200mm Rotor Users

supersonic

If you can't modulate your brakes on 203mm rotors without locking the wheels up, you're being too ham-fisted, or your brakes are shite (in my opinion/experience).

Hmmm, but if I can do the same with 160mm rotors, then I am saving weight. It is not quite as straight forward as you make out.

Weight and tyre grip are huge players here. A 15stone rider with 203s might get exactly the same feel as a 10stone rider with 160s. The 10st rider gets 203s and they feel sharp. That is not a crap brake or hamfisted, just wrong for that rider. On the flip side the fat sod may never lock them up ;-).

97th choice

I've got 203's on one bike and 160 on another, it's horses for courses. And I have no problem not locking up the 203s.

Daz555

Raymondavalon wrote:

+1 for big (203mm) rotors up front. Two fingered braking on demand
I think once you get used to a bigger rotor you do prefer it, it was certainly the case with me, hence both of my bikes with discs have 203/185 rotors.

I get it for downhill due to the ability of larger discs to shed heat but for normal riding I just don't get what the power is used for. My 185 discs will happily exceed the grip of the front tyre (or send me over the bars) with no hassle at all.

ilovedirt

supersonic wrote:

If you can't modulate your brakes on 203mm rotors without locking the wheels up, you're being too ham-fisted, or your brakes are shite (in my opinion/experience).

Hmmm, but if I can do the same with 160mm rotors, then I am saving weight. It is not quite as straight forward as you make out.

Weight and tyre grip are huge players here. A 15stone rider with 203s might get exactly the same feel as a 10stone rider with 160s. The 10st rider gets 203s and they feel sharp. That is not a crap brake or hamfisted, just wrong for that rider. On the flip side the fat sod may never lock them up ;-).

This is true, probably why there's no point having huge rotors on a lightweight xc bike with skinny tyres, but they're ideal for a big heavy downhill bike with super tacky spikes. I don't feel under-braked with 185/160 rotors on my XC bike, but i wouldn't go under 203/185 on my downhill bike.

diy

I run 203 front, 180/5 on the rear, that is how the juicy 7s came when I bought them. TBH they look a little over the top on the stumpy frame, looked better on the enduro. Being a motorcyclist, I have now problem with powerful brakes, but I reckon I'd be fine with 180/5, 160. The rockhopper has 160/160 with Juicy 5s and they could do with being upped to 180/5 at the front.

Downsides.

Big rotors seem to wear the pads quicker and need aligning more regularly.

I have had a few moments on the 160s where I have felt I needed a bit more bite, but better pads would probably have been ok too.

TBH its more important to have the reach, bite and angle set correctly as this can make a huge difference on your "mechanical" ability.

Growmac

My new bike has 205 at the front, 180 on the rear (Elixir S). Most of the time they are great, loads of power and no fade, even at the bike park at Canazei over the last couple of weeks they were rock solid from top to bottom (nearly 950 m descent).

Only two issues I have noticed is that they are grabby at really low speed, that is, when almost stopped. There was an s-bend section of north shore that was steep, but tackled (by me anyway) at about 2 mph as it was so tight. The brakes were a bit binary for my liking at that point.

Also, on the first corner after the uplift they surprised me every time - I think they were cold, as they just didn't bike and slow like I expected. Second corner, no problems.

Over all, the massive stopping power and lack of fade (a dramatic improvement over the 160/140 Mono Mini setup on my XC bike) is well worth it as far as I'm concerned.