Did anyone else ride Barry Roubaix last weekend? If you aren't familiar, it's billed as the worlds largest gravel race and conditions were rather epic in terms of rain, mud, cold, and wind. I'm riding an older Trek CX bike with traditional brakes and had no issues with braking on the downhills, but lost track of the number of people with disc brakes having to resort to using their feet to stop as they were without brakes. This got me thinking, if disc brakes were originally designed and/or used on mountain bikes and are supposed to be superior in wet conditions, why did so many people have to resort to Flintstone style braking? Are the pads just that thin that an hour or two in the gravel basically wore them down like sandpaper? If they can be worn down that easy, aren't you better off with traditional rim brakes in circumstances like that? I understand they have better braking power, but that doesn't seem to help if you can't stop at all. I'm sure there's a simple answer to this and I'm not trying to troll yet another disc brake thread, but this question started bouncing around in my head last night while trying to fall asleep and I thought you folks would have the answer.