Ummm...yeah...I'm thinking that even with ABS, there's other reasons to have separate wheel brake controls on a 2-wheeled vehicle....

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Racing tri's in the rain? I can think of a number of horrific races in the rain off the top of my head
Wilkes Barre Pennsylvania, August 1994. FK me it rained hard. There were several times that day when I thought I was going to die on the bike. The rim brakes on my QR were 'ornamental' at best.
Ironman NZ, 1998 rain and hail on the bike. Several major downhills. Rim braking was an exercise in seeing how tight I could clench my sphincter!
Ironman NZ, 2009, brutal rain on the bike. I hit something on the road (a chunk of 2x4?) at about 70kph on a downhill near the race track. I snapped both seat rails, smacked my balls onto the top tube, almost puked. I only stayed upright thanks to inertia and the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. As soon as I could, I braked as hard as I could, with negligible effect, slowing more from sitting up and catching more wind than any effect of the rubber on ali. I'm not at all religious, but the pathetic braking that gave me enough time to recite the Lords Prayer.....Twice!
Rotorua 1/2 ironman, several times racing in the rain on winding steep, rough downhills, on my Cervelo P2K and more recently my P2. Due to pathetic braking in the rain, any downhill in the rain results in me braking, even if I don't need to, to try and keep the rims as dry and possible to get whatever braking effect I can.

Racing road in the rain (sportives actually) with rim brakes, far too many times to remember. Hell, even riding rim brakes approaching freezing point is bad. NFG. I did the Enduro and "Round Taupo", a 320km event that started at 1:30am. About 4am, the temp sensor in my support car registered just 1 deg C. On a long winding 10km long downhill, I quickly learned that cold rubber is about as effective as wet rubber. I used ALL the road several times on corners thanks to atrocious rim brake braking.

On top of racing/sportives, I cycle commute to work every day, for the past 15 years. That's over approaching 4000 days I've ridden to work. Here it rains virtually every day for close to half the year. I'm extremely well acquainted with riding in the rain (undulating 13km ride each way) on a variety of bikes (Cruiser bike, MTB, several road bikes 3 different tri bikes, MTB etc) with a variety of brakes. In the rain (not riding past a sprinkler), rim brakes are dramatically inferior to disc brakes.
Training rides in the rain (tri bike) I've already outlined my INCREASING speed with full braking, in the rain story, above. How about them apples?

FWIW, I'm an ex-pro downhill skier. Going fast doesn't scare me and going downhill fast doesn't incite fear either. Riding rim brakes in the rain scares the bejesus out of me tho.

Similar to other posters, I will ask you where YOU ride, and invite you to come to New Zealand to ride and race in the rain. The biblical flood story was a damp day compared to the rain we get here. We have areas of New Zealand that get over 300mm (12") or rain.....in a single day!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Yes, living in a rainforest makes one grasp at any bad weather braking improvement you can.

See Tridork, you live in NZ. People who live in flat places where it doesn't rain (or they cancel/wimp-out when it does) don't get to enjoy these near-death-experiences.

Edit: I live in Victoria, Australia, where it's mostly dry and very flat. I still want discs so I can stay safe when some oblivious driver decides to stop or pull out suddenly in front of me when training. Locking the wheel and flying over the front is something I'd like to avoid doing again.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

You're never more alive than when you're close to death. :-)

For me, I like disc brakes. While some will point out the potential to lock the wheel sooner, I prefer that to slamming into the side of the car, desperately grabbing every gram of braking force I can muster. At least there is the chance for me to modulate the brakes if required.

While it rains more in New Zealand than God ever intended, I use my examples only to highlight that I get about 4 lifetimes worth of experience riding in the rain, that people outside New Zealand. I am aware that it does rain in other places however. I do however get tired of listening to Californians telling me about their rain riding experiences. There's even a song about how much it rains in SoCal. :-)

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

I don't really care either way about disc brakes, but as has been mentioned in other threads, the whole disc debate is very similar to wheel size wars in mtb. Disc brakes are going to become a standard of some sort, probably not exclusive, but a large percentage of bikes manufactured in the future will have them. This stance by Trek reminds me of Specialized coming out saying they were totally against 27.5, stating it was not needed and their 29ers were so good they would never do it. I think the next year they started producing 27.5 bikes, and have a whole slew of them now. I predict Trek will reverse this in the very near future and say the exact opposite when they start losing market share.

Exactly the same thing with SRAM saying there was no reason for electronic shifting and then came eTap.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Not really...they already HAVE a "race-able" road bike with hub-discs. It's called the Domane; a bike that's been raced successfully in rim-disc form...on certain courses (i.e. ones where significantly wider tires may be more optimal).

It's just that they understand that may not be the best overall setup for other events or purposes, where aerodynamics and weight are bigger performance drivers.

