought the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Gotta agree but a front disc, rear canti never really happened.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

On 7 Jan 2004 05:40:16 -0800, [email hidden] (Flat Eric) may have

Quoted message said:

Am thinking of upgrading to hydraulic discs on my MTB

Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc brakes
really neccessary?

In my opinion, for most riders, not even warranted, let alone advisable.

Quoted message said:

I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have thought
the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

It is...but quite frankly, rim brakes will work just as well in the majority of cases in my
experience. The sole important advantage of a disc brake is in the area of prolonged braking on a
descent, where the rim can get *very* hot with conventional brakes. The claimed advantages of a disc
over a rim brake in wet conditions are, from what I've seen, overstated. A disc will work better
when wet than a rim brake where the rim is steel, but it's also true that with an aluminum rim and
good brake pads, wet braking is very nearly the same as dry; the tire will generally lose traction
in the wet before the brake loses its grip. Your results may vary. There's one very minor advantage
to discs in that it's not necessary to undo the caliper when pulling a wheel to fix a flat, but
that's an issue of so little importance as to be negligible in my book.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone out there run a V brake on the back and a disc on the front?

Yup. Me. Works just fine.

I suspect that a lot of the manufacturers and stores that are selling bikes with front and rear disc
brakes have bowed to the uninformed public's desire for The Latest And Greatest In All Things, which
currently includes disc brakes where they're not really needed.

Shimano made a rear disc brake that was widely sold on department store bikes in the '70s; it was,
quite honestly, a marketing gimmick of the first water. Today's rear disc brakes are better than
that unit, but no more necessary than it was for the average rider.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

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

Quoted message said:

Am thinking of upgrading to hydraulic discs on my MTB

Quoted message said:

I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have thought
the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

I think it depends largely on your weight. V-brake in the back (disc front) did nothing much for me
on a hardtail. I have since installed Avid's mech disc brakes in front and rear and love them. For
someone at 190lbs +, I would say get both if you can handle the added weight. The modulation and
control it gave me in the back is very much worth the added expense and weight...

On 07 Jan 2004 14:28:44 GMT, [email hidden] (Qui si parla

Campagnolo) may have said:

Gotta agree but a front disc, rear canti never really happened.

Except as a retrofit by an individual or two, of course. On the other hand, I see front disc with
rear V in showrooms here quite often.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Quoted message said:

Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc brakes
really neccessary?

lol..many different things in cycling are not REALLY necessary. Some would argue that the rear disc
is more for esthetic reasons and nothing else.

Quoted message said:

I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have thought
the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

80% of braking comes from the front so you are absolutely correct. I believe this is the reason why
some cars still use discs up front and drums in the rear.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone out there run a V brake on the back and a disc on the front?

I think you will find lots of people with this setup as many bikes in the past did not have rear
disc mounts. The advantages of having a rear disc is that the braking is consistent over a wide
variety of weather conditions. The feel of hydraulics is also different than cable so some prefer
both brakes to "feel" the same. Some others I know run discs up front and Magura hydraulic rim
brakes in the rear to get that same "feel". I've already mentioned looks and lord knows that is a
key element to the cycling industry. If you're not going to look good doing it, why bother right? 😉

alan

Flat Eric said:

Am thinking of upgrading to hydraulic discs on my MTB

Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc brakes
really neccessary?

I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have thought
the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

Does anyone out there run a V brake on the back and a disc on the front?

Cheers

Well there's more to it than just pure braking power, where of course the front brake is the
strongest. Discs are absolutely better under muddy or icy conditions. On technical trails you use
both brakes depending on what you are doing. You might not want to endo on a steep downstep so you
will be really glad that your rear disc will hold the bike at the speed you want it. Etc. I just
recently switched and I can definitely control my speed better in technical terrain using both
brakes, separately or simultaneously.

I have another bike, a hybrid that does not have a rear disc mount. I will probably put a hydraulic
disc in front and a hydraulic rim brake in the rear. This bike will not be used in such gruelling
conditions as my MTB and I think this setup will be just fine for commuting around the year.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

Thanks for all the replies fellas

Here in the UK mud can certainly be a problem at this time of year and often in the summer too! All
depends whether fickle British climate decides whether we're going to have a summer or not!! ;-)

In muddy conditions the back wheel always gets it much worse than the front - so may be a disc on
the rear is a good option too, if only for that reason.

I live in an area of gritstone - a very coarse type of sandstone - which loves to eat bike
componentry when it gets wet. To put the brakes on in the wet and not hear the awful
'chhrrrsshhhhuuurshhhhhhrrrrr' of the gritty mud between rim and block would be very nice!!!

Cheers

[email hidden] (Flat Eric) wrote in news:1d4beb4e.0401070540.7a4f5ae7
@posting.google.com:

Quoted message said:

Am thinking of upgrading to hydraulic discs on my MTB

Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc brakes
really neccessary?

I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have thought
the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

Does anyone out there run a V brake on the back and a disc on the front?

Cheers

You're absolutely correct if you consider it ONLY from a braking force perspective. However, there
are other factors at play. The largest one for me is consistancy. I recently converted from V's to
disks and during the transition I spent some time riding with only a disk on the front (and a V in
the back). Once I fully transitioned I found that control was much better and I could brake with a
higher degree of confidence. I put this down to having equal braking characteristics at both ends
and having the increased braking power with the rear disk allows for a reduction of dependancy on
the front disk for most of the braking. I've never had a problem with rear lock up even in the
wet/muddy conditions we've had around here this winter (much to my surprise).

ALF

(Alan) may have said:

I've already mentioned looks and lord knows that is a key element to the cycling industry. If
you're not going to look good doing it, why bother right? 😉

I have half concluded that this factor must be part of the driving force behind the dominance of the
Y-frame in rear suspension bike designs of late; there are plenty of ways to make a front triangle
work with a suspension setup, but the Y holds the lion's share of the popularity, at least for the
mass-produced bikes. I have to think that it's because the Y is perceived as looking better. To me,
it looks like a collection of high-stress joints waiting for an excuse to fail.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Mark Hickey:

Quoted message said:

The one advantage the disc does have on the back is that it stays cleaner in wet, sloppy
conditions (not that I worry much about THAT in Arizona).

Although, with the effort put into hand-building wheels (rear ones especially), disc brakes
sometimes seem less futile compared to rim brakes simply because the rim will never have to be worn
away with the former....

Quoted message said:

diy-<< Given that you can't apply much force on the rear brake before it locks up are rear disc
brakes really neccessary? >><BR><BR>

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Advantages of any disc is they work in the wet/mud better and if you have a big chance to wack a
rim, they aren't affected by that.

diy<< I can understand they may offer slightly improved control for the rear, but I would have
thought the advantage would be far greater with a front disc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

(PC)> Gotta agree but a front disc, rear canti never really happened.

You're not kidding. We built Gunnar mounatin bikes that way for the last two years and got
terrible customer response ("What happened to the rear brake?"😉. It made more sense than two discs
but we gave up.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971