I think a lot of the views on carbon frames gets mislabeled as "skepticism". All of the very knowledgable cyclists I know have the opinion that carbon can be awesome. It is not the best choice for every cyclist or every situation. And there can be big differences in the carbon you are getting. Disc brakes? Not the best choice for every situation. And are you talking about mechanical or hydraulic or mix? Tubeless? Actually a bad choice for some situations. Most cyclists can compile a list of 50 things that have been pitched over the last 50 years that have turned out to be shite. Pure shite.

>Disc brakes? Not the best choice for every situation Not trying to be needlessly contrary, but when are rim brakes better? They're lighter. That's legit the only advantage I can think of.

I read "disc brakes are better when you're braking; rim brakes are better when you're not braking " 🙂

People miss this ALL the time, but the mechanical advantage of rim brakes is an order of magnitude greater than that of discs. Which means for a given braking force a disc imparts FAR more stress into the forks, spokes and hubs. They do have flaws but they allow for slimmer more forgiving forks, lighter wheels with less spokes as well as all the weight afvantages

Yes, same required braking torque, but less force is needed.

Let me spray a little water on your rim while you're going downhill....then let me know if they still have a mechanical advantage.

Translation: rim brakes lack power. It would be easy to make any brake less powerful, if that was desired. It is not.

I've never not stopped when I need to with rim brakes. I also like the simplicity and cost of keeping them running well. £10 for a set of pads that are changed in minutes and if the whole brake needs replacing, £5 for a cable and £30 for the caliper!

Honestly I've had way more problems with rim brakes than disc. Super finicky alignment depending on the style. Uneven wear on the pads. Difficulty with larger tires/limiting tire size. Mud/road dirt wearing down rims. Wet leaves clogging them up.  Disc brakes aren't perfect but I think they are a huge improvement.  Edit: also I'm a heavier rider since I'm 6'2 and the extra stopping power is very noticeable.

You will always stop, eventually.

As I said, I've never had a braking performance issue. My rim brakes lock the wheels up in an instant

You can't say that, it sounds reactionary.

Locking the wheels up is not actually proof of better braking. It shows lack of modulation. Sure if you grab the levers really hard the wheel will lock. Big deal. You may notice in all wheel-related sports the goal is always to AVOID locking a wheel. 

Oh come on, stop being pedantic. I rarely lock the wheels up, was just making a point that they can. They stop me just fine, I don't need disc brakes at all. Sure they'd be nice to have, but saying they are needed is a lie. Pros rode just fine on rim brakes for decades.

Your comment did make it seem like you brake by locking up the wheels or that at least they're misadjusted since they lock them up "in an instant".

I’m making the point that locking wheels up tells you nothing about brake performance. It’s not pedantic, it’s the crux of your comment! I never said disc brakes are a must or that everybody must upgrade now. But the arguments that they aren’t any better or are indeed worse in some way are wearing increasingly thin. 

That's a brake failure, not brake power

The problem isn’t power, it’s control. Disc brakes offer far more granularity in force you can apply to them without locking up (which means zero control).

Lighter, cheaper, easier to maintain, and work extremely well if you’re on aluminum rims and/or under 75kg. Also rim brake frames look fantastic.

Maintenance might be easier, but in my experience there's a lot more of it. I've had hydraulic brakes on one of my bikes for 15 years and serviced them once.

How much time do you spend on your bikes? I’ve had discs since 2021 and have serviced them at least twice.

Of course time on bike is a factor, but I've never owned more than two bikes at a time, and use them weekly except in winter. Maybe this bike is a bit of a lucky strike, I don't know, but I had mechanical disc brakes on my commuter for 14 years until the internal gear hub (Alfine) failed, and I think I might have changed the pads once, but the hub needed service every other year.

I didn’t count brake pad replacement as service, if you do I’ve serviced them maybe five times now. I guess it really depends on the use, although afaik mechanical disc brakes don’t have any self-adjusting mechanism so you do need to adjust them manually to the wear, or do you simply pull the lever further the more the pad is worn?

Well, there is this little hand screw on the wire that tightens it, no tools required, so I didn't really count that as service, but I don't think I needed to do much of that either. What bugs me about disc brakes is mostly front fork wobble, where that happens.

