SRAM hydraulic brakes

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:42:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:09:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 12:43:47 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 6:00:40 AM UTC-4, Peter Howard wrote:
On 31/08/2015 1:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

My opinion is to use cantilever brakes. All is visible, troubles are few
and diagnostics are easy.

But YMMV. As someone recently said, this is Usenet. ;-)

Always, the trick on Usenet and indeed the whole Internet is to assess
whether an opinion is backed up by knowledge and experience.

My opinion is that the newer V-brake possess most of the advantages of
canti's except massive pad clearance plus having some advantages of
their own.

Agreed. I generally consider V-brakes to be a subspecies of cantilever brakes.

There are two problems with V-bakes - if you use them on a bike with wide tires they may not open wide enough to allow the tire to fit in-between the brake shoes and the tire. Since they have a lot more leverage their clearance has to be a lot less than with V-brakes.

What are "wide tires"? I've used vee brakes on 2.5" tires with no
problems with tire clearance. After all they do have a "quick
release".

As for brake clearance, that is more a factor of brake lever, i.e.,
handle, design than any mythical clearance. As I have previously
written I have used vee-brakes with just about all styles of brake
levers available with no problems.
--
cheers,

John B.

The V-brakes with the long shoes on them are stopped by the fork or the seat stays on some bikes. On my old Bridgestone MB they wouldn't open wide enough on a 2" tire. It got to the point where I would get the narrow road brake shoes so that I could open them wide enough.

Am 01.09.2015 um 18:44 schrieb sms:
Discs are becoming more common because newer wheels can't dissipate as
much heat as discs. For flatland riding this isn't an issue, but for
long, steep, downhill runs it's an issue.

In Germany, we have had the opposite argument. The common 160 discs are
far too small to dissipate enough heat in mountain terrain, and discs
are destroyed by too much heat, while rims typically keep their shape
and are undamaged after a 5-minute coll-off period.

But: mechanical vs hyraulic is a completely different topic than rim vs.
disc, as there are hydraulic rim brakes and mechanical disc brakes.

I was most happy with my MAGURA hydraulic rim brakes. Hydraulic has the
advantage of providing a good pressure point that does not change with
wear of brake pads (not an issue for disc brakes).

Am 01.09.2015 um 21:34 schrieb :
On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 02:37:33 UTC+10, Tosspot wrote:

For me, hydraulic disc (but*not* DOT5) every time.

Ooooh, if you want them to last, you'd better . . .

I found hydralic rim brakes by Magura to provide the best reliability
with least meaintenance effort (10 years of commuting with only changing
brake pads occasionally).

Now I have disc brakes, and it's a lot more hassle. When the bike falls
over I have to be careful not to touch the brakes when turning it
upright again; I am too stupit to change the brake pads myself; the
brake pads are a lot more expensive etc.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:00:03 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 01.09.2015 um 18:44 schrieb sms:
Discs are becoming more common because newer wheels can't dissipate as
much heat as discs. For flatland riding this isn't an issue, but for
long, steep, downhill runs it's an issue.

In Germany, we have had the opposite argument. The common 160 discs are
far too small to dissipate enough heat in mountain terrain, and discs
are destroyed by too much heat, while rims typically keep their shape
and are undamaged after a 5-minute coll-off period.

But: mechanical vs hyraulic is a completely different topic than rim vs.
disc, as there are hydraulic rim brakes and mechanical disc brakes.

I was most happy with my MAGURA hydraulic rim brakes. Hydraulic has the
advantage of providing a good pressure point that does not change with
wear of brake pads (not an issue for disc brakes).

I assume you are talking about off-road riding. I rarely put the brakes on even on very steep downhills unless I'm in an area where I can expect cross traffic.

On 9/9/2015 12:31 PM, wrote:


I assume you are talking about off-road riding. I rarely put the brakes
on even on very steep downhills unless I'm in an area where I can expect
cross traffic.

BTW, on last night's club ride, we were descending an excellent hill in
a wooded area. I seem to like fast coasting more than most of my
friends, so I was at the front doing about 30 mph when three large
fawns, maybe 75 pounds each, appeared out of the woods and trotted
across the road.

I yelled very loudly. One scampered across, the other doubled back,
then turned again towards the road, causing me to yell again. The third
trotted parallel to the road looking confused.

I think that was the hardest I've ever braked at high speed. But I was
lucky. If those fawns had randomly moved in front of me, there would
have been no way to stop in time, no matter what brakes I had.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Am 09.09.2015 um 18:31 schrieb :
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:00:03 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel
wrote:
Am 01.09.2015 um 18:44 schrieb sms:
Discs are becoming more common because newer wheels can't
dissipate as much heat as discs. For flatland riding this isn't
an issue, but for long, steep, downhill runs it's an issue.

In Germany, we have had the opposite argument. The common 160
discs are far too small to dissipate enough heat in mountain
terrain, and discs are destroyed by too much heat, while rims
typically keep their shape and are undamaged after a 5-minute
coll-off period.

I assume you are talking about off-road riding. I rarely put the
brakes on even on very steep downhills unless I'm in an area where I
can expect cross traffic.

No, I'm talking of mountain roads. If you drop 4,000ft within 30
minutes, this is usually on roads with switchbacks not allowing speeds
above 10-15 mph. Either after a switchback you release the brakes and
need to slow down from 40 mph to 15 before the next switchback, or you
apply the brakes continuously in order to stay slow.

On Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:20:04 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.09.2015 um 18:31 schrieb :
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 2:00:03 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel
wrote:
Am 01.09.2015 um 18:44 schrieb sms:
Discs are becoming more common because newer wheels can't
dissipate as much heat as discs. For flatland riding this isn't
an issue, but for long, steep, downhill runs it's an issue.

In Germany, we have had the opposite argument. The common 160
discs are far too small to dissipate enough heat in mountain
terrain, and discs are destroyed by too much heat, while rims
typically keep their shape and are undamaged after a 5-minute
coll-off period.

I assume you are talking about off-road riding. I rarely put the
brakes on even on very steep downhills unless I'm in an area where I
can expect cross traffic.

No, I'm talking of mountain roads. If you drop 4,000ft within 30
minutes, this is usually on roads with switchbacks not allowing speeds
above 10-15 mph. Either after a switchback you release the brakes and
need to slow down from 40 mph to 15 before the next switchback, or you
apply the brakes continuously in order to stay slow.

I overheated the rim on a tandem and flatted on this descent near town (in dry weather). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0 I could have used some discs or a drag brake on that bike.

I use discs on my commuter because they stop better in wet weather.Rim brakes are fine for most purposes in dry weather, although there might be heat build-up and breaking issues with CF rims -- and a legitimate reason for discs, particularly on sew-up wheels when heating causes adhesive melting and tire squirm.

-- Jay Beattie.