Quote:
Originally Posted by carlucci1106
-This horse is definitely beaten to a bloody pulp...
|
But I can still beat THE PULP!
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpotatoe
Far too often a rim brake guy is chastised, or criticized for sticking to rim brakes, even here...
|
I'm waiting to hear reports of riders being chastised on group rides for riding rim brakes, being told their "weaker" rim brakes make them dangerous within the group.
As has been pointed out, back in the day, the majority of rim brakes were 47-57mm reach and could comfortably fit a Paris-Roubaix sized tire. But as roads got smoother and in the search for lighter weight, short reach brakes became the norm. Sure; a short reach brake at max reach could fit a 28 or even a 32mm tire (my bike can), but manufacturers and most custom builders, find it easier to be safe and build their frames with short reach brakes set to mid-slot, limiting tire choices. Also, with the introduction of carbon forks and their larger volume fork crown area, tire clearances were reduced.
I believe disc brakes became the norm on road bikes as a solution when it was discovered rim brakes on carbon rims caused tire overheating and clincher blowouts or softened tubular glue, leading to you-know-what, and improved braking over carbon rims using rim brakes, when wet, along with the specialized brake pads needed.
I just see disc brakes being too technically complicated for something (a bicycle) which I feel should be readily serviceable by the majority of home mechanics. Bleeding hydraulics and the use of fluids which must be disposed of ecologically are big negatives for me.
I also agree with oldpotatoe in that an entire, evolving marketing rationale was created to justify discs and convince cyclists they were
needed vs, an option. They've done a good job.