Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Grant Peterson's Thoughts on Disc Brakes
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 16:29:08 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vd1rql$3q55o$11@dont-email.me>
References: <vd1q13$3qd4f$2@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 22:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f4dff14032ac6234f6314049b8fe3ff9";
	logging-data="4003000"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18TfCFeqfecNUEAmIfdswc+gW6dnIDgumw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:izStFZvu4FESAW3RgRajY+t8y10=
In-Reply-To: <vd1q13$3qd4f$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6607

On 9/25/2024 3:58 PM, sms wrote:
> <https://bikeretrogrouch.blogspot.com/2016/06/gps-thoughts-on-disc- 
> brakes.html>
> 
> If I could summarize Petersen's view on disc brakes, it is that there's 
> nothing exactly wrong with them, but they aren't the vast and remarkable 
> improvement over good rim brakes that the industry has been pushing for 
> the last few years. In other words, they don't make bikes with rim 
> brakes obsolete, and shouldn't.
> 
> Petersen points out some of the benefits of disc brakes -- notably the 
> fact that they are less affected by mud and water, and that they don't 
> heat up rims to the point of tire blowout on scary-fast descents.  Then 
> again, for the majority of cyclists and conditions, those benefits are 
> over-sold. And on the down-side, as he adds, the leverage of a disc 
> brake concentrates a lot of force near the hub, putting a lot more 
> stress on seat-stays, and on fork blades far from the crown. As a 
> result, frames need to be beefed up in those areas, which can affect 
> compliance and comfort. He also mentions how those braking forces 
> concentrated out at the frame ends have been enough to overwhelm quick 
> releases and even "lawyer tabs" on front forks, necessitating the move 
> to through-axles. To wit, he asks the question, "Which is better -- a 
> mechanical system that localizes stress on a small area, then bullies it 
> into submission with bulk and beef, or one that disperses stress and 
> spreads it out?"
> 
> He goes on to say, "Disc brakes are fine, but if the bike could speak 
> for itself, it might request a rim brake. . . The fact is, rim brakes 
> are getting pounded these days, but it's a kind of artificial pounding 
> by fashion and commerce."
> 
> I would have to agree with that. I mean, if I were looking at a new bike 
> on the showroom floor and the bike I wanted came with disc brakes, I 
> certainly wouldn't reject it for that reason. But at the same time, I 
> wouldn't be drawn to a particular bike because it had discs. And if 
> there were another bike basically the same but with rim brakes, and 
> selling for a lower price, I'd probably choose to save the money.
> 
> But there's another point to be made that resonates with me. And that is 
> regarding the simplicity of a traditional rim brake. Everything is out 
> in the open, easy to see and easy to maintain, while potential problems 
> are easy to diagnose and solve. Some would likely point out that once a 
> modern hydraulic disc brake system is set up properly, it needs little 
> maintenance. To which I would respond that getting it set up properly is 
> a lot more likely to be something that requires an experienced mechanic, 
> and if something actually goes wrong (and things do, indeed, go wrong - 
> even on the best of systems) it can be a lot harder to diagnose or 
> solve. This is something I wrote about last year when a bike reviewer 
> for BikeRadar had a pretty scary disc brake failure on a test ride. In 
> that case, the brake components were sent back to Shimano for 
> inspection, but ultimately, even they couldn't adequately explain how or 
> why the failure occurred.
> 
> Petersen describes it like this: "Ultimately, you can expect the bicycle 
> of the immediate future to become more of a high tech black box, with 
> cables being replaced by hydraulics, and the visible levers and pulleys 
> and other simple machines that combine into bicycle magic being hidden 
> or replaced by electronics. The bicycle of the future will, absolutely, 
> be shrouded in mystery and sold on reputation and faith, like a Samsung 
> flat-screen TV."
> 
> He continues, "There's a tendency to trust mechanisms you can't see more 
> than those you can, because when you see how something works, you see 
> also the potential for failure. . . If you're mechanically adept you 
> might be more attracted to something you can figure out and fix, but 
> more people aren't that than are."
> 
> That really nails it for me, and it's something I've touched on again 
> and again in this blog - whether it's electronic shifting, or disc 
> brakes, or integrated/connected dashboards and other electronic gewgaws 
> -- all that stuff makes the bike more of a "black box" (I like that 
> description, so I'm using it) and takes it further from the simplicity 
> that I value in a bicycle. Fly-by-wire electronic and hydraulic systems, 
> for efficiency, comfort, and safety, all controlled by a state-of-the- 
> art computer is fine for my car. But what makes a bicycle special is 
> that it demonstrably doesn't need any of that to make it any better.
> 
> People do seem to like push-button/touch-screen convenience, which oddly 
> enough seems so simple, but only because the far greater complexity is 
> kept hidden, and only accessible by those who are specially trained and 
> certified to look behind the plastic covers. That illusory simplicity is 
> great when everything works as it should, but vanishes into the ether 
> when something goes wrong. It's like a microwave oven. If something goes 
> wrong, it ends up costing more to fix it than to just scrap it and buy a 
> new one. Bikes and bike components shouldn't be that.
> 
> In the end of Petersen's blug post, he concludes by saying "Don't dis 
> the rim brake. It's beautiful and it works, and today's rim brakes are 
> better than ever."
> 
> Couldn't agree more.

+1

-- 
- Frank Krygowski