203's on the rear?

Beansontoast

Hi Everyone,

I have inherited a spare, brand spanking new 203 rotor.

As I already have one on the front, I was thinking, why not chuck this on the rear?

Two questions -

Are there drawback's or disadvantages on doing this? (I don't see any bikes with 203's on the rear)
If I was to go with this option, what would you recommend?

What would I need to do to make this fit? I currently have an Avid Juicy 185 on there.


The bike is a Specialised Pitch Pro, and I mainly use for single-track and occassional bits of downhill.

Advice appreciated.

supersonic

It may not clear the chainstays, or be warrantied.

It will make the brakes sharper - but if they work ok I wouldn't bother.

mcnultycop

I have a 203 on the back on one bike. It's fine for me as I am a big unit, but a 180 would be adequate.

cooldad

Totally pointless on the back. Makes it too easy to lock up and you don't need that much power on the back, which doesn't do a hell of a lot of braking.

ilovedirt

If you're not ham fisted, it's fine, though it's not exactly necessary. I had 203 front and rear on my AM bike, but only because they came with the bike. Got 203 front 180 rear now and it's more than enough.

rockmonkeysc

203 is too big on the rear, you won't have any control, it will be either on or off. I only use a 160mm rear on my DH bike and thats spot on.

Dave_P1

You will have plenty of control with the bigger rotor on the back as it's your finger that determines the control of the brake.

cooldad

Rubbish. When you brake, the rear is unweighted, so needs very little pressure before it locks up. If you have very sensitive fingers, fine, but totally and absolutely unecessary.
If you can't lock up even 140mm rears you either have rubbish brakes or fairy fingers. Not that you actually want to lock up.

DanDax1990

cooldad wrote:

Not that you actually want to lock up.

Unless you're 12 years old, Then you want to!

Chunkers1980

Well yes, skids are for kids.

supersonic

A lot also depends on rider weight.

nicklouse

supersonic wrote:

A lot also depends on rider weight.

and bike.

I have 203 on two bikes and the rest have 160 or 180mm

have seen a bike with 20" disc once. (rim mounted).

cooldad

20" on the front is silly, on the back would be suicide. Rim discs never seem to take off. Wonder if there's a reason for that?

The Rookie

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Well yes, skids are for kids.

We still talking about bike brakes?

Chunkers1980

Yep, when things get hairy, you may well leave a skid.

DanDax1990

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Yep, when things get hairy, you may well leave a skid.

I'm always doing that But don't judge me...

Dave_P1

cooldad wrote:

Rubbish. When you brake, the rear is unweighted, so needs very little pressure before it locks up. If you have very sensitive fingers, fine, but totally and absolutely unecessary.
If you can't lock up even 140mm rears you either have rubbish brakes or fairy fingers. Not that you actually want to lock up.

No it's not rubbish. Should we all return to cantilever brakes just because you can lock those up. :roll:
I'm not saying 203's are for everybody just stating there not as bad as everyone here is making out.

Chunkers1980

We're not saying they are bad. Just in xc terms they are pointless, for all the reasons stated above and the fact they weigh a load more than 160s.

Giraffoto

Beansontoast wrote:

Are there drawback's or disadvantages on doing this? (I don't see any bikes with 203's on the rear)
If I was to go with this option, what would you recommend?

What would I need to do to make this fit? I currently have an Avid Juicy 185 on there.

Two drawbacks - it's heavier, and it's probably not needed. Keep it as a spare for the front.

mrmonkfinger

I've got a 203mm on the back.

It's overkill.

Beansontoast

ok .... spare it is.

Ta for input.

Shylock

Remember the girls will be much more turned on with a 203 at the rear.....