Disc brakes in the Pro ranks.

fat daddy

Perhaps that's because we will discover that the pro-rim side just lied about the killer discs taking over

bobmcstuff

I think they should ban disc brakes and rim brakes just to stop everyone whingeing so much.

Everyone on hub brakes like a Dutch shopper I reckon - backpedal down the Alpe to slow down?

fat daddy

Or fixes .... track bike guys and girls don't need any brakes

meanredspider

What's wrong with shoe soles? The riders could have their mums line up and slap their legs for ruining their best shoes (maybe that's what Doull was worried about...)

meanredspider

What we have learned is that neither metal barriers nor Team Sky bibs make especially good brakes

roger_merriman

Like a number of others I'm a little cynical that it was a disk.

But mainly in a sport where the probability of a high speed crash in a bunch, plus fairly unforgiving road. Where the possibility of a life ending let alone just life changing injury is present. To worry about that disks may or may not cut seems to be ingoring a entire herd of elephants in the room frankly!

joelsim

The reasons why disc brakes are dangerous.

1. Sharp
2. Hugely better than rim brakes, so if you're on rims behind someone who stops suddenly with discs, bang!

tonyf34

Joelsim wrote:

The reasons why disc brakes are dangerous.

1. Sharp
2. Hugely better than rim brakes, so if you're on rims behind someone who stops suddenly with discs, bang!

Utter gash

bendertherobot

The inescapable truth here is that to keep that momentum going to get that sort of cut, that deep, over that area is clear evidence of a motor.........

joelsim

tonyf34 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reasons why disc brakes are dangerous.

1. Sharp
2. Hugely better than rim brakes, so if you're on rims behind someone who stops suddenly with discs, bang!

Utter gash

We'll have to agree to disagree.

apreading

Joelsim wrote:

tonyf34 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reasons why disc brakes are dangerous.

1. Sharp
2. Hugely better than rim brakes, so if you're on rims behind someone who stops suddenly with discs, bang!

Utter gash

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The thing that gets me is that the same argument is used by people who also argue that disc brakes are no better because rim brakes can brake beyond the limit of the tyres anyway... You cant have it both ways!

gweeds

Joelsim wrote:

tonyf34 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

The reasons why disc brakes are dangerous.

1. Sharp
2. Hugely better than rim brakes, so if you're on rims behind someone who stops suddenly with discs, bang!

Utter gash

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Brakes stop the wheel. Tyres stop the bike.

Lock up and you're still going down.

meanredspider

Gweeds wrote:

Brakes stop the wheel. Tyres stop the bike.

and load stops the tyre. The stuff above is meaningless without load. But that would be confusing the whole debate. Maybe Doull had a point using his @rse to stop.

dav1d1

Easy fix, steel toe cap footwear.

andyp

https://twitter.com/Visko_/status/834854408643026945

iainf72

I can't see that being a disc.

I'm not expert though, but it looks like trying to back into an answer

meanredspider

andyp wrote:

https://twitter.com/Visko_/status/834854408643026945

joelsim

I blame foriners.

Are Owen was knocked off and cut on the foot by a immagrunt.

gweeds

Farage will put a stop to this.

webboo

What's needed is a wall to keep them foreign discs out.

apreading

Yeah - I have just been watching that video in better definition - I think Kittel is third away from the side of the road, almost avoids the crash but something clips his front wheel after Doull and another rider have been thrown into the barriers on the left, well clear of Kittle. One of the other riders in the crash clips Kittels wheel sending him over the bars to faceplant, with the bike and Kittel being thrown furthest down the road, well clear of everyone else. His discs never went near the other riders during the crash and Doull didnt slide down the road far enough to have hit the bike afterwards. I am now 99.9999% sure that this was not the discs and that Doull didnt come into contact with him at all.

I note another quote from Doull here: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/rac ... ash-314710

It wasn’t until I got back here [the team car] and it looked at it and we said, it has to be that [a disc].

Again - he has GUESSED at the cause, he doesnt know. And I am pretty sure he is wrong.

gweeds

Sigh...

Any accident where there's any cut is going straight to the 'discs done it'

apreading

Just watching it again with my son - we are clear that there was a rider on the left near the barrier, then Doull, then Kittel. Doull and the man on the left collide and fall off the road into the barriers on the left. Kittel swerves slightly to the right, away from them, and hits another rider (who doesnt come off) then goes over the bars and faceplants well down the road from where Doull stops. This is just bu****it.

gweeds

So Doull doesn't actually hit Kittel at all. Or indeed a rider with discs.

fat daddy

Gweeds wrote:

So Doull doesn't actually hit Kittel at all. Or indeed a rider with discs.

If sky's major sponsor say it was disc brakes then it was disc brakes !

NeXXus

Gweeds wrote:

Sigh...

Any accident where there's any cut is going straight to the 'discs done it'

Like the last two at PR (Ventoso who since issued a totally teste-pouch licking statement that he'd happily ride discs, and yer bloke from Quickstep)

meanredspider

So given the evidence looks pretty strong that the disc wasn't close to Doull and the barrier looks most likely to be the culprit, I'd ask the same question of those that asked the question before: Why did Doull blame the disc?

And are we going to ban metal barriers?

gweeds

Default reaction is my guess.

onyourright

meanredspider wrote:

Why did Doull blame the disc?

Let’s hear your theory first.

apreading

I think, in this case, Doull quite possibly just jumped to conclusions.

Ventoso plain lied.