Please don’t make this a rim vs disc bloodfest. Stage 17 won with rim brake

[MoPho]

No sponsors, and rim brakes just went gold and silver at the olympics mens road race. There is no way rim brakes are going anywhere when thats what the best riders in the world prefer to win.

You should go out and buy a Pinarello F too, because that's what the best riders in the world prefer to win

No thanks, I prefer my Mosaic GT-1 with custom paint and Di2 with XTR rotors. I'll let you enjoy that dogma F.

Nah, I'm a loser and don't care what pros use

[CasualRider]

My 2 cents. Rims brakes have no future simply because there is no advantage over disc. But disc brakes is just a much better and more efficient system.

To all people arguing about the weight of the bikes you should watch videos on Youtube about how much those bikes actually weigh, and big surprise none of them are at 6.8kg. Most over 7.2kg+. The reason why? Because it's not very important unless it's a mountain stage and even still most pros are on discs because there is really no advantage. You can get a disc bike under 7kg without issues if weight is your argument and you can descent faster on discs too by breaking later. (not in all cases).

And most major manufacturers know that. If weight was a crucial factor most companies would only make bikes under 7kg. The new Spesh Tarmac is a perfect example, it's not any lighter and in most cases heavier than 5 years old top of the line bikes, but the ride is significantly better and more comfortable.

Also, people forget that the importance of comfort which translated to less fatigue = more energy = more speed.

[wheelsONfire]

My 2 cents. Rims brakes have no future simply because there is no advantage over disc. But disc brakes is just a much better and more efficient system.

To all people arguing about the weight of the bikes you should watch videos on Youtube about how much those bikes actually weigh, and big surprise none of them are at 6.8kg. Most over 7.2kg+. The reason why? Because it's not very important unless it's a mountain stage and even still most pros are on discs because there is really no advantage. You can get a disc bike under 7kg without issues if weight is your argument and you can descent faster on discs too by breaking later. (not in all cases).

And most major manufacturers know that. If weight was a crucial factor most companies would only make bikes under 7kg. The new Spesh Tarmac is a perfect example, it's not any lighter and in most cases heavier than 5 years old top of the line bikes, but the ride is significantly better and more comfortable.

Also, people forget that the importance of comfort which translated to less fatigue = more energy = more speed.

I think your assumption of people not giving a crap about weight are flawed. There will always be people way more into lowering weight and having a light bike.
Aero is a pretty new ideal compared to ww:ism. But hey, if you don't care and if there are several others, that's fine.
Disc brakes are sure great talking braking, but part from that the rest is on the minus scale of things.

[MikeD]

My 2 cents. Rims brakes have no future simply because there is no advantage over disc. But disc brakes is just a much better and more efficient system.

To all people arguing about the weight of the bikes you should watch videos on Youtube about how much those bikes actually weigh, and big surprise none of them are at 6.8kg. Most over 7.2kg+. The reason why? Because it's not very important unless it's a mountain stage and even still most pros are on discs because there is really no advantage. You can get a disc bike under 7kg without issues if weight is your argument and you can descent faster on discs too by breaking later. (not in all cases).

And most major manufacturers know that. If weight was a crucial factor most companies would only make bikes under 7kg. The new Spesh Tarmac is a perfect example, it's not any lighter and in most cases heavier than 5 years old top of the line bikes, but the ride is significantly better and more comfortable.

Also, people forget that the importance of comfort which translated to less fatigue = more energy = more speed.

I think your assumption of people not giving a crap about weight are flawed. There will always be people way more into lowering weight and having a light bike.

Bravo. That's why this forum is called Weight Weenies.

[stevesbike]

My 2 cents. Rims brakes have no future simply because there is no advantage over disc. But disc brakes is just a much better and more efficient system.

To all people arguing about the weight of the bikes you should watch videos on Youtube about how much those bikes actually weigh, and big surprise none of them are at 6.8kg. Most over 7.2kg+. The reason why? Because it's not very important unless it's a mountain stage and even still most pros are on discs because there is really no advantage. You can get a disc bike under 7kg without issues if weight is your argument and you can descent faster on discs too by breaking later. (not in all cases).

And most major manufacturers know that. If weight was a crucial factor most companies would only make bikes under 7kg. The new Spesh Tarmac is a perfect example, it's not any lighter and in most cases heavier than 5 years old top of the line bikes, but the ride is significantly better and more comfortable.

Also, people forget that the importance of comfort which translated to less fatigue = more energy = more speed.

1. The roughly pound weight savings of a rim setup will allow for deeper profile/deeper section wheels, so the rim brake bike will always have an advantage over a disc brake bike of equal weight -see the thread aero vs weight with plots and aero rim brakes are all the fastest (plotting time on courses with varying climbing).

2. Re descending faster, how many times did an Ineos or UAE rider on rim brakes get dropped by disc brake bikes at the Tour?
3. There is no relation between rim brakes and bike comfort.
4. The reason bike manufacturers adopted disc brakes is because it created new demand as their marketing dept hyped up 'advances' - it's ridiculous especially when you consider that most people do not ride in the mountains. Even more ridiculous for triathlon and time trial.
5. Again referring back to the aero vs weight thread, the decision not to change the UCI weight limit a few years ago has been a regressive decision for bike performance.

[MoPho]

I think your assumption of people not giving a crap about weight are flawed. There will always be people way more into lowering weight and having a light bike.

The reason people care about weight is because they have been conditioned by decades of the same marketing you guys like to rail against (in regards to disc) to think they need a light bike. Light weight parts are just more stuff for them to sell you, it is no different than you folks claim about disc brakes.


