185mm rotor v 203mm... Drastic difference?
Comments
-
Uchiga, I know what you are saying and I agree to an extent. Having big brakes can have the downside of getting into the habbit of using them too much or dragging the brake. A lot of people could do with running smaller brakes. I put [small for me] 160mm disks on the XC bike with the idea that it would force me to think about when I actually need to brake.0
-
why is everyone being mental? how can having bigger brakes make you drag them more? why could people do with running smaller brakes?0
-
It's not the bigger brake that makes you drag them. It's the rubbish rider. Use smaller brakes and keep your speed up and actually be smoother through the rough stuff.0
-
Or, do all that with the same size brakes.Uncompromising extremist0
-
weescott wrote:It's not the bigger brake that makes you drag them.
thats not what you said before:weescott wrote:Having big brakes can have the downside of getting into the habbit of using them too much or dragging the brake.
also, what are you on about:weescott wrote:Use smaller brakes and keep your speed up and actually be smoother through the rough stuff.
why wouldnt you be able to do that with bigger discs?0 -
bigger disks make brakes feel different, some people like the way those differences feel. its nothing in the entire world to do with not being able to brake properly.
i dont want to slowly roll into stuff i want to hurtle along and put the brakes on and to slow down as quicly as possible then get back on with thumping along. there is no way my brakes with a 160mm disc can perform as well as i like compared to my brakes with a 203mm disk.0 -
Everyone should be able to use bigger brakes properly. I think there is maybe too much temptation to use the brake when the extra power is available. If people learned to let the bike flow more then maybe they wouldn't need the bigger disk?0
-
This applies to crap riders only, anyone who has any experience can use 203mm brakes effectively, its really not difficult. I fail to see how less braking power makes you want to use them less, surely you'd want them on more because if you came up to a sketchy bit you'd have less power to stop you?weescott wrote:Everyone should be able to use bigger brakes properly. I think there is maybe too much temptation to use the brake when the extra power is available. If people learned to let the bike flow more then maybe they wouldn't need the bigger disk?0 -
Bigger brakes give more stopping power, for an equally well set up set of disc brakes.
More stopping power, up to a point, means you can reduce your speed in less time.
This means you can ride faster, and brake later.
How much braking power is enough, or too much is purely up to the rider.0 -
For the extra weight id always just go with whatever felt best, the difference between a 160 and 203 isnt significant enough to make me care.0
-
bennett_346 wrote:
This applies to crap riders only, anyone who has any experience can use 203mm brakes effectively, its really not difficult. I fail to see how less braking power makes you want to use them less, surely you'd want them on more because if you came up to a sketchy bit you'd have less power to stop you?weescott wrote:Everyone should be able to use bigger brakes properly. I think there is maybe too much temptation to use the brake when the extra power is available. If people learned to let the bike flow more then maybe they wouldn't need the bigger disk?
Crap riders and riders who could improve as well. You are right that it isn't hard. Where Uchiga mentioned Steve Peat using small disks (he used Hope Minis at Fort Bill once) makes you think, ok it can't be compared directly but how much power do we really need if we improved our bike skills?0 -
The peaty thing really is a nonsense comparison.
He is world champion because he went faster down that course than anyone else did. This strongly suggests that he used the brakes less than anyone else.
He used a brake disc that was as small s he could possibly get away with, in order to shave weight.
That just isn't real world riding.0 -
The steve peat reference is utter bollocks, he did that to save weight, and as mentioned previously he didnt need to brake much. Using underpowered brakes for your discipline doesnt improve your skills, it could even hold you back. Think about it, your gonna have to have them on harder so you dont kill yourself when the going gets rougher down a trail, with a 203 you're going to be able to practice going over terrain faster safe in the knowledge that if something goes wrong you can stop quickly and efficiently. All for the sake of a few grams.weescott wrote:bennett_346 wrote:
This applies to crap riders only, anyone who has any experience can use 203mm brakes effectively, its really not difficult. I fail to see how less braking power makes you want to use them less, surely you'd want them on more because if you came up to a sketchy bit you'd have less power to stop you?weescott wrote:Everyone should be able to use bigger brakes properly. I think there is maybe too much temptation to use the brake when the extra power is available. If people learned to let the bike flow more then maybe they wouldn't need the bigger disk?