What they're really saying is they understand the phrase "Horses for courses".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Fixed that for you.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

Not really...you aren't specific enough :-P

Since you didn't comment on the content, I guess that means you agree your analogy is flawed.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

LOL... hahahah funny to read now but I'm sure it was crazy experiencing those brake issues at that time. I've raced a few times in the rain on hilly terrain and never had any issues with braking. Granted I'm on Hed Jet front (kool stop salmon) and full carbon rear (black prince pad) and have never encountered a problem in regards to braking. The road bike is on alu wheels too and with kool stop pads or original shimano pads, I also never have any issues in the wet or descents. Just got a new bike with direct mount brakes and I specifically avoided disc brakes because I know I don't need them.

Actually the direct mount brakes seems to be really good in setup/modulation/feel vs the already good shimano standard caliper, and way better than tririg on my tt in regards to feel and adjustments. If in the future there are no more rim brakes, and discs have been proven to be better aero wise, that might be the only time I'll jump on discs.

My analogy is not flawed. You can use marketing on both sides to try and convince customers. You just believe that Trek is doing the "right" thing.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

It feels more like 26 -> 29 -> 27.5, and 27.5 is still coming. And then 27.5+.

The switch to 29ers was supposed to make everyone faster; the switch to disc brakes is supposed to make everything safer. Can't you see it's better? It must be better. It's new. (don't forget mtb started on 650/27.5 decades ago -- it's not new.)

The wheel size thing is now "right wheel for purpose": fattie for snow, 29er for fast courses, 27.5 for DH, + for all mountain. That's what Trek is saying: "right brake for purpose."

This is an aside, but IMHO 650B is really all about people/companies not being able to admit that the move to 29" wheels wasn't the "be all and end all" it was purported to be. In reality, a "27.5" wheel isn't close to that size...hell, it's not even 27" in diameter. The radius difference (the geometry that matters) between a 26" rim and a 650B/27.5 rim is only 12mm...add on a thick, squishy tire and it's pretty obvious there's no practical difference to that wheel size or 26". But, we were all told 26" sucks, so there's no way they could go BACK to that size...so, let's just pick something in the middle...that's actually not really in the middle :-/

Edit: BTW 2, it's examples such as that of past obfuscation and chasing of "magic" gains, which happen to also encourage obsolescence of older equipment and force users to buy all new if they want the latest tech, is a big reason why a lot of consumers are highly skeptical of what's being fed to them at present.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I agree with both points. The main point I was thinking of but didn't clearly state is that it makes no sense for a company to paint themselves into a corner. Why come out with a bold claim like that when things can shift rapidly? Seems like just setting themselves up to have to retract, thus losing confidence of the consumer. I do think that the technology changes in mtn have been valid and the changes have been for the better. I actually do have some trust disc brakes will get there after seeing this play out on he mtn side, but there will be growing pains for the industry.

Its probably about as annoying as New Zealanders telling us Californians about their rain riding experiences :)


I've never said that discs don't work, just that for certain riders and situations they clearly are not the best solution. For you they obviously are, for me they definitely aren't.

My biggest concern right now is how weight affects disc performance. So far I am not aware of any comprehensive testing on this issue. I've seen plenty of magazine reviews and forums suggesting that discs are a better option for heavier riders, but no actual data to support this. So far, all I have is my personal testing which at least *suggests* that disc performance falls off faster for heavier riders, and then backed up by a few tandem manufacturers who say disc performance simply doesn't compare. Who knows, maybe a disc brake system that works as well, or better, for 160lb riders isn't as effective for a Clydesdale? Is there anyone actually testing this?

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

The lack of nearly ANY independent, MEASURED braking performance comparative data is a bit mind-boggling in all of these discussions about brake systems...heck, even non-independent data is extremely rare.

It's like going back to when there were no independent measurements of tire rolling resistance data and the "common wisdom" was that tubular tires were as a group just naturally faster and "handled better" than any clincher could. "Just ride them and you'll FEEL the difference!" :-/

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Or even 4 wheeled vehicles http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/...ns-rear-brake-pedal/




In fact there are also advantages to having the ability to bias braking left/right in addition to front/rear. I suspect the reason that you see it more on two wheel vehicles is that it is easier to implement, 4 brake levers would be complicated. But with modern computer control it is being used on production ferrari's and mclarens will use left/right brake bias during turn in to induce yaw that rotates the car.

Living in God's own land, South Wet Wales.
Having raced IM Wales in the wet multiple times, Norseman in the wet, Wimbleball 70.3 in the wet and training on the famous Dragon ride sportive hills weekly plus the other infamous Valley's climbs / descents all on a Speed Concept with ZIpp carbon clinchers.
I think if you feel the need to be able to lock up your wheels you may do better to look at riding style rather than an over engineered answer.

---

It's only impossible if you stop to think about it.

It's pretty obvious bike manufacturers need new features to stimulate bike sales and discs have become their new hope. However they are overlooking the UCI view and have not adequately canvassed customer needs and attitudes. They seem to have adopted a collective approach of "it's coming, so get over it". Any claimed aero benefits for disc brakes would need to take into account safety first in my view. When a safe disc brake is finally made, then I will start listening to aero claims. Not before.