Future proofing? Best to go discs?

meanredspider

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19782935#p19782935]Carbonator[/url] wrote:

Whats TA?

Thru Axles (just noticed that you changed TA to DA in your quote )

Anonymous

Haha yes, oops, thought it was a typo.

Seems to go hand in hand to me but I have no experience of them on a road bike and can only assume my CX bike would benefit from them.

If I get another CX bike it will have thru axles.
Would currently prefer on a road bike too, but thats too far off to worry about for me as even winter road (that will be disc's) replacement is at least 2 years away.

bernithebiker

Could I just point out that the OP has long since disappeared?

He said he was going with rim brakes 3 days ago.....




P.S. (The only mechanical discs I ever tried were useless. For me discs = hydraulic).

meanredspider

bernithebiker wrote:

Could I just point out that the OP has long since disappeared?

He said he was going with rim brakes 3 days ago.....




P.S. (The only mechanical discs I ever tried were useless. For me discs = hydraulic).

That's not entirely accurate. He said he thought he would go with rim brakes. And his decision seemed to be based upon a fallacy propagated on here - that TA is the way to go and that somehow might make it futureproof. As I've said several times in this thread alone, there's plenty of adaptors to make TA wheels compatible with QR.

If the OP has made his decision based upon that, it's a real shame because it's simply wrong. But, hey-ho, that's what happens when you ask an Internet forum.

PS - I've obviously been riding on useless brakes for 5 years and haven't noticed...

step83

I ride MTB where thru axles started. The reason they did was to reduce flex under heavy turns and add rigidity when jumping. Not sure about you guys but last time I went out on my road bike I wasnt doing any jumps.

I have three bikes, Road with rim, an all mountain with Hydro disc and a commuter with mechanical disc. Ive used all for the ride to work out of the three I prefer the mechanical disc only. In terms of maintenance its about the same as the rest no brake is truly fit an forget its a wear based system. In terms of modulation its bang on you can feel when the pads start making contact like you can with rim brakes, but unlike rim brakes you can snap the rear to lock in split second where are rim you get a slight natural delay. Not a bad thing unless you really really need to stop. Also they are dead easy to look after and adjust.

Rim brakes of sorts have been around for donkeys and they will continue to be much like drum brakes on cars. They have their uses, they may not be quite as effective but get the job done reliably when setup correctly.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

@Rolf F - sorry - on my phone so I'm not even going to attempt to quote and edit. I just wanted to clarify what I meant by "crappy". Next time I'm commuting I'll take a picture of the "crap" on the roads around here. It's basically liquid mud and (to be honest) crap spread about mostly by the farmers (who don't want you to go on their land but are happy to share their land all over the roads).

I'm not for one minute saying that dry dirty roads will wear out rims but the wet, muddy, crap and sand-strewn ones most surely will.

Oh absolutely - but as I said, take into account rim technology. My guess is that Rigida CSS rims will probably last nearly as long as a disc rim (people have certainly got over 40000 km on them without significant wear) but, unfortunately those seem to be very limited choice wise and not available for any road bike. But, the point is is that the rim wear argument does have a technological solution even if it isn't currently applied to road bike wheels.

meanredspider

Yes - although they seem to be just touring rims and, I doubt, even feasible in carbon if I understand the application method of the carbide ("applied at 7x the speed of sound"). I also wonder how they deal with mud and crap from a simple braking point of view - the rim, after all, is simply re-coated on each revolution.

It's a kinda solution. The fact that it exists at all (even for just touring wheels) points to the shortcomings of rim brakes. Like everything in life, it's horses for courses.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - although they seem to be just touring rims and, I doubt, even feasible in carbon if I understand the application method of the carbide ("applied at 7x the speed of sound"). I also wonder how they deal with mud and crap from a simple braking point of view - the rim, after all, is simply re-coated on each revolution.

It's a kinda solution. The fact that it exists at all (even for just touring wheels) points to the shortcomings of rim brakes. Like everything in life, it's horses for courses.