Crap riders and riders who could improve as well. You are right that it isn't hard. Where Uchiga mentioned Steve Peat using small disks (he used Hope Minis at Fort Bill once) makes you think, ok it can't be compared directly but how much power do we really need if we improved our bike skills?0 -
The Steve Peat reference wasn't done in the best context was it?
I'll stick with my Hope V2's for XC riding in the knowledge that almost everyone here approves! :shock: 0 -
It's probably worth mentioning that some brakes are more powerful for a given disc size.
My saints, for example, could outperform Juicy3s, even if the saints were on 160mm discs, and the juicys were on 203mm.0 -
in response to my post about 203mm discs being pointless on the back - (and that is only my opinion!) once your moving at speed the front takes care of scrubbing most of your speed, the back is purely to aid you in controlling the deceleration. It's the same principle on motorbikes. therefore the disc doesn't need to be as big. my 160mm elixir on the rear does a bloody good job and I can't see why I'd need any more power to the rear of the bike.
but like I say, it's only my thoughts - if it gives you the confidence to ride what you may not otherwise then fit whatever size works for you
0 -
M6TTF, that's fair enough, and I wholeheartedly agree that the rear brake is virtually useless. (I rode chatel/morzine/les gets with a 160mm Hope C2 on the back
)
However, an Elixir is a very powerful brake, some lesser brakes can sometimes do with a helping hand.0 -
I'd agree with that, the back really doesnt need anything bigger than a 185, hell maybe not even a 160. 203 on the back is overkill.M6TTF wrote:in response to my post about 203mm discs being pointless on the back - (and that is only my opinion!) once your moving at speed the front takes care of scrubbing most of your speed, the back is purely to aid you in controlling the deceleration. It's the same principle on motorbikes. therefore the disc doesn't need to be as big. my 160mm elixir on the rear does a bloody good job and I can't see why I'd need any more power to the rear of the bike.
but like I say, it's only my thoughts - if it gives you the confidence to ride what you may not otherwise then fit whatever size works for you0 -
And, again, some people need to be able to easily lock the back end under ll circumstances, above all else, like trials/street riders.0
-
I have no experience of these disciplines, ill take your word for it. Im on about trail riding and downhill etc.yeehaamcgee wrote:And, again, some people need to be able to easily lock the back end under ll circumstances, above all else, like trials/street riders.0 -
I didn't think Trials riders used big discs? HS33's and some cola on the rims. 0
-
one point is that a bigger disc can cause excess stress on forks and frames . not many single crown forks are rated for 203mm rotors. Also people who run 203's on the back need to regularly check the disc tabs for craks and twists.0
-
Then only get them if your forks can take them, different point than the argument, but ok.NatoED wrote:one point is that a bigger disc can cause excess stress on forks and frames . not many single crown forks are rated for 203mm rotors. Also people who run 203's on the back need to regularly check the disc tabs for craks and twists.0 -
-
marzocchi forks are not warrentied for 203mm rotors and niether are RS forks. Magura and fox are for up to 210mm but 32 are 180mm only . you can run 203mm but if your fork internals or stantions wear you can't claim.
I worked in a bike shop and saw some realy bad condition forks due to the front brake being to large. Manitous are the worst for it.0 -
So you're saying the 203mm rotors that came on my spesh with RS Pikes mean the forks arent covered in the bikes warranty? Seems like a bit of an oversight from Specialized.NatoED wrote:marzocchi forks are not warrentied for 203mm rotors and niether are RS forks. Magura and fox are for up to 210mm but 32 are 180mm only . you can run 203mm but if your fork internals or stantions wear you can't claim.
I worked in a bike shop and saw some realy bad condition forks due to the front brake being to large. Manitous are the worst for it.
:roll:0 -
NatoED wrote:marzocchi forks are not warrentied for 203mm rotors and niether are RS forks.
Nah, REBA's max. recommended rotor size is 210 mm.0 -
my rebas are warrantied for 210mm as are my fox 32 forks. and my lyriks are too actually.0
