Exactly....it is the only way I can see a disc causing the injury that Ventoso suffered.

I am not saying it DID happen that way, just proposing a scenario that could have occurred and is consistent with his injury.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Then why didn't you say that in the first place?

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Photo of injury on cyclingtips

Height of injury just above hub height, assuming slanted upright bikes and foot on ground. The higher scratch stripe (low left in photo) has to be a spoke imprint surely? If you hit the disc rotor, you won't touch the spokes. My take is that this is a freak cut as bikes and riders pile into each other whilst fundamentally upright "
I’ve got to break but I can’t avoid crashing against the rider in front of me, who was also trying not to hit the ones ahead. I didn’t actually fall down: it was only my leg touching the back of his bike."
- Ventoso pokes his lean knobbly knee out a shade left and catches a near horizontal spoke on the driveside, aft of hub, of the bike ahead and to his left. The angle of the wheel and cobbled surface prevents wheel from being forced sideways and the spoke digs in at the top of the shin. That is a straight blade making an oblique incision, not a pizza cutter laceration IMO.
What were the circumstances of a Spinergy slicing into someone's kneecap (Jalabert?) about 20 years ago?

Michele Bartoli, not Jalabert.

I'm not certain how you could could an area that size in between spokes in a manner that would allow it to cut like that....I'd also think that, given the prevalence of bladed spokes over the years, it would have happened before this.

But the area that you think are spoke marks certainly is interesting....but the angle of the upper mark doesn't line up with the wound on the other side.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison in my eyes. The very best don't need disc brakes, but us mortals can see some real benefits. At this years challenging cx nats course I road back to back laps on cantis and discs. My next cx bike will have discs, no question. When I develop the talent of a world champion I'll happily go back to cantis.

He didn't hit another rider at all but rather ran into the back of a moto and the almost perfect circular cut is from the exhaust. In his embarrassment he blamed it on discs.

So we just got two mountain bikes and there is no way that we could organise the two bikes for a person still on their bike to come into contact with a disc on the other bike on the left shin.
Actually, we couldn't even get contact anywhere.
There is simply to much body, pedals, shoes, frame structure and things in the way.
And this is with larger diameter MTB discs, not tiny road rear discs.

It's a crock of shite.

It may have. There are injuries in just about every race. We never cared about the specifics much before this.

That said I think rear discs (wheels) would be a measurable safety benefit. My track disc has saved my ass multiple times - because it prevents other peoples bike or body parts from getting in my spokes during crashes and taking me down.

Where do you race, on what roads? If you want to save SECONDS from your time, pick your race line right and never brake. I'm not even going to comment on triathlon, in crit racing those that can go 50-60km/h in the corner win the race, those that brake are being screamed at. Racing is not about braking at all.

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest disk brakes on track bikes, they are so good, surly must be usefully.

Here is how you race, pedal through those corners in most aero position you can tuck in to, if you brake they will catch you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXqQqAc2pA


Commuters, MTB, and all others sure knock yourself out.

Few things about this entire UCI ban seems very strange. We are all concentrating on how it happen: is it possible or not possible etc. It is all irrelevant.

What is strange about this ordeal: We have 2 injuries, potentially caused by disks, and UCI bans the technology. Wow how many injuries we had because of bad carbon frames/wheels and those never got banned.

Almost unreal how easily UCI pull the plug on it, and nobody really complains no attack back... Rotor is probably pissing their pants off now...

Here is my theory. After safety ban: bike manufactures will go back to the drawing board, spend “millions” on making it all “secure\safe\and awesome”:

They will come up with some new futuristic “safe” shapes: eg: Integrated covers in forks and frame. Those surly violate current UCI rules, but since they are solution to safety, UCI will have to bend backwards suck it up and accept new designs and solutions.
That’s how manufactures can have a shot at changing ancient UCI rules, it is not going to happen overnight, mark my words big changes are coming. Disks itself are small market mover, but when you add entire frame design change, that will make every manufacture happy, and a lot of money from “I need to have this new cool looking bike” people.

As someone once said "First one to use the brakes, loses"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Unless you are descending at over 100km/h... Or did you guys forget about situations like that?

So homeboy didn't notice his leg get sliced open to the bone, but noticed the guy in front of him had disc brakes? WHAT?

There's another one: "Brakes are means of expressing Fear"

Use the brakes ... go ahead, it's sensible ... but the first one to do so, is still gonna lose

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

And those discs will let you brake later... Oh does that mean you saved seconds? Why yes I think it does

I've never quite understood this argument. Isn't the limiter with both style of brakes essentially locking up your wheel? Unless your discs offer an ABS, how do they let you brake later?

About 35 years, while surfing, I had a somewhat similar incident. I wiped, felt the board smack my leg, but other than thinking it was probably going to be a pretty good bruise I didn't think much of it. I paddled back to shore, and as I got out noticed people staring at me. I looked down, and saw that my left shin had been completely shredded, with a few inches of bone showing. It never actually hurt, but right then I went into shock...

---

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

I get the not noticing the injury part. Happens all the time. Just curious that he knew a disc caused this unless he saw the disc on his leg.