"Weightweenie-ism" is a hobby not a necessity, the vast majority of cyclist don't race and while they may think a little about weight, at the end of the day the kind of weight we are talking about here does not really matter at all

.

[CasualRider]

I see your points and we're mostly on the same page. But I just can't see rim brakes in lets say 5 years from now on any bike.

System weight is important so unless one can't get any leaner and faster you shouldn't worry too much of 1 lb weight difference in bikes. In reality it translates to less than 0.5-1% of total system weight.

I totally get that WW is of a hobby.

[wheelsONfire]

When Cervelo was designing RCA and had it out, they had gathered lots of data and rider input. What they could not measure or fully comprehend, was the massive input that professional riders was so intrigued with the low weight and benefit they swore by. There is video clips and interviews for those that like to google.
Many here rely fully on data, which i can understand. But i don't see aero and disc brakes as the evolution grail. I think for fans of cycling, there's really no way to come up with a preference except for riding more bikes. Personally i really dislike the mech work on integrated bikes and disc brakes.
I prefer easy access (working with the bike), ride feel and correct fit (that isn't aero + massive row of spacers and short reach cockpit) to get the best handling. Disc brake frame + fork needs to be reinforced for the stress of disc brakes, this is no good thing when it comes to ride feel. Much of this is masked as people start to use wider tires. The profile of aero already is an issue when it comes to comfort compared to a none aero design. Now add disc brakes to this and you got two facts that simply is in the way of comfort. Riding 2,3 and 4 hours and comfort and fun totally trumps a few seconds of gain in speed.
The industry always find means to boost the progress of what they offer, but that simply isn't the whole story.

[kar]

We do not discuss one more important factor: the consumer. In the last decade, people are getting fatter and fatter in the developed world, particularly the urban population. Google it, all the data is available.
So they need to put brakes (Disc, of course) in eating and then they will appreciate rim brakes.

If rim brakes die in the next 5 years or so, it is not because they are not a good system. They are not good in all situations for heavy system weight. No wonder American bike companies are in the forefront of killing rim brakes.

[Shpox]

The industry always find means to boost the progress of what they offer, but that simply isn't the whole story.

You make some good points. This almost reminds me of the skinny tyres era, where skinny meant faster, but now comfort with fatter tyres has entered the chat.

I think rider fatigue isn't really a metric measured. How comfortable someone is over a long-distance means just as much.
I'm disappointed with the integrated direction also, although I understand it. It's all become too serious, each tried tracked on strava so you can beat your old one. Do you need to have a race every ride?

Go riding without a bike computer and I'd best you would enjoy it more.

[rollinslow]

The industry always find means to boost the progress of what they offer, but that simply isn't the whole story.

You make some good points. This almost reminds me of the skinny tyres era, where skinny meant faster, but now comfort with fatter tyres has entered the chat.

I think rider fatigue isn't really a metric measured. How comfortable someone is over a long-distance means just as much.
I'm disappointed with the integrated direction also, although I understand it. It's all become too serious, each tried tracked on strava so you can beat your old one. Do you need to have a race every ride?

Go riding without a bike computer and I'd best you would enjoy it more.

I took off all of my bike computers and stopped wasting my time with them. Too many Garmin failures or where it just took the pleasure of riding away. And I shaved a pound of weight off my bike.

[smartyiak]

We do not discuss one more important factor: the consumer. In the last decade, people are getting fatter and fatter in the developed world, particularly the urban population. Google it, all the data is available.
So they need to put brakes (Disc, of course) in eating and then they will appreciate rim brakes.

If rim brakes die in the next 5 years or so, it is not because they are not a good system. They are not good in all situations for heavy system weight. No wonder American bike companies are in the forefront of killing rim brakes.

I like it...my favorite explanation yet!

I prefer rim brakes and it has NOTHING to do with weight or aero. I live in Delaware, USA...there are no mountains here. Rim brakes have two cables and four pads...that's it. No fluid, no rubbing, easy adjustment. I keep seeing new bikes with hidden cables...they look fantastic...until I read: cables will have to be disconnected and cut...possibly brakes will have to be re-bled.

With rim brakes, even with hidden cables, the whole event would take 20min (cut housing, route cable, adjust)...I just don't want to deal with it. Don't want to deal with brake rub, warped discs, rebleeds. I deal with it on my MTB b/c there's a real improvement w/ discs on the trail. For where I live, there's no real improvement on the road. Rim brakes are simpler, easier, and work just fine...that's why I hope they don't get phased out (or I can keep finding NOS rim frames).

[tomato]

I took off all of my bike computers and stopped wasting my time with them. Too many Garmin failures or where it just took the pleasure of riding away. And I shaved a pound of weight off my bike.

A one pound bike computer? You should have just upgraded from vacuum tubes to transistors.

[rollinslow]

I took off all of my bike computers and stopped wasting my time with them. Too many Garmin failures or where it just took the pleasure of riding away. And I shaved a pound of weight off my bike.

A one pound bike computer? You should have just upgraded from vacuum tubes to transistors.

Just weighed the garmin 1030 unit and the k edge mount. It's half a pound.

[FlyingDutchman]

I like the simplicity of a bike. Hydraulic brakes, electronic shifting there are some( minute?) advantages, but it also adds complication. I have helped people on the road with broken brake cables, broken deraileur cables, with simple on board tools. And the strongest rider can still win, without the fancy stuff, or loose with the wrong tactics(Dutch women at the Olympics)