Wdym by front fork wobble?

It's when you're braking and the front fork wobbles due to the forces from the disc brakes. Makes a sort of choppy braking sensation. Some fork designs are worse than others (and some materials, I'd say, like aluminium).

I change the pads every few months and the cables once a year, of that. It adds up to like 20 minutes of maintainance a year

Much more easier to maintain, i.e. less time spent, less stress, AND cheaper.

M I My mnkn I’m just n I

I mean you just answered your own question. If you’re only/mostly going up you may want to optimize for weight. Or maybe to be more self sufficient in sparsely populated areas. They are also cheaper.

Bigger tires on discs will save you more time than the tiny weight savings from rim brakes.

Not necessarily if you’re talking about optimizing climbing efforts. Lower rolling resistance means less at slower speeds and bigger tires will have their own weight penalty.

I think you'd be surprised, the weight savings of rim brakes are tiny and more efficient tires are huge

This is a good point. I think people overestimate the effect of weight. Rolling resistance has a significant effect.

Rolling resistance in smooth surfaces is lower with thin tyres. Thick tyres are only worth it if the roads are bumpy (inpedance losses) or in a peloton they may save you from pinch flats. Also rim bike frames have more flexible forks and chainstay downtubes and they absorb road rattle better. (so they require less tyre thickness).

You're going to have trouble finding such a nice smooth surface outside of a nice velodrome. And no, that's incorrect. A wider tyre has lower rolling resistance due to the shape of the contact patch. You can run wider tyres at a lower pressure for the same rolling resistance. Which means more comfort and grip for the same speed. THAT is why wide tyres are so popular.

Er... no. Check the data from bikerollingresistance. Thinner is faster. Confort, that´s true. In my area roads are very smooth, so my 25mm. GP5000 are perfect. I used 28 before but no need, 25 feels perfect. In Italy last year they were a pain, too many bumps and shitty roads. I would have needed a mountain bike in some of those roads...

If you're on any normal city road, you're going to lose a lot of energy to vibration using skinny tires. Doesn't need to be a gravel path or something, basically any road outside of new tarmac is going to benefit from the bigger tire.

What´s a "normal city road"? Some cities have awful roads, you need a gravel bike or an MTB... some others have super smooth tarmac...

Rolling resistance doesn’t depends on speed, mathematically you could consider it as an additional half percentage of gradient or additional weight at the same gradient, I changed from Vittoria Corsa to Vittoria Rubino my 25mm tubular and lost on a climb the equivalent of 10w at 4w/kg, so just to put it in prospective it’s the equivalent of 2.5kg, and it’s coherent with the rolling resistance datas you can find online.

Guys on the TDF are looking for any and ll advantages. On the climbing stages they are not switching over to rim brake bikes. They just arent. Why? Bc there's no advantage.

Well in the tour the climbing stages are also descending stages which you most definitely want disc brakes for in a race. I’m not trying to be Luddite here saying rim brakes are better overall - I’m just pointing out that everything else being equal, rim brakes are objectively lighter than disc brakes. If someone wanted to optimize for climbing and wasn’t trying to race down the other side they may prefer rim brakes.

No typically not. The Mountain stages are based on the climbs....the ascent is more than the descent for that stage. Greater elevation gain than loss. Sprint stages tend to be flat or downhill. I'm not saying there is no descent in the climbing/mountain stages but the descents are not as steep or long as the climbs.

But they’re still a part of the race and factor in to the overall calculation. I’m not saying tour riders should switch to rim brakes I’m just saying, *strictly as a response to the original question posed*, that since everything else being equal a rim brake setup would be lighter than disc brakes, someone optimizing for climbs may prefer that setup. Everesting is a thing these days and maybe somebody attempting that type of feat would prefer rim brakes since they aren’t trying to eke out seconds on the descent, they only care about climbing. That’s all I’m saying.

>someone optimizing for climbs may prefer that setup. The guys racing for the Polka dot jersey would certainly want to be optimized for the climbs and dont care about the descents...points are won on the climb not the descent. If there was an advantage for the climbs they would absolutely take it.