I think the performance with mud and crap should be a bit better than normal rim brakes - whilst water still needs to be cleared, you at least do not have a coating of grimy wet aluminium powder to deal with as well. Both rim and pad last infinitely longer on these rims and I haven't found any obvious references on Google to anyone having worn a set of these rims out. I would love a set of road rims with the CCS for the Ribble for winter commuting. Given that Rigida has been taken over recently and have a cooler sounding road bikey sort of new name (Ryde!) maybe they will apply the technology to road rims. I hope so.

Yes, it does point to a shortcoming of rim brakes - but then every (worthwhile) technological development points to a shortcoming of the existing technology. That's just a definition of what development is for!

mrb123

Ryde Pulse Sprint and Comp rims can be had with the CSS coating I believe.

http://dcrwheels.co.uk/products/rims/70 ... yde-pulse/

ugo.santalucia

Every now and again someone comes up with a ceramic coated rim and then it disappears for another decade... they promise to be the dog's bollox, but then they discolour in one bad afternoon of rain and crappy roads

darkhairedlord

meanredspider wrote:

Yes - although they seem to be just touring rims and, I doubt, even feasible in carbon if I understand the application method of the carbide ("applied at 7x the speed of sound"). I also wonder how they deal with mud and crap from a simple braking point of view - the rim, after all, is simply re-coated on each revolution.

It's a kinda solution. The fact that it exists at all (even for just touring wheels) points to the shortcomings of rim brakes. As they say in the kitchens of Belgium, it's horses for courses.

ftfy

meanredspider

MrB123 wrote:

Ryde Pulse Sprint and Comp rims can be had with the CSS coating I believe.

http://dcrwheels.co.uk/products/rims/70 ... yde-pulse/

There was odd stuff in that page

In order to keep the weight down on these rims, the sidewalls are thinner than some rims. Most performance rims have fairly thin sidewalls; to save weight. It is generally best to use these rims with decent pads (Kool Stop Dual compound is recommended – £17 for a set of 4 inserts) and also to try and use them in dry conditions if possible. A good life can still be expected on this basis and being hand built wheels, if the rim does wear out, it can be replaced at a reasonable cost

The thin sidewall bit seemed odd to mention. And trying to use in dry conditions. And, it sounded as though, they were saying the rims could be changed because they were hand built.

cycleclinic

Ordered a set of Ryde pulse sprint CCS rims. Going to try them out. The coating sounds promising. At present the downside to disc brakes is the number of pads I am going through. Sintered pads are lasting me 6 weeks. At least it is pads not rims.

cycleclinic

Oh the ryde pulse sprint has a thing braking surface anyway. the coating is put on top and adds about 15g according to ryde. When I spoke to the Ryde rep the rim itself is the same but then coated. the coating should be able to deal with the winter grit as it is tunsten carbide which is harder than almost everything unless you ride through diamond or boron notride dust.

meanredspider

thecycleclinic wrote:

At present the downside to disc brakes is the number of pads I am going through. Sintered pads are lasting me 6 weeks. At least it is pads not rims.

Holey Moley - what are you doing to them?

gaffer_slow

braking them?

meanredspider

gaffer_slow wrote:

braking them?

Not sure if that's a pun...

Even doing my daily Highland 30-mile round trip commute, my organic pads would last around 6 months. thecycleclinic lives in Suffolk, not known for its epic descents (or, almost any descents from what I can remember from my once-upon-a-time car commute from Cambridge to Colchester cross country) so I just wondered how he managed to destroy them so quickly.

roger_merriman

meanredspider wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

braking them?

Not sure if that's a pun...

Even doing my daily Highland 30-mile round trip commute, my organic pads would last around 6 months. thecycleclinic lives in Suffolk, not known for its epic descents (or, almost any descents from what I can remember from my once-upon-a-time car commute from Cambridge to Colchester cross country) so I just wondered how he managed to destroy them so quickly.

