Joined
·
13,341 Posts
We have the Froominator to thank for the resurrection of this topic.It was never designed to end the conversation (how could it??? this is RBR after all...). The thread was designed to prevent this topic from spilling over into every other discussion, which it was at the time. It's all right there in the first post. To be fair though, I am as surprised as anyone that this topic is still carrying on and that it has any fire left to it at all lol.
Both are good, both are bad too because there are pros and cons to any kind of brake system on bikes. Most of this though is humans finding reasons to argue with and label one another about another topic about which there is no true "right" answer so that they can prove how much smarter they are. The simple fact of the matter is you can have a lightweight exceptional bike with either brake type. You can have a fast bike with either brake type. You can have an aero bike with either brake type. You can have reasonably quick wheel changes with either brake type. Lots of people do all of these things at this point in fact. To argue anything else is silly. Just choose what you prefer and ride it. Share what you like about what you chose whenever and wherever you like, but why try to convince other humans that they are completely off base for liking a different brake type that works well enough for pros to be using it? (and yes pros are still using both brake types in pretty much every race). It just seems like banging your head against the wall and completely ignoring the reality about how much has changed since we started this thread just for the sake of it. If it still floats your boat, do you though.i find the thesis that discs are bad on road bikes to be more convincing.
it's very lucrative for bike industry to push disc brakes, even though these bikes are inferior to rim bikes of the last generation. 400g is massively lighter on a high performance road bike.
It's called religion. Just like chain lube.Both are good, both are bad too because there are pros and cons to any kind of brake system on bikes. Most of this though is humans finding reasons to argue with and label one another about another topic about which there is no true "right" answer so that they can prove how much smarter they are. The simple fact of the matter is you can have a lightweight exceptional bike with either brake type. You can have a fast bike with either brake type. You can have an aero bike with either brake type. You can have reasonably quick wheel changes with either brake type. Lots of people do all of these things at this point in fact. To argue anything else is silly. Just choose what you prefer and ride it. Share what you like about what you chose whenever and wherever you like, but why try to convince other humans that they are completely off base for liking a different brake type that works well enough for pros to be using it? (and yes pros are still using both brake types in pretty much every race). It just seems like banging your head against the wall and completely ignoring the reality about how much has changed since we started this thread just for the sake of it. If it still floats your boat, do you though.
What? Did somebody say... ?It's called religion. Just like chain lube.
Here, here, this one needs a bump!What? Did somebody say... ?
Oh, emmm, geee....if this ever happens.....I've got a great name for it. Call it a "motor" cycle. I mean, isn't that just the best name ever? Sometimes I amaze myself.A motor?
Right on!by that logic we can include bicycles powered by motors running on donuts and coffee as 'motorcycles' too. Like every 2 wheeled thing in your garage.
motor
mo·tor | \ ˈmō-tər \
Definition of motor
(Entry 1 of 3)
1: one that imparts motion specifically : PRIME MOVER
motor
adjective
Definition of motor (Entry 2 of 3)
1a: causing or imparting motion
b: of, relating to, or being a motor neuron or a nerve containing motor neuronsmotor fiber
c: of, relating to, concerned with, or involving muscular movement, or motor areas of the brain