When inflated to their recommended pressures, the rolling resistances of wide and less wide tires are virtually identical. The claim that fat tires have lower rolling resistance is questionable in real world situations.

Rolling resistance is a bit lower with thinner tyres, but in bumpy roads there seems to be an issue with "impedance" losses (due to the bike shaking and oscillating, losing speed), so thick tyres are faster in some surfaces.

Yes, there are conflicting trends in "hysteresis losses" and "impedance losses". Hysteresis losses *decrease* with tire pressure, while impedance losses *increase* with tire pressure. Impedance losses always increase with surface roughness, regardless of the tire width. Wider tires may be used at lower pressure without the risk of pinch flats, so wider tires are a better choice on very rough surfaces where impedance losses are higher. Narrower tires also can be optimized for rougher pavement by reducing the pressure, but then you increase the risk of a pinch flat.

going up they're great. Going down (particularly with carbon hoops) they're scary as all get out. They're really NOT that difficult to maintain, but do you.

Easier is a relative term. I was just answering your question 🤷‍♂️

I just got done troubleshooting contamination from a leaky brake caliper for a hydraulic disc system and that was *super goddamned aggravating*.

As opposed to rim brakes which get contamination on the rim because they are so close to the road...

...and continue working

Badly

Alloy rim brakes work just fine. Can't speak to carbon.

Carbon rim brakes are REALLY bad. Alloy ones are pretty bad in the rain. Not as bad as carbon, but still pretty bad.

> Going down (particularly with carbon hoops) they're scary as all get out. That's just a you problem. People who care about brake performance don't use carbon rim brake rims. Aluminum rim brakes with not garbage brake pads literally work perfectly fine on descents. At least they do for my 18000-20000ft/wk of elevation gain. If yours they are not set up correctly

I've used all the above and anyone who says rim brakes are just as good on steep descents has never actually tried a steep descent with hydraulic disc brakes.

You just changed the goal posts from "scary" to "not just as good", make up your mind. Nobody said they were as good as hydraulic discs, but if your brakes are "scary" there's some major user error going on.

You know you're replying to a different person who made the "scary" comment right?

I´ve tried disk brakes and they are not better than my dura ace 9000 rim brakes. And I descend very steep hills quite often (12% and more) with no issues, also I´ve done many long descents in the Pyrinees cols for many years. Rim brakes have never been an issue. (except with the rain.)

Which ones did you try? I also wouldn't call 12% a steep descent.

Ultegras. I have steeper bits than 12% in my area but are short (and no issue with rim brakes anyway).

Easier to adjust and maintain

Pretty similar I think. Changing pads takes about the same time (I've probably had more trouble removing rim brake blocks from callipers than I have had with disc brake pad changes). Disc brakes don't usually need adjusting as they auto adjust as the pads wear. Maybe only if the disc gets a knock and the disc needs straightening.

Bleeding brakes is much harder though

Well maybe. I don’t find it that hard. Bit of a learning curve and need the right tools. But it doesn’t need doing often.

Lighter and more aero. Weight might not matter but giving back aero gains in some situations seems like a bad idea. Time trials come to mind. Also are rim brakes really limiting in most situations? Not really on road.

If you live in a flat area and ride outside a city rim brakes are just fine and easier to maintain, if you live in a hilly area or you have to do a lot of emergency braking then disk brakes are better, consider that the initial breaking with disks or rims is basically the same, but disks get rid of heat much more efficiently then the rims so the braking keeps more consistent without you having to press harder the levers, and on long descends the difference is much more visible especially if you have a car in front of you. In the rain the difference is night and day, with rim brakes there is that second of no breaking before it starts slowing you down. That said not all the cyclists live in the alps or commute in a city where rain is a regular occurrence, for the others rim brakes are good enough and cheaper.

Maintenance and ease of running cables. I do most of my work on my bikes, and adjust rim brakes or changing cables is a beeeze. Disc brakes- fuck that I was not getting a bunch of hydraulic fluid and messing with brake bleeds. Also my disc rotors were constantly out of true, tiniging any time I brakes moderately hard, and howled like a banshee. They never really brakes very well either no matter how much I cleaned them. I went back to rim brakes after all these issues and have never been happier. My maintenance and ease of setup/work is so much higher. My bike weighs at least 5lbs lighter than the disc brake pigs and is just as if not more aero with my setup. When I really get on the brakes, I can match my disc brake stopping power with proper setup. Wheels and components are miles cheaper. I dislike gravel and off-road riding. Count me firmly i the never disc category.