On an admitly flat but gritty SW London though Bushy Park commute I chew though chains most last under 1000 miles, but the organic pads in admitly a old MTB but I can't see it makes much difference, 2000+ miles.

The newer MTB chews though pads in a few hundred miles give or take, weather and terrain dependant.

I'd assume that a road bike shouldn't chew though pads that quickly, comparing the rim brakes on the road and MTB I have or do own MTB have always had a greater rate of wear.

ugo.santalucia

thecycleclinic wrote:

Oh the ryde pulse sprint has a thing braking surface anyway. the coating is put on top and adds about 15g according to ryde. When I spoke to the Ryde rep the rim itself is the same but then coated. the coating should be able to deal with the winter grit as it is tunsten carbide which is harder than almost everything unless you ride through diamond or boron notride dust.

In an ideal world, maybe... in the real world if A is harder than B, it means B wears quicker than A, but it doesn't mean that A doesn't wear at all... the problem is that there is un unlimited provision of B and only around 2m of A in a 10 mm strip... will it last one winter? Maybe, will it last two winters? Probably not... and that is assuming the coating does not delaminate, crack, flake off etc, but just stays on, which per se is a challenge.
Still worth getting them over a non coated one, but as per Mavic experience, not wirthout drawbacks

cycleclinic

There are a number of users though who have good experience with these rims. Worth trying out to see. the coating is different to what Mavic use/have used.

I am doing 200 to 250 miles a week on my disc brake bike. Also I ride on really crappy roads and I often hear stuff caught in the pads. Add to that I had to throw away my Tektro Hy-rd because on the front and rear the pistons became skewif (upgrade bikes blamed it improper installation I don't think so somehow). However now I have fitted spyres I am hoping for better pad life because this will conicide with better weather (fingers crossed). today for example nothing got caught in the caliper. Everything was quiet horay until I braked to stop at the shop then, oh my, the noise (sintered pads) is back. Still it is not my rims that are vanishing as I brake, that is what I keep telling myself.

Chains have been lasting me 1000 miles at most (800 miles was the worst) this winter before the wear limit was reached. That was with a record 10 speed chain as well. It has been very gritty and the crap on my bike after a ride (it had to be seen to be believed) is not funny. Honestly the bike and me looked like I had been off road and that has been a daily occurance. That is what happened to my pads. I am hoping mudguards will now help. I was putitng off fitting them as I knew I could not fit them with the 30mm challange strada bianca's tyres on the bike. It took 5000km to wear down the rear and then I gave in. The rear tyre is still not worn out and the front is barley worn. If only the pads lasted like the tyres. Now I am slumming it with with 25mm tyres - tubeless though. This has a downside though not enough tyre to protect the rim against a sunken manhole. Struck one st night and wrote of a rim the day the tyres where fitted. It has been an expensive winter on the bike.

meanredspider

I could certainly believe that the roads around me in the Cotswolds are going to kill pads quicker - I've never ridden on dirtier public roads in my life. If there's much sand content, it will kill the pads. It certainly sounded as though my rims were going to die very quickly when I was riding the Foil.

ugo.santalucia

thecycleclinic wrote:

Chains have been lasting me 1000 miles at most (800 miles was the worst) this winter before the wear limit was reached.

C'mon Malcolm, if you trust the "wear limit" you can throw away the chain before it's even fitted. I run a chain until I can see significant light between the chainring and the chain, which is probably 10 times over the recommened wear limit.
As for the pads, I have a pair of budget sintered at the back which I haven't changed (or adjusted) in nearly one year. The front are semi (and hydraulic) but they look almost new, those were fitted last summer

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

thecycleclinic wrote:

Oh the ryde pulse sprint has a thing braking surface anyway. the coating is put on top and adds about 15g according to ryde. When I spoke to the Ryde rep the rim itself is the same but then coated. the coating should be able to deal with the winter grit as it is tunsten carbide which is harder than almost everything unless you ride through diamond or boron notride dust.

