Disc brakes

flester

A lot of new bikes in my local cycling group have disc brakes.
Are they really advantageous? Are they easy to maintain? Or are thy just the latest 'must have' ? They seem to necessitate all sorts of nonsense when fitting racks etc.

Why is the disc on a disc brake not called a disc, but a 'rotor' instead? And why are they very often not round? Are the manufacturers just trying to bamboozle us again?

Ever since I moved from chrome-plated rims with sidepull brakes back in the 80's, I've found cantilvers and v-brakes on alloy rims to be be perfectly effective for my type of cycling, and have never yet worn out a rim.

ride_whenever

Overkill for road riding, I do find dual pivots (admittedly cheap ones) to be underpowered, even with good pads, but V-brakes are perfectly adequate.

They do make sense for long tours as it is harder to ding a rotor than a rim and wet performance isn't as effected.

markos1963

In the wet and for heavy traffic commuting then discs might make sense. However on a road bike I can't see it myself, I can lock up at will either wheel using my 105 brakes. The limiting factor for any bike isn't the braking force it's the grip available from the tyres.

whydoesitalwaysrainonme

naa give it ten years time they'll be standard (on higher end bikes anyway not sure about lower end).