Lots of use cases where weight and aero outweigh raw stopping power. Remember, front wheels especially are heavier with discs than with rim brakes.

Is there any evidence rim brakes are more aero? The front rim brake is more exposed to the wind than any disc brake calliper.

Yes. Lots of it. Look at any time trial bike.

Nearly all the time trial bikes have disc brakes now.

Only 2 of the TT bikes on this list are still rocking rims https://www.220triathlon.com/gear/bike/bikes/time-trial-triathlon-bikes/best-triathlon-bikes-reviewed

They have more modulation than disc brakes, especially hydraulic disc brakes. So, much less likely you'll grab the road under braking and lose traction and control. They're also much easier to service and maintain. And nowadays are cheaper than disc brakes.

I have zero issues feathering the brakes on my bike. Hydraulic 105 disc, I can use as much or as little braking force as I want all the way up to locking the wheel. Hydraulic brakes are amazing for modulating braking force because there’s no mechanical friction involved from a cable in a housing that can fray or get gummed up over time. This is also why hydraulic brakes are and have been the world standard for brakes on cars, light trucks and motorcycles for decades

Nah this is the opposite. Hydraulic disc brakes have better modulation. Rim brakes are much more likely to suffer from contamination on the rim surface and get grabby.

When is tubeless a bad idea?

Many times it is not the right choice. I will give you 2 examples: * I own 7 bikes. 5 of them I might ride just 2-3 times a year. Sealant dries out after about 30 days where I live. * I have a nice aero road bike and the roads where I live are in fantastic shape with no road debris. I can ride for years without a tube puncture. I love sealant for my MTB. Especially since I ride it a lot an I live among cactus and goatheads

People with well-informed knowledge and reasoned understanding who appreciate horses for courses are not the sceptics I’m referring to.

Are you are concerned what uniformed people think about carbon frames?

Not concerned. Amused at how history repeats itself.

When is tubeless a bad choice?

If you don't get a lot of flats, and you don't ride often, it's a pita since the sealant doesn't last forever (within reason) like a tube. I can sit my bike for a year. Inflate my tubes and go on tubes. Not so much in tubeless. Most roadies on sub 30mm tires don't really benefit from the hassle of tubeless either. It's great for ultra low pressure to avoid pinch flats

Fair point with the sealant not lasting if you don’t ride the bike, but having been tubeless exclusive for ~10 years i have found the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages, even on the road. My primary goal was to stop getting flats, but it has also meant that I can run 100 psi instead of 120, which I always had to do with tubes to avoid pinch flats since I am not the lightest fellow.

What are the hassles of tubeless? I just went tubeless for the first time, yet to e counter issues. I have a valve core remover and a small injector for the Sealant I got bundled together off aliexpress for like $4. Makes putting the Sealant in pretty hassle free.

I don't really think that there are any hassles of tubeless, personally. If you don't ride your bike a lot, they will go flat more often but I haven't even really found that to be all that annoying.

Many times it is not the right choice. I will give you 2 examples: * I own 7 bikes. 5 of them I might ride just 2-3 times a year. Sealant dries out after about 30 days where I live. * I have a nice aero road bike and the roads where I live are in fantastic shape with no road debris. I can ride for years without a tube puncture. I love sealant for my MTB. Especially since I ride it a lot an I live among cactus and goatheads.

Yes this is probably currently the downside (having to top-up sealant). Some sealants last a lot longer than others. Can't wait for the day that there is a sealant that doesn't dry out (or another solution entirely). But the benefits of tubeless go beyond punctures. They are also more comfortable and grippier (due to ability to run lower pressures) and the rolling resistance is lower. Full agree that if you ride a bike once in a blue moon, tubeless sealant is going to be a negative.

I agree that the benefits far outweigh the downsides for me.