In an ideal world, maybe... in the real world if A is harder than B, it means B wears quicker than A, but it doesn't mean that A doesn't wear at all... the problem is that there is un unlimited provision of B and only around 2m of A in a 10 mm strip... will it last one winter? Maybe, will it last two winters? Probably not... and that is assuming the coating does not delaminate, crack, flake off etc, but just stays on, which per se is a challenge.
Still worth getting them over a non coated one, but as per Mavic experience, not wirthout drawbacks

It's not really a coating so it can't delaminate or flake - which was my point. Why do the likes of Mavic and Campag concentrate on crappy coatings (which, if we are talking about dodgy solutions, is really the dodgiest of the dodgy!) when there appears to be a superior solution available. As I said, 4000 miles plus of touring through Norway and no discernible wear to either pads or rims - it is genuinely impressive.

meanredspider wrote:

MrB123 wrote:

Ryde Pulse Sprint and Comp rims can be had with the CSS coating I believe.

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://dcrwheels.co.uk/products/rims/700c-rims/ryde-pulse</span>/

There was odd stuff in that page

In order to keep the weight down on these rims, the sidewalls are thinner than some rims. Most performance rims have fairly thin sidewalls; to save weight. It is generally best to use these rims with decent pads (Kool Stop Dual compound is recommended – £17 for a set of 4 inserts) and also to try and use them in dry conditions if possible. A good life can still be expected on this basis and being hand built wheels, if the rim does wear out, it can be replaced at a reasonable cost

The thin sidewall bit seemed odd to mention. And trying to use in dry conditions. And, it sounded as though, they were saying the rims could be changed because they were hand built.

Yeah - it is a bit strange. To be fair, the sidewalls should be able to get away with being thinner than some as they wear vastly more slowly. But ultimately, if I were to buy some, I would be buying them as long term winter rims. The Ryde rims are much more expensive than the Rigida badged touring rims and those are expensive enough - the economics don't really seem to add up.

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

It's not really a coating so it can't delaminate or flake - which was my point. Why do the likes of Mavic and Campag concentrate on crappy coatings (which, if we are talking about dodgy solutions, is really the dodgiest of the dodgy!) when there appears to be a superior solution available. As I said, 4000 miles plus of touring through Norway and no discernible wear to either pads or rims - it is genuinely impressive.
.

Of course it is a coating... the way it is applied is irrelevant ( CVD grown, PVD evaporated, plasma sprayed... ) ... it is a coating, because it is a layer which coats the metal.

Coating metals with ceramics is always tricky, as one is soft and ductile and the other is hard and brittle. Expansion coefficients and stress behavious don't match. In the aviation industry they use 3 different layers to coat metal turbine blades, in order to minimise flaking.

Metal is coated with intermetallic, which is then coated by metal oxide which is finally coated with Zirconium oxide. Admittedly the demands are different, but the concept is not totally dissimilar

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

It's not really a coating so it can't delaminate or flake - which was my point. Why do the likes of Mavic and Campag concentrate on crappy coatings (which, if we are talking about dodgy solutions, is really the dodgiest of the dodgy!) when there appears to be a superior solution available. As I said, 4000 miles plus of touring through Norway and no discernible wear to either pads or rims - it is genuinely impressive.
.

Of course it is a coating... the way it is applied is irrelevant ( CVD grown, PVD evaporated, plasma sprayed... ) ... it is a coating, because it is a layer which coats the metal.

Coating metals with ceramics is always tricky, as one is soft and ductile and the other is hard and brittle. Expansion coefficients and stress behavious don't match. In the aviation industry they use 3 different layers to coat metal turbine blades, in order to minimise flaking.