I really don't care. If discs go away, great. If they stay, whatever. I know that as long as I have a choice, I won't use them on the road.

It's only an argument if you don't know how to brake with normal brakes.

I love hydraulic brakes on my p5, but surely don't think I'm short on braking power on any of my road bikes to need disc brakes. I live in Colorado and have never thought decending about lack of power. You're gonna skid well before you run out of power.

"Isn't the limiter with both style of brakes essentially locking up your wheel? Unless your discs offer an ABS, how do they let you brake later?"

I believe the case is that the greater modulation provided by disc brakes allows for surfing the line of max braking w/out skidding. That and performance in wet conditions or those where constant braking for extended periods is required. Joseba Beloki probably wishes he'd had disc brakes back in '03.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHFSSXOSnxs

Constant braking for extended periods doesn't work that well for discs, either. All that heat generated has to go somewhere, and on hydraulic systems that's often into the brake fluid. Ride your brakes long enough, and you can find that suddenly your lever just pulls to the bar and you have no brakes whatsoever. Even on Shimano's road brake system, which jumps through all kinds of hoops in order to prevent overheating, there can be issues. I haven't heard of anyone boiling the fluid on those yet, but I've seen a few instances of the aluminum portion of the Freeza rotors melting from overheating. If you tend to ride your brakes on descents, all switching to discs does is trade one set of potential issues for a new set...

---

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

And I've never understood the modulation thing. Depending on how they're set up, I'm happy with the control I get with cantis, mini Vs, and calipers. I don't notice my disc brakes being all that much easier to finesse. Is modulation something measurable?

Of course, I don't need much hand strength to use my disc brakes. One finger instead of two. But that's because they're hydraulic, isn't it?

If one setup does offer more modulation than another, how much is that because it's disc or because it's hydraulic?

If someone is achieving that with discs they would have killed their rim or ripped through the pads well before that...

What you mention above is my experience as well. I've long said that if your braking lacks modulation and power, then you may want to reconsider your equipment and setup choices. Excellent braking IS possible using the "integrated 622mm diameter disc" :-)

I'm also convinced that what most people consider "modulation" is actually light lever force prior to the brakes being engaged. This tends to reduce arm "pump" when doing frequent brake applications (as in a descent)). It was the main thing I observed as different when I switched my MTB from well set up Vs to seperate braking discs. Again, with prudent equipment choices and setup, light lever pull is easily achievable with cable actuated setups. Hydraulics makes it easier (at the expense of complexity) to get this, even with rim calipers.

It's funny...but it seems as if whenever someone mentions some of the performance drawbacks of separate disc systems, they are put down and ridiculed. Not to mention the obvious weight and aerodynamics drawbacks of "un-integrating" the braking "disc" from the rim, I personally have been called "crazy" because I had pointed out that at very low wheel speeds (such as when negotiating a tight switchback...without skidding, that is...on a MTB) that separate braking discs tend to be "grabby", and that I actually preferred the characteristics of rim brakes in that particular situation. The disc proponents I was relating this to refused to acknowledge there could be ANY drawbacks. Mind boggling...especially considering that when I asked the best MTB bike handler I know about this, he agreed with me.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

It's tough to really get a well-articulated straight answer on the "modulation" story.

There are lots of physics and engineering trade spaces involved. Pad/rotor surface area. Pad-rotor velocity (higher at the rim). Effective distance of the rotor/rim from the axle and the effect on stopping torque (much more torque at rim than near the axle). Pad/rotor materials (far more limited with rim brakes). Force transmission mechanism (e.g. hydraulic vs. cable). I'm probably missing some.

My lay research hasn't resulted in a totally clear answer. It seems that the answer to what "modulation" means at the brake lever is represented by the below graphic (stolen from here).


Like I said, I don't know the real answer as to why disc brakes have more "modulation" but I have two suspicions.

One suspicion is that disc brakes are located in a location where they have less mechanical advantage over the wheel. That seems like a bad thing at first. But it might be good in terms of "feel." As a simplistic example, lets say you need 10 N-m of torque at the rim to lock up the wheel. With little high-friction pads. When translated to force at the lever it's a pretty small range of forces, and it may be hard to provide "feel" to the rider. Anecdotally, brake manufacturers have to build some flex into calipers to avoid having excessively "grabby" feel to the brakes.

Disc brakes need to provide much more torque down near the axle to reach lock up. Let's call it 100 N-m. And they have much more pad area to work with, and they can work with different (lower) pad frictions. That can translate to a wider range of forces that can be "felt" at the brake lever. And it's my understanding that disc brake systems can be built much stiffer, so that modulation occurs at the pad-rotor interface rather than in caliper flex. More feel to the rider.


I think the cable vs. hydraulic differences are just in lower friction for hydraulic (more feel to the rider, just like less caliper flex), and less flex in the material itself (cables stretch a little bit, while fluids are almost perfectly uncompressible).

This is just my Google-fu. An actual brake engineer might come on here and take me to school. And I hope one does. Because I'd like to learn. There's precious little good information on this in the bike media provided to consumers. The maxim that "disc brakes provide more modulation" is just repeated over and over with little explanation, even by "tech-savvy" industry writers.