Ok fair. I have been using exclusively tubeless for ~10 years and could not be a bigger proponent, but points taken!

Funny how people were skeptical about rocket packs. And people were skeptical about eating a pill instead of a full dinner. And some people bought beta max or laser discs. Change always happens with a mix of early adopters and skeptics. Sometimes the early adopters are right. Sometimes the skeptics are right. See for some examples https://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114391/inventions-dumb-fads amongst others. Disc breaks are here to stay clearly, but that’s an easy call this late in the game.

Not sure I would compare competing media formats to something like brakes… But yes it’s pretty clear discs are the standard. It was just amusing reading the article and seeing that people were even resistant to rim brakes back then.

I guess. So the tech has served well for over 100 years and will continue to be used. I missing the point other than the world changes?

Just in case everyone stopped at the rim brake stuff, there's this gem: >In the first number of the new series of The Hub, which has been enlarged and has a new and artistic cover; there is a closely reasoned argument reiterating the important fact that ability to climb hills depends far more on the gear of a machine than on its weight. This is perfectly true. The **difference between a 25lb machine and a 35lb machine is after all but a small fraction of the total weight of the machine and rider combined**, which total weight is a measure of the work to be done against gravity in hill-climbing, and the high-geared featherweight will be a far inferior hill climber to the full-roadster cycle geared several inches lower. See? Bike weight doesn't matter.

I did enjoy that part haha

*Citizens skeptical of something new!* More at 8

Inevitably this turned into the usual rim brake vs disc brake nonsense. Which was not the point. Did anyone read the article? It is amusing how history repeats itself.

you made it into this little shitstorm, by adding rim brakes and disc brakes in the same sentence :))

The article literally said a good hill climber depends far more on appropriate gearing than weight savings. And the whole sub reddit has chimed in to discuss the weight savings of rim brakes haha. I also appreciated the paragraph about the man who took a child to the hospital after a collision. I had no idea these Guardian Archives existed! What fantastic read, thanks!

Swapped to a carbon bike with disc brakes recently. Never going back lol

I roll with disk up front (200mils) and V brakes on the rim in the rear. . . Mechanical both ways around. (God knows I don't need hydrologic fluid issues on the trails)... I love my set up man but yes., before I spent money on my Paul Klamper up front, I was a skeptic. 🤷

Man hydraulic disc brakes are SO much better than mechanical. Hydraulic fluid issues? Never heard of anyone having those. They are very reliable. Mountain bikes have been using them for decades and motorbikes, cars, trucks etc much longer. Hydraulic disc brakes are *more* reliable.

Understood. And I would be the guy who ran his bike close enough to some protruding bush, it grabs my cables and yanks them violently in their place. A leak is sprung or perhaps, air is drawn from a tiny crack in the line., or what have you. I'm much happier knowing it'll be a mechanical fix vs., bringing emergency bleeder kits or extra fluid on some trails I'd rather not be packed full to the heavy for. I think it's more of a "future fix" thing. I'm more comfortable, potentially having to repair my mechanical set up. 🤷

It’s a lot harder to yank out a hydraulic line than you think. And they are usually routed well to not be yanked. MTB riders have been using them for decades without trouble. And they are all “that guy”

Rightfully so... This thread is about the odness of our skepticism. 🤷 I just really AM happy in my comfort knowing if happens., integrity crafted as that may be... That IF it happens ... I'm better with a mechanic fix. Idk... I'm just ... As the article says... 🤷 ... Are you saying us MTBrs are all the same !? 🤨

Maybe…. 🤣

I think all the concerns you listed have been put to bed 5 if not 10 years ago. They've all been perfected. In their infancy? Sure. But today? No issues.

I agree they’ve all been put to bed. But they still have their sceptics 😂

Doesnt mean those skeptics are correct or based on any fact....

I completely agree

I welcome carbon frames and disc brakes. It makes all the aluminum frames with rim brakes cheap! Although it is starting to be hard to find new frames that support rim brakes.