Metal is coated with intermetallic, which is then coated by metal oxide which is finally coated with Zirconium oxide. Admittedly the demands are different, but the concept is not totally dissimilar

I can't see how the application method is irrelevant. If that were the case then spraying a frame with a rattle can would be as effective as powder coating; both are coatings - it is just that one will last for five minutes and one for five years. And the evidence seems clear - the coatings applied to Mavic rims, the purpose of which seems primarily to make them look like carbon rims, seem to be vulnerable to damage - the Rigida CSS is far from that.

Call it a coating if it makes you happy but the carbide is welded into the rim - it isn't really a coating on the wearable rim surface as such - it is the wearable rim surface. I don't think you actually wear through the carbide before wearing the rim out. Correct me if I am wrong but my presumption is that if you have a coated Mavic rim, by the time the rim is beginning to spread due to erosion of the surface, the pretty black coating will be long gone.

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Every now and again someone comes up with a ceramic coated rim and then it disappears for another decade... they promise to be the dog's bollox, but then they discolour in one bad afternoon of rain and crappy roads

FWIW, if you Google Rigida CSS you may notice two things. One is that there don't seem to be any problems with them and the second is that they have been around for at least a decade. That does suggest that it is tried and tested and works.

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

It's not really a coating so it can't delaminate or flake - which was my point. Why do the likes of Mavic and Campag concentrate on crappy coatings (which, if we are talking about dodgy solutions, is really the dodgiest of the dodgy!) when there appears to be a superior solution available. As I said, 4000 miles plus of touring through Norway and no discernible wear to either pads or rims - it is genuinely impressive.
.

Of course it is a coating... the way it is applied is irrelevant ( CVD grown, PVD evaporated, plasma sprayed... ) ... it is a coating, because it is a layer which coats the metal.

Coating metals with ceramics is always tricky, as one is soft and ductile and the other is hard and brittle. Expansion coefficients and stress behavious don't match. In the aviation industry they use 3 different layers to coat metal turbine blades, in order to minimise flaking.

Metal is coated with intermetallic, which is then coated by metal oxide which is finally coated with Zirconium oxide. Admittedly the demands are different, but the concept is not totally dissimilar

I can't see how the application method is irrelevant. If that were the case then spraying a frame with a rattle can would be as effective as powder coating; both are coatings - it is just that one will last for five minutes and one for five years. And the evidence seems clear - the coatings applied to Mavic rims, the purpose of which seems primarily to make them look like carbon rims, seem to be vulnerable to damage - the Rigida CSS is far from that.

Call it a coating if it makes you happy but the carbide is welded into the rim - it isn't really a coating on the wearable rim surface as such - it is the wearable rim surface. I don't think you actually wear through the carbide before wearing the rim out. Correct me if I am wrong but my presumption is that if you have a coated Mavic rim, by the time the rim is beginning to spread due to erosion of the surface, the pretty black coating will be long gone.

It's definitively not welded, it's probably grown onto the metal. Again, the way is applied doesn't say anything about its properties.
The problem with any ceramic coating is that it has different mechanical properties from metal. For instance, you hit a pothole, the metal bends within its yield point and bounces back without you noticing it, the coating cracks, as it cannot bend as much, being a much stiffer material. The thickness of the coating will play a role, if it's thin, it might still bend a little, but then it wears out rapidly, if it's thick, it will last longer but bend less.

What I am tryin to say is that ceramic coated rims are not the solution to the problem of wear, which is the reason they have been around on and off for decades, but never really caught on. In ideal conditions they will last longer, in not ideal conditions they might perform poorly.

A fully ceramic rim would be better, but it would shatter in a tension based wheel... might work in a trispoke though...

meanredspider

meanredspider wrote:

Crap on roads with hills wear out the rims on your bike.

This is what I meant earlier in this thread about the roads around here. This pic is from today - only 25k and it hasn't rained for a bit - the roads are mostly dry. The bike was clean this morning. And it's all on roads.

darkhairedlord

at least with normal brakes they would clean the rims for you!

meanredspider

darkhairedlord wrote:

at least with normal brakes they would clean the rims for you!

If you've read this thread and seen these rims clean, you'd realise that was another point against rim brakes