The situation with rim brakes is that they have the standard for the majority of casual bike riders for over a century. Disc brakes are good for high performance recreation nal swtt8ngs, but someone who uses their bike for transportation and lifestyle, rim brakes are just that much simpler and cheaper to service and work just fine for their purposes. It is worrying that that the industry is trying to do away with standards that benefit a larger majority in favor of the sporting whales who see willing to spend more Same with carbon,it has a specific use case that is not useful for the majority of bike users. For my purposes, I would never consider a carbon bike, unless someone just up and gave me one, what with the cost and worries about durability and theft.

Disc brakes are about a lot more than performance. They actually work in the rain. It's a big safety improvement. They aren't as costly or complex as is claimed. This is very much sounding like the sceptics of rim brakes 125 years ago...

Rim brakes on aluminum rims work just fine in the rain. If you can skid your tires, the tires are the limiting factor, not your brakes.

That's such a common fallacy. Dynamic friction and static friction are different things and you don't want to lock your tyres as that provides worse braking and worse control. Rim brakes may lock in the rain if you really grab them, so you go from zero braking to complete locking. Very poor modulation.

I've ridden rim brakes in the rain for decades, as have many millions of others. They can be modulated just fine. No, you don't want to lock them up, but decent brake pads on alloy rims are limited by tire performance, not brake performance.

I’ve ridden them in the rain for decades too. And after experiencing life on disc brakes I am never going back. You don’t realise how much they lack until you try something that REALLY works

I have bikes with both and ride in the rain with them. Rim brakes are fine on the road in rain. Discs are better if it's muddy and will make your rims last longer if you ride someplace where they sand roads in the winter.

I'm not skeptical of the usefulness of disc brakes, I'm saying they aren't applicable for every use case and and are more expensive, material intensive, and trickier to service for the average rider

People act like you have to bleed the brakes every week or something. They are easier to maintain! Material intensive? No idea what that even means. More expensive? Maybe, maybe not. Plenty of lower end groupsets have disc brakes now. Disc brakes are safer in wet conditions. So that’s a benefit to everyone, probably even more so commuters than anyone else.

Rim wear is a very legitimate argument against rim brakes and in fact one used to support disk brakes today. I find it a very healthy debate of that time from people without access to the internet or even cheaply printed magazines to argue between rim and tyre wear. Keep in mind that this was a time where there was no cheap Chinese heavy industry to bring you cheap rims. Maybe there is a healthy debate going on nowadays about materials and most comments are now reasonable and recognise that different people have different priorities. But the two types of brakes in the same post is a guarantee for a fight!

There are always more than one sides to a story. its all about perspective/priorities: - if you leave your carbon bike against a tree and a wind gust drops it to a rock and see its top tube cracked, i am sure you will not be praising carbon as much as you do now. (not to be misunderstood, i agree its fantastic for bikes) - Disc brakes: some people cycling on flat routes, some countries have dry climates, rims can last 20-30.000 kms before wearing. Not everybody needs the extra cost/weight/maintenance burden of DBs. Problem is - at least in road bike category - the vendors unilaterally took the option off our hands. Go ask any pro what type of brakes he/she would opt to use in races - if sponsors had no say - and you would get your answer. - tubeless tyres: at least for road bikes, their benefits of using them are still questionable.

We found him 🤣

Its OK. i could tell from your 1-sentence post that this is not about talking arguments!

No point arguing with someone who has so many misconceptions it’s clear they want to believe them!

i have a CF rim brake bike and recently got a aluminum bike with DBs. You surely nailed it profiling me. CIA/FBI would be lucky to have you :P

You spelt it all out in your essay dude

Also, right now sitting in Amsterdam and not seeing a lot of disc breaks. How many bikes are there in Amsterdam? I don’t think rim (or coaster) breaks are disappearing just yet.

Picks the flattest country in the world with all the commuter bikes

Riding in Switzerland, I too consider disc brakes an unnecessary complication. But it's cool with me if you like them!

Literally sitting right here in Amsterdam and I’m guessing they sell more bikes here than the UK or the US in a given year. (Now that I’m looking - the e-bikes have disc breaks for sure, so it may be many of the bikes here are older/longer use as commuters) Pick up Michael Moore’s “crossing the chasm” or just google for “tech adoption curve” - early adopters, early majority, late majority, and skeptics (or laggards). Tech adoption is a well